URL originale : https://books.openedition.org/cvz/19752
Urinating on the Cross
Christianity as seen in the Sefer Yoseph ha-Mekaneh (ca. 1260) and in light of Paris 1240
p. 209-220
Texte intégral
It happened that my master and father Rabbi Nathan —may his soul rest in Eden— was riding with the Bishop of Sens. While on the way, the Bishop got off his horse by a bush in order to urinate. My master and father saw him, and also got of his horse by an abomination [a Cross] and urinated on it. The Bishop saw this and was angry. He said to him: «It is forbidden to desecrate a Cross». My father responded: «On the contrary, what you did was foolish. You urinated on a bush in which God’s presence appeared for the purpose of salvation1.
1This passage, which continues with the claim that if the bishop was prepared to urinate on the bush, he would have to defecate on the Cross, appears in the Sefer Yoseph ha-Mekaneh, a book compiled ca. 1260 by Joseph ben Nathan Official, the scion of a French Rabbinical family2. The family was originally from Narbonne but had moved to the north where they seem to have been in the employ of the bishop of Sens3. In the introduction to the work, Joseph states that he wrote the book for two main reasons: the first was because many Jews were attracted to the «idiocy» of Christianity and were converting, and secondly, because he was getting old and did not want to forget the arguments that he and his forefathers had developed in order to respond to Christian claims against Judaism. He wanted them to be written down so that future generations could also use them4.
2Indeed, this is a remarkable book in that we encounter a few generations of the Official family along with their rabbinic companions arguing with many different Christian figures in northern France, from bishops and abbots, to priests and friars. What is also interesting is that Joseph was a disciple of Yehiel of Paris, one of the foremost rabbinic authorities of the time, who represented the Jewish side in the investigation of the Talmud in Paris in the summer of 1240, and it was Joseph who edited the Hebrew account of these events5.
3Unlike many polemical works where the arguments are based on strictly textual exegesis, this work also provides some glimpses into everyday life and the relations between Jews and Christian clergymen in particular. Rabbinical figures are pictured in close proximity with senior Christian clerics riding with them as in the aforementioned story, walking along the road with them or sitting in the courtyard of a bishop’s residence6. These rabbis are found talking with bishops, abbots, priests, mendicants, a hospitaller from Jerusalem, the chancellor of Paris and even the pope, though the worst invectives are saved for the conversations with converted Jews. Given that, clearly, many of the stories related are hyperbole and did not exactly happen as they are related in the book, it is still possible to read between the lines and get some idea of how the Jews related to the rites and customs of their Christian interlocutors, how their responses tried to demarcate the social, political and religious divide between Jews and Christians, and attempted to readdress the imbalance of power between the two faiths.
4One instance of this is based on a verse from Isaiah 5, 18:
Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity.
5Joseph brings the account of a priest who asked Rabbi Joseph Kra why Jews did not ring bells in their synagogues. Kra’s response was to take the priest to the local fish market where the fishmongers were shouting out the prices of their wares. He then took him to another part of the market where the best quality fish was being sold and where the merchants were not shouting out the prices. Kra asked the priest why this was so, and the latter answered that this was because high quality goods sell with comparative ease and that, therefore, there was no need to shout out the prices. Kra responded that it is for the same reason that there are no bells in the synagogue7. This story reflects daily life in a medieval town in that it represents a Jewish attempt to deal with the reality of hearing the church bells ringing out to announce the start of prayers. This was not something that Jews in Christian towns could escape from, and therefore, was as much part of their lives as it was that of their Christian contemporaries. Using this verse from Isaiah, and equating the ringing of the bells with the «cords of vanity», the rabbi is able to explain why Jews have no need of these accoutrements. What is interesting is the use of a place of daily interaction, the marketplace where all kinds of wares are sold; and fish, something that, unlike meat, could be eaten by both Jews and Christians, in order to undermine the Christian claim of religious superiority based on the ringing of the bells. The Jewish faith is compared to the best quality fish whilst Christianity is represented by the cheaper fish, perhaps also an oblique reference to the supposed miracle of the feeding of the multitude in the Gospels, which, for the Jews, was no more than a cheap deception.
6In Sefer Yoseph ha-Mekaneh, there are a number of encounters dealing with the sacrament of confession and the power given to priests to absolve from sin. The Jews are clearly aware of the rites of confession and absolution, and indeed, this might have been one of the attractions for those thinking about conversion to Christianity. In the first story dealing with the issue of confession itself, the Bishop of Sens questions Joseph’s father on his opinion regarding this sacrament. Nathan replies in irony that he thinks that it is a good thing. The bishop picks up on his irony and wants his true opinion, however, Nathan instead of answering asks the bishop for his own opinion. The bishop responds that if someone has done a particular sin all his life and then sincerely confesses, he is absolved from this sin. Nathan then cites a verse from Amos 1, 11:
For three transgressions of Edom, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof,
to show the bishop how ridiculous this belief is. If, according to Christian doctrine, a person has confessed, then surely even after committing the sin four times he should be forgiven and not punished, and if the Christian did not confess, then the prophet Amos need not have mentioned the three transgressions as, according to the Christian belief, it is clear that there can be no absolution. Nathan cites this verse because Edom, in rabbinical terminology, refers to Christianity, and hence, the verse is clear proof of the folly of this central Christian rite8. The bishop remains speechless and Nathan goes on to explain that there are four levels of sin, meaning that when a person first transgresses it is still relatively easy to beg forgiveness for the sin committed, however, each time he transgresses, it becomes progressively more difficult to make amends, and from the fourth time on, repentance is almost impossible. Nathan’s hermeneutical reading of the verse does not seem to contradict the Christian teaching as it transfers its meaning to the realm of the psychology of sin, but it does seem to ridicule the very notion that man can absolve himself from sin just by confessing, no matter how many times that sin has been committed9.
7In the second attempt to deal with this issue no holds are barred, as the discussion is between Nathan, Joseph’s father, and Pope Gregory IX, whose soul, according to Joseph, is rotting in hell. Gregory IX was the pope primarily responsible for the process against the Talmud in Paris and its eventual burning at the instigation of Nicholas Donin, a Jewish convert, hence, the expressed desire that the now deceased pope rot in hell10. The paragraph starts with what seems to be a reference to Louis IX, king of France at the time of the trial and at this juncture as well. It is unclear where this clearly imaginary encounter took place, and the dialogue runs as follows:
Gregory IX. —You do not believe that I have the power to prohibit and permit [le-essor vele-hatir], absolve and atone?
Nathan. —Surely you are able to loosen and tighten [le-hatir vele- essor] the straps on your sash, but you cannot absolve or atone.
Gregory IX. —But I am the successor of Saint Peter?!
Nathan. —Your power is like his power! It is all nonsense. Your power is not greater than an angel’s, and see what is written about it [the angel]: «Behold I shall send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Be wary of him and heed his command, do not rebel against him as he will not forgive your iniquities» meaning: even if he does not have the power to forgive your iniquities do not treat him without respect, «for My name is in him» [Exodus 23, 20-21]. But he has no power to forgive.
8In this dialogue, which is not without its funny side, Nathan posits that if not even an angel can forgive sin, then a pope is clearly powerless to do so. Only God can forgive sins and therefore, the Christian doctrine of confession and the supposed permission given to Peter and his successors to prohibit and permit, is unsustainable. The Hebrew plays on this central idea from Matthew 16, 19 regarding Peter’s authority:
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
9And in the context of this discussion, Joseph has his father undermining this central pillar of Christian faith with his target being the pope, who through his authority gives this power to other priests as well. If the pope does not really have this power, then naturally, this whole doctrine is worthless.
10The issue of whether Christianity was considered to be idolatry had important ramifications for the kind of relations allowed between members of the two religions according to rabbinic law. If it was considered idolatry, then the nature of the contacts between Jews and Christians would have to be severely curtailed, something unsustainable in medieval Europe where both religious communities, but particularly the Jews, needed economic interaction in order to be able to survive as a minority in the Christian world. In order to make this interaction permissible, the rabbis found ways of mitigating the severity of the prohibition against idolatry in relation to Christianity11. However, in this work, though not expressly stated, it seems that Joseph implies that Christianity should indeed be considered an idolatrous religion. One example of this can be found in a discussion between unspecified Christians and Rabbi Nathan on the prohibition of making graven images (Exodus 20,4). The Christian side in the discussion does not appear here and has to be read into the text. The Christian seemingly suggested that the Jews worship graven images because two cherubim were fashioned for the lid of the ark in the temple. Clearly, the context here is the Jewish claim that the Christians are idol worshippers because they adore the Cross and perhaps also other icons. Nathan’s first response is a little strange because it seems to imply that the adoration of the Cross could be permissible. He suggests that because the verse in Exodus states that one should not make an image of something in the heavens above nor below the earth and sea and because the cherubim are neither, they are clearly not idols. However, the same could be said for the Cross, that it is neither an image of something in the heavens nor of something below the earth, though the same argument would perhaps not work for the crucifix. Joseph was clearly not happy with his father’s response, perhaps for the reasons outlined above, and he explains that only an image that can be seen can be considered idolatrous, and unlike the Cross, the cherubim were hidden in the Holy of Holies and only seen by the High Priest once a year on the day of atonement. Hence, because the Cross is visible to all, it is idolatrous. Joseph adds that he had also heard that only if an image is specifically made for purposes of worship, then it is considered to be an idol, and this certainly qualifies the Cross as an idol12.
11In addition to the aforementioned episode of urination, the Cross appears a number of times in this work, which is not surprising given that it was probably the most difficult object for Jews living amongst Christians to avoid. The Cross was the most visible icon of Christianity, and the one that constantly reminded Christians of their faith, and Jews of their ambivalent place within the Christian commonwealth. However, public Jewish reactions to the Cross are not very common, though in literature written for Jews, the Cross is denigrated, called an abomination and worse13. Jewish authors also often used code words like hatalui («the hanged one») for the crucified Christ, and shti ve-erev («warp and woof threads») for the Cross14. One account of Jewish horror at the sight of the crucifix is recorded in a 12th century text written by Herman-Judah, a converted Jew who became a Premonstratensian monk, who recalled the first time that he entered a Church and saw the crucifix:
I saw […] a particularly monstrous idol. To be exact, I discerned one and the same man abased and exalted, despised and lifted up, ignominious and glorious. Below he hung wretchedly on a cross, above, by means of painting’s lies, he was enthroned […] I admit I was struck mute, suspecting that effigies of this sort were such likenesses, as by a many-formed delusive error, paganism normally dictated for itself15.
12Given that he wrote his account some thirty years after he converted, the fact that he so clearly remembered his reaction reveals much about the inbred Jewish abhorrence to this most Christian of symbols, but also says something about Christian discomfort with some of the images of Christ found in 12th century churches16.
13In Sefer Yoseph ha-Mekaneh, unsurprisingly, the Christian priests, friars and clerics, insist that the Cross is the sign of salvation and that it is prefigured in the Old Testament, and the Jews respond to this either by denying the Christian interpretation of these verses, or by bringing the continuation of the verse which turns the Cross into something evil. In the latter cases, however, the Jews seem to admit that the Cross is prefigured in the Old Testament, though, of course, they do not accept its christological sense. Hence for example, in Genesis 48, 14, when Jacob blesses Menasseh and Ephraim, the two sons of Joseph, he crossed his hands putting the right hand on the younger of the two, Ephraim, and his left hand on Menasseh’s head. This was interpreted by Christians as Jacob making the sign of the cross. The Jewish response here is not to deny that Jacob made the sign of the cross, but to say that he knew that he was making the sign, but did not do it with the Christian intention in mind:
I know [says Jacob] that it is prohibited to make the sign of the cross, and this is not my intention here,
and this is read into the literal meaning of the verses when Jacob says to Joseph (48, 18): «I know my son, I know»17.
14Another instance of this is when a priest asks Rabbi Nathan, Joseph’s father: «why are you still waiting for the messiah, for it is clear that he has already come and that he was Christ?». The priest cites verses from Habakkuk to prove his point and the rabbi has little difficulty in interpreting them differently. Then Nathan cites the following verse (3,4):
And his brightness was as the light; he had [karnayim] horns/light beams coming out of his hand,
explaining that Christians claim that the divine figure described here was holding a cross. Again, instead of simply explaining that horns or light beams clearly do not represent the Cross, the rabbi says:
It is true! but see what it says in the following verse: «Before him went the pestilence, and burning coals went forth at his feet» meaning that this sign [the cross] is only for devils,
thus inverting what the Cross represents for the Christian18.
15An interesting criticism of the baptismal rite is found in the part of the book that deals with the New Testament. Referring to the verse (Mark 1, 5):
And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins,
16Joseph questions where the commandment to baptize originates from as there is no mention of such an obligation in either the Old or New Testaments. He then goes on to say that John the Baptist carried out these baptisms in the Jordan river, in other words, in running water which is the opposite of what is practiced by the Church, whereby people are baptized in water drawn from a well using a vessel19. This is, of course, referring to the custom of pouring or sprinkling water over the head of the one being baptized rather than a full immersion in the water. This was a debated issue in the Church, though from the 12th century on, pouring of the water from a vessel or scallop shell seems to have become the accepted way of being baptised. In his 12th century account of his conversion to Christianity, the aforementioned Herman-Judah attests that he had to immerse himself fully three times in the baptismal waters, and when he tried to exit the freezing waters after one immersion, he was forced back in by the surrounding clerics20. However, according to Thomas Aquinas, neither full immersion nor threefold pouring is necessary for the sacrament of baptism and it is enough for the water to be poured on the supplicant for the efficacy of the sacrament to take hold21. Hence, the Jewish criticism reflects ongoing discussion in the Christian world about how baptism should be carried out22.
17In another place, Joseph comments that during the baptismal rite, the priest says «that neither evil eye nor demons nor any evil should henceforth exert influence over the person being baptized» which, he then goes on to say, shows clearly how futile this rite is as many Christians become sick and bad things happen to them. Joseph seems to be referring to the part of the rite where the priest exorcizes the demons and Satan and calls on the Holy Spirit to enter the person being baptized23. He also comments, rather sarcastically, that Jesus clearly did not really convert when he was baptized because he refrained from taking a new name as is customary, hence, he remained a Jew and the sacrament had no efficacy24. This, again, demonstrates intimate knowledge of the baptismal rite and its functions, while, perhaps, also reflecting the reality Joseph mentioned in his introduction, whereby Jews were converting to Christianity and having their names changed at baptism.
18The question of Jewish usury is a commonplace in late-medieval Jewish-Christian polemical works, but seems to have been specifically targeted during Louis IX’s reign as can be seen from Meir ben Simon ha-Meili’s Holy War (Milḥemet Miẓvah) composed in Provence in the mid- to late 13th century. Meir, his father and grandfather, like Joseph and the members of his family, held many discussions with Christian bishops and clerics, including the Archbishop of Narbonne, that dealt with the legitimacy of charging interest on money loaned25.
19There are at least two places in Sefer Yoseph ha-Mekaneh, which deal with usury. In the first instance, a Dominican suggests that Jacob, the biblical forefather, was the greatest of usurers because he bought an inheritance worth an enormous amount for the price of a bowl of broth. The Jewish interlocutor, Rabbi Joseph Bechor Shor, explains that this is not what the biblical text really implies. Jacob sealed the deal with a free bowl of broth as is customary amongst merchants to this day, having paid Esau the full sum of what the inheritance was worth according to its value at that moment in time. Joseph Bechor Shor is very insistent that this is the literal meaning of the biblical text (which it is not) and that therefore, Jacob was not a usurer at all26.
20The second discussion regarding usury deals with whether it is permissible to lend money to Christians and charge them interest on the basis of the verse from Deuteronomy 23, 20:
To a foreigner you may charge interest, but to your brother you shall not charge interest,
21which seems to contradict the verse in Psalms 15, 5:
He who does not put out his money at usury […] He who does these things shall never be moved
where usury seems to be totally forbidden for one and all. The discussion is based around whether King David, the supposed author of Psalms, had the authority to contradict something already said by Moses in the Torah, and then whether Christians should be considered «brothers» of the Jews on the basis of the verse: «You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother», Edomite, as mentioned earlier, being one of the rabbinical terms for Christians. Moses of Paris, who responds to these claims does all he can to show that Christians are not «brothers», nor is it prohibited to lend them money at interest. However, more interestingly, he accuses the Christians of being usurers themselves and on a much larger scale than the Jews in that when buying and selling property and other merchandise they allow people to buy on credit and charge money for the period in between the closing of the deal and the actual payment27.
22Another passage has a priest or cleric (galaḥ) in Paris speaking with his students, in what seems to suggest a university setting.
23He says:
Come and see the heresy of these Jews who say that the leviathan is a big fish, which will be eaten in the future.
24Joseph replies asking:
And what do you think the leviathan is?
and the cleric answered:
A demon.
25Joseph then says:
Which one of us is the greater heretic? The one who says and wants to make something good evil, or the one who wants to make something evil good? We say that it [the Leviathan] is an important thing, and you say it is a demon, and according to you, a demon is an important thing as it says: «His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Strength dwells in his neck, and sorrow dances before him»28.
26This passage is revealing in that it is directly connected with the process against the Talmud in Paris in that the Jews are portrayed as being heretics on the basis of a rabbinical saying taken from the Talmud. Nicholas Donin, the convert to Christianity, about whom not much is known, attempted to persuade Gregory IX that the Jews had replaced the Bible with the Talmud. Nicholas’ agenda was adapted by the Christian authorities who were more interested in the heretical content and blasphemies against Christ and Mary found in this literature which seemed to undermine the central purpose of the Jewish presence in Christian society. Joseph being the disciple of Rabbi Yehiel and the editor of the Hebrew version of the events in Paris 1240 was well aware of the Christian accusations against the Talmud. Though the Talmud was pronounced heretical and burned in Paris in 1242, this was not the end of the story, as the Jews protested to Innocent IV and he ordered a new inquiry into the Talmud in 124729. This in turn led to the production of Odo of Châteauroux’s enormous collection (about 1,700 passages) of heretical and blasphemous passages in the Jewish post-biblical texts, the Extractiones de Talmut30.
27This process against the Talmud is reflected in what the cleric says to his students as he cites a Talmudic text, which he then uses to accuse the Jews of heresy. Indeed, it seems clear that the cleric was either involved with the preparation of the Extractiones or had studied it, as the Talmudic passages dealing with the Leviathan are cited there. In the Talmudic tractate Baba Metzia (fos 74b-75a) there is a discussion about the creation of the Leviathan and its destiny, and a number of sayings in the name of Rabbi Yohanan describe the Leviathan as a large sea beast of which both a male and female were created, and that God killed the female and salted the meat for the feast of the righteous after the future redemption31.
28Joseph’s response, which is actually not very good, tries to throw the accusation of heresy back in the face of the Christian by saying that it is Christianity which is heretical in its misinterpretation of the biblical text which makes the Leviathan into a demon32. This seems to reflect the Jewish argument made by Yehiel and the rabbis who approached Innocent IV in 1244 when he renewed Gregory IX’s decree against the Talmud, that the Jews cannot understand or practice their faith without the Talmud. In this particular case, the Talmud actually outlines the true essence of the Leviathan, thus making it possible to explain the meaning of the verses in Job, which depict the Leviathan as a monster, verses which have been misunderstood and misinterpreted by the Christians. Hence, far from the Talmud being heretical, it is fundamental for understanding the biblical text and Jewish praxis.
29Another passage in Sefer Yoseph ha-Mekaneh is interesting, not so much because it relates to Christian rites, but because it focuses on physical traits and reveals a little of the psychology at play when Jews and Christians interacted as they did on a daily basis. This passage has a parallel in another late 13th century polemical work probably written, for the most part, in Germany, Nitzahon Vettus (a combination of both Hebrew and Latin meaning «Victory of the Old», that is Old Testament, or the «old people», the Jews), but with a different ending33. In Sefer Yoseph ha-Mekaneh, the Christian speaking is a convert (meshumad), which is interesting because he seems to imply that by converting, not only has he changed spiritually, but his physical features have changed as well:
A convert said to Rabbi Nathan: You are uglier than any other people on the face of the earth, and our people [the Christians] are very pretty.
30Rabbi Nathan’s response is to agree saying that though Jewish features are black and Christians are yellowish red because of the Niddah blood, the reason is because the Jews are in exile. Based on a verse from Song of Songs (1, 6) and Ezekiel (16, 14), Nathan explains that before the exile the Jews had beautiful features, implying that when the redemption comes, they will again be beautiful34. The reference to the blood of Niddah implies that the Jews might have ugly features, but they are morally superior to the Christians because unlike them, they do not have sexual intercourse during menstruation. The ending in Nizzahon Vettus is even more revealing of this attempt at reverse psychology, whereby the Jews might indeed be uglier than the Christians, but they are morally superior. The anonymous author writes:
And one should also respond: «The Christians [goyyim] are incontinent and have sexual intercourse during the day, and they see beautifully drawn faces, and hence, they give birth to children who look like these pictures»35.
31Jews are only allowed to have intercourse at night when they cannot see each other or anything else, and hence, are concentrated on performing the divine commandment of procreation, whereas incontinent Christians have intercourse during the day whereby the women can see the portraits hanging on the walls of their bedroom and, by concentrating on them, assuring that their children will be pretty, though morally corrupt36.
32This discussion of physiognomy and sexual intercourse returns us to the story with which we began. There has been an attempt to show that Jewish urination on the Cross was an act of defiance connected with the acts of martyrdom that took place during the first crusade37. However, the story is more poignant in that it helps demonstrate the balance of power between Christians and Jews and the almost total lack of understanding of each other, when at the same time, they knew each other intimately as they lived side by side, and engaged in commerce, intellectual exchange and polemic. Their values, beliefs and rites were incomprehensible, though each side used the other in order to develop and defend their own sense of identity. The rabbi taking umbrage at the fact that the bishop urinated on a bush is ridiculous in that it was a natural place to urinate and the notion that the bush represented «the burning bush» would never have occurred to the bishop. Yet, in contrast, every Cross represented the salvific act of Christ and in the world these French rabbis inhabited, could not be avoided. Hence, the idea of a rabbi urinating on the Cross in the presence of a secular Christian, let alone a bishop, is farfetched. Yet the rabbi’s literary act, along with the more plausible exchanges found in Sefer Yoseph ha-Mekaneh reflect Jewish frustration and a response to that imbalance of power which dictated the nature of the relationship between Jews and Christians in the later Middle Ages.
Notes de bas de page
1 Joseph ben Nathan Official, Sefer Yoseph ha-Mekaneh, p. 14 (hereafter SYH). This article was written within the framework of the research project «Latin Philosophy into Hebrew: Intercultural Networks in 13th and 14th Century Europe» (FP7/2007-2013-200403), at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, with the financial support of the European Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme.
2 In essence, Sefer Yoseph ha-Mekaneh is the first anti-Christian polemical work written in northern France, though it was written by someone whose family was from Provence where there was already a tradition of writing anti-Christian polemical works going back to the 12th century, for instance that of Joseph Kimhi and Jacob ben Reuven. I would like to thank Prof. Danny Lasker (Ben Gurion University of the Negev) for pointing out this significant fact. This is incredibly relevant for understanding the Hebrew version of the Paris disputation compiled by the same author.
3 See the introduction to ibid., pp. 15-21.
4 Ibid., p. 15
5 On the Paris disputation, see C. Merhaviah, The Church Versus Talmudic, pp. 227-290; Y. Baer, «A Critical Look at the Disputations of Rabbi Yehiel», pp. 172-177; The Trial of the Talmud, pp. 1-92; J. Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, pp. 51-76 and his Living Letters of the Law, pp. 317-334. There are seven manuscripts that contain the Hebrew version of the Paris disputation. The oldest, Paris, BNF, heb. 712, was compiled between 1270 and 1280 very likely by Joseph ben Nathan Official. In the colophon to the text of the disputation (fo 56vo), there is an acrostic where his name appears. The colophon was printed as an addendum in SYH, pp. 141-142.
6 Ibid., pp. 47, 40 and 63 respectively.
7 Ibid., §76, p. 74.
8 On Edom as a reference to Christianity, see I. J. Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb, pp. 1-30.
9 SYH, § 92, pp. 85-86.
10 For Gregory IX’s letter that initiated the investigation into the Talmud in Paris, see C. Merchavia, The Church Versus Talmudic, pp. 446-447.
11 See J. Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance, pp. 24-36.
12 SYH, § 29, pp. 47-48. See also § 114, pp. 104-105, where a priest asks Joseph whether the Jews confess to their chantor (ḥazan) in the synagogue.
13 For one exception see C. Cluse, «Stories of Breaking and Taking the Cross», pp. 417-418.
14 See, for instance, the following references in the first complete translation into Hebrew of the four gospels dated to the late 14th century found in Ms.Vatican ebr. 100, fos 1vo-156ro: Mat. 16, 24, fo 25vo; Mat. 23, 34, fo 36ro; Mark 8, 32 fo 59ro; Mark 15, 21, 30, fo 72ro; Mark 15, 46, fo 72vo; Luke 9, 23, fo91ro; Luke 13,27, fo 101ro, Luke 23,23. 26, fo114vo. See also K.Kogman-Appel, «The Tree of Death and the Tree of Life».
15 See Herman-Judah, Opusculum de Conversione Sua, ed. G. Niemeyer, p. 75; Eng. trans. K. F. Morrison, Conversion and Text, p. 80.
16 See S. Lipton, «“The Sweat Lean of His Head”«, especially pp. 1175-1182 where she also examines Rupert of Deutz’s vision of the crucifix on the alter recorded in his commentary on Matthew in this light.
17 SYH, § 21, p. 43. Further on in the Rome manuscript on which is based Rosenthal’s edition of Sefer Yoseph ha-Mekaneh, there is other Ashkenazi polemical material clearly based on the former. This passage containing Jacob’s blessing of Joseph’s two sons is cited there again, however, with the addition, that Jacob made the sign of the cross instead of moving the two boys around, so as to test Joseph and make sure that he would question why Jacob was making the sign of the cross. In other words, Jacob wanted to make sure that his descendants would not make or accept the sign of the cross. See J. Rosenthal, «Polemical Material from Sefer Yossef ha-Mekaneh», p. 305.
18 SYH, § 91a, pp. 89-90.
19 Ibid., second section, § 23, p. 131.
20 See Herman-Judah, Opusculum de Conversione Sua, pp. 118-20 and H. J. Hames, «“Ante omnia, fratres carissimi, diligatur Deus, deinde proximus”«.
21 Tomás de Aquino, The «Summa Theologica», part 3, question 66, articles 6 and 7.
22 See B. D. Spinks, Early and Medieval Rituals, and J. D. C. Fisher, Christian Initiation.
23 See J. Rosenthal, «Jewish Criticism of the New Testament», p. 124 and note 14.
24 Ibid., p. 125. He also mentions that Mary did not change her name either, so clearly she did not convert either. Further on, Joseph states that someone who died before being baptized is unable to enter paradise. He then brings a story about a St. Gregory who found the tomb of a Muslim who did wonderful deeds in his life, and after reading about these deeds, he cried over the tomb, begged God to allow this Muslim into paradise, and his tears wet the body of the Muslim and God considered this his baptism and allowed his soul to enter paradise. Gregory, however, was afflicted with illness for the rest of his life for asking this divine favour. Joseph then states, that this contradicts doctrine about the efficacy of baptism after death, and also, that the tears would not have been enough to wet this Muslim’s penis, let alone his whole body, so this should not have been considered a baptism (see ibid., p. 128).
25 The third chapter of the second section records a number of debates on the issue of usury. See W. S. Herskowitz, Judeo-Christian Dialogue in Provence, pp. 47-48. See also A. Sapir Abulafia, Christian-Jewish Relations, pp. 61-87.
26 SYH, § 16, pp. 40-41.
27 Ibid., § 49, pp. 61-62.
28 Job 41, 18. 22. In the Hebrew text, the verses are from Job 41, 10. 14.
29 The burning of the Talmud was on par with what was done with other books considered heretical such as the notebooks of David of Dinant in 1210, John Scottus Eriugena’s Periphyseon (1225) and William of St. Amour’s De periculis in 1259. See F.-X. Putallaz, «Censorship», in R. Pasnau (ed.), The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy, vol. 1, p. 107. To this list, one could also add Gerard of Borgo San Donino’s work on Joachim written in 1255.
30 For an overview of the events in Paris, see J. Cohen, «Christian Theology and anti-Jewish Violence»; W. C. Jordan, «Marian Devotion and the Talmud Trial»; H. J. Hames, «Reason and Faith».
31 BNF, Ms Paris, Lat. 16558, ffos 143a and 143c. See, C. Merhaviah, The Church Versus Talmudic, p. 392. For a full description of this manuscript and contents, see ibid., pp. 291-348. For an early Christian mention of the consumption of the Leviathan in the context of the redemption, see the Greek version of a series of oaths taken by Jewish converts to Christianity which might date to the 5th century in ibid., pp. 18-20.
32 See Ḥasdai Crescas’ treatment of demons in Christianity in his Sefer Biṭul Ikkarei ha-Notzrim.
33 On possible Iberian influences on the Nizzahon Vettus, see H. J. Hames, The Art of Conversion, pp. 261-265.
34 SYH, § 104, p. 95.
35 The Jewish-Christian Debate, § 238, p. 159 Hebrew text; p. 224 Eng. trans.
36 These two passages are also discussed in D. Berger, «On the Image and Destiny of Gentiles», pp. 75-76. On the problems of inter-religious sexual intercourse, see D. Nirenberg, «Love between Muslim and Jew».
37 See E. S. Horowitz, Reckless Rites, pp. 163-167.
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Ritus infidelium
Ce livre est diffusé en accès ouvert freemium. L’accès à la lecture en ligne est disponible. L’accès aux versions PDF et ePub est réservé aux bibliothèques l’ayant acquis. Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks
Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org
Ritus infidelium
Vérifiez si votre bibliothèque a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books.
Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publiés sur OpenEdition Books. N’hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : access[at]openedition.org
Vous pouvez également nous indiquer, à l’aide du formulaire suivant, les coordonnées de votre bibliothèque afin que nous la contactions pour lui suggérer l’achat de ce livre. Les champs suivis de (*) sont obligatoires.
Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, remplir tous les champs.
La syntaxe de l’email est incorrecte.
Référence numérique du chapitre
Format
Référence numérique du livre
Format
1 / 3