When did antisemitism start?

[phylo_roadking]

Michael -

it has throughout history been a natural reaction of gentile peoples who have come in contact with Jews

Define...."natural"???

[michael mills]

This sort of thing perhaps:

Although New Jersey is more famous for a history of Italian Mafia families, it was Jewish clergy who allegedly played a central role in the crime network.

Authorities raided several synagogues and among those arrested was the chief rabbi of Syrian Jews in the United States.

One rabbi, Levy Izhak Rosenbaum, was charged with conspiring to broker the sale of a human kidney for transplant.

Marra said Rosenbaum's "business was to entice vulnerable people to give up a kidney for $US10,000 ($12,300), which he would turn around and sell for 160,000 dollars".

He'd allegedly been peddling kidneys for a decade.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/outrageous- ... -dv4x.html

I recall reading some years ago about some backpackers who were killed by local villagers in the wilds of Guatemala; it appears that the villagers believed that the white strangers had come to steal body parts for sale to hospitals back in the US or Europe. Perhaps a similar sort of fear gripped primitive villagers in the wilds of early medieval Europe.

[David Thompson]

it appears that the villagers believed that the white strangers had come to steal body parts for sale to hospitals back in the US or Europe. Perhaps a similar sort of fear gripped primitive villagers in the wilds of early medieval Europe.

You didn't even have to be a stranger in town, as evidenced by the witchcraft trials.

The Guatemalan episodes -- there were several of them -- involved a belief that the victims were stealing children for subsequent adoption, or worse. In fact, a number of children had vanished without explanation. The villagers had the right idea, but the wrong suspects. It turned out that there were several indigenous bands operating within the country, for that very purpose.

[David Thompson]

Two off-topic posts, on the subject of AHF policy towards individual posters and posts, were moved to a thread of their own at:

Poster attitudes and AHF policy
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=155735

Posters interested in commenting on that topic should post to the new thread.

[Zebedee]

I recall reading some years ago about some backpackers who were killed by local villagers in the wilds of Guatemala; it appears that the villagers believed that the white strangers had come to steal body parts for sale to hospitals back in the US or Europe. Perhaps a similar sort of fear gripped primitive villagers in the wilds of early medieval Europe.

Hi Michael,

there is an element of truth to what you say in that religious practices could easily stir up suspicion and such suspicion be manipulated into race/religious specific acts of violence. A brief history of the 'Blood libel' would support such a statement. Over time, this behaviour could well become institutionalised as a way for society to explode into violence against the 'outsiders' who are perceived as the cause of all things evil, as we see in the various pogroms launched throught Eastern Europe over several centuries. As David Thompson points out, any divergent behaviour was dangerous - even for local women who may or may not have made herbal potions.

That such violence in specific incidents (not trivialising but I can't think of a better synonym to describe isolated events with a recurring theme as opposed to organised attempts at genocide) when targeted solely against Jews made them anti-semitic, although not perhaps with the nuanced view of anti-semitism we hold after the Shoah. Religion rather than race seems to have been the dominant theme of most of Europe's massacres. That such a distinction does not exist within Orthodox Judaism nor within the tenets of Nazism does not undermine that such a distinction does seem to have been made more often than not.

All the best,

Zeb

[michael mills]

Earlier on this thread I expressed the opinion that judeophobia was a reaction to Jewish anti-gentilism; first Jews rejected the gentile nations, and in response the gentile nations rejected the Jews.

I have now found evidence that precisely this explanation for the origin of "sin'at yisrael", the hatred of the Jewish people, was given by the ancient Jewish sages in the Talmud. The evidence is found in the article by Joshua Cohen, "The Remebrance of Amalek: Tainted Greatness and the Bible", in the book "Tainted greatness; Antisemitism and Cultural Heroes" (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1994).

In his essay, Cohen deals with the Jewish mythological concept of "Amalek", the eternal enemy of the Jewish people, a people whom Jews are commanded to exterminate in Deuteronomy 25:17-19. As Cohen says:

Although the actual nation disappeared many centuries ago, the name of Amalek has taken on a symbolic meaning in Jewish tradition. All the great persecutors of Jews across the ages are regarded as children of Amalek: Haman, Antiochus, Titus, Girolamo Savonarola, Bogdan Chmelnitzki, and Hitler. In the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, Israeli bakeries sold hamantaschen ("Haman's Ears", a special pastry eaten on Purim) that were decorated to look like Saddam Hussein. To most Jews, Amalek represents the malign genius of antisemitism.

Cohen goes on to investigate how the Talmud explains the origin of Amalek, that is of the eternal enemy of the Jews, the personification of Judeophobia:

The basis for the third midrash is two verses from Genesis concerning the mother of the Amalekites, a woman of the nation of Seir named Timna: "And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz, Esau’s son; she bore Amalek……And Lotan’s sister was Timna” (Gen. 36: 12,22). From these verses, we learn something important about the first Amalekite: he was the grandson of Esau and therefore the grandnephew of Jacob, last of the three Jewish fathers and the first man to bear the name of Israel. This is all that the Torah has to say about the lineage of Amalek or about Timna. The Ta;mudic sages, however, were intrigued by this shadowy matriarch of a condemned nation; so in tractate Sanhedrin a midrash is introduced to complete her story:

‘A propos, what is the purpose of [writing], and Lotan’s sister was Timna? – Timna was a royal princess, as it is written, alluf [duke] Lotan, alluf [duke] Timna; and by ‘alluf’ an uncrowned ruler is meant. Desiring to become a proselyte, she went to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but they did not accept her. So she went and became a concubine to Eliphaz the son of Esau, saying, “I had rather be a servant of this people than a mistress to another nation”. From her Amalek was descended who afflicted Israel. Why so? - Because they should not have repulsed her.’ (Sanhedrin 99b)

Let us scan this. From what Genesis tells us of Amalek’s descent from Esau, we might infer that the blood feud between the nations of Amalek and Israel began with the fraternal rivalry between Jacob and Esau. That, however, is not the explanation given by the Talmudic sages. They tell us that the Jewish fathers – Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - rejected Timna’s offer to convert and that her rejection resulted in Amalek’s hatred of Israel. The Amalekites, we will recall, were the very first enemies of the Jews after their emergence from Egypt as a full-fledged nation. In a way, then, this midrash tells the origin of the prejudice that Western tradition would later call “antisemitism” [my emphasis}. The sages do not, however, blame antisemitism on Timna, whom they portray as an undaunted philosemite. Instead of resenting her rejection by the Jewish fathers, she barters for her chosen faith with her body, renouncing royalty and freedom by giving herself as concubine to Abraham’s great-grandson, Eliphaz.

Timna is no bigot herself, but she becomes bigotry’s womb. She is doubly inseminated. By Eliphaz, son of Esau, she is inseminated with the actual seed of Amalek – seed that links the Amalekite nation to Esau’s father, Isaac, and to Isaac’s father, Abraham. But another seed, the seed of bigotry, has already been implanted into Timna’s womb by the Jewish Fathers; for by spurning Timna’s appeal to become a proselyte, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob engendered Amalek’s eternal hatred of the Jews. The bigotry of the Jewish Fathers fathered Amalekite bigotry;[my emphasis] “From her Amalek was descended who afflicted Israel. Why so? – Because they should not have repulsed her”.

The Torah reminds us of the seminal bond between Israel and Amalek: both are the seed of Abraham and Isaac. Midrashic commentary ties this bond into a double knot by revealing that the seed of bigotry was implanted into Timna’s womb by the fathers of the Jewish people, a people later dedicated to the annihilation of Amalek and the annulment of bigotry. Not only do Jews and Amalekites share a common ancestry: Jewish humanity and Amalekite bigotry were encoded in the same seed.

There we have it. In their wisdom, the ancient Jewish sages, or at least some of them, realised that they themselves, by claiming to be a chosen people and rejecting the gentile nations as people hateful to god, had created the monster of judeophobia that would later destroy so many of their people.

[Zebedee]

There we have it. In their wisdom, the ancient Jewish sages, or at least some of them, realised that they themselves, by claiming to be a chosen people and rejecting the gentile nations as people hateful to god, had created the monster of judeophobia that would later destroy so many of their people.

Hi Michael,

It's wonderful evidence of how explanations for supposed historical events were sought by Talmudic scholars and explained by reference to supposed acts committed by presumed ancestors sometime in the Bronze age. It is also fairly common in Talmudic scholarship to place responsibility on God in his retributional role for the trials of the Jewish people. Should we also infer from this that anti-semitism is caused by the Jews sinning against God?

As for your conclusion, as I noted you were doing on the other thread I'm afraid, it's one superimposed by you in a simplistic fashion on source material which does not support your argument unless one pulls it away from its context and then disengages critical reasoning,

Zeb

[michael mills]

As for your conclusion, as I noted you were doing on the other thread I'm afraid, it's one superimposed by you in a simplistic fashion on source material which does not support your argument unless one pulls it away from its context and then disengages critical reasoning,

It appears you do not like the conclusion by Joshua Cohen, a person who had a religious Jewish upbringing.

This is what Cohen concluded:

In a way, then, this midrash tells the origin of the prejudice that Western tradition would later call “antisemitism”

and

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob engendered Amalek’s eternal hatred of the Jews. The bigotry of the Jewish Fathers fathered Amalekite bigotry

It is perfectly obvious that those conclusions totally support the thesis proposed by me, namely that it was the anti-gentile ideology of Judaism that engendered an anti-Jewish reaction by the peoples who came in contact with Jews, namely judeophobia.

It seems to me that you are emotionally unable to accept Cohen's conclusions, and therefore try to convince yourself that I am superimposing a false interpretation on them. But Cohen's words are crystal clear.

Of course the story of Timna and the birth of Amalek, as recounted in Genesis and then in tractate Sanhedrin of the Talmud, is mythology, not history. The purpose of mythology is to explain something; in this case the Jewish sages who produced the story recounted in tractate Sanhedrin were trying to explain why there existed, in their own time, namely the first few centuries of the Common Era, such hostility and conflict between Jews (the people of Israel) and the nations among whom they lived, personified as "Amalek", the eternal enmey of Israel. And the crucial fact is that those sages realised that the origin of the conflict lay in the rejectionist attitude of Judaic ideology toward surrounding peoples who were initially friendly. That showed a commendably self-critical insight on the part of those sages.

[phylo_roadking]

Michael - you've missed out ONE vital element o that whole thing -

it was the anti-gentile ideology of Judaism that engendered an anti-Jewish reaction by the peoples who came in contact with Jews, namely judeophobia.

No. It was Jews putting that ideology into practice that would (or would not) engender an anti-Jewish reaction The belief is NOTHING without someone attempting to actually apply it to daily life. And there are just SO many anecdotal examples of Jews NOT choosing to foist this "anti-gentile ideology" on the Gentiles around them...

So right down at the base of your argument - Judeophobia is NOT "natural", it has to be CAUSED. And thus doesn't need to be caused at all.

[michael mills]

Phylo,

I am missing out nothing.

Judeophobia is a feeling, not an action, although it may result in action.

It is a feeling of dislike of Jews, and it may remain purely a feeling. As a feeling, it is engendered by the experience of what Judaism traditionally taught about the gentile nations. Thus, we know from the preserved writings of ancient Greeks and Romans that they were aware that the Jews considered gentiles "unclean", and for that reason refused to have any social intercourse with the latter.

The knowledge that ancient Greeks and Romans gained of Jewish customs and teachings, in particular of the anti-gentile teachings and the rejection of gentile religious beliefs, led them to dislike Jews intensely, ie it engendered judeophobic feelings.

Although Greeks and Romans disliked Jews intensely, they only undertook anti-Jewish actions, such as expelling Jews, or engaging in violence against them, in cases where Jews had acted in an anti-social way, such as invading temples and destroying the images of the gods, or rising up in rebellion against the state.

There were indeed cases where Jews put the anti-gentile ideology of their religion into violent practice, including the commandment to exterminate peoples they regarded as 'enemies of God", personified as Amalek. One such case was the rebellion of the Jews of Cyrenaica and Cyprus during the reign of the Emperor Trajan, between 115 and 117 CE. According to the "Historia Ecclesiastica" of Eusebius, the revolt began with attacks by the Jews of Alexandria, Egypt and Cyrene on their Greek neighbours. Jewish guerillas ravaged the countryside of Egypt, and it took the Roman forces a long time to suppress the revolt.

According to the Roman historian Cassius Dio, during this revolt Jews acted in an extremely barbaric way; he claims that Jewish rebels massacred Romans and Greeks, ate the flesh of their victims, made belts of their intestines, smeared themselves with their blood, etc etc., killing 220,000 gentiles in Cyrneaica and 240,000 in Cyprus. Those details and statistics are probably exaggerated, but are indicative of the ferocity of Jewish rebels whipped up into a fanatic fury by ideological fervour.

But it is historically correct that through most of history, Jews have not been in a position of power over gentile peoples, and hence were not able to show open hostility toward their gentile neighbours. While the Talmud contains many passages expressing contempt and hatred of gentiles, there are also many passages commanding Jews not to act in a hostile way toward them, so as not to give cause for any offence that might result in harm to the Jewish community.

But by the same token, throughout history Jews and gentiles have usually lived side by side in a state of fairly peaceful symbiosis, albeit with mutual dislike and suspicion. There were at various times outbreaks of gentile violence against Jews, but that was in times of great socio-economic stress, particularly during uprisings of the lower classes against their rulers.

[Zebedee]

It appears you do not like the conclusion by Joshua Cohen, a person who had a religious Jewish upbringing.

Hi Michael,

I'm afraid it's your superimposed conclusion that is the problem for me.

This is what Cohen concluded:

In a way, then, this midrash tells the origin of the prejudice that Western tradition would later call “antisemitism”

This is not Cohen's conclusion. He's making the reasonable point that this is a Jewish explanation for the origins of the initial hatred of the Jews. He states it in a fashion which avoids its being a conclusion but as a suggestion - a tenuous link to modern-day themes in some ways, just as equally he's right, in a way. Note his tentative use of language as compared to your bludgeoned assertations based upon it.

and

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob engendered Amalek’s eternal hatred of the Jews. The bigotry of the Jewish Fathers fathered Amalekite bigotry

So we take one bronze age pseudo-historical story and base an entire premise for sociological interaction upon it? Or is the quote very specifically indicating that this Talmudic tradition only applies to, erm, Amalekites? Even if we're to swallow the story whole, I'm struggling to find Amalekites mentioned in any medieval European census. Who were these descendants of the Amalekites who perpetuated this blood feud? I can't find them in Lincoln in 1255. Nor in Germany 1942.

It is perfectly obvious that those conclusions totally support the thesis proposed by me, namely that it was the anti-gentile ideology of Judaism that engendered an anti-Jewish reaction by the peoples who came in contact with Jews, namely judeophobia.

This is the jump in logic I cannot follow. You take selected quotes and make an argument by blending them together stripped away from their context.

It seems to me that you are emotionally unable to accept Cohen's conclusions, and therefore try to convince yourself that I am superimposing a false interpretation on them. But Cohen's words are crystal clear.

It would seem obvious that Cohen is neither presenting conclusions nor making 'crystal clear' analogies which match your conclusions. It's not a case of 'emotions', but in using one's logical faculties and grasp of the English language in a way which does not attempt to change meaning and attribute ideas which are not present.

Of course the story of Timna and the birth of Amalek, as recounted in Genesis and then in tractate Sanhedrin of the Talmud, is mythology, not history. The purpose of mythology is to explain something; in this case the Jewish sages who produced the story recounted in tractate Sanhedrin were trying to explain why there existed, in their own time, namely the first few centuries of the Common Era, such hostility and conflict between Jews (the people of Israel) and the nations among whom they lived, personified as "Amalek", the eternal enmey of Israel. And the crucial fact is that those sages realised that the origin of the conflict lay in the rejectionist attitude of Judaic ideology toward surrounding peoples who were initially friendly. That showed a commendably self-critical insight on the part of those sages.

You construct a narrative which your sources do not support. You are taking C4th sources and commentaries upon them and then assuming them 1) to mean what you what them to mean and 2) to be true. Neither assumption is justified.

Quoting Joshua Cohen's article from the work you cite (p.293): "Yet tainted greatness is a reality that exists in all cultures and all cultural canons." The idea appearing in the Talmudic scholarship suddenly becomes more a reflection on the human condition rather than a damning insight into how Jews themselves are responsible for anti-semitism.

Cohen's essay is a thoughtful reflection on the lacunae present when pseudo-history becomes religion and then attempts to justify bigotry and worse through religion. Thanks for drawing my attention to it

Zeb

[garlock]

At the core of the recent posts, then, resides a basic question: Did the Jews participate in the conception of antisemitism, as opposed to being passive recipients of a bias formed with no active input from them?

John

[michael mills]

So we take one bronze age pseudo-historical story and base an entire premise for sociological interaction upon it? Or is the quote very specifically indicating that this Talmudic tradition only applies to, erm, Amalekites? Even if we're to swallow the story whole, I'm struggling to find Amalekites mentioned in any medieval European census. Who were these descendants of the Amalekites who perpetuated this blood feud? I can't find them in Lincoln in 1255. Nor in Germany 1942.

Zebedee, you are straining here.

This is what Joshua Cohen wrote about the concept of "Amalek" in Jewish tradition (I already quoted it, so why you have ignored it I do not know):

Although the actual nation disappeared many centuries ago, the name of Amalek has taken on a symbolic meaning in Jewish tradition. All the great persecutors of Jews across the ages are regarded as children of Amalek: Haman, Antiochus, Titus, Girolamo Savonarola, Bogdan Chmelnitzki, and Hitler. In the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, Israeli bakeries sold hamantaschen ("Haman's Ears", a special pastry eaten on Purim) that were decorated to look like Saddam Hussein. To most Jews, Amalek represents the malign genius of antisemitism.

Thus, in Jewish tradition, the name "Amalek" has been applied to any person or group that Jews at various times have considered their enemies. It is a symbolic concept, not a literal one, referring to one specific ethnic group.

What the concept of "Amalek" means is that the ideology of Judaism teaches that it is permitted, even commanded, to destroy persons or groups considered by Jews to be their enemy. Note the reference above to Hamantaschen decorated to look like Saddam Hussein; that means that a lot of Israelis considered Saddam to be a manifestation of "Amalek", a sworn enemy of the Jewish people, even though in actual fact Saddam was not really a persecutor of Jews, his numerous victims being almost entirely other Arabs, Kurds or Iranians.

[David Thompson]

I think this discussion has failed to come to grips with the likelihood that many anti-semites might be mentally ill, and that the real problem may involve the disordered thought processes of the bigot, rather than the group which the bigot hates.

[bf109 emil]

Judeophobia is a feeling, not an action, although it may result in action

YES, but the results of a person whom is irrational, intense, persistent fear of certain situations and when the fear becomes to great the phobia is considered excessive or an anxiety disorder. So anyone displaying the Judeophobia and suffering from this phobia is a result of his ability to think clearly as a result of a feeling as opposed to a physical action which would allow a person to act defensively while still thinking rationally.

By definition of a phobia!!