No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
In any inquiry into Christian attitudes to Judaism in sixteenth-century Germany, exhibit A would undoubtedly be the later writings of Martin Luther against the Jews. The choice for exhibit B presents more of a problem, but a strong case can be made out for an almost contemporary anti-Jewish treatise from the pen of Luther’s staunchest Catholic opponent, Johann Eck. His Refutation of a Jew Pamphlet tends to attract superlatives—‘the most abusive to have been written against the Jews’, ‘the most massive and systematic formulation of the blood libel… the summa of learned discourse on ritual murder’, ‘the absolute nadir of anti-Jewish polemic in the early-modern period’—and something of its unpleasantness can be gauged from the fact that Trachtenberg cited it so often in his disturbing book, The Devil and the Jews. The year in which our Society has chosen to take for its theme ‘Christianity and Judaism’ is also the 450th anniversary of the publication of Eck’s remarkable treatise. It is perhaps an appropriate occasion on which to explore, in rather more detail than has been done before, the context and nature of Eck’s anti-Jewish polemic.
1 Luther’s three treatises of 1543 were Von den Juden una ihren Lügen, in J. C. F. Knaake, ed., D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar, 1883–1983) [Weimarer Ausgabe— hereafter WA] 53, pp. 417-552: English tr. On the Jews and Their Lies, in J. Pelikan and H. T. Lehmann, eds, Luther’s Works (Philadelphia and St Louis, 1955-86) [hereafter LW], 47, pp. 137-306; Vom Schem Hamphoras, WA 53, pp. 579-648; and Von den letzten Worten Davids, WA 54, pp. 28–100. For a succinct account and analysis of these works in their context, see Edwards, Mark U. Jr., Luther’s Last Battles: Politics and Polemics, 1531-46 (Leiden, 1983), pp. 115–42.Google Scholar
There is, of course, a considerable body of literature on the theme of Luther and thejews, much of which is reviewed in Johannes Brosseder, Luthers Stellungzu denjuden im Spiegel seiner Interpreten: Interpretation und Rezeplion von Luthers Schriflen und Äusserungen zumjudentum im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert vorallem in deutsclisprächigen Raum (Munich, 1972). Reinhold Lewin, Luthers Stellung zu den Juden. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte derjuden in Deutschland während des Reformations-zeitalters—Neue Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche, 10 (Berlin, 1911), is widely regarded as the classic treatment. A recent major contribution to the theme is B. Klappert, H. Kremers, and L. Siegele-Wenschkewitz, eds, Die Juden und Martin Luther, Martin Luther und die Juden:Geschichte, Wirkungsgeschichte, Herausforderung (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1985).
2 Ains Juden büechlins verlegung: darin ain Christ gantzer Christenhait zü schmach I will esgeschehe den Juden unrecht in bezichligung der Christen kinder mordt (Ingolstad t: Alexander Weissenhorn, 1541).
3 Stern, Selma, Josel von Rosheim. Befehlshaber der Judenschaft im Heiligen Römischen Reich Deulscher Nation (Stuttgart, 1959), p. 183.Google Scholar I was unfortunately unable to consult the English translation by Hirschler, G., Josel of Rosheim: Commander of Jewry in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (Philadelphia, 1965).Google Scholar
4 Hsia, R. Po-chia, The Myth of Ritual Murder:Jews and Magic in Reformation Germany (New Haven and London, 1988), p. 126.Google Scholar
3 Rowan, Steven W., ‘Luther, Bucer, and Eck on the Jews’, Sixteenth-Century Journal, 16 (1985), pp. 79–90, at p. 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 See Trachtenberg, Joshua, The Devil and the Jews. The Medieval Conception of the Jew and its Relation to Modem Antisemitism, 3rd edn (New Haven, 1945).Google Scholar
7 The proximity of this work in tone, in subject-matter, and in date to Luther’s anti-Jewish treatises makes it natural to compare them, and this is the line most commentators have taken. The majority have used Eck to show that Protestants had no monopoly of offensive anti-Judaic sentiment in the mid-sixteenth century. See Graerz, Heinrich, Geschichte der Juden von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart, 9 (Leipzig, 1866), pp. 331–3 Google Scholar; Elbogen, I., Ceschichte der Juden in Deutschland (Leipzig and Berlin, 1920), 2nd edn, pp. 108f.Google Scholar; Grunsky, Karl, Luthers Bekenntnisse zur Judenfrage (Stuttgart, 1933), pp. 5f.Google Scholar; Brosseder, Luthers Stellung, p. 91. See also Oberman, H. A., The Roots of Antisemitism: In the Age of the Renaissance and Reformation (Philadelphia, 1983), pp. 36f.Google Scholar, and Rowan, ‘Luther, Bucer, and Eck’, pp. 79-90, for analogous but less tendentious conclusions. Others have gone further. Selma Stern saw the Refutation of a Jew Pamphlet as worse than any of Luther’s tracts (Josel von Rosheim, p. 146), while Hsia regards Eck as more firmly rooted in a magical world-view than the Wittenberger (Ritual Murder, PP. 133-5). Baumer and Ziegelbauer, on the other hand, portray Eck’s as a more moderate form of anti-Judaism than Luther’s: whereas Eck believed that Jews should be tolerated while they obeyed the law and did not blaspheme against Christianity, Luther urged their outright persecution: Bäumer, Remigius, ‘Die Juden im Urteil von Johannes Eck und Martin Luther’, Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift, 34 (1983), pp. 253–78 Google Scholar; Ziegelbauer, Max, Johannes Eck Mann der Kirche im Zeitaiter der Glaubensspaltung (StOttilien, , 1986), pp. 190–3.Google Scholar
8 The standard biography of Eck is still Theodore Wiedemann, Dr Johann Eck, Professor der Theologie an der Universitä Ingolstadt—eine Monographie (Regensburg, 1865), now supplemented by Erwin Iserloh, Johannes Eck 1486-1543: Scholastiker, Humanist, Kontroverstheologe—Katlwlisches Leben und Kirchenreform, 41 (Munster, 1981), and Johannes Eck [1486-1543) im Streit der Jahrhunderte—Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte, 127 (Münster, 1988); and Ziegelbauer, Eck.
9 Stern republished the treatise as Andreas Osianders Schrift über die Blutbeschuldigung (Kiel, 1893; repr. Berlin, 1903). For recent summaries see G. P. Wolf, ‘Osiander und die Juden im Kontext seiner Theologie’, Zeitschrift für bayerische Kirchengeschichle, 53 (1984), pp. 49–77, and Hsia, Ritual Murder, pp. 136-43.
10 Refutation of a Jew Pamphlet, Cirf., Ciiiv Eiivf.
11 Ibid., Dirf., Eiv-iiiv.
12 Ibid., Div: ‘Dann von ihr mütter brüst her saugent sie den neid gegen der Christenhait’.
13 lbid., Eiv-Fiv.
14 Ibid., Fiir-Gir.
15 Ibid., Aiiir, Aivr, Birf.
16 Ibid., Kiiiv.
17 Refutation of a Jew Pamphlet, Xiiiv-Ziir. For recent summaries of this, see Hsia, Ritual Murder, pp. 127-31, and Baumer, ‘Eck und Luther’, pp. 267-75.
18 On Eck’s attitude to ‘semi-Lutheran’ Catholics, see his revealing correspondence with the cardinals Contarini and Morone from these months in W. Friedensburg, ‘Beiträge zum Briefwechsel der katholischen Gelehrten Deutschlands im Reformationszeitalter (Aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken)’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschkhte, 19 (1899), pp. 243-64.
19 See Eck’s letter to Morone of 28 Feb. 1541 (Friedensburg, ‘Beiträge zum Briefwechsel’, p. 263).
20 Hsia, Ritual Murder, pp. 126, 128f.
21 One wonders whether Eck knew of the anti-Judaism of Martin Bucer’s Judenratschlag of 1538, or of even Luther’s Against the Sabbatarians of the same year, which was already showing a hardening of heart towards Jews. Eck demonstrates no knowledge of these works in the Refutation of a Jew Pamphlet, and regards Osiander’s philo-Judaism as typical of Lutheranism.
22 Refutation of a Jew Pamphlet, Aivr, Birf, Jir. On the early Catholic polemicists’ preoccupation with authority see David V. N. Bagchi, Luther’s Earliest Opponents: Catholic Controversialists, 1518-1525 (Minneapolis, 1991).
23 Stern, Josel von Rosheim, p. 83.
24 See Käthe Buschgens, ed., Augustin von Alveld O.F.M.: Wyder den Wittenbergischen Abgot Martin Luther (1524)—Corpus Catholicorum, 11 (Münster, 1926), p. 33.
25 Refutation of a Jew Pamphlet, Giiv.
26 Ibid., Diiv. See also Pope Innocent Ill’s letter Etsi Iudaeos, Decretales, 5.6.13 (cols 775-6).
27 Refutation of a Jew Pamphlet, Xir .
28 Four answers to this question were generally offered: first, Jews constituted, as it were, a walking history lesson, a proof of the historical reliability of the Bible; second, their present humiliation was evidence that Christians, and no longer they, were the chosen people of God; third, the Diaspora itself, and the consequent lack of privileges which Jews suffered in foreign lands, was a punishment for deicide; fourth, the eschatological conversion of the Jews was predicted by St Paul. See Amos Funkenstein, ‘Basic types of Christian anti-Jewish polemic in the Middle Ages’, Viator, 2(1971), pp. 373-82, at pp. 374f. It is interesting that Eck appeals to these arguments, although he disputes Osiander’s belief in the ultimate conversion of all Jews: only a remnant, a very small number, will convert, Eck argues, and he entertains no notion that the Church’s salvation depends in any way on their conversion: see Refutation of a Jew Pamphlet, Xiv—iiv, Ziir; Xiv; Riiiv).
29 On Eck’s Adnotationes to the Book of Regensburg, see Iserloh, Eck, p. 78.
30 A strange historical echo is that Regensburg had been host to another religious colloquy in 1474. It was between a Dominican and ajew, and was on the subject of the true Messiah. The friar, Peter Schwarz or Nigrius, published his side of the disputation as the Tractatus contra perfidos Iudaeos de conditionibus veri Messiae (Esslingen: Conrad Fyner, 1475), which was in turn used by Eck in preparing the Refutation of a Jew Pamphlet. This theological show trial was the more poignant because it was staged to coincide with the judicial show trial, for ritual murder, of the Rabbi of Regensburg, Israel of Brünn. For details, see Hsia, Ritual Murder, pp. 71ff.
The other medieval (and later) anti-Jewish sources used by Eck in addition to Schwarz were Victor of Carben, De vita et moribus Iudeorum libellus (Cologne, 1509); Anton Margaritha, Der Gantz Judisch Glaub (possibly in Heinrich Steiner’s Augsburg edition of 1531); Paul of Burgos, Scrutinium Scriptuarium (Strasbourg, 1474; Mainz, 1478); Nicholas of Lyra, Pulcherrimae quaestiones Iudaicam perfidam in catholicam fide improbantes (Paris, 1500); Salvagus Porchetus, Viktoria Porcheti adversus impios Hebraeos (Paris, 1520); Peter Galatinus, Opus de arcanis calholicae veritatis (possibly in the Ortona edition of 1518, though he evidently cited the last two from memory: in Refutation of a Jew Pamphlet, Hiv, he wrote: ‘Porchetum et Galatinum non habeo ad manus’); Raymund Martin, Pugio fidei (Ortona, 1518); Johann Stamler, Dialogus de diversarumgentium seeds et mundi religionibus (Augsburg, 1508) (for evidence of the blood-libels); and Alphonse of Castile (a Spina), Fortalitium fidei (Strasbourg, 1475; Nuremberg, 1485, 1494).
31 Refutation of a Jew Pamphlet, Oivv-Pivv.
32 See ibid., Oir, for Eck’s view of Islam as Unglaub, not Ketzerei. For the liability of Muslims only to natural, not to divine, law, see ibid., Eiiiv. For their inveterate hatred for Jews, which he considers a good example for Christendom, see ibid., Diir, Niiv, Ziir. For the greater hostility of ‘Jews and heretics’ than of the heathen towards Christians, see ibid., Hir. For God’s favour towards Islam, shown by its inexorable rise and spread, compared with the God-forsakenness of Jewish history since the destruction of the Temple, see ibid., Oir.
33 Refutation of a Jew Pamphlet, Miiir.
34 Ibid., Diiv, Hiv, Xiivf (a mistake for Licet perfidia Iudaeorum?), Yir.
35 Ibid., Xiiiv-Yiiv
36 Ibid., Eiiiv.
37 Ibid., Yivr.
38 Ibid., 2Aiir.
39 Ibid., 2Aiirf; Ziir. The idea that Jewish money-lending subverts the social order, by making Jews the masters and Christians their slaves, was a common feature of contemporary anti-Jewish polemic. It occurs in Bucer’s Judenratschlag (see Rowan, ‘Luther, Bucer, and Eck’, p. 83), in Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies (e.g. WA 53, p. 529, lines 15 F.—LW 47, p. 276), and in the papal bull Cum nimis absurdum—see G. Tomassetti and M. Marocco, eds, Bullarium, diplomatum et privilegiorum sanctorum Romanorum pontificum Taurinensis editio, 25 vols (Turin and Naples, 1857-88), 6, p. 498. Bäumer quite rightly points out that one of Luther’s demands was that the Jews should eat their bread in the sweat of their brow (‘Eck und Luther’, p. 276), but overlooks the same demand made by Eck in identical words.
40 Refutation of a Jew Pamphlet, Zii. Cum nimis absurdum would similarly restrict Jews from entering any trade or profession ‘necessary for human sustenance’, and would allow them to undertake trading only in second-hand clothes: Bullarium Romanorum Pontificum, p. 499.
41 Refutation of a Jew Pamphlet, Ziir. The canons explicitly cited by Eck were drawn mainly from the titulum De Iudaeis in the fifth book of the Decretals of Gregory IX (many of which were also constitutions of Lateran IV), namely, ch. 4 Quia super his, on restricting Jews to their homes during certain Christian festivals (Decretales, 5.6.4, col. 772); ch. 8 Ad haec praesentium, against Jews keeping Christian servants (Decretales, 5.6.8, cols 773–4); ch. 13 Etsi ludaeos, on a similar theme but with an elaborate anti-Jewish proemium cited by Eck several times in the course of his treatise (Decretales, 5.6.13, cols 775-6); ch. 15 In nonnullis, on the wearing of distinguishing clothes or emblems (Decretales, 5.6.15, cols 776–7); ch. 18 Exspeciali, on the bearing of public office (Decretales, 5.6.18, col. 778); and ch. 19 Nulli Iudaeo, on enslaving Christians (Decretales, 5.6.18, col. 778). It is significant, in the light of this catalogue of restrictions, that Eck nowhere cites the one piece of legislation from De Iudaeis to lay down basic minimum rights for Jews, ch. 9 Sicut Iudaei (Decretales, 5.6.9, col. 774).
42 In his important work, Catholic Thought and Papal Jewry Policy, 1555-1593 (New York, 1977), Kenneth R. Stow identifies conversionary expectation as the factor common to papal policy throughout the Middle Ages and into the sixteenth century. He argues convincingly that this distinguishes Catholic from Protestant attitudes to the Jews (pp. 233-42). Less convincing, in the light of the evidence provided by Eck, is Stow’s statement that Luther, by writing within the context of the impossibility of conversion, makes Jewish crimes central to his polemic, unlike Catholic writers (p. 238). The criminality of Jews seems rather to be far less telling for Luther than their stubbornness, while the opposite judgement applies to Eck.
43 For a succinct and recent account of Paul IV’s policy towards Jews, see Edwards, John, The Jews in Christian Europe, 1400-1700 (London and New York, 1988), pp. 66–74.Google Scholar
44 It is clear, however, that not all late sixteenth-century popes can fairly be accused of such charity: Pius V in 1569 and Clement VIII in 1593 expelled Jews outright from all Papal States except Rome, Ancona, and Avignon. Their actions lead Oberman to suggest that the policy of the ghetto was closer to expulsion than it was to integration, and that there is therefore no great difference between the spirit of Luther’s recommendations in On the Jews and their Lies and that of Paul IV’s in Cum nimis absurdum: see Oberman, H. A., ‘The stubborn Jews—riming the escalation of antisemitism in late medieval Europe’, introduction to the Yearbook of the Leo Baeck Institute, 34 (London, 1989), pp. xi–xxv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar at p. xviii. Eck’s admiration for the expulsion of Jews from Spain (Refutation of a Jew Pamphlet, Miiir) reveals his own inner preference and lends weight to Oberman’s thesis.