"or that farrago of anti-Semitic nonsense, The Prioress's Tale?" ( 20/09/00)
Mark,
"As of the 14th Century all Jews were Rabbinic Jews"
Well, this depends on how you cut it and if you recognise the difference
between Temple and Rabbinic Judaism. One could say 'as of the late first
cent. C.E.' all Jews were Rabbinic Jews, but this only goes so far: one
needs to look at the radical differences between Rabbinic Jewry and Temple
Jewry and the complex place of Xianity in that nexus ( one could even say
that the condemnation of the name of X at Javneh constituted, if not created
Xianity - the question is of the right of the Rabbis to make such a decision
[ this latter is as good a cause as any for the so-called 'Anti-Semitism'
( which would be a contradiction in terms) of the N.T., espec. Matt. - the
which is pure Anti-Rabbinism.)
" Few of my ancestors cared much whether they were being slaughtered for
reasons of blood or belief. In
practical terms there wasn't a whole lot of difference"
Well, in practical terms I'd say it made a whole lot of difference. Given
the difference in opinions concerning Rabbinic Jews from the Magisterium;
the Church in general ( the council of Cardinals etc.); the internal
complexity of the Church Fathers and their being cited in debate; Popular
sentiment vis-a-vis the Jews ( a g r e a t deal of which was
pre-Christian); Natural Law; Popular interpretation of the Bible;
Theologians; Spaniards discoursing about 'blood' and so on and so forth,
one can hardly take the perspective of an undifferentiated aggressor
victimising a singular subject so straightforwardly, with Xians on one side
and Jews on the other [ one would have to go into the application of the law
of 'nations' in so far as it applied to the Jews - Jews were outside law in
certain respects ( Usury being one of these) - etc. etc. to make the
perspective sharper.
But that is another list-server!
Y'rs
ColinGHughes
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|