These differences are apparently more important to you than to me and I
suspect your interest has more to do with your interest in early
Christianity than to the state of affairs in Northern Europe a millenium
later. Rather feels like me and mine are an artifact of that interest,
which I should think you needn't be told is offensive. So be it.
But let me be explicit here: while running from that mob of presumed
theologians or sitting in the burning house few of my coreligionists spent
a lot of time parsing the motives of the perps. In practical terms that
wasn't the issue. Or maybe they should have shouted out "Wait! I'm not a
rabbinic Jew I'm that other kind!" Who knows, might have helped.
At 10:03 PM 9/20/2000 +0100, you wrote:
>
>
>"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
>
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|