Might the "putrid" quality of the water as described in the Chronicles be something more than invective? If, by the time of the Crusades, baptismal fonts were not always fonts with constantly flowing water but with drains that might be stopped up and later opened, might there not be some (overreacting) with the word 'putrid', especially compared with a constantly flowing mikvah?

Maureen A. Tilley
Visiting Professor of Theology
Fordham University
113 W. 60th Street
New York, NY 10023
212-636-6369

-----medieval-religion - Scholarly discussions of medieval religious culture <[log in to unmask]> wrote: -----

To: [log in to unmask]
From: John Briggs <[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: medieval-religion - Scholarly discussions of medieval religious culture <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 10/06/2010 03:06PM
Subject: Re: [M-R] Baptismal Waters

medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture

On 06/10/2010 19:58, Dr. Jeffrey R. Woolf wrote:
>
> I understand. The Hebrew Crusade chronicles (and subsequent polemical
> literature) describe baptismal water as 'putrid.' I'm inclined to think
> (since return to Judaism involved ritual immersion) that this was not just
> pure invective but might reflect the actual scent of baptism which, from the
> point of view of an antagonist, might be experienced as unpleasant.

That sounds implausible. "Pure invective" would be a simpler explanation.

John Briggs

**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html