The Historical Origins of Antisemitism

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Historical Origins of Antisemitism THE HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF ANTISEMITISM …Let me give you my honest advice. First, their synagogues or churches should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over so that no one may ever be able to see a cinder of it. And this ought to be done for the honor of God and Christianity… (Martin Luther, 1543) When Wilhelm Marr, a 19th Century German journalist, coined the term antisemitism, he was giving a new expression to a very old hatred. Antisemitism, the hatred of Jews and Judaism, has roots of ancient origin, pre-dating the Christian era and evolving throughout the Middle Ages into the modern era. Throughout their history, Jews have been the victims of a persistent pattern of persecution, culminating finally in the 20th Century in mass murder. The term denoting hatred of the Jews – antisemitism – is spelled here and hereafter unhyphenated and in the lower case. This spelling is more historically and etymologically correct since “Semitic” refers not to a race of people, as Marr and other racists of his time wrongly believed, but to a group of languages which includes Arabic as well as Hebrew. Hence, the oft-used spelling “anti-Semitism” means, literally, a prejudice against Semitic-speaking people, not the hatred of people adhering to the Jewish religion and culture. ANTISEMITISM DURING THE PRE-CHRISTIAN ERA Expressions of anti-Jewish prejudice appeared as early as the 4th Century B.C.E. in Greece and Egypt, whose people drew stark distinction between themselves and others, whom they regarded as “strangers,” “foreigners,” or “barbarians.” Jewish religious practice, based as it was on an uncompromising monotheism and strict adherence to their religious laws and social customs, only heightened endemic suspicions and excited hostility in societies already prone to ethnocentric excess. Judaism’s monotheism, in particular, ran afoul of prevailing polytheism and pantheism. Jews under the Roman Empire, forbidden by the tenets of their faith to pay religious homage to the emperor, were regarded as both irreverent and hostile to the political authority of the state. EARLY CHRISTIAN ANTISEMITISM For three centuries after the Crucifixion, Christians and Jews engaged in an intense rivalry, the product of theological antagonisms, competition for converts, and the struggle for religious and political recognition. The conversion to Christianity of the Roman emperor Constantine in the early fourth century C.E. resulted in the triumph of Christian religious and political institutions and was therefore of fateful consequence for Jews. The new Christian empire quickly translated its anti-Jewish prejudice into anti-Jewish legislation. Recognition of Judaism’s religious and legal status was withdrawn. Jews were prohibited from holding certain public office and barred from military careers. Church councils banned contact with Jews and authorized the confiscation of Jewish property. Under the Justinian Code, Jews were denied civil liberties and forbidden to build synagogues or read the Bible in Hebrew. The most significant development of this period, however, was the accusation by Church leaders that Jews were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus and were therefore the incarnation of evil. The charge of deicide would become a cornerstone of Christian teaching and a foundation of anti-Jewish thought and action for centuries. ANTISEMITISM IN THE MIDDLE AGES It is not coincidental that in 1096 both the First Crusade to liberate the Holy Land in Palestine and the first great massacre of Jews occurred. Crusading armies and bands of marauding peasants carried out depredations against the Jews throughout Europe. These groups shared what they perceived as a holy endeavor against two groups of infidels – Muslims in the Holy Land and Jews along their path. Anti-Jewish hostility did not subside with the waning of crusading fervor. The commercial revolution of the 11th century ushered in an era of economic resurgence in Europe and with it the growth of towns, finance, and credit. When the Church condemned money-lending as a sinful activity, Jews – with few other occupational options – became Europe’s principal moneylenders, providing capital to merchants, peasants, and monarchs alike. But the prosperity of the Jews rekindled longstanding resentments. Jews, already regarded as infidels and Christ-killers, now were stigmatized as usurers and bribers. By the beginning of the thirteenth century the litany of anti-Jewish slanders became more fantastic and malicious. Rumors spread throughout Christendom of the crucifixion of Christian children by Jews who, according to this calumny, used the victim’s blood in baking unleavened bread for the commemoration of Passover. As clerical authorities built shrines to martyred “victims” and secular officials assiduously investigated these allegations, this hideous fantasy of ritual murder, known as the blood libel (above right), became firmly rooted in the popular consciousness. During the same time Jews were also accused of mutilating consecrated wafers and thereby torturing the body of Christ. And, perhaps not surprisingly, when the Black Death struck Europe in 1347, Jews were blamed for poisoning wells and causing the plague. Amid this hatred, Jews had been transformed in the popular mind from a people considered socially repugnant to that of a people not fully human. ANTISEMITISM IN THE EARLY MODERN ERA As Europe embarked upon its modern era, the evolution of antisemitism was both complex and contradictory. After the Protestant Reformation, some branches of Protestantism proved less Judeophobic than the Catholic Church, while other sects, particularly Lutheranism, became obsessed with an intense hatred of the Jews. Martin Luther called for the destruction of Jewish synagogues, the confiscation of Jewish wealth, and even the involuntary servitude of Jews themselves. During the Counter Reformation backlash, Jews were forced into ghettos where their segregation served as a chilling demonstration to those who chose to defy the Church’s religious authority. The Age of Enlightenment brought with it a new secular philosophical outlook which associated traditional religion with intolerance, ignorance, and oppression. Although Christianity was the principal target of this critical-rational approach to religious thought, Judaism, too was viewed as a “superstitious” religion. True “enlightenment,” argued some philosophes, required the disavowal of the entire Judeo- Christian religious tradition. Voltaire often launched bitter, irrational diatribes against Jews and Judaism, reminiscent of earlier, “darker” ages. For Jews, the Enlightenment and its legacy of philosophic secularism were a mixed blessing. With political emancipation, Jewish life temporarily improved. But in order to participate fully and equally as citizens in the new secular communities, political authorities often demanded that Jews forsake allegiance to their religious communities. French revolutionaries issued such an ultimatum when, in 1791, they announced the emancipation of the Jews. MODERN ANTISEMITISM In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries new social and intellectual developments in Europe contributed to a new, more virulent anti-Jewish stereotype, based not on opposition to Jewish religious practice or upon the Jew as a social pariah, but instead on the belief that Jews comprised an inferior race. Romanticism was a reaction to the rationalism of the Enlightenment. In Germany, where its ideas were first expounded, romanticism emphasized a nation’s past – its folklore, traditions, and a somewhat nebulous notion of spirit or Volk (German for “People”). From this nationalistic perspective, Jews, long viewed as rootless strangers, were regarded as foreign and hostile to the national “spirit.” Romantic historians relied on ostensibly “modern” philosophical thought and “objective” historical methods to buttress their anti-Jewish views. Socialist reformers and theorists resurrected old images of Jews as parasites and exploiters. Jews were identified with capitalism and its attendant social evils. The stereotype of the capitalist Jews, embodied by the Rothschilds, became the prime target for socialist reformers of all types. Some socialists even accused Jews of fomenting equally dangerous left-wing radicalism. This would not be the last time that antisemitic sentiment would reveal an utter lack of logic. By the end of the nineteenth century, antisemitism had become an acceptable element of social, political, and intellectual discourse throughout Europe. In France, where anti-republican elements had long associated Jews with the Revolution, Edouard Drumont’s counterrevolutionary, antisemitic tract, La France Juive, went through one hundred editions. And in 1896 Alfred Dreyfus, a French, Jewish military officer, was unjustly convicted of spying for Germany. Even his eventual vindication did not quell the rampant antisemitism his case had aroused. In Russia, Jews were confined to the Pale of Settlement and suffered numerous state-sponsored pogroms (mass killings). It was also in Russia, in 1903, that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were first published. The Protocols purported to be the minutes of a meeting of international Jewish leaders plotting to seize world power. It was not until 1921 that the London Times revealed the Protocols to be a work of forgery. By that time, however, it had been translated into several languages and had been distributed and read throughout Europe. Pseudo-scientific racial theories introduced
Recommended publications
  • French Antisemitism in the Press from 1894 to 1945
    Bastions or Brutes: French Antisemitism in the Press from 1894 to 1945 Nathan J. Johnson Texas Tech University 1 Abstract: Modern Era Europe, a time strife with power struggle, nationalistic growth, and scarred people and landscapes. France, a country unsheltered from the era’s terrors, faced a great struggle not unique to the rest of Europe; a country, a political mechanism, and populations of people supporting and accelerating Antisemitic beliefs. The once brave bastions of freedom once again fell into tyranny - a self-tyranny in a sense - where racism and antisemitism ruled their agendas. Beginning with Alfred Dreyfus and his exile and still propagating to this day, the Free French have become less about freedom and more about oppression and purification. At the root of this evil stood several major French publications, pushing a political mechanism. How were these publications controlled, were they under ideological control of the government? Are the journalists of these publications under guise of the propaganda machine or are they free thinking individuals who whole heartedly see the Jewish population to blame for major French downfalls? Are the “freedom fighters”, who are writing in protection of the Jewish population, doing so by way of clear conscious or career incentivization? What personal risks do these journalists take from the burden of speaking their truths? Also, as the period progresses and the 20th century truly takes hold, are the antisemitic beliefs held by the French remnants of the Dreyfus Affair, or are they influenced by current ideas held in Nazi Germany? 2 Introduction: Modern French history is ripe with triumph and exhilaration, but also stress, disruptions, and mistakes.
    [Show full text]
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer
    Edinburgh Research Explorer 'Dating the Death of Jesus' Citation for published version: Bond, H 2013, ''Dating the Death of Jesus': Memory and the Religious Imagination', New Testament Studies, vol. 59, no. 04, pp. 461-475. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688513000131 Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.1017/S0028688513000131 Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Peer reviewed version Published In: New Testament Studies Publisher Rights Statement: © Helen Bond, 2013. Bond, H. (2013). 'Dating the Death of Jesus': Memory and the Religious Imagination. New Testament Studies, 59(04), 461-475doi: 10.1017/S0028688513000131 General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 01. Oct. 2021 Dating the Death of Jesus: Memory and the Religious Imagination Helen K. Bond School of Divinity, University of Edinburgh, Mound Place, Edinburgh, EH1 2LX [email protected] After discussing the scholarly preference for dating Jesus’ crucifixion to 7th April 30 CE, this article argues that the precise date can no longer be recovered. All we can claim with any degree of historical certainty is that Jesus died some time around Passover (perhaps a week or so before the feast) between 29 and 34 CE.
    [Show full text]
  • The Defense Against Antisemitism: Minor Victories, Major Defeats, 1890–1939
    RichardS.Levy The Defense against Antisemitism: Minor Victories, Major Defeats, 1890–1939 Since Iwrotethis paper in the summerof2018, Ihavefound myself wondering if its title constitutes ajust judgment on nearly130 years of struggle by Jews and non-Jews to eliminate organized antisemitism.Surely, if Ihad subtitled it “Major Victories,Minor Defeats,” we would have to ask ourselvesabout the pur- pose of this great conference. Antisemitism, ever-changing, ever-threatening,is still very much with us. What Iwas wondering about instead was whether we can speakofevenminor victories,and, more generally, whether the history of the fight against organized antisemitism during manydecades has anything use- ful to teach us today. Ibelievethat this history and both the victoriesand defeats are still instructive. First some clarifications, beginning with the coiningofthe term: Ihavenot been able to find the use of the word antisemitism before 1860,when it was em- ployed in aculturalrather than apolitical sense. By late 1879,the German jour- nalist and political activist Wilhelm Marr seized upon the word antisemite as a wayofdistinguishing his political agenda from traditionalChristian Judeopho- bia and from the commonplaceprejudices of his day, thus hoping to give his views the aura of ascientifically derived truth, the product of his personal expe- rience and historicalresearch. Importanttonote about the earlyhistory of antisemitism is how rapidlywhat was essentiallyaneologism achievedthe broadest currency. There must have ex- isted aperceivedneed for anew wordtodescribethe resurgenceofconflicts be- tween Jews and the peoples among whom they lived, fondly thought to be nearly overcome in this ageofprogress but which in fact werebecomingevermore openlyexpressed.The need for anew wordaffected not justself-identified an- tisemites but Jews, non-Jewishcritics, and neutral bystanders throughout Europe and wherever Europeans settled in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • John 19: the Crucifixion of Jesus
    John 19: The Crucifixion of Jesus TEACHER RESOURCE hen Pilate took Jesus and had him bench in the place called Stone Pavement, in Tscourged. And the soldiers wove a crown Hebrew, Gabbatha. It was preparation day for out of thorns and placed it on his head, and Passover, and it was about noon. And he said clothed him in a purple cloak, and they came to the Jews, “Behold, your king!” They cried to him and said, “Hail, King of the Jews!” out, “Take him away, take him away! Crucify And they struck him repeatedly. Once more him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your Pilate went out and said to them, “Look, I king?” The chief priests answered, “We have am bringing him out to you, so that you may no king but Caesar.” Then he handed him over know that I find no guilt in him.” So Jesus to them to be crucified. came out, wearing the crown of thorns So they took Jesus, and carrying the cross and the purple cloak. And he said to them, himself he went out to what is called the “Behold, the man!” When the chief priests and Place of the Skull, in Hebrew, Golgotha. There the guards saw him they cried out, “Crucify they crucified him, and with him two others, him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Take one on either side, with Jesus in the middle. him yourselves and crucify him. I find no guilt Pilate also had an inscription written and put in him.” The Jews answered, “We have a law, on the cross.
    [Show full text]
  • The Death and Resurrection of Jesus the Final Three Chapters Of
    Matthew 26-28: The Death and Resurrection of Jesus The final three chapters of Matthew’s gospel follow Mark’s lead in telling of the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus. At each stage Matthew adds to Mark’s story material that addresses concerns of his community. The overall story will be familiar to most readers. We shall focus on the features that are distinctive of Matthew’s version, while keeping the historical situation of Jesus’ condemnation in view. Last Supper, Gethsemane, Arrest and Trial (26:1–75) The story of Jesus’ last day begins with the plot of the priestly leadership to do away with Jesus (26:1–5). As in Mark 14:1-2 they are portrayed as acting with caution, fearing that an execution on the feast of Passover would upset the people (v 5). Like other early Christians, Matthew held the priestly leadership responsible for Jesus’ death and makes a special effort to show that Pilate was a reluctant participant. Matthew’s apologetic concerns probably color this aspect of the narrative. While there was close collaboration between the Jewish priestly elite and the officials of the empire like Pilate, the punishment meted out to Jesus was a distinctly Roman one. His activity, particularly in the Temple when he arrived in Jerusalem, however he understood it, was no doubt perceived as a threat to the political order and it was for such seditious activity that he was executed. Mark (14:3–9) and John (12:1–8) as well as Matthew (26:6–13) report a dramatic story of the anointing of Jesus by a repentant sinful woman, which Jesus interprets as a preparation for his burial (v.
    [Show full text]
  • Germany from Luther to Bismarck
    University of California at San Diego HIEU 132 GERMANY FROM LUTHER TO BISMARCK Fall quarter 2009 #658659 Class meets Tuesdays and Thursdays from 2 until 3:20 in Warren Lecture Hall 2111 Professor Deborah Hertz Humanities and Social Science Building 6024 534 5501 Readers of the papers and examinations: Ms Monique Wiesmueller, [email protected]. Office Hours: Wednesdays 1:30 to 3 and by appointment CONTACTING THE PROFESSOR Please do not contact me by e-mail, but instead speak to me before or after class or on the phone during my office hour. I check the mailbox inside of our web site regularly. In an emergency you may contact the assistant to the Judaic Studies Program, Ms. Dorothy Wagoner at [email protected]; 534 4551. CLASSROOM ETIQUETTE. Please do not eat in class, drinks are acceptable. Please note that you should have your laptops, cell phones, and any other devices turned off during class. Students do too much multi-tasking for 1 the instructor to monitor. Try the simple beauty of a notebook and a pen. If so many students did not shop during class, you could enjoy the privilege of taking notes on your laptops. Power point presentations in class are a gift to those who attend and will not be available on the class web site. Attendance is not taken in class. Come to learn and to discuss. Class texts: All of the texts have been ordered with Groundworks Books in the Old Student Center and have been placed on Library Reserve. We have a systematic problem that Triton Link does not list the Groundworks booklists, but privileges the Price Center Bookstore.
    [Show full text]
  • Teaching the Scriptural Emphasis on the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ
    Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Faculty Publications 2019 Teaching the Scriptural Emphasis on the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ John Hilton III Brigham Young University - Provo, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub Part of the Christianity Commons, and the Mormon Studies Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Hilton, John III, "Teaching the Scriptural Emphasis on the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ" (2019). Faculty Publications. 3255. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/3255 This Peer-Reviewed Article is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. This article was provided courtesy of the Religious Educator, a journal published by the Religious Studies Center at Brigham Young University Click here to subscribe and learn more The scriptures consistently emphasize the importance of the Savior’s CrucifixionintheAtonement. theimportance consistentlyemphasize The scriptures oftheSavior’s Harry Anderson, The Crucifixion. © Intellectual Reserve, Inc. Teaching the Scriptural Emphasis on the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ john hilton iii John Hilton III ([email protected]) is an associate professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University. colleague recently shared with me how, when teaching missionary A preparation classes, he would role-play with students. When students pretending to be missionaries would ask him (acting as an investigator) if he knew about Christ’s Atonement, he would say, “Yes, I saw that Mel Gibson movie about Christ dying for our sins on the cross.” At least half of his students would correct him, stating that Christ atoned for our sins in Gethsemane, but not on the cross.
    [Show full text]
  • Was Hitler a Darwinian?
    Was Hitler a Darwinian? Robert J. Richards The University of Chicago The Darwinian underpinnings of Nazi racial ideology are patently obvious. Hitler's chapter on "Nation and Race" in Mein Kampf discusses the racial struggle for existence in clear Darwinian terms. Richard Weikart, Historian, Cal. State, Stanislaus1 Hamlet: Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in shape of a camel? Shakespeare, Hamlet, III, 2. 1. Introduction . 1 2. The Issues regarding a Supposed Conceptually Causal Connection . 4 3. Darwinian Theory and Racial Hierarchy . 10 4. The Racial Ideology of Gobineau and Chamberlain . 16 5. Chamberlain and Hitler . 27 6. Mein Kampf . 29 7. Struggle for Existence . 37 8. The Political Sources of Hitler’s Anti-Semitism . 41 9. Ethics and Social Darwinism . 44 10. Was the Biological Community under Hitler Darwinian? . 46 11. Conclusion . 52 1. Introduction Several scholars and many religiously conservative thinkers have recently charged that Hitler’s ideas about race and racial struggle derived from the theories of Charles Darwin (1809-1882), either directly or through intermediate sources. So, for example, the historian Richard Weikart, in his book From Darwin to Hitler (2004), maintains: “No matter how crooked the road was from Darwin to Hitler, clearly Darwinism and eugenics smoothed the path for Nazi ideology, especially for the Nazi 1 Richard Weikart, “Was It Immoral for "Expelled" to Connect Darwinism and Nazi Racism?” (http://www.discovery.org/a/5069.) 1 stress on expansion, war, racial struggle, and racial extermination.”2 In a subsequent book, Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress (2009), Weikart argues that Darwin’s “evolutionary ethics drove him [Hitler] to engage in behavior that the rest of us consider abominable.”3 Other critics have also attempted to forge a strong link between Darwin’s theory and Hitler’s biological notions.
    [Show full text]
  • Paths to Jewish Emancipation
    COURSE SYLLABUS Paths to Jewish Emancipation Instructor : Michael L. Miller, Associate Professor [email protected] Nationalism Studies Program Central European University Fall Semester, 2014 Course level (MA) 4 Credits (8 ECTS Credits) Mondays, 13:30 – 17:10 Office hours: Mondays, 11:00 – 13:00 and by appointment. Room FT 203 e-learning site: http://ceulearning.ceu.hu/course/view.php?id=3295 Course Description This course will examine the processes leading to the civic and political emancipation of the Jews in nineteenth-century Europe. It will focus on aspects of the legal, social and cultural history of the Jews from the sixteenth century onward in an effort to understand the different paths to emancipation in England, Western Europe, and Central Europe. It will also look at various trends – including religious reform, racial antisemitism, Jewish assimilation and Jewish nationalism – whose development was part and parcel of the struggle for emancipation. Learning Outcomes At the end of this course, students should be familiar with the extensive debates about the place of Jews in European society in the early modern and modern periods. They should have a fuller understanding of how these debates (and their outcomes) were shaped by the individual cultural, economic and national contexts, but also had a broader, pan- European character. They should understand how the larger historiographical narratives are constructed out of the diverse primary sources that we will examine in this course. They should develop critical reading skills, enabling them to analyze the literary, legal, religious and programmatic texts that were part of the larger debate about Jewish emancipation.
    [Show full text]
  • CFP (Conference): the Heterogeneity of Racism and Modern Antisemitism in Eastern Europe, 1880–1945, 9-10 June 2022, Germany (Deadline 15 October 2021)
    H-German CFP (Conference): The Heterogeneity of Racism and Modern Antisemitism in Eastern Europe, 1880–1945, 9-10 June 2022, Germany (Deadline 15 October 2021) Discussion published by Hanna Meisel on Thursday, September 9, 2021 Type: Call for Papers Date: June 9, 2022 Location: Germany Subject Fields: Eastern Europe History / Studies, Nationalism History / Studies, Russian or Soviet History / Studies, Jewish History / Studies, Race Studies Joint conference of the Herder-Institute for Historical Research on East Central Europe – Member of the Leibniz-Organization, Freie Universität Berlin and SFB/TRR 138 “Dynamics of Security. Types of Securitization from a Historical Perspective” Marburg, June 9-10, 2022 Due to its cultural heterogeneity, East Central Europe became a multi-racist space in the late 19th and early 20th century. Racism, modern antisemitism and eugenics originated in Berlin, Paris and London. It was, however, East Central and Southeastern Europe, especially the multi-ethnic territories of the Austrian, Russian and Ottoman Empires, as well as the eastern provinces of the German Empire, where a variety of Social Darwinism, racism, and modern antisemitism spread among segments of the population. Due to the multi-ethnic setting and the increase of conflicts between nationalities, the rising nationalism triggered racism and vice versa. This interdependence strengthened the discourses and repertoires among the political (and social) elites in terms of securing their dominant positions, as well as within the different national groups, who feared the loss of their own cultural identity. In contrast to the creation of these concepts inspired by the biologistic ideas of French, English and German thinkers such as Herbert Spencer, Arthur de Gobineau, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and Wilhelm Marr, the multi-faced receptions and creative inventions of racism and antisemitism, antiziganism and eugenics in East Central Europe have, to date, not been studied in a comparative and transnational way.
    [Show full text]
  • VII. Interactions with the World C. Anti-Catholicism A. the Know-Nothing Era 391
    VII. Interactions with the World C. Anti-Catholicism a. The Know-Nothing Era 391. Editorial, The Catholic Telegraph and Advocate, April 9, 1853 (1) The Late Election. On Monday last an election for municipal officers took place in this city, which resulted in the success of the Democratic-convention nominations, with only a few exceptions. Not only throughout the State of Ohio has the excitement attending this election been known, but papers at the most distant points of the country, have indulged on commentaries in no way complimentary to the Catholics. Now be it known to all to whom these presents shall come, that all the Catholics did was to petition the legislature to amend the school laws, so that Catholic children could attend the schools without sacrifice of the rights of conscience!! This was all our guilt, and we have been repaid by such a deluge of Protestant abuse, misrepresentations and calumny, that we firmly believe the like was never known before in the United States. Editors, preachers, fanatics, loafers, panacea vendors, and quack doctors kept up an assault of such a universal character, that all sorts of style were used at once, all sorts of filth projected against us, all sorts of lies invented, all sorts of insults heaped upon our heads, until it seemed as if the Devil himself was for once exhausted and malignity could do no more. The election day came and the authors of all this insane bigotry and abuse were swept like dust before the power of he people. 392. Editorial, The Catholic Telegraph and Advocate, April 9, 1853 (2) The Source of It.
    [Show full text]
  • Jesus' Cry of Dereliction: Why the Father Did Not Turn Against Or
    Jesus’ Cry of Dereliction: Why the Father Did Not Turn Against or Away from the Son Mako A. Nagasawa Last modified: February 1, 2018 Introduction: John Stott’s The Cross of Christ In his now-classic book, The Cross of Christ , John R.W. Stott presents a sweeping and impressive defense of penal substitutionary atonement. He gives a thoughtful exposition of Jesus’ ‘cry of dereliction’ from the cross, his quotation of Psalm 22:1, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ 1 Stott considers three other interpretive options before he gives his own. First, Stott notes, some have suggested that Jesus’ cry was one of disbelief and anger, even despair. Stott rightly rejects this option. It attributes unbelief to Jesus. Interestingly, since this suggestion shares with penal substitution the view that the Father did in fact forsake his Son Jesus, Stott does not explore what it attributes to God the Father . Second, others have interpreted Jesus’ cry as one of loneliness. In this view, Jesus felt forsaken by God in the sense of not being able to sense his presence, and for some reason, was not able to name God his intimate ‘Father,’ but could only name him more distantly and impersonally as ‘God.’ Stott points out that the problem with this view is that it ignores the original meaning of Psalm 22:1: ‘Yet there seems to be an insuperable difficulty [in that] the words of Psalm 22:1 express an experience of being , and not just feeling , God-forsaken.’ 2 Maintaining continuity of the Psalm’s original meaning is important as a criterion of what Jesus meant when he quoted it, which makes it all the more strange that Stott ignores that original meaning when he advocates the penal substitution view.
    [Show full text]