Jews and Christians in Denmark the Brill Reference Library of Judaism

Jews and Christians in Denmark The Brill Reference Library of Judaism

Editors

Alan J. Avery-Peck (College of the Holy Cross) William Scott Green (University of Rochester)

Editorial Board

David Aaron (Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati) Herbert Basser (Queen’s University) Bruce D. Chilton (Bard College) José Faur (Netanya College) Neil Gillman (Jewish Theological Seminary of America) Mayer I. Gruber (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev) Ithamar Gruenweld (Tel Aviv University) Maurice-Ruben Hayoun (University of Strasbourg and Hochschule fuer Juedische Studien Heidelberg) Arkady Kovelman (Moscow State University) David Kraemer (Jewish Theological Seminary of America) Baruch A. Levine (New York University) Alan Nadler (Drew University) Jacob Neusner (Bard College) Maren Niehoff (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) Gary G. Porton (University of Illinois) Aviezer Ravitzky (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) Dov Schwartz (Bar Ilan University) Günter Stemberger (University of Vienna) Michael E. Stone (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) Elliot R. Wolfson (University of California, Santa Barbara)

VOLUME 48

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/brlj Jews and Christians in Denmark

From the Middle Ages to Recent Times, ca. 1100–1948

Martin Schwarz Lausten

Translated by

Margaret Ryan Hellman

LEIDEN | BOSTON Cover illustration: The motif is called in Latin, “Ecclesia et Synagoga” (Church and Synagogue), from the church of Spentrup, Denmark (about 1200). The woman to the left represents Judaism. The woman to the right represents the Christian church. In short, the wall-painting wants to show that the Jews killed Jesus but it was a victory for the Christians. Christianity has conquered Judaism. Reprinted with permission from the Danish National Museum.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Lausten, Martin Schwarz, author. Jews and Christians in Denmark : from the Middle Ages to recent times ca. 1100–1948 / by Martin Schwarz Lausten ; translated by Margaret Ryan Hellman. pages cm. — (The Brill reference library of Judaism ; 48) Based on research previously published in the author’s Kirke og synagoge (1992), De fromme og jøderne (2000), Oplysning i kirke og synagoge (2002), Frie jøder? (2005), Folkekirken og jøderne (2007), and Jødesympati og jødehad i folkekirken (2007), supplemented with references to newer literature at various points. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-30436-9 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-30437-6 (e-book) 1. Judaism— Denmark—History. 2. Jews—Denmark—History. 3. Judaism—Relations—Christianity. 4. Christianity and other religions—Judaism—History. 5. Denmark—Church history. I. Title. BM376.D4L385 2015 261.2’609489—dc23 2015025386

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual ‘Brill’ typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 1571-5000 isbn 978-90-04-30436-9 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-30437-6 (e-book)

Copyright 2015 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Contents

Preface ix Note about This Volume x List of Figures xii

1 Jews in Literature and Art of the Church: The Catholic Middle Ages 1 Writings on the Life of Personal Piety 1 The Crusades 8 Jews in the Hexameron (ca. 1220) 9 The First Danish Anti-Jewish Publication (1516) 11 Judaism and Jews in the Art of the Church 13

2 Martin Luther’s Antipathy toward Jews and the Attitudes of Danish Reformers: The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century 19 Martin Luther and the Jews 19 This Evil People—Hans Tausen and Peder Palladius 25 Jews in Church Prayers and Edifying Writings 30 God’s Own Language—The Study of Hebrew 31

3 Jewish Immigrants, Freedom of Religion, and the Anger of the Bishops: The Orthodoxy of the Seventeenth Century 33 Orthodoxy and Absolute Monarchy 33 Judaism and Jews in Academic and Popular Literature 33 Government Policies on Jews and the Reaction of the Bishops 39 Baptism of Jews 43 The Chief of Police’s Proposal for a Jewish Ghetto (1692) 45

4 Convert or be Lost! Controversy and Mission in the Age of Pietism (1700–1760) 48 The Jewish Community 48 Views of Christian Theologians on Judaism and Jews 57 Problems of Integration 66 Mission to the Jews 75 Conversion of Jews to Christianity 83 vi contents

5 Ordinary Danish Citizens, but with Another Religion: The ‘Christian’ and Jewish Enlightenment (1760–1814) 89 The Jewish Community 89 Enlightenment Movements 96 Conflicts about Jewish Reforms 100 Judaism and Jews in the Writings of Christian Theologians 102 The Conversion of Jews to Christianity 113 The Views of Christian Theologians on the Anti-Jewish Literary Feud 119 ‘The Letter of Freedom’: The Royal Decree of March 29, 1814 122

6 Avowals of Converted Jews 125

7 Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849): The Integration of Jews into Society 127 A Letter of Freedom? 127 Literary Feuds and Street Fights 128 Jews in the Writings of Christian Theologians 131 Conditions within the Jewish Congregation 138 Debate on the Adaptation of Jews to Social and Political Conditions 147 Missionary Work and the Conversion of Jews to Christianity 157

8 The Danish People’s Church and the Jews (1849–ca. 1900) 173 The Independent Jewish Community of Faith 173 Confrontation between Chief Rabbi Abraham Wolff and the ‘Enemies of the Talmud’ 178 Attitudes toward Jews of Different Movements within the Danish People’s Church 183 Religious and Social Problems in the Jewish Community 190 The Danish Mission to the Jews 200 Admittance into the Danish Church and into the Jewish Congregation 214

9 Sympathy for Jews and Hatred of Jews in the Danish People’s Church (ca. 1900–1948) 221 The State of Affairs within the Jewish Community 221 Christian Theologians and Zionism 226 Groupings within the Danish People’s Church and Anti-Semitism (before 1940) 229 Jews and Christians during and after the German Occupation 242 contents vii

Renewed Missionary Efforts among the Jews 260 Reaction in the People’s Church on Zionism and the Creation of the State of Israel 262

10 Epilogue 268

Literature and Sources 273 Index of Persons and Places 287

Preface

This book presents a concise account of the relationship between Jews and Christians in Denmark from medieval to recent times. It is based on the research that I published in the six books listed on the reverse side of the half title page, and is supplemented with references to newer literature at various points. The book takes a religious and/or a church history perspective and is concerned with the attitudes of the Danish Church toward Judaism and Jews and vice versa. I have highlighted those events, personages and movements, both within Danish Judaism and within the Christian Church, that I believe are most important and best illuminate the topic in each historical period. However, here, as in other representations of history, the especially extra ordinary cases, scandals, unfortunate events, controversial writings, etc., have had the greatest impact on the source material. Constant attention must be paid to this circumstance in the depiction of each historical period. Up to and into the 1800s, bishops and priests of the Church and theologians of the university shaped Danish opinion and influenced the government policies enforced upon Jews and also influenced the attitudes adopted by the population. It was not until the beginning of the 19th century that Danish Jews began to react against this one-sided anti-Jewish stance of the leaders of the Church. This is the sequence of events that this book recounts. I have limited notes to brief references to the sources of direct quotations and to the relevant literature, most of which is in the Danish language. I have used ‘priest’ to denote a position in the Lutheran church. I am extremely grateful to the Velux Foundation and Den Hielmstierne- Rosencroneske Stiftelse for their economic support for this publication, and also to the Faculty of Theology of the University of Copenhagen, where, as professor emeritus, I have been able to continue to conduct my research at the Department of Church History. I am also thankful for the economic support toward the English translation of this book that I received from the founda- tions: Carlsbergfondet, Lillian and Dan Finks Fond, and Consul George Jorck og Hustru Emma Jorcks Fond. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to Margaret Ryan Hellman for her English translation, help, and advice.

Copenhagen, 1. April, 2015

Martin Schwarz Lausten Professor Emeritus, Doctor of Theology Note about This Volume

This book is based on the following volumes by the same author:

1 Kirke og synagoge. Holdninger i den danske kirke til jødedom og jøder i middelalderen, reformationstiden og den lutherske ortodoksi (ca. 1100–ca. 1700) [Church and synagogue: Attitudes of the Danish Church toward Judaism and Jews in the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and Lutheran orthodoxy (ca. 1100–ca. 1700)], Studies in Church History, published by Department of Church History, University of Copenhagen, series 3, no. 1 (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1992), 2nd edition. 2002. 536 pp. 2 De fromme og jøderne.Holdninger til jødedom og jøder i Danmark i pietismens tid (1700–1760) [The pious and the Jews: Attitudes toward Judaism and Jews in Denmark during the pietistic period (1700–1760)], Studies in Church History, published by Department of Church History, University of Copenhagen, series 3, no. 7 (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 2000). 667 pp. 3 Oplysning i kirke og synagoge. Forholdet mellem kristne og jøder i den danske Oplysningstid (1760–1814) [Enlightenment in Church and Synagogue. The Relations between Christians and Jews in the age of Enlightenment in Denmark, 1760–1814], Studies in Church History published by Department of Church History, University of Copenhagen, series 3, no. 8 (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 2002). 670 pp. 4 Frie jøder? Forholdet mellem kristne og jøder i Danmark fra Frihedsbrevet 1814 til Grundloven 1849 [Freedom for Jews? Relations between Christians and Jews in Denmark from the Royal Decree of 1814 until the Constitution of 1849], Studies in Church history, published by Department of Church History, University of Copenhagen, series 3, no. 10 (Copenhagen: Forlaget Anis, 2005). 599 pp. 5 Folkekirken og jøderne. Forholdet mellem kristne og jøder i Danmark fra 1849 til begyndelsen af det 20. århundrede [The Danish People’s Church and the Jews: Relations between Christians and Jews in Denmark from 1849 until the beginning of the 20th century], Studies in Church History, published by Department of Church History, University of Copenhagen, series 3, no. 12 (Copenhagen: Forlaget Anis, 2007), 424 pp. 6 Jødesympati og jødehad i folkekirken. Forholdet mellem kristne og jøder i Danmark fra begyndelsen af det 20. århundrede til 1948 [Sympathy for Jews and hatred of Jews in the Danish People’s Church. Relations between note about this volume xi

Christians and Jews in Denmark from the beginning of the 20th century until 1948], Studies in Church History, published by Department of Church History, University of Copenhagen, series 3. no. 13 (Copenhagen: Forlaget Anis, 2007). 502 pp. List of Figures

1 Title page Schlechte Hoffnung by Ernst Christian Boldig (1696) 59 2 Title page, Enfoldig og Skriftmessig Betænkning om Jødernes Omvendelse inden Domme-Dag by Christen Lassen Tychonius (1770) 68 3 Title page, Betragtninger over de chistelige Troeslærdom by Jacob Peter Mynster (1846) 137 4 Title page, Israelitisk Bønnebog by Chief Rabbi Abraham A. Wolff (1856) 147 5 Page from periodical, Israelsmissionen announcing converts (1912) 204 6 Advertisment page in Præsteforeningens Blad (13, 1942) 244 7 Photograph of Bishop Hans Fuglsang-Damgaard 253 Chapter 1 Jews in Literature and Art of the Church The Catholic Middle Ages

Writings on the Life of Personal Piety

As far as we know, there were no Jews in Denmark during the entire Roman Catholic Middle Ages.1 Jews were not permitted to take up permanent residence in the country until the end of the seventeenth century, and such permission was subject to meeting specific conditions. But even without a Jewish presence, the Danish Church was concerned with Judaism and Jews both in literature and in art in the manner typical of the European Roman Catholic Church. This chapter cites examples of the ‘Christian’ antipathy toward Jews— even hatred of Jews—that was also widespread in Denmark for centuries before anyone had seen a Jew in Denmark. The extreme anti-Judaism that spread in Germany, France, Spain, England and other countries beginning ca. 1100 is apparent in the work, Life and Passion of St. Canute, written in 1120 by the English monk Ælnoth of Canterbury, who had lived in Denmark for more than twenty years.2 The main goal of the work was to present the extremely controversial King Canute II as a true imitator of Christ in the conduct of his personal life, in his position as king, and in his hour of death. Ælnoth marshaled this theory of imitation so well that, time after time, he drew parallels between the destinies of Jesus and King Canute. Ælnoth even equated the iniquity that the Danes had perpetrated against their king in murdering him with the Jews’ rejection, betrayal and crucifixion of Jesus. To explain why Danes had not understood their king’s greatness, Ælnoth told the story of the blindness of the Jews, which had been an established element of Christian theologians’ view of Jews since Augustine the early 400s. The Danes were certainly able to hear the words of the king, but they did not understand him; they certainly could see him, but it was as if they were blind. Just like the traitor Judas, they had dug their own graves, as had the Jews, who would not accept the one who had called attention to their faults. The devil

1 For a survey of the history of the Danish Church history, see Martin Schwarz Lausten, A Church History of Denmark (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002). 2 Ælnoth of Canterbury, “Gesta Swenomagni regis et filiorum eius” (Deeds of Svein the Great and his sons) in Vitae Sanctorum Danorum [Lives of Danish saints] Martin Clarentius Gertz, ed. (Copenhagen: Gad, 1908), 77–137.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004304376_002 2 Chapter 1 was behind the Jewish high priests, the Pharisees, and the scribes who had attacked Jesus with “venomous hatred,” and the devil was also behind the Danish murder of King Canute, hence almost the entire Danish population was infected by the devil’s poison, caught in his evil trap, and thus ready to commit any conceivable crime. Consequently God’s spirit had turned away from the Danes, and “they would share the destiny of the Jews.” They would receive the same punishment from God as the “Jews in Jerusalem” had, and the leaders of the Danish rebellion would suffer a worse fate than Judas had suffered. Furthermore, Ælnoth associates the punishment that the Danish people were destined to receive with the fate of the Jews. The condemnation that the prophet Isaiah and Jesus had directed upon the Jews would also be pronounced upon the Danes by Jesus. This was the manner in which antipathy toward Jews reached Denmark from the rest of Europe. Ælnoth does not consider theological discussions on the relation of Judaism to Christianity, or on relations between Jews and Christians. Hatred of Jews emanates from him. In his attempts to present the Danes’ treatment of King Canute as execrably as possible, he chooses to com- pare the Danes with the worst blasphemers he can think of, the Jews. This story of saintliness was meant as propaganda for the canonization of King Canute, and it could later be read aloud to the monks in the monasteries. But other extant writings from the time were also meant to assist lay people in their personal devotions. Gotfred of Ghemen’s Danish publication of De 15 steder, hvor Vor Herre led sin pine [The fifteen Stations of the Cross] (1509) consists of texts to be used as prayers or meditations on the sufferings and crucifixion of Jesus.3 It is explained that after Jesus’ ascension, the Virgin Mary lived here on earth for fifteen more years; the last thing she did was to take a spiritual pilgrimage to the fifteen places where her son had been tortured, including the sites of the washing of his disciples’ feet, the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, the betrayal by Judas, the trial, the scourging at the pillar, the coronation with the crown of thorns, and the crucifixion. The relationship that Jesus and Mary had with the Jews played a prominent role in Ælnoth’s account. He edited the biblical narratives, both shortening and adding to them, embel- lishing them with legends in order to show that the Jews alone were responsible for the death of Jesus. The Roman authorities, Pilate and the Roman soldiers, appeared in the story only to put the evil actions of the Jews in relief, and in this connection, the author was eager to point out that it was the entire

3 Hans Ostenfeld Lange, ed., Jesu Passionsvandring. Opbyggelsesskrift, trykt i København i 1509 af Gotfred af Ghemen [The Passion of Jesus. Edifying text, printed in Copenhagen in 1509 by Gotfred of Ghemen] (Aarhus: Stiftsbogtrykkeri, 1915). Jews in Literature and Art of the Church 3

Jewish people who had tortured and judged Jesus: “then all the Jews shouted”; “then the Jews shouted in a loud voice”; “all those who were in the city threw dung and filth at him”; “all the Jews shoved Mary”; “all the Jews” shouted that Jesus was a fraud and a liar (6. 14. 24. 22. 29). At many points in the text Jesus was scourged by the Jews, who even spit in his face. They pressed the crown of thorns, whose points were as sharp as nails, so deeply into his head that “blood and brain matter ran down over his blessed face” (18). They dressed him up and “then the Jews knelt before him,” mocking him “with gaping mouths and staring eyes, they stuck out their tongues at him and said: All hail the King of the Jews!” (20). He was struck in the face; his hair and beard were pulled; he was whipped while he was carrying the cross so “all of Our Lord Jesus’ footprints were full of blood” (26), and even after the crucifixion, they were not tired of torment- ing him; they took the bones of executed criminals, threw them at Jesus and mocked him. Occasionally the texts let Jesus talk directly to the reader or the listener, and Mary’s suffering was especially depicted, both when she had to witness all this, and when the Jews hindered her from helping her son. The work was most effective at stirring up hatred of Jews in its time, and in relation to this, it is noteworthy that the author includes the old anti-Jewish jeer, “Hep, hep . . .” in his depiction. When Jesus had fallen while carrying the cross, “The evil Jews pulled him and the cross up again and said to him, Hep! Hep! You bumpkin, why won’t you carry the cross?” (26). The Tidebog [Book of Hours] published in 1514 by Christiern Pedersen (ca. 1480–1554) contained texts of both prayers and devotions to be used in dedicating oneself to prayer and for the consideration of one’s own sins and their atonement through the suffering and death of Jesus, with the aid of the Virgin Mary, as well as with the aid of all the saints.4 In many places in the prayers, Pedersen demonstrated the viewpoint of classic Christian theology concerning the relationship between Christians and Jews: first, Jews were offered salvation, but they rejected Jesus as the Messiah, and therefore God turned to non-Jews, who accepted the message and became Christians. This is in keeping with God’s plan of salvation. In the Christological rewriting of Psalm 8, for example,

God let the small children praise him when he came into Jerusalem. They shouted and sang; blessed be thou, who comes in almighty God’s name! This you did for the shame and scandal of your enemies, the Jews,

4 Christiern Pedersen, Christiern Pedersens Danske Skrifter [Danish Works by Christiern Pedersen] 1–2, Carl J. Brandt and Rasmus T. Fenger, eds. (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1851–1852), 271–414. 4 Chapter 1

because they would not believe that he was the true God and the only son of heaven (283, cf. 291, 313, 316, 327.).

Many of the prayers focused on the Jews’ abuse of Christ and the suffering they caused him, for example, in the introduction to prayers about the passion:

Jesus Christ, the son of the eternal God, true God, and of man, was seized on Good Friday by the wretched Jews. His apostles and disciples immediately fled from him; he was bound fast and beaten and whipped unmercifully by the same infernal Jews and heathens (332) . . . On the morning of Good Friday, the same vile Jews shouted to Pilate, saying: Crucify, crucify this Jesus, who says he is God’s son from heaven (333).

The long rewriting of Psalm 41, in which Pedersen very effectively lets Jesus speak directly, is almost entirely about how Jesus was persecuted by the Jews, whose wickedness and deceitful plans resulted in his arrest and execution. The text of the prayers states directly that here the Jews cooperated with the devil himself (376). Several of the prayers delineate the sufferings that the Jews caused Jesus: they spat upon him, bound his hands, scourged his back, and so forth, and Pedersen uses several of the prayers to depict the vengeance that God took and is still taking on Jews. For example, in his paraphrase of Psalm 41 he has Jesus say, “Oh eternal God, send me your mercy and let me arise from the dead. Then I will avenge myself on my enemies” [the Jews] (376). This notion of the vengeance of God is brought forward into the present as well, but the notion of the eventual conversion of Jews to Christianity, which is often expressed in Christian theology, is also found in Pedersen: One day, “also the people of Israel, who are the Jews, and all others, kings and lords over the entire world, will finally come to the holy faith and together will serve the almighty God” (343). Approximately twenty privately owned, handwritten prayer books survive from the Late Middle Ages.5 They all come from the same period, ca. 1470 to 1520, and are similar in their structure and content. They belonged to women of the same social class, i.e., the nobility or the upper bourgeoisie. Some of them can be traced to the Bridgettine Cloister in Maribo. All sorts of prayers are represented, liturgical and dogmatic prayers, prayers of praise, of thanksgiving, and appeals to saints. In what follows, the prayer books will be treated

5 Karl Martin Nielsen, A. Otto and J. Lyster, eds., Middelalderens danske Bønnebøger [Danish Prayer books of the Middle Ages], 5 vols (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1945–1982). Jews in Literature and Art of the Church 5 as a single work despite possible objections to this method, and for the sake of clarity they will be summarized in several groups, according to topic:

1. Jews are often accused of having rejected the teaching of Jesus, of having rejected Jesus as the Messiah, and of having been directly hostile to him. He is often demonstratively called “King of the Jews”:

Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, save me from all evil. O holy God, O holy, powerful God, O holy, merciful God, show mercy on us poor sinners. Amen (IV. 4, 274).

2. In in the first prayer of Ingeborg Predbjørnsdatter’s prayer book (1519), meant to be said upon rising in the morning, the reader is urged to make the sign of the cross and to start the prayer with the words, “Jesus Nazarenus, rex judeorum, protect us . . .” (IV 120. cf. I, 75. II, 202. IV, 314. 316. 317. 330. 372.). 3. Anti-Judaism especially stands out in the numerous prayers and devotional texts about the suffering and death of Jesus. In them, the Jews are depicted as acting as a single, sizable, unitary group, and the prayers elaborate upon stories from the Bible, adding several legendary features. One example of the drastically anti-Jewish tone used can be seen in excerpts from the Good Friday prayer in Else Holgerdatter’s book of hours:

On Good Friday you are to read fifteen Lord’s Prayers and fifteen Hail Marys and so remain faithful to Our Lord in his suffering and visualize with heartfelt sorrow how he was bound and dragged from one judge to another. He was struck on the cheek before Annas, the chieftain, and spat upon many times . . . likewise, consider how Our Lord . . . his holy body was flogged . . . so that all Our Lord’s ribs were seen to be bloody and exposed, and all Our Lord’s inner organs were visible, just as when a garment is rent . . . Then our Lord Jesus sank to the foot of the pillar . . . but one of the Jews ran to the pillar and cut Our Lord loose from it, and then Lord Jesus tumbled down into his venerable blood at the pillar, and so much blood had run out of his venerable body that it rose above the ankle, and then the despicable Jews shoved him down into it and trod on him with their feet, and pulled him up by the hair and beard so the hair and beard were pulled out by the roots. And thus they pulled him up, and he was bloody . . . Then the Jews took rope and cord, tied them around Our Lord’s waist, and pulled him up a steep stone stairway so hard and mercilessly that his blessed teeth, nose, and mouth banged against the stone steps 6 Chapter 1

and burst into blood, and his body fell to the street. After that, the Jews made him a crown of thorns with the sharpest thorns, hard as iron, and they set it on his blessed head. With long staffs they pressed sharp spikes and the crown of thorns into his head so hard that it burst and brain matter ran out . . . then the Jews took the heavy cross and forced it onto his raw back . . . the Jew walking behind him tormented him so badly and pitilessly that all of our Lord’s footprints were full of blood . . . (IV, 51–52, cf. III, 306).

Jewish saliva is described as particularly repugnant:

And he was spit upon by the Jews, so his noble face was as wretched to see as if it were a leper’s, covered with his blood and the spit of the Jews (IV, 310).

4. The suffering and sorrow that Mary felt about her son’s suffering and death is emphasized in many of the texts, and here we can let the Virgin Mary speak to the Jews:

O, you miserable Jews, do not spare me now that you have crucified my only son, take me too and crucify me beside him, do not spare me. Alas, alas, now my whole life is dead . . . O you miserable Jews, now that you have had your way, give me, the grieving mother, the corpse so that I can find solace . . . (III, 320).

5. The God of the ancient covenant is now the God of the Christians, and as a consequence, the prayers tell of the punishment that God will bring down on all evil people, that is, “Jews, blasphemers, and evil Christians.” (III, 326). 6. As in other contexts, hope is expressed that Jews would someday convert to Christianity (III, 403). 7. Finally, we can see that the accusation that Jews harbor hostility toward Christians has persisted throughout history, hence the reader is clearly meant to transfer the many accusations against the Jews of the time of Jesus to the Jews of his or her own time.

These prayers give insight into the life of piety of that particular social class. Since there had also been many other collections that are now lost, and because the prayers themselves were presumably heard or read by many people, they had a considerable impact. Jews in Literature and Art of the Church 7

Not much material exists that could illuminate the attitude toward Judaism and Jews in the few surviving Latin sermons from monastic life. However, a single author, Peder Madsen, priest in Ribe in the 1450s, stands out.6 He embel- lishes the suffering of Jesus with non-biblical features, describing the Jews as those who tormented and killed Jesus, but he differentiates between ordinary Jews, and the Pharisees, who misled the people. He also brings the subject up to his own time, exclaiming, “Woe!” to the “Jews and heathens” who reject baptism, communion and Christian hope (180). Jews are doomed, one should avoid resembling them (325. 333). Moreover, Peder Madsen mocks Jews in one of the tales of miracles with which he illustrates his sermons: a Jew hung an image of Saint Nicholas up as protection against theft. When his property was nonetheless stolen, he flogged the picture of the saint (260). Toward the end of the Catholic era, Pedersen published a book of sermons he called Jærtegnspostille [Sermons on prophetic signs].7 For each Sunday and holy day he provided first a Danish translation of an epistle and a gospel text, then a sermon, and finally a story of a “prophetic sign,” (that is, a tale of a miracle, an incident from the miraculous life of a saint, or often a rather grotesque story) to illuminate the most important point of the text and the sermon. The author wrote that he was especially addressing laymen, but the book was also an effective device to provide material for the clergy to preach from. It is worth noting, however, that to a very great extent, Pedersen built upon older collections of sermons, on collections of parables, and other texts. It would of course be impossible to go through sermon after sermon here to shed light on his view of Judaism and Jews, but a series of themes could be listed and examined to find Pedersen’s position on them in the various sermons. It is clear that Pedersen takes the traditional Christian line: Jews were a people specially chosen by God. They were the first to be given the law and the covenant, and Jesus was sent to them first of all. But what was their response? Most of them rejected him. Yes, they despised, mocked, and hated him, and the worst among them were the Pharisees and the scribes. Pedersen is briefly concerned with the question of why they reacted in this way. His answer is that the “disbelief and blindness and hardened hearts” of the Jews were the cause (I, 233–234). In places, he digs a little deeper and touches on the idea of “hardening of hearts,” but only by mentioning the concept (I, 151). The culmination was their crucifixion of Him, when the “vile, monstrous, desperate Jews” showed that they were in league with the devil himself (vol. 1, 151. 330. 332. vol. 2, 81). The result of this

6 Anne Riising, Danmarks middelalderlige prædiken [Sermons in Medieval Denmark] (Copenhagen: Gad, 1969), 55–59. 7 Pedersen, Danske Skrifter vol. 1–2, 1–270. 8 Chapter 1 crime was that Jews were rejected by God, that God decided that the Christian gospel would now be preached to heathens, and that Christians assumed the promises that had first been offered to Jews. Pedersen could also convey this line of reasoning up to his own time. Despite having been taught by the prophets about the coming Messiah, the Jews rejected him, and therefore “they now are scorned and spurned by everyone because of their disbelief” (I, 150). He also airs the usual prejudices about the greed and usury of Jews (vol. 1, 243. vol. 2, 107, 100). Nonetheless Pedersen holds open the possibility that even Jews could be converted to Christianity. Then Jesus’ promise in John 10:16 would be fulfilled, that is, “that Jews and heathens would enter into the holy Christian Church and into the true faith. Then there would be only one shepherd, Jesus Christ, who is true God and true man, and he shall guide and govern forever” (vol. 2, 30). In many places, Pedersen also uses the fate of Jews as a cautionary example for the Christians of his own day (I, 13–21. 324–327).

The Crusades

Along with the rest of Europe, Danes were seized by the crusade movement and took part in the First Crusade. During the Second Crusade many Danes took part in the German crusade against the Wends in northeastern Europe, just as Danish Kings carried out crusades across the Baltic Sea at the end of the eleventh century and at the beginning of the thirteenth century, supposedly to convert the heathens. The pope incited people to join these crusades, granting absolution and other privileges similar to those pertaining to the armies that went to Palestine. When Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) was planning a new crusade there, he naturally sent a papal bull to the Danish archbishop, in which he urged Danes to participate and to raise money to arm the troops (1293).8 The archbishop was Anders Sunesøn. He and the pope had known each other during their studies in Paris and Bologna, and now he was introduced to the pope’s policy on Jews. The reason for the planned crusade was to move God “to take from us that paralyzing disgrace by freeing that Holy Land, where he had fulfilled all our sacraments of redemption, from the hands of the heathens, and return it to his Christian people for the honor and praise of his holy name.” Palestine was to be freed and given back to its true owners—not the Jews, but the Christians, for that of course was where Jesus had walked about and

8 Diplomatarium Danicum/Danmarks Riges Breve [Letters concerning the Realm of Denmark], ser. 1, vol. 5, 1957, no. 29. Jews in Literature and Art of the Church 9 performed his works. It is thus the land of the Christians. This was expressed in the prayer that priests were to pray in connection with the processions and masses held in order to encourage Danes to undertake the journey:

God, you who with wondrous providence govern over all, we beseech and implore you to tear that land, beatified by your only begotten son with his blood, out of the hands of the enemies of the cross and return it to the Christian faith by mercifully leading the believers who need you in order to liberate it—as promised—unto the path of eternal salvation, by this, our Lord, etc.

The pope promised participants “complete forgiveness for the sins that they repent with all their hearts and confess aloud, and moreover, we promise them eternal salvation for this just vengeance.” In a more practical mode, the pope commanded that the worldly power—that is, the Danish king—should force Jews to give up any interest on the money they may have lent to Crusaders during the time they were abroad. Indeed, the pope demanded that all Christians keep from doing business with Jews and, on the whole, avoid having anything at all to do with them.9 This was a rather superfluous command as far as Denmark was concerned; the violent persecutions of Jews that took place in southern Europe in the wake of the Crusades were, logically, not experienced by Danes. Archbishop Sunesøn had even tried to avoid participating in the Lateran Council held by the Pope in Rome in 1215, but at the insistence of his friend, Pope Innocent III, Sunesøn journeyed all the way to Rome and thus took part in adopting many regulations, including those that tightened the clerical and worldly authorities’ position on Jews.

Jews in the Hexameron (ca. 1220)

Sunesøn’s (d. 1228) great work in Latin, Hexameron, is as the title suggests, a poem about the six days of creation, but only the first songs directly treat the story of the creation.10 The others, comprising twelve long songs in all, written in 8,040 hexameters, are about the Fall, the Trinity, the virtues, the sins, free

9 Danmarks Riges Breve [Letters concerning the Realm of Denmark ser.1, vol.5, 1957, nr. 29]. 10 Anders Sunesøn, “Andreae Sunonis Filii Hexaemeron” (Hexameron of Anders Sunesøn) in Corpus Philosophorum Danicorum Medii Aevi [Medieval Danish philosophical works] vol. 11, 1. Sten Ebbesen and Laurentius Boethius Mortensen, eds. (Copenhagen: Gad 1985). 10 Chapter 1 will, the two natures of Christ, the redemption, et al. Thus he actually goes through the most important points of Christian dogma, making the Hexameron the greatest theological work of the Danish Catholic Middle Ages, and on the whole, “one of the most ambitious poetic projects achieved in Danish literature,” according to Erik Petersen.11 In many places Sunesøn touches on the perspective of Judaism and Jews, for example, in his treatment of the Creation, the Ten Commandments, prophecies about the Messiah, about the passion and death of Jesus, etc. In his view of history and in his division of history into the “six ages of the world” (Aetates mundi), followed by the seventh and last age, the “Eternal Rest,” he follows a tradition from the ancient Church and the early Middle Ages. In his treatment of the Ten Commandments, it is interesting to note that, even though he does describe ritual sacrifice in Jewish observance as “offensive,” he will not condemn Jews for idolatry, because they had been commanded by God to perform it; it was a duty. Sacrifice had been correct at the time, but was no longer correct after Jesus had come. Now ritual sacrifice should no longer be performed:

We ought not to blame a circumcised Jew for idolatry Nor should we bring his unsightly sacrifice before Our Lord (vv. 2620–2623).

In similar fashion Sunesøn also argues that the Jews of Old Testament times could not have known better, so they received salvation even though they did not know Jesus Christ (vv. 3344–3347). He also debates eagerly with himself about the crucifixion. It was a terrible deed, but it had been planned by God. Were the Jews not innocent? They did not really exercise free will; they crucified Jesus because they thought that by doing so, they could gain entry into Heaven (vv. 5688–5689). But they were mistaken and committed a grave sin. How could they? It was because they were not filled with love, but with “con- fusion” and ignorance. Ignorance was not an excuse for them, because a person should always maintain “a spark of reason.” If they had really studied the Scriptures, the darkness of error would have been removed from their hearts and they would have honored and worshiped Jesus instead of murdering him (vv. 5707–5709). So they were condemned by God, and instead of heavenly joy, they were given eternal death in hell (vv. 5692–5693). Research has identified some of the sources Sunesøn used in writing this work. Among others, there were theologians—for example, Isidor of Seville

11 Erik Petersen, “Ut nocte vivantes . . . Nogle noter om Sunesen og skabelsen” 1 (Ut nocte vivantes . . . Some remarks on Sunesen and the creation), in Præsteforeningens Blad [Journal of the Danish union of clergy] 50, 1985, 917–924, here 923. Jews in Literature and Art of the Church 11

(ca. 560–636), Richard of Saint Victor (d. 1173), and Robert of Melun (ca. 1100– 1167) and his circle—whose writings he had encountered during his studies in Paris. However, it is interesting to notice that where his sources threw themselves into violent repudiation of the Jews of their time, Sunesøn held back. He omitted all that—probably for the simple reason that it was not apropos in Denmark where there were, as yet, no Jews.

The First Danish Anti-Jewish Publication (1516)

Josef Pfefferkorn (ca. 1469–ca. 1523) who had been brought up by an uncle, who was a rabbi, converted from Judaism to Christianity in 1504, taking the name Johannes. He was employed at a Catholic institution, Saint Ursula in Cologne. Together with the Franciscans, he initiated vigorous missionary work in southern Germany to exhort other Jews to take the same step. He lured, threatened and attacked Jews, accusing them of being a danger to Christians. He was especially known and notorious for his demand that Jews deliver all their rabbinical writings to Christian authorities for destruction. To a certain extent he succeeded in this—he apparently personally fetched 168 works from the synagogue in Frankfurt am Main, but a wave of protest arose against this deed. The entire protest was seen as a dispute between traditional Catholic theologians, proponents of scholasticism, and advocates of humanism, although more recent scholars have held that there was no great difference between these groups in regard to their views on Jews. Johannes Pfefferkorn’s work Libellus de Judaica Confessione [Little Book on the confession of the Jews], (1508) was translated and published in Danish by Poul Ræff, who strangely enough gave the work the Latin title, Nouiter in lucem data: iudeorum secreta [Recently brought out into the light: secrets of the Jews].12 At that time, in matters of religion and culture, Denmark was a prov- ince of Germany, and with this publication in their own language, Danes had direct insight into one of the latest trends in the German empire: the campaign

12 Johannes Pfefferkorn, Nouiter in lucem data: iudeorum secreta, Thenne Bog er vtdraghen aff Latinen [Recently brought into the light; the secrets of the Jews, this book translated from Latin] Poul Ræff, trans. and printer, Copenhagen 1516. I use this unpaginated original in the Royal Danish Library and I choose to call the page with the woodcut portrait of Pfefferkorn page one. Cf. Jonathan Adams, ed., Lessons in contempt, Poul Ræff’s translation and publication in 1516 of Johannes Pfefferkorn’s “The Confession of the Jews” (Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 2013). Cf. Avner Shamir, Christian Conceptions of Jewish Books. The Pfefferkorn Affair (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 2011). 12 Chapter 1 of clerical groups against Jews. Moreover, the Danish translator and publisher was a prominent person in the Church and in society. Master of Philosophy Poul Ræff (died ca. 1533) was the brother of Hans Ræff, the last Catholic bishop of the Diocese of Oslo, who became canon of the collegiate chapter of Copenhagen and in 1508 was rector of the University of Copenhagen. Poul Ræff was the first Dane to own and run a publishing house, where he published the official books of the Church. The first two chapters of the book give a description of rituals, customs, and prayers used in Jewish homes and synagogues during the entire period of repentance: the preparation for the New Year during the month of August (Elul), New Year’s Eve, New Year’s Day (Rosh Hashanah), and the following nine days until the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). The reader is certainly given comprehensive, concrete information on these subjects. Ræff reports on the important prayers: the Morning Prayer, Our Father Our King, Avinu Malkenu, and the Aleinu prayer. Naturally, the author’s motive is not to give an informative, objective presentation. On the contrary, time after time he interrupts his report with parenthetical remarks and various comments of a strongly polemical nature. One of his main assertions is that there is a great difference between ordinary, faithful Jews and their rabbis. The latter have introduced many practices and rituals that depart from the teachings of the Bible. For example, in his mention of the Tashlik ceremony he remarks that people shake out their robes over running water to transfer the sins committed during the year to the fish— “This is a vicious custom and a fallacy, not found anywhere else in the Old Testament, nor in the example of any holy man,” but they have taken it wholly from “their book they call the Talmud and from other specious, trumped-up concoctions and fictions that their rabbis and high priests have gathered and invented” (10). The author also informs us that the Jews reject the Trinity and are still waiting for the Messiah. He further explains that the reason they do not believe in Christian teachings is “their wickedness” (14) and their misunderstanding of Biblical texts. The descriptions of the many rituals were to serve to mock and ridicule Jews. Not the least of his examples is the Kapparot practice—the transference of sins in which the father of the family transfers the sins of the year to a white rooster for men and a white hen for women by swinging the bird over his head three times, citing scriptural passages, after which the poultry is slaughtered and given to the poor. The symbolic flog- ging with thirty-nine lashes also gets a harsh commentary: they get these lashes “with the understanding that if there is any sin left in that person, then it would be driven out through his behind, subsequently he would consider himself completely clean, pure, and liberated of all sin” (12). All Jewish prayers are either devoid of understanding and meaning or are prayers for wealth and Jews in Literature and Art of the Church 13 for taking revenge on Christians. Therefore Jews are being punished and scattered by God and will continue to be so until they become Christians; that is the reason they are the most miserable and despicable people in the world. The author’s intent is to have Jews converted to Christianity. He suggests three methods. Jewish ceremonies ought to be mocked and ridiculed everywhere, and then Jews will “turn from their evil ways and toward the Christian faith.” Another means is to preach the Word of God to them. Finally, their Talmudic writings are to be taken away from them. In their iniquity, Jews are simply worse than the devil himself. Besides that, Jews spend a great deal of time thinking up ways to damage Christians’ worldly possessions, and they often pray to God to help them subjugate the Christians. In this “wickedness,” one of their instruments is usury. The author therefore urges the authorities to expel the Jews from the country and—contrariwise—to force them to do physical labor in the sweat of their brows and to attend Christian sermons. But the authorities should be cautious when baptizing Jews since they are usually hypocrites, and as a rule avarice, love of money, is their motive for being converted (28. 45). On the title page, translator and publisher Poul Ræff writes that the book has been translated into Danish for all to learn of “all the secret rituals that the despicable Jews perform both in their temples and their houses.” He advises avoiding Judaism and Jews because contact would lead to the loss of the soul. He says his motive for publication is to provide information to ordinary, i.e., uneducated, Christian people, so that they learn to “flee and shy away from the vile Jews” and learn how to drive Jews away and “punish them for their transgressions.” For the first time, Danish readers had a virulent anti-Jewish text in their own language in which Jews were depicted as ridiculous, superstitious, misled by their own rabbis, enemies of the Catholic faith and the life of piety, avaricious, hypocritical, indeed directly dangerous for both the Christian faith and for worldly civilization. Poul Ræff urges the authorities to live up to their responsibility as the leaders of their people.

Judaism and Jews in the Art of the Church

Of course only a small minority of the population, those who could read and who had the means to buy books, could experience the contents of Ræff ’s book directly. The great majority were dependent on the interpretation of the clergy, church services—and on pictorial representations. That which was sung and prayed, read at the altar and preached, was also alive in pictorial depictions, in objects in the church, on the covers and in the illustrations of books, on 14 Chapter 1 clerical vestments, in frescoes, in ceiling and wall decorations, in the stained glass windows, and on altar pieces. The essential function of these pictorial representations was to edify and to support the verbally given sermons, liturgy, and reprimands, and they were intended to make a direct impression on the beholder, e.g., through images of the sufferings and death of Christ, of the Day of Judgment, and of Hell. These decorations were certainly art, but not art for art’s sake. They were didactic art. The Church used art to influence the concepts of Judaism and Jews held by the congregation, and the Church could be extremely harsh in its anti-Jewish polemics. In Danish medieval frescoes there are many examples of how Jews merely stand around as spectators of the works of Jesus or as listeners to his words.13 They are characterized by a symbol, usually used in European church art to mark a man as a Jew, the ‘Jewish hat.’ It could be a cone-shaped, pointed hat with a narrow brim, a round domed hat, or a hat with a stalk on top. In the reconstructed frescoes of Jelling Church, Jewish men are shown in the audience, listening to John the Baptist preach. They are all wearing pointed or round Jewish hats. Both hat styles are also seen worn by the Jews who are spectators while Christ carries the cross in the images in Tamdrup Church (ca. 1125). In many instances Joseph is pictured wearing a Jewish hat, and in Vilslev Church (ca. 1250) there are Jews in pointed hats standing at the gate of the city, perhaps discussing the situation and waiting for Jesus to enter Jerusalem. But in many other places, the paintings show the disparity between Jesus and other Jews, who exhibit scorn, hatred and anger. In Sindbjerg Church there is a dramatic presentation (ca. 1200) of the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53–8:11). Jews, most of them wearing either pointed or round hats, take threatening postures with stones in their hands; they could be about to cast stones at the woman or at Jesus. Hostile Jews are shown as a matter of course in connection with the sufferings and death of Jesus. Many pictures show Jews as the torturers and executioners of Jesus. In the frescoes in Hinge Church, brought to light in 1980, one of the forbidding executioners is wearing a Jewish hat, and in Strøby Church hideous men in long striped garments and Jewish hats weigh the cross down and torment Jesus while he is carrying it. The frescoes of cross-bearing scenes in Kongsted Church (ca. 1440) portray a man in a pointed Jewish hat walking in front of Jesus, who is dragging the cross. The man has pulled his hose down around his legs. By depicting a Jew exposing his posterior, the painter certainly intended to illustrate how Jews held Jesus in utmost contempt. In addition to this, in one hand, the Jew is carrying nails and a basket, in which tools, among them a hammer to be used in the crucifixion,

13 The frescoes can be found at www.kalkmalerier.dk and www.kalkmaleriinfo.natmus.dk. Jews in Literature and Art of the Church 15 are neatly arranged. In Biersted Church (late 1300s) a man in a Jewish hat participates in the torture. A tendency to let the perpetrators of the torture of Jesus all be Jews—and not Roman soldiers—is also known in other medieval European church art, just as we have seen it in the literature of the time. A high point in this ‘judaization’ is seen in the picture of the cross-bearing in Sorø Church, in which soldiers are wearing pointed hats and thus are depicted as Jews, even though they are dressed and armed as Roman soldiers. A motif seen on many altar pieces is the ‘mocking Jew.’ In Holmstrup Church in the cross-bearing scene (late 1400s) there is a man in a pointed Jewish hat standing next to Mary and Joseph. He is using both hands to pull the corners of his open mouth wide, either so as to whistle at Jesus or to make an offensive grimace. There are further examples of Jews sticking out their tongues, seen most clearly on the altarpiece of Bregninge Church, where a Jew is sticking his tongue out at the swooning Virgin Mary, who is being supported by John. Several depictions of the Ecclesia and Synagoga motif, well known from the rest of Europe, have survived in Danish medieval church art. During analysis of the frescoes in Råsted Church (ca. 1125–1140) art historians have both proven a strong influence from English art, and have pointed out the close correlation between these frescoes and the liturgical dramas of the Church. At the center, Christ hangs on a great cross with two groups of men around him. On the right, there are two men almost as tall as the cross. One, in a round cap is holding a bent branch. The other is wearing a pointed Jewish hat. Under the arms of the cross there is another, shorter man, the blind Longinus, who is piercing Jesus’ right side with a lance. To the left of Jesus, there are four men. One of them, in a round hat with a brim, is holding a sword at his shoulder and gesturing with his right arm. He is meant to be the centurion, who was the first to testify that Christ was the son of God. The other three, surely the ones who crushed the legs of the thieves, are wielding clubs. The one in the foreground and the one furthest back are wearing pointed Jewish hats. The man in the Jewish hat closest to the cross is holding two ladders, which are set against the arm of the cross. There is a little executioner in a Jewish hat standing on the ladder on the right, and another little executioner astride the left arm of the cross. Both of them are hammering nails into Jesus’ hands. The executioner on the right is wearing a pointed Jewish hat. Finally, at the foot of the cross, there is also a diminutive executioner about to hammer nails into Jesus’ feet. Several of the scenes of Jesus’ suffering and death are thus depicted at once. The figures were to stand for the acknowledgment or rejection of Christ; moreover, it was clearly important for the artist to have Jews take active part in the crucifixion. According to art historian Lise Gotfredsen’s interpretation of the fresco, Longinus represents Ecclesia, the Church, and the little executioner at the 16 Chapter 1 foot of the cross represents Synagoga, Judaism. She ties this picture in with the entire frieze, which culminates in the risen Christ with the lamb of the cross under his feet, and Christ handing the keys to Peter and the book to Paul. Thus the series stands out as a powerful proclamation of Christ’s life and his death of atonement, of the victory of the Church over Judaism. The Jewish figure at the foot of the cross symbolizes the figure iudeus infelix, the miserable Jew, i.e., a figure symbolizing the wretched fate that now has been brought down upon Jews, because of their crucifixion of Jesus.14 One of the most beautiful and most remarkable works of art in medieval Danish art is the Gunhild Cross carved from walrus ivory (ca. 1160). The cross belonged to Gunhild, the daughter of King Sweyn III Grathe (reign 1146–1157), and was used as a hand cross in religious ceremonies, a part of the ceremonial equipment of this princess. Liutger, the artist, apparently had contact with the art developed in the Holy Roman Empire during Henry the Lion’s reign (ca.1150– 1180), and is it assumed that Bishop Elias, chancellor to the king, was behind its creation, or at any rate, cooperated with the artist on the representations and text on the cross. The images and text on the front and back of the cross form a coherent whole and constitute a powerful testimony to Christianity as the only truth. Christianity alone is the way to the true and eternal life, as opposed to Judaism, which leads to damnation and eternal death in hell. The Christ figure that originally hung on the front of the cross is missing. There is a carved halo above the middle of the cross and the Latin inscription IHS NAZARENVS REX IUDEORVM (Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews) above it. In the upper roundel on the front of the cross, there is a carved figure, symbolizing life, of a queen with an open book in her left hand. The word VITA is written in it, the book of life. She carries a flowering branch in her right hand, with one finger pointing across to the book. In the roundel at the foot of the cross, is the antithesis of this: a figure lying crumpled in a coffin, holding its hand over its face. The lid of the casket is closed, and on it appears the word MORS, death. In the roundel on the right arm of the cross, there is a figure of a queen with a flying, unfurled banner that has a cross for a flagpole. She is holding an open book before her on which the words ECCLESIA SANCTA (the holy Church) is written. She stands up straight and stalwart, gazing at the (now missing) Christ figure. In the roundel on the end of the left arm of the cross, a woman is depicted, crumpled and pulling at her hair in despair. Her other hand is reaching up to her bowed head. She has turned her back on Christ. And in front of her, a book has fallen open. The word SYNAGOGA is written

14 Lise Gotfredsen, Råsted kirke. Spil og billede [The Church of Råsted. Plays and pictures] (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1975). Jews in Literature and Art of the Church 17 on it. Unlike the figure that represents the Church and the other figures on both sides of the cross, she has no pupils. She is blind. Thus there is a precise correlation between the victorious Church and life shown above, and there is also a correlation between the despairing blind Synagogue and death shown below. This proclamation of the victory of Christianity over Judaism is demonstratively emphasized by the inscription above: Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. The message continues on the back of the cross, where there are citations from Luke 24:39, Matthew 25:34, Matthew 25:41 and Luke 16:22–24, all in order to show that the judgment of the rich man, his damnation to hell and his eternal death now also applies to Jews when they reject Jesus as the Christ.15 There are several depictions of Jews as the executioners of Jesus on what are called the Golden Altars of the 1200s. This is true of the Tamdrup altar, and on the frontals in Sahl, Broddetorp, Borgbjerg, and Års Churches. There is a Church and Synagogue motif on the Sindbjerg frontal, as well as on the Sahl frontal, where Christ sits on a throne in the middle, with the synagogue figure standing on his left, clad only in unsewn drapery that leaves her right arm and breast bare. Her eyes are blindfolded, her crown has fallen to the ground, and the lance she holds in her right hand is turned point down. She is turned away from Christ. The beholder certainly understands the defeat of Judaism, but the artist wished to express the message even more clearly: at the side of the figure of the synagogue stands Moses. He is holding a scroll, he has grasped her hand, and together, defeated and cast off, they must wander away from the throne of the Messiah. Above the Messiah is the dove of the Holy Spirit, and below him is the lamb of the cross, symbol of his sacrificial death and his victory. There is something abject and debilitated about the half-naked, blind Synagogue woman, groping with her cane, who needs to be led away.16 There was a fixed tradition for which motif could be painted on the various architectural features of a church. The chancel arch delineated the transition between the holiest space, where the main altar was, and the nave, where the congregation was. It is at the altar that priests perform the Eucharistic sacrifice, the highpoint of the mass. Thus, the sacrifice of Cain and Abel, man’s first sacrifice to God, or the sacrificial Lamb of God, the redeeming sacrifice, could be painted there. But in Spentrup Church (ca. 1200), not satisfied with only a fresco of the Lamb of God on the chancel arch, they extended the picture so it

15 Harald Langberg, Gunhildkorset: Gunhild’s cross and Medieval court art in Denmark (Copenhagen: Selskabet til Udgivelse af danske Mindesmærker, 1982). 16 Harald Langberg, Gyldne Billeder fra Middelalderen [Golden pictures from the Middle Ages] (Copenhagen: Nationalmuseet, 1979). Poul Nørlund, Gyldne Altre [Golden altars] (Copenhagen: Henrik Koppel, 1926). 18 Chapter 1 also depicts the theological conflict between the Church and the Synagogue. The artist has centered the piece on the Eucharistic sacrifice. The Lamb of God, the symbol of Jesus’ redeeming sacrifice, with a halo on its head and carrying a cross, is placed at the very top of the chancel arch. Grieving, Mary and John stand to one side, and two female figures, symbolizing Church and Synagogue, stand on the other. The latter is blindfolded with a yielding stance, head bowed to one side. A crown has fallen from her head and is on its way to the ground. The woman is clothed plainly in a drab, solid color dress with a cape over it. At her side is the woman who symbolizes the Church, clothed in a beautiful, long, light-colored, patterned dress. Over it she is wearing a cloak embroidered with lilies, the robe of a queen. She is wearing a crown on her head and is looking at the scene above. The Synagogue figure has stuck her long spear into the breast of the lamb, causing blood to flow. The steams of blood are caught just under the breast of the lamb by the Church figure, who is holding a chalice up with both hands. Under the feet of the two women, lies a coiled snake, but only the Church figure is treading on it—with her right foot. The chancel arch is the appropriate spot to powerfully demonstrate that the old covenant, Judaism, has been superseded by a new covenant, Christianity. The blood from Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, consecrated at the Eucharist by the priest at the altar, now belongs to the Church. Judaism is blinded, conquered; it has lost the crown, the emblem of power and glory. Therefore only the Church has been able to conquer the snake, evil, and death. Judaism was not capable of this. One special aspect linked to the painting is that Judaism thought it could kill the Lamb of God, Christ, but on the contrary, the result was that his death was redemptive, and because of his death mankind is repeatedly benefited by the holy sacrifice of the mass. What is more, the broken spear shows that Judaism suffered defeat.17 The Church-Synagogue motif is also found in other frescoes, in a book from the 1200s, and on the base of an altar table from the 1400s.18

17 Ulla Haastrup og Robert Egesvang, eds., Danske kalkmalerier 1175–1275 [Danish frescoes], (Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers,1987), 110–111, 150–141. 18 Louise Lillie, “Det levende kors. Et kalkmaleri i Linde kirke” (The living cross. A fresco in Linde Church), in ICO: Iconographisk Post [Journal of iconography] 1, 1989, 1–10. Sissel F. Plathe, “Das Hornebuch und die Pergament Streifen im Bergkristall des Nationalmuseums von Kopenhagen” (The horn book and the pieces of parchment in rock crystal in the National Museum in Copenhagen) in Hafnia: Copenhagen Papers in the History of Art 11, 1987, 171–196. Chapter 2 Martin Luther’s Antipathy toward Jews and the Attitudes of Danish Reformers The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century

Martin Luther and the Jews

In his early lectures on the Psalms of David (1513–1515) and on the Epistle to the Romans (1515–1516), Martin Luther (1483–1546) attacked both “the rabbis” and any Christians who merely took historical views of the Old Testament, for it must be seen Christologically. Psalms, prophecies, even the historical books must be interpreted so that they point to Christ, and those who do not understand this—namely Jews, heretics and arrogant Christians—do not acknowledge that salvation can only achieved through faith in Jesus Christ. Here Jews and bad Christians are on an equal footing, although Luther did not believe that Jews were totally cast off by God. Like Paul and the theologians of the early Church, he thought that the Jews would be converted at the Second Coming. Christians should treat Jews with patience and consideration and they should pray for them. In Dass Jesus Christus ein geborener Jude sei, [That Jesus was born a Jew] of 1523, Luther intended to convince the Jews of his time that Jesus was the promised Messiah—it was thus a sort of missionary text—but it is remarkable that Luther treats Jews with respect here and that he distances himself from the way Catholic theologians and Church politicians had treated them until then. In this respect, Catholics have been stupid asses, fools and scoundrels because:

they have dealt with the Jews as if they were dogs rather than human beings; they have done little else than deride them and seize their property. When they baptize them, they show them nothing of Christian doctrine or life, but only subject them to popishness and monkery . . . I hope that if one deals in a kindly way with the Jews and instructs them carefully from Holy Scripture, many of them will become genuine Christians and turn again to the faith of their fathers, then prophets and patriarchs.19

19 Martin Luther, “That Jesus Christ was born a Jew” in Luther’s Works, Walther J. Brandt, ed., American Ed., vol. 45 (Philadelphia; Fortress Press 1962), 200.

Although Luther repeated his stern, fierce attacks on “rabbinical theology” in texts and lectures until the late 1530s, he still maintained that Jews should be treated “kindly.” But this kindness came to an end. In 1543 Luther published three texts, all fiercely anti-Jewish; the worst of them was Von den Jüden und ihren Lügen, [On the Jews and Their Lies]. In his introduction, he reports that actually he is altogether finished with concerning himself with Jews, because discussion with them is fruitless, and he no longer has any intention of trying to convert them to Christianity. In fact, it is hopeless. In the first section of the book, he states that Jews think they have a special place in the eyes of God, but Luther denies this. People, who all are sinful, have no advantages to present to God—everyone is subject to God’s condemnation. When Jews claim that circumcision is a particular sign of the covenant, Luther answers, in agreement with Paul, that the crucial matter is not physical circumcision, but is the circumcision of the heart. Nor can Jews boast of Mosaic Law; for one thing, they do not obey it, and for another, it is not the way to salvation. When Jews further assert that God has bestowed the Holy Land and the Temple upon them, Luther answers that God in His wrath has precisely taken all that away from them, because they were disobedient. Luther is extremely polemical in this chapter; he mocks Jewish prayer and rants that they are not Abraham’s but the devil’s children, that they are generally bloodthirsty, vengeful and murderous. They should be ashamed and aghast that God has damned them. In the second part of the book, Luther goes to battle against the rabbinical interpretations of Old Testament texts about the coming of the Messiah. Interestingly, Luther does not hesitate to quote medieval Catholic theologians, and he ascertains that the rabbis simply turn God into a liar. Luther does not confine himself to theological considerations and interpretations. Again, he directs harsh accusations at the Jews as a people, and he draws diligently upon popular prejudices, rumors, superstitions and legends. He is capable of writing about: “the bottomless greed of the accursed Jews for the gold and silver of the Gentiles” and of reiterating stories of how Jews poison the wells of Christians and steal Christian children to kill them and use them for occult rites. Luther knows that he is on thin ice here, so he states that of course Jews deny all this:

However, it all coincides with the judgment of Christ, which declares that they are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the devil, who sting and work harm stealthily wherever they cannot do it openly. Martin Luther’s Antipathy toward Jews 21

They definitely do not lack the unfaltering, eager desire to do these things—if only they could achieve them, publicly or secretly.

Both in this text and in his next, which came out soon afterward, Vom Schem Hamporas und vom Geschlecht Christi [On the Unknowable Name and the Generation of Christ], Luther discusses the ‘Jewish Sow image’ on the exterior wall of the Stadtskirche of Wittenberg (Town and Parish Church of St. Mary, called Wittenberg City Church). This vulgar, unpleasant image shows kneeling Jewish men suckling from a big sow. A Jew is crouched down under the sow’s neck, and at the far left, a Jew is lifting the sow’s tail to peer into its anus. All the men are marked as Jews with Jewish hats and the Jewish badge, a circle, on their clothing. Luther’s explanation is that the sow is the Talmud, where Jews find their learning and their secrets. The sandstone relief from ca. 1305 is still to be found on the exterior wall of the Wittenberg City Church. In the third part of the book, Luther discusses the lies that he claims Jews spread about Jesus, the Virgin Mary and all Christians. In the fourth part, he puts forward a list of measures that should be taken against Jews:

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blasphemy. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing, and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames.

Luther lists the seven measures that he suggests the authorities and all others should take: 1) All synagogues and Jewish schools should be burnt down, and those buildings that cannot burn should have earth piled on them to bury them. 2) The houses of Jews should be destroyed and they could live in open shelters or in stables as gypsies are made to do. This would make them realize that they are not to be masters in our country, but that they are to live in misery as captives. 3) All their prayer books and Talmudic writings should be confiscated. 4) Their rabbis should be forbidden to teach on penalty of death. They are “bandits” who fill the Jewish people with poison, curses, and vilification; they are just as dishonest and deceptive as the pope. 5) Safe-conduct for Jews on the highways should be abolished; they have no business in the coun- tryside. 6) Jews should be prohibited from engaging in usury, and all cash and 22 Chapter 2 treasure of silver and gold should be taken from them because everything they possess has been pilfered from Christians by one or another means. The riches confiscated should be bestowed on those Jews who make a sincere conversion to Christianity, to provide them with capital for starting a new life. 7) Young Jews and Jewesses should be given flails, axes, hoes, spades, distaffs, and spin- dles, letting them earn their bread by the sweat of their brows, for it is not fitting we should toil while they loaf by the oven, feasting, getting fat, and mocking us. We Germans should be just as wise as those in countries that have driven out all the Jews, “so in any case: Out with them!” Luther encourages secular authorities to follow these suggestions and he encourages priests to warn their congregations against Jews. Finally, Luther directly addresses every Christian:

When you lay eyes on or think of a Jew you must say to yourself: Alas, that mouth which I there behold has cursed and execrated and maligned every Saturday my dear Lord Jesus Christ, who has redeemed me with his precious blood.20

Luther’s unmercifully strident anti-Judaism lasted until the end of his life. The month before he died, he suffered a chill and a headache while stopping in a little country town on his journey to Eisleben in January 1546. He believed it was caused by the many Jews who lived there. He wrote about it to his wife Katharine, enlarged upon the number of Jews in those parts and how the nobles treated them. He told her that he would comment on it in his next sermon. He did this in his last sermon, in which he again brought out his earlier arguments, claiming that Jews ceaselessly harmed Christians, mocked Jesus and Mary, and that they would murder all Christians if they could. Luther did what he could to have his anti-Jewish program carried out. Jews had already been forbidden to live in his duchy, the Electorate of Saxony, and in 1543 a stricter ordinance tightened policies toward Jews. Jews were forbidden to travel through the duchy, and their possessions were to be confiscated. Luther was actually staying with the Elector of Saxony on May 6, 1543, the day the ordinance was issued, and in the preface to the ordinance there was a reference to Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies.21

20 Martin Luther “On the Jews and their Lies” Luther’s works, vol. 47 Franklin Sherman, ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press: 1981), 121–306, here, 211. 264. 268. 272–274. 21 Martin Luther’s “Eine Vermahnung wider die Juden” (An admonition against the Jews) in Dr. Martin Luthers Werke, vol. 51 (Weimar, 1914), 195–196, with which Luther ended his last sermon in Eisleben on Feb. 15, 1546, was not included in the American edition: Martin Martin Luther’s Antipathy toward Jews 23

A great deal has been written in recent times about Luther’s opinions on Jews and Judaism. Writers have linked his anti-Jewish line of reasoning with his theological clash with Catholicism. They have attempted to identify the source of his extreme anti-Jewish feelings, his real hatred of Jews. They have questioned whether he had held the same views all his life, or whether he had changed opinions and, in that case, why he had done so. At any rate, Luther’s views certainly had enormously devastating consequences on history, since it was held that the great teacher’s anti-Jewish policies must be sound because his policies on so many other subjects were followed—the break with the papal Church, for example. Many held this view, and as we shall see later, even in Denmark Luther has been referred to numerous times right up to modern times in order to validate anti-Jewish positions. In both Germany and Denmark, Nazi ideologues and theologians influenced by Nazis made great use of Luther’s writings. Danish Nazis published parts of On the Jews and Their Lies several times, and one of the most notorious Nazi leaders, Julius Streicher, invoked Luther and this same text at the Nuremberg Trials in 1945–1946.22 Luther scholars are divided on this issue. Some think that there was no change in Luther’s opposition to Jews from 1515 until 1546. Others claim that he was friendly toward Jews at first, but then completely changed his attitude. In general it is important to be aware that the tolerance of modern times was foreign to Luther, and that he and the other Christian theologians of his times read the Bible differently from the way we do. Historical-critical methods of interpreting the Bible separate his time and ours. Furthermore, it can be difficult for us to comprehend Luther’s intense personal relationship to God, his conception of himself as a prophet, and his certainty that he was living during the last days, that Judgment Day was near at hand. Some researchers assert that we should remember that for Luther the entire attitude toward Judaism and

Luther, Sermons, vol. 51, John W. Doberstein, ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 383– 392. Martin Luther, “To his wife Katharina,” Feb. 1, 1546, Dr. Martin Luther’s Werke. Briefe 11, 1948, p. 375, no. 4195. Ibid., Feb. 7, 1546. Ibid., 286–288, no. 4201. Martin Brecht, Martin Luther vol. 3 (Stuttgart, 1987), 343–344. Mark U. Edwards, Luther’s last Battles (Leiden: Brill, 1983), 135–136. 22 Martin Luther, Jøderne og deres løgne [Jews and their lies], Olga Eggers, trans. (Copenhagen: Nordiske Kvinder, 1938). Ibid., 2nd ed., 1st imp. (Aarhus: Danmarks National-Socialistiske U., 1972). Ibid., 2nd ed. 2nd imp. (Aalborg: Nordland, 1988). On Streicher, see Pinchas E. Lapide, “Stimmen jüdischer Zeitgenossen zu Martin Luther,” (Voices of Martin Luther’s Jewish contemporaries) in Die Juden und Martin Luther. Martin Luther und die Juden [The Jews and Martin Luther. Martin Luther and the Jews], Heinz Kremers, et al., eds., (Neukirchen: Neukirchener 1985), 171–185 (171). Eric Gritsch, Martin Luther’s Antisemitism. Against His Better Judgment (Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 2012), 115. 24 Chapter 2

Jews was a theological question, that first and foremost he was concerned with the issue at the center of his new understanding of Christianity: that before God, everyone is sinful. We appear before Him with empty hands, we have no good works or the like to show in our favor. We are absolutely dependent on His mercy. This brought Luther into opposition with Catholic theology, but he could also use it against Judaism: Jews cannot avow that they are specially chosen, that because they are Jewish by blood, they are nearer God than others. When the Danish publishing house, Tidehverv, printed Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies in Danish (1999), one of the editors, the Rev. Jesper Langballe, declared that this text of Luther’s was nothing less than a theological tour de force. “Since Judaism teaches rejection of Christ, it is apostasy and blasphemy.” Luther’s book is “contemporary and indispensable in that it rejects the common religiosity prevalent today, which claims in the name of tolerance that, ‘All of us believe in the same God—Christians, Jews and Muslims’—a point of view that runs counter to everything Luther said and thought.”23 It may be true that this theological point is very central to Luther, but he did not remain at this stage of theological opposition in respect to Judaism and Jews. He went further to outline the societal consequences of this theology. Jews will be punished by God for not acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah, and Christians ought to help God carry out this punishment by burning down their synagogues and homes, confiscating their possessions, chasing them out of town, and so on. Here Luther exposes an unveiled hatred of Jews. The real reason for it is puzzling—we cannot use the argument that this was the way Jews were generally perceived at that time. It does not hold. There were those of Luther’s contemporaries who did not follow Luther—among others, Luther’s closest colleague, Melanchthon. The Protestants of Zurich were shocked by the texts of 1543. One of them wrote, that Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies was so “bestial and filthy” that it might have been written by a swineherd rather than a great shepherd of souls. There is nothing to indicate that Luther had been provoked by specific Jews, nor any evidence to prove that he had become old and senile in 1543, a few years before his death. Other texts and letters of his from that time prove otherwise. On the other hand, it should be remembered that the tone of polemical arguments of the1500s were quite crude and vulgar, but Luther’s indulgence in vulgar and scatological expressions in his anti-Jewish writings went far beyond the limits of other writers. We can only conclude that the source of Luther’s hatred of Jews is simply not understood.

23 Jesper Langballe, “Luthers grovhed og vor tids vulgaritet” (Luther’s crudeness and the vulgarity of our times), in Kristeligt Dagblad, Nov. 3, 1999. Martin Luther’s Antipathy toward Jews 25

This Evil People—Hans Tausen and Peder Palladius

The Views of Hans Tausen and Peder Palladius After King Christian III implemented the Lutheran Reformation, the leading theologians in Denmark-Norway were Hans Tausen (1494–1561) and Peder Palladius (1503–1560). A great deal of material survives to illuminate their views on Judaism and Jews. In this connection the most important book by Hans Tausen is his two-volume collection of sermons for Sundays and holy days, Postille from 1539.24 The work consists of sermons on both the epistles and the gospel texts. Of greatest interest from Peder Palladius’ work is his great 660-page Latin commentaries on the books of Moses, Librorum Moisi, qvi sunt Fons doctrinae Ecclesiae [The books of Moses, which are the source of the doctrine of the Church] from 1560. Under the heading Scholia (themes) Palladius goes through all the chapters in the five books of Moses, lists their contents, places them in relation to the other chapters, and cites chapter and verse from the Old and New Testaments that could be illuminating. All this is then collected in a sequence of numbered pieces he calls Loci praecipui [Most important places]. Thus they are actually not commentaries, but an overview created to help the reader understand the parts of the books of Moses that deal with the religion, history, and geography of ancient Israel. But this is not the most important aspect of the work. His main intention is to show that the books of Moses deal with Jesus as the Christ in one chapter after the other. He points out a great deal of factual information that previously had been unknown in Denmark and, although he often writes without polemics, it could of course be said that his whole idea, that the books of Moses proclaim the coming of Jesus as Christ, is in itself, a massive attack on Judaism. Here and there he also puts forward the anti-Jewish views and prejudices of his times. Since these two theologians had the same views of Jews and Judaism, these can be listed under common headings. It is significant that both theologians start to comment on Jews and Judaism in their examinations of very first page of the Bible. Thus they equate the Jews of the Bible with the Jews of their own times. All the reproach, insult, and ridicule they point out about the Israelites of the Old Testament, their many peculiar rituals, betrayals and transgressions, are thus transferred to the Jews of the 1500s, and the accusations against the ‘New Testament Jews’ for their rejection and crucifixion of Jesus are transferred to the Jews of the Reformation.

24 Hans Tausen, Postil, [Sermons] vols. 1–2, Bjørn Kornerup, ed., facsimile edition (Copenha- gen: Levin and Munksgaard, 1934). 26 Chapter 2

Another theme that runs through Palladius’ work is his treatment of all history as the history of salvation. He describes a time line from the Creation to Judgment Day. The coming of Jesus Christ is at the midpoint of his history. Palladius has a Christological view of the Old Testament. He puts a lot of effort into finding prophecies of the coming of Christ, either as direct statements or as prefigurations of Christ, for example, in Joseph and his troubles, the entire Moses story, Atonement Day, and others. The most important text in the books of Moses is Deuteronomy 18:15–19, since it is here that Jesus Christ is foretold, and Palladius throws himself into a contemptuous account of “the faithless Jews and their rabbis,” who do their utmost to evade this explanation. God’s plan for a redeemer was clear from the very beginning, hence Palladius can say that the true Church was founded in the Garden of Eden and that there have been pious people who believed in God and belonged to the righteous Church since the very beginning, although they always had to battle against disbelievers. Palladius denotes two groups. The disbelieving, evils ones were Cain, the evil Israelite kings, the Jews who crucified Jesus, Nero, Domitian, Arius and other heretics, all the men of popery and the Catholic emperors. The faithful, good ones included Noah, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, the pious judges and kings, John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, Paul, Augustine, Tauler, Luther, Melanchthon, Bugenhagen—and Palladius’ king, Christian III of Denmark! Christians are God’s people as they have been from the beginning of time— indeed, he writes, it is an invaluable comfort for us Christians that our religion had such a prophet as Moses. With this perception of the truth, it logically follows that salvation would be possible for the Jews of his time. Both Hans Tausen and Peder Palladius were convinced that the Jewish people were chosen by God. One sign of this was circumcision, Tausen explains. In a New Year’s Day sermon he boldly delves further into circumcision (Luke 2:21). Why had God not chosen a sign that was more dignified and more visible? For example, he could have decided that a little bit of the nose or one of the fingers or toes should be cut off. Tausen answers his own question, saying that God wanted to choose something that is not outwardly visible precisely in order to bring human wisdom and ingenuity down to size. We are to surrender everything that is corporeal and human and to honor only God. How did the Jews react to this status as the chosen? Both theologians often repeat the notion that from the very beginning until the 1500s, Jews have been proven to be ungrateful and wicked toward God. The culmination of this was their rejection of Jesus as Christ and the crucifixion. Tausen says that they would not acknowledge him “solely because he did not have the style and personality they wanted in a messiah.”25

25 Tausen, Postil vol. 2, 195v. Martin Luther’s Antipathy toward Jews 27

This is why God had to punish the Jews. Both he and Jesus had been for- bearing for a long while, but after the crucifixion, the last straw had broken the camel’s back. Hans Tausen explains this in a sermon on Saint Stephen’s Day (Matt. 23:34–39), providing his text with his comments on the “Jews’ old bloodthirstiness” and, “Now the Jews will get their just deserts.”26 Both he and Peder Palladius were preoccupied by the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70, and they emphasized that it was the Jews’ own fault. The punishment of God was just. This brings them to the Jews of the present. They explain that God’s rejection of Jews continues into the present, because Jews still will not acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. In his undated epistle to the deans and priests of the Diocese of Ribe, Tausen says that Jews are still wandering around “lost and blind . . . evil, that is what they are, and they behave heinously . . . they are the deceptive, stinking dung of the devil.”27 In one of his works on heretics, in which he comments on the early Church sectarian Proclianites, who denied that Jesus was human, Palladius writes:

It is the same thing the foolish Jews claim to this day, since they still follow their Talmud, yes, they are still waiting for the Messiah to come, but that is useless, for we can see that Christ has come, as the prophets had promised . . . we must fight, not only the papists and heretics, but also this Jewish slime and scum we have here in our day . . . these blind, unbelieving people are not only damned by God, but also by the entire world.28

Palladius also retells tall tales from the Middle Ages in which Jews commit crimes with Christian communion bread, and Hans Tausen informs us that Jews, “are arrogant, deceitful, avaricious hypocrites.”29 Nonetheless, those are not the last words Hans Tausen and Peder Palladius have to say about Jews. After Hans Tausen had repeated Jesus’ harsh words (Matt. 23:34–39) about Jerusalem and its citizens in his text for Saint Stephen’s Day, he writes that in spite of everything, “Jesus did not simply cast the Jews out without comfort.” He gave “those of Jewish blood the consolation that they could still hope for salvation.” This was conditional, however, on their belief in Jesus as the Messiah. And referring to Romans 11, he explains that the

26 Tausen, Postil vol. 1, 51–53v. 27 Tausen, “Sendebrevet” (Epistle) in H. F. Rørdam, ed, Smaaskrifter af Hans Tausen [Short works of H. T.] (Copenhagen: Thiele, 1870), 253. 28 Peder Palladius, “Catalogus Hereticorum” (Catalogue of heretics) 1556, in Kirkehistoriske samlinger (Copenhagen: Selskab for Danmarks Kirkehistorie, 1970), 12–45. 29 Tausen, Postil vol. 1, 53v. 28 Chapter 2 conversion of the Jews was an eschatological sign. At the end of the world God will remove the division between Jews and Christians (Eph 2:14).30 Similarly, Palladius writes that the true Church of the Lord consists of both the tribes of the children of Israel and the tribes of all peoples, because there have been “pious Jews” ever since the beginning of time.31 Lastly, a particular matter must be brought up. The discussion of Judaism and Jews did not actually play a great part in the writings of Danish reformers. It was much more important for them to teach Christians a lesson they would not forget. The fate of the Jews was a cautionary tale directed at those Christians who did not repent and reform. The righteous wrath of God would strike faithless Christians just as powerfully as it struck Jews. Both theologians grouped the Christians with Jews, as “accomplices in guilt” in respect to God. Hans Tausen wrote aptly that Jesus may have pronounced his damnation on Jews (Matt. 23:37) but “he really meant the entire world.”32 In conclusion, these two leading Danish reformers were in agreement with Luther in their theological views of Jews and Judaism, but nowhere did they cite or refer to the three anti-Jewish texts written by Luther in 1543, discussed above. They neither imitated Luther’s vulgar polemical tone nor repeated his suggestion of punishing Jews and casting them out of Christian society. It cannot be determined whether the simple reason was that there were no Jews residing in Denmark yet, or whether it was that they disapproved of this side of their great master.

The Destruction of Jerusalem The central theological concept of Lutheranism (the redeeming death of Jesus and its meaning for the individual) brought about increased interest for the story of the suffering of Christ, and with it, opposition to Jews and Judaism. Countless books, many of them illustrated, dealt with this. The most widely read book was a work that combined and harmonized the passion narratives of the four evangelists, Passionsharmonie, composed by Johann Bugenhagen (1485–1558) Bugenhagen had become parish priest of Wittenberg City Church in 1523, then Dr. theol., professor, and superintendent of the Church of Saxony. He wrote some introductory chapters to the text, “The Causes of the Death of Christ” and “About the Blindness of Jews.” In these chapters, and also in a series of marginal notes, he aimed countless attacks on “the raging dogs,”

30 Tausen, Postil vol. 2, 27–28. 31–31v. vol. 2, 214v. 31 Petrus Palladius, De Poenitentia et de Iustificatione [On repentance and justification] (Wittenberg 1558), 11–13. 32 Tausen, Postil I, 51. 54. Martin Luther’s Antipathy toward Jews 29 the Jews, those of Jesus’ time and those who came afterward. In later editions he added Isaiah 53 and a chapter on the destruction of Jerusalem, which he based on the work of the Jewish historian Josephus, The Jewish War (ca. 79). Josephus had personally witnessed the horrors of war in the year 70, when the Romans starved and tormented the population of Jerusalem, burnt down the Temple, slew the people rampantly, and enslaved and deported innumerable inhabitants. It had always been significant to the Christians that a Jew had reported all this, which the Christians saw as the prophecies about Jesus come to fruition, as in Luke 21, for example. The veracity and effect of the story was strengthened, coming from a Jewish historian. Josephus actually became a major Christian star witness against the Jewish people. It must be noted that Bugenhagen and others had ‘Christianized’ Josephus’ story by using strongly anti-Jewish turns of phrase and by making it clear that the Jews themselves were to blame for their terrible fate. The Jews had rejected Jesus as the Messiah; God’s retaliation was just.33 Bugenhagen’s book apparently filled an enormous vacuum. It became the most widely distributed of all his books, published on its own and also as an appendix to Evangelical hymnals. By the eighteenth century there were no fewer than sixty-three Latin and German editions in the bibliography of his works, not to mention one Polish, one Icelandic, and five Danish editions. The Danish translation was by Hans Tausen, Vor Herres Jesu Christi Hellige Passies oc pinsels hystori ord fra ord wddragen aff alle iiij Euangelister med en føye forkaring aff M. Hans Tausen, København 1538 [The passion and torment of our Lord Jesus Christ given word for word from all four Evangelists with an introduction by Master of Theology Hans Tausen]. Tausen incorporated it into his collection of sermons, but he changed it by attaching a sermon to each section of the Passion story. These sermons fume with outrage and with condemnation of the Jews of Jesus’ time and those of Tausen’s time. Later, Peder Palladius published a Danish translation of Bugenhagen’s book in which he simply used the biblical texts and left out Bugenhagens’s chapter, “On the Blindness of the Jews.”34 Palladius’ translation of Bugenhagen’s compilation

33 Johann Bugenhagen, Iohannis Bvgenhagii Pomerani Annotationes ab ipso emissae. In Deuteronomium, [J. B. Annotations from his letters] (Basel: 1524). Die Historie des leydens vnd der Aufferstehung vnsers Herrn Jhesu Christi aus den vier Euangelisten durch Johannem Bugenhagen Pomer vleyssig zusammen bracht [The story of the suffering and the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ from the four gospels diligently brought together by Johannes Bugenhagen of Pomerania] (Wittenberg, 1526). 34 Peder Palladius, trans. “Vor herris Jhesu Christi Pinis, Døds og ærefulde Opstandelsis historie . . . ved Johannem Bugenhagen Pomer. Oc nu vddragen aff vor danske Bibel ved 30 Chapter 2 of the four Passions was placed at the end of Danish hymnals and has been there ever since. It appears in the current hymnal, Den Danske Salmebog.35 From the beginning, the chapter on the destruction of Jerusalem was also included. Bugenhagen’s text had been translated into Danish and published by priest Peder Tidemand as Jerusalems jammerlige ødelæggelse [The lamen- table destruction of Jerusalem] in 1539, and was hugely popular. It was republished generation after generation until the end of the nineteenth century. It was an independent work, but, by being incorporated into Danish hymnals until the late nineteenth century, Jerusalems jammerlige ødelæggelse rose to an almost canonical position. His translation, with his additions and comments, is extremely ruthless in its denunciation of Jews. However, it is worth noting that Tidemand’s main motive is not to accuse the Jews but to urge Christians to reform and repent their sins—otherwise they would end up like the Jews. This was all to serve “as an exhortation to all of us to whom God has so munif- icently given his word in these last days, so that we shall know the hour of our visitation and learn from the mistakes of others. If the neighbor’s house is on fire, watch out for your own home! they say.” In an edition of another German author’s passion story, Tidemand went so far as to say that the Jews who attended the crucifixion “were no less than our executioners, since if our sins had not existed, Christ would have been spared being harmed by them.”36

Jews in Church Prayers and Edifying Writings

This attitude toward Jews and Judaism that parishioners learned from sermons and devotional literature was supplemented by the texts of the official church prayers, the collects. On the tenth Sunday after Trinity Sunday the priest was to pray, “Let us not denigrate your words as your people, the faithless Jews, did.” On the twenty-fifth Sunday after Trinity the prayer was: “Preserve us from all delusion and heresy so that we do not become ungrateful like the Jews and

D. Petrum Palladium” (The story of the suffering, death, and glorious resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . by Johannes Bugenhagen of Pomerania, and now excerpted from our Danish Bible by Dr. Peder Palladius), in Peder Palladius Danske Skrifter [Danish works by PP] 4, Lis Jacobsen, ed. (Copenhagen 1919–1922), 141–198. 35 Den Danske Salmebog, [Danish hymnal] (Copenhagen: Det Kgl. Vajsenhus, 2003), 1314–1331. 36 Blüdnikow, Bent, ed. Fremmede i Danmark. 400 års fremmedpolitik [Foreigners in Denmark. Four hundred years of policy on aliens] (Odense: Odense Univ.Forlag). Peder Tidemand, trans., Passio . . . aff Vito Theodoro [The passion . . . by V. T.] 1556. Martin Luther’s Antipathy toward Jews 31 despise and persecute your words.”37 The language used here was preserved by the Church for centuries. We will later see when and how the words of these prayers were modified. This position is also found in books for personal edification. One unusual book on the Passion, which is arranged with forty-three pictures on the left-hand pages and text on the right-hand pages, also contains several anti- Jewish prayers. For example, the picture of Jesus being led away by Pilate has the prayer:

Oh gentle Jesus Christ! We humbly pray that we not abuse your precious blood like those miserable people, the Jews or the papists and sacramen- tal fanatics, but that it may be a payment for our sins. Amen.

Facing the picture of the entombment (Matt. 27:62–66) the prayer is:

Oh, Jesus Christ, you living son of God! Although the miserable people, the Jews, have now accomplished their aims and had you put on the cross and caused your death, they still were not satisfied, so they demanded that Pilate have the grave guarded to make sure you were not removed. But they failed in their attempt. We pray that you will continue to heap shame and disgrace upon them, who oppose your holy name and honor. Amen38

God’s Own Language—The Study of Hebrew

At the beginning of the sixteenth century, academics in the humanities and Lutheran theologians threw themselves into the study of the Hebrew language for linguistic and theological reasons, not in order to combat Jews. Following the lead of the mother university in Wittenberg, the new Lutheran university in Copenhagen introduced Hebrew as a subject in 1537, and after a faltering beginning, King Christian III set up a chair in Hebrew studies in 1557. He did not intend to bestow funds on it, but found it suitable to obtain economic support from the clergymen of Lolland and Falster, imposing a special tax on them for this purpose. His grounds for setting up this professorship were that

37 Peder Palladius, “Alterbog” [Prayer book], 1556, in Lis Jacobsen, ed., Peder Palladius’ Danske Skrifter [Danish works by P. P.] vol. 3 (Copenhagen: H. H. Thiele, 1926), 439. 467. 38 Peder Tidemand, Historien om Christi Jesu vor frelseris pine og død [History of the passion and death of Our Savior Jesus Christ] Bl. D, 7; Bl. F, 2 (Copenhagen: Michael Loccher, 1556). 32 Chapter 2 knowledge of Hebrew would promote the honor of God and would lead to more correct preaching of the gospel. By this time Hans Tausen had already independently translated the books of Moses from Hebrew to Danish, and a few other Hebrew scholars were also known. The first textbook on Hebrew written by a Dane was Elementale Ebraicum [Elementary Hebrew] by Jakob Wilhelmsen in 1569. In the book the author emphasized the necessity of learning “God’s own language,” in order to avoid false interpretations and the consequent disputes. His presentation of the language had the conventional denigrating expressions about blind, impious Jews woven into it. In addition, he denied that the ancient Masoretes had worked out a vowel system, and he also polemicized against Catholic interpreters. But with this book, a beginning had been made, and in the following years, a series of young talented Danes devoted themselves to the Hebrew language, the Talmud, and rabbinical literature.39

39 Jacob Wilhelmsen, Elementale Ebraicum, ea praecipve complectens, qvæ ad facultatem & rationem recte legend Ebraica faciunt [Elementary Hebrew] (Copenhagen: Hafniae, 1569). Chapter 3 Jewish Immigrants, Freedom of Religion, and the Anger of the Bishops The Orthodoxy of the Seventeenth Century

Orthodoxy and Absolute Monarchy

The Luther Centennial of 1617, marking the day (October 31, 1517) that Luther posted his ninety-five theses, was a spectacular celebration of the exceptional position the Lutheran confession had in Denmark. During the next year, every resident of foreign extraction had to appear and take a vow according to the Fremmedartikler or alien laws of 1569, acknowledging the true Lutheran faith and denying all other faiths. In 1619 a binding vow, that is, a vow to abide by Luther’s Small Catechism, the Augsburg Confession and the creeds of the early Church had to be taken by all clergymen of the Church. A few years later, the same demand was made of all the professors at the university, not only the professors of theology. When absolute monarchy was established in 1660, the monarch also became the head of the Church, while spiritual authority belonged to the clerics. The Royal Law of 1665 stated that it was the duty of the king and his subjects to worship the one and only true God in the correct, that is, the Lutheran way as formulated in the Augsburg Confession of 1530. In a thousand-page work in Latin, Jus Regium [Law of the realm] (1663–1672), professor of theology Hans Wandal provided an explanation of the new form of government and of the king’s duty to oppose other notions.40

Judaism and Jews in Academic and Popular Literature

It was during this early period of Lutheran orthodoxy that Denmark had its very first encounter with Jews, and the government made wide-ranging decisions about the admittance of Jews to the country. As early as the beginning of the seventeenth century, the University of Copenhagen obtained a book by the German Jew, Christian Gerson (1567–1622), who had converted to Christianity. In this book Gerson explained why making Jews into Christians had been so unsuccessful, and he suggested that Jews be met with kindness; they should

40 Lausten, Church History of Denmark, 121. 127–133.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004304376_004 34 Chapter 3 hear sermons and discussions instead of abuse and invective. He also suggested that Christian missionaries to the Jews be educated in the Talmud. Unfortunately we can no longer discover how the university professors reacted to the book, because the relevant pages in the records of the university’s consistory are completely blank.41 Extensive academic studies of the Hebrew language and of Judaism were begun by German and Danish theologians in the seventeenth century. Most of their books were published in Latin, so the number of lay Christians and Jews who could read them was limited. The authors of the many books, disserta- tions, and articles had purely academic interests, but some also had polemical and missionary goals. The Sabbath of the Jews was attacked as blasphemy, as were their marriage rules and their view of Jesus. In this context, there was reference to the piece by Luther, On the Jews and Their Lies. Many of these ‘results of scholarship’ became well known by theology students and were echoed in their sermons years later. Interest in the Hebrew language grew in the late sixteenth century and continued into the seventeenth. Grammar books, text books, and numerous printed exercises for learning Hebrew were published. An indication of the strength of Danish interest in Hebrew was the decision of the consistory of the university in 1598 to permit the university press to buy Hebrew type in Wittenberg. Hans Poulsen Resen (1561–1638) became professor of theology in 1597 and Bishop of Zealand in 1615. In 1597 he was among the first accomplished Hebrew scholars. He suggested that Hebrew be introduced into the Latin schools as a subject, and in 1607, he undertook a revision of the Danish Bible based on the Hebrew text. He was followed by series of accomplished Hebraists. The first book to be printed in Hebrew type was a grammar by Cort Aslakssøn (1606).42 Niels Pedersen Aurilesius produced something close to a modern textbook for learning Hebrew in 1628.43 He had several characters conduct conversations in everyday situations. Their lines are written in Hebrew and translated,

41 “The conversion of Gerson,” S. Birket Smith, ed., Kjøbenhavns Universitets Matrikel [Register of the University of Copenhagen], 1, 1611–1667 (Copenhagen, 1890), 47. Christian Gerson, Der Jüden Thalmud fürnembster Inhalt vnd Widerlegung. In zwey Bücher verfasset [The Jewish Talmud, principal contents and refutations in two books] vols. 1–2 (Gera, 1613). The first edition appeared in 1609. 42 Cort Aslakssøn, Grammaticæ Hebrææ Libri duo [Hebrew grammar, book two] (Copenhagen: Hafniæ, 1606). 43 Niels Pedersen Aurilesius, Musæ Hebræorum Hafniæ Danorum familiarius inter se colloquentes, seu colloquia Hebræa. In gratiam juniorum evulgata [Hebrew for Danes . . .] (Copenhagen: Hafniæ, 1628). The Orthodoxy of the Seventeenth Century 35 not into Danish, but into Latin, which was not a problem for the students of the time. Starting with single words and short remarks, the book works up to longer, more substantial conversations. The author praises Hebrew, “the holy language,” and expresses admiration for the learned Jews who lived across Europe. But once in a while he weaves in generalized derogatory opinions of Jews. Here are extracts of the Hebrew textbook:

Peter: May the Lord bless you with a good day! Hans: Bless you. Peter: Goodnight. Hans: May you have a good night. Hans: What are you studying? Peter: Up until now I have done a lot of work in language arts, especially the Hebrew language because I love godliness, the law, the prophets, and the Holy Scripture. I also love the new covenant, in Greek—the gospel, the good news. The holy language is a great help in understanding all this, and my soul longs for it like a deer thirsts for running water. Understanding it is quite difficult without a knowledge of Hebrew because there are many expressions, not only from the holy language, but also from Aramaic and a lot from the Talmud, so it is not without reason that Hieronymus and Augustine urged us to study it.

Later Hans invites Peter to dinner, which presents the opportunity to discuss the eating customs of the Jews, and among other things, Hans informs his friend that Jews like to eat great quantities when they are out, but only a small amount at home.

Peter: Yes, that is the way it is, for in many places, I have seen that they are gluttons and drunkards. I find it strange, by the way, that they have such a strong smell! Hans: I can tell you why. They eat garlic and onions every day, not only in Italy, but also in Germany. Peter: Why do they desire garlic and onions so much? Hans: I do not know the real reason—perhaps because their forefathers ate such food in Egypt, as you can read in Numbers (Num 11:5). Peter: Let us talk about something else. It is not the Jews we like, but their language!

Jesper Brochmand (1585–1652), later to be Bishop of Zealand Diocese, was the foremost theologian of his time. In his nine-thousand-page work in Latin, 36 Chapter 3

Universæ theologiæ Systema [Universal systematic theology]44 he presented Lutheran teachings and rejected those of Jews, Catholics, Calvinists, Baptists, and sometimes also Muslims. Brochmand has a fundamentalist idea of the Bible; he claims that the scriptures came from God himself, who dictated them to the scribes. God dictated the Hebrew text so precisely that the Bible that we have received, including the vowels, punctuation and such, all originate from God himself. Moreover, it was important for Brochmand to emphasize the unity of the scripture. Both the Old and New Testaments were inspired by God, therefore both are canonical texts for Christians. Although God certainly gave the Old Testament scriptures to the Jews, they already contained the Christian message, so they are also canonical for Christians. But the Jews have not understood this message. With reference to 2 Corinthians 3:14, Brochmand writes about “the Blindness of the Jews.” The laws of Moses are no longer valid after the coming of Christ, but they still have religious significance, namely as a chastiser that drives people to Christ, making our sins clear to us and urging us toward acknowledging them and repenting, just as the law can also give guidance to reborn Christians. In his review of teachings about Jesus, he shows that the Old Testament confirms Jesus’ messianic status, and he rejects the Jewish expectation of a Messiah. He finds Deuteronomy 18:18 very important because he believes it refers to Christ. In the article (no. 42) titled “Relationship of a Christian State to Jews,” he emphasizes that the king has the responsibility of ensuring the maintenance of true, Lutheran Christianity in the kingdom, and of opposing all other faiths. He denies that two different religions could be allowed in a kingdom and holds that the Christian worldly head of state has the right to require that his subjects take an oath of allegiance to the faith. He asks whether Jews should be tolerated in a Christian state, and he describes three scenarios: 1) Some people reject this totally, because Jews are blasphemers. Jews reject the Trinity, revile the Holy Spirit, Jesus, and the Virgin Mary, and they regard Christians as doomed and damned; also, they deceive Christians and bleed them dry. 2) The second view is that Jews should be fully tolerated by the Christian authorities, because there is hope that some of them may then convert to Christianity. Further, Jews should be treated with hospitality because Jesus was a Jew. This argument had been used in the Middle Ages is used here again: It is good that Jews live among Christians because their exile is a mirror for Christians; they can witness God’s wrath toward people who despise the gospel. Furthermore Jews, with their money and businesses, will lead to the “enhancement and

44 Jesper Brochmand, Universæ Theologiæ Systema [General system of theology] 1–2 (Copenhagen, 1633, Leipzig, 1638). The Orthodoxy of the Seventeenth Century 37 enrichment” of the Christian state. Finally, it would be unwise to expel them, for in that case it would be more difficult to convert them, and their scoffing of God would be redoubled. 3) The third view takes an intermediate position: Jews should be tolerated in a Christian state, but only under certain conditions: Jews must not be granted the right to practice their religion freely, circumcision, and [surprisingly] polygamy must not be permitted; blasphemy by Jews should be strictly forbidden and punished; Jews must not be allowed to fill official positions; usury, by which Jews suck Christian dry, must not be allowed; they should be forced to attend Christian sermons; we should insure that Christians are not seduced into Judaism by Jews. Brochmand agrees with these demands, and goes one step further; he suspects that it would be impossible to enforce these requirements. His anti-Judaism becomes evident when he asks how we can ever be certain that Jews are not committing blasphemy and practicing usury. It would be gravely sinful for us to live among such unbelievers after giving them hospitality or civil rights. Therefore he concludes this chapter by stating that in this matter it would wise to follow Luther, when he says that Jews, who blaspheme against Christ and Christianity, should not be given civil rights nor be allowed inside the city gates of Christian countries.45 In one special paragraph he discusses the question, “May the children of unbelievers such as Jews, Turks and such be baptized?” His answer is that it would be permissible to baptize them if it were done without force, and without stealing children from their parents. Children may not be baptized if their parents openly reject the Lutheran faith. Jesus forbade us to cast pearls before swine in Matthew 7:6.46 He also rejects the idea that there will someday be a great conversion of Jews to the Christian faith (Rom 11:25, 26). This will never happen because the wrath of God is upon the Jews, he writes. Their hearts are hardened and they despise the true way to salvation. Peder Winstrup (1605–1679) became royal chaplain, doctor of theology and bishop of the diocese of Lund after studying abroad. In his Epigrammatum libri tres [Epigrams in three volumes] he described the stone relief of the ‘Jewish Sow’ on the exterior wall of the Wittenberg City Church (see p. 21). He thought that, although we might find the sow and the Jews depicted ridiculous, the image nevertheless had serious implications:

The most ungodly inventions of the rabbis / derive simply from the foulest waste of the sow / The sow’s backside is the Talmud that / these

45 Ibid., vol. 2, 5043–5045. 46 Ibid., vol. 2, 2067–2068. 38 Chapter 3

arse peekers look into / The rabbi’s disciples are swine, I opine / and the Rabbis themselves are two-legged sows / . . . etc.

In a new edition of the poem in 1653, the bishop added a heading that stated that the Hebrew people were as hard as stone, they killed Christ, who had otherwise done so much for them.47 Other more popular texts came out during this period, which while not religious in nature nonetheless revealed the current attitude toward Judaism and Jews. Some of them had been written by Danish theologians. One of them was the very wide-spread story of the wandering Jew, Ahasuerus. Kurtze Beschreibung und Erzehlung von einem Juden mit Namen Ahasuerus [Short description and tale of a Jew with the name Ahasuerus] came out in Germany in 1602 and was published in Danish in 1631 as Sanddru Beskriffuelse om en Jøde som vaar Fød oc Baaren til Jerusalem—ved Naffn AHASUERUS [True description of a Jew who was born and brought to Jerusalem—by the name of Ahasuerus]. Ahasuerus, who had refused to let Christ lean on his house and rest in Jerusalem on the way to Golgotha, later admitted that Jesus died for his and everyone else’s salvation. Now and for eternity he must serve as a living witness against the Jews, so that they and other unbelievers would see the light and convert to Christianity. It became a widely read chapbook in Denmark. New editions came out every century; authors used the story in plays and nov- els, and popular depictions of the Wandering Jew and the consequences of his actions were kept alive until the twentieth century. Other poems of the seventeenth century also expressed the usual anti- Jewish attitudes. In Dydernis Prøve-Steen [Touchstone of virtues] in 1671, Jørgen Steen Sehested reiterated the old prejudice about the avarice of Jews, and in Københavns mistrøstige dog villige fangers ynkelige klagemaal [Copenhagen’s despondent, and yet willing, prisoner’s complaint], a request for royal fund- ing, written in verse, he complained about the Jews, their vanity, hatred, and slyness, and declared that there were now quite enough Jews in the country.48 The contentious clergyman, Jacob Worm (1642–ca. 1693) wrote a lampoon that attacked Jews, saying that God would use Satan to punish them. (The actual intent of this insidious verse, however, was to besmirch Worms’s enemy, Søren Glud, Bishop of Viborg.).49

47 Peder Winstrup, Epigrammatum libri tres [Epigrams in three volumes] (Jena: Sumptibus Blasy Lobensteins, 1632), 591–597. 48 Jørgen Steen Sehested, Dydernis Prøve-Steen [Touchstone of virtues] (Copenhagen, 1671). 49 Jacob Worm, Jesu Klagemaal over Judas og Jøderne [Jesus’ complaint against Judas and the Jews] (Copenhagen, 1680). The Orthodoxy of the Seventeenth Century 39

Literary interest in the Passion of Christ, begun during the Reformation, was revived in the latter half of the seventeenth century. The most comprehensive and important Scandinavian contribution to this literature was Elias Naur’s Golgotha paa Parnasso [Golgotha on Parnassus] written in 1689, which consisted of 5628 alexandrine verses in 1407 stanzas, divided into five songs. It begins with a fourteen-page dedication to Jesus Christ, and is followed by the story of the Passion. With its blood-dripping realism, vulgar tone, angry mood, and strange associations, it is a good example of the High Baroque. At many points there are scornful, taunting, ridiculing, and denigrating remarks about Jews of Jesus’ time, and about the righteous punishment they received. But Naur adds that Christians are just as guilty as Jews in the eyes of God, and should therefore repent and make amends. Guilt for the death of Jesus belongs not only to the Jews’, but to everyone, because of our great sins:

Thus heathens have no less sin than Jews / In Jesus’ death each burdened his Jesus / with the weight of his sin, everyone is guilty of his death / It is simply the Christians, who crucified Jesus with their sinful lives: Who has killed Jesus if not you and I / And our fathers? Oh my soul remember this!50

Government Policies on Jews and the Reaction of the Bishops

The Danish economy was in trouble as a result of King Christian IV’s extensive construction projects, court expenses, and wars. The king saw the possibility of promoting trade by making a liaison with the rich Portuguese Jews of Hamburg and Amsterdam and offering them mutually advantageous agree- ments. Among others were the Jewish businessman Albert Dionis (Samuel Jachia), from the newly founded city of Glückstadt, and Manuel Tiexeira and Gabriel Gomez (Samuel de Caseres) both of Hamburg. These so-called court Jews could also work as court physicians or jewelers and were important to the royal house, and also to their fellow Jews, because of the privileges they received. Businessmen traded with both Christian IV and his successor Frederick III, delivering weapons, munitions, precious textiles, jewels and, last but not least, money. Thus in many ways Portuguese (Sephardic) Jews had privileges that the so-called German (Ashkenazi) Jews lacked. This legal distinction was maintained in Danish law until the nineteenth century.

50 Elias Nauer, Golgotha paa Parnasso [Golgotha on Parnassus] (Copenhagen, 1689), 327–328. 40 Chapter 3

Still, no Jews had been granted the right to reside in Denmark. They could travel around the country as long as they held a royal letter of safe conduct, which was only good for a limited time. Nonetheless, even in this strict orthodox Lutheran period of the State Church, one could occasionally encounter businessmen who were not Christian and who actually were Jews, with whom the Church had always had a strained relationship. Precisely during this time, spokesmen of this new age, in their efforts into further Danish trade, shipping, and industry, began to emphasize the importance of commercial policies rather than religious ones. These mercantilists believed that moral, religious, and personal interests must give way for the sake of the growth and development of the country. In April, 1671 the Ministry of State, Statscollegiet, a governing body created by the absolute monarch, discussed a proposal that the Ministry of Commerce, Kommercekollegiet, had made to promote trade.51 Without circumlocution, they wrote that although the regent was naturally obliged to strive to preserve the “pure, the only redeeming, Evangelical faith, now flowering in these realms and countries,” Portuguese Jews should nonetheless be allowed to live in Copenhagen, Christianshavn or Fredericia. They would be required to be experienced in international trade and be willing to invest a minimum of 5000 rix-dollars. In return they would be given the right to build a synagogue for their worship. Two other matters made it necessary for the Ministry of State to have a number of intense discussions about the problems of commerce and religion in 1671 and 1672. A majority of the Ministry were in favor of giving the above- mentioned Jews freedom to practice their religion, including the right to build a synagogue. But on the other hand, prominent minority voices proclaimed the duty of the king to preserve the Evangelical Lutheran faith and to take care “that foreign religions do not slip into the country.” That would be exceedingly dangerous, for it was known that such foreigners could easily influence commoners, especially young people, “who are naturally fascinated by any novelty.” Therefore they advised against “trading God for mammon and selling Christ for pieces of silver” (as Judas had done). Some were in favor of merely granting foreigners freedom of conscience, but not freedom to practice their religion. Others took the opposite position and proposed giving complete freedom of religion to everyone. Two members of the Ministry proposed letting Calvinists and Jews use “a house for a church” out on Christianshavn, then an outlying district just outside Copenhagen proper. Others thought that they should

51 J. Lindbæk, ed., Aktstykker og Oplysninger til Statskollegiets Historie 1660–1676 [Documents and information on the history of the Ministry of State 1660–1676] vol. 2 (Copenhagen: Gad, 1909). The Orthodoxy of the Seventeenth Century 41 be obliged to vow not to seduce the Christians of the country into changing religions. Some wanted to allow Jews freedom to practice their religion as long as the amount they had to invest was raised from 5,000 to 8,000 rix-dollars. At that juncture, the Ministry of State indefinitely shelved its discussion of the Ministry of Commerce’s report.52 This was perhaps caused by the entry of a new voice into the dispute, that of Hans Wandal, a professor of theology and the highest authority on religious questions in the country. He became bishop of Zealand in 1669 and sent the king a lengthy report that dealt exclusively with the proposed idea of religious freedom for Jews and non-Lutheran Christians such as Calvinists and Catholics.53 Wandal resolutely held that the only true form of Christianity was the Evangelical Lutheran faith, and that consequently all others were false. Believers of such faiths should not be “invited or summoned to live among us and practice their customs, profession, and commerce here . . . God in no way likes such an improper gathering and mixture of conflicting religions and sects under the rule and lordship of a Christian king . . . it is an abomination to him when you waver between two positions.” True, there are those who claim that all religions pray to the same God, but Wandal denies this: He who does not believe in God and worship him and Christ as he is revealed in the Bible— that is, in the Lutheran way—is worshiping an idol. Wandal underlined the duty of the king to be the guardian of “both tablets of the law.” It would be no less than the “works of Satan and the devil” if the king permitted such a thing. However,he acknowledged that “the Jews” would not be as dangerous as the others, since was inconceivable to him that a Christian could ever convert to Judaism. But he would not advise the king to allow Jews free exercise of religion since Judaism was “a fallacious religion and idol worship,” and if the king allowed it, he would be complicit in the “atrocious blasphemies and in the horrendous desecration and denigrations of God and our Savior that we know they spout in their religious services every day.”54 The king and his government put the entire project on ice. But in 1683 the comprehensive Danish Code was finally instituted. By law, no Jew might stay in Denmark without a royal letter of safe conduct. Otherwise the huge fine of 1,000 rix-dollars would be imposed, and furthermore, there was a reward of 50 rix-dollars for reporting an illegal Jew to the authorities. Despite this, it is noteworthy that Jews are not mentioned in the paragraph about crimes against true

52 Ibid., 24–129. 132–138. 224–228. 266–268. 53 Thorkild Lyby Christensen, “Hans Wandals remonstration,” in Kirkehistoriske Samlinger (Copehagen, 1980), 115–135. 54 Ibid., 120. 121. 128. 42 Chapter 3

Lutheran doctrine. Still, in the third book of the Danish Code, Jews are grouped together with gypsies as outsider groups. Nevertheless, during the 1670s the government began to grant residence permits to individual Jews. In 1673 Israel Fürst was the first to receive such authorization. Israel David, jeweler to the royal court, received his a few years later; Samuel Fürst received his in 1681; and other individual Jews followed suit. When more than ten adult Jewish men were resident in Copenhagen, they requested permission to hold religious services, and on December 16, 1684, a royal ordinance granted that Israel David, Meyer Goldschmidt, and “others of their nation” be allowed to practice “their devotions with morning and evening prayers and hymns, as long as their devotions did not include a sermon and were held in private, in a closed chamber, so that no one could be offended.” Thus this was the date of the founding of the first Jewish congregation in Copenhagen. The first services were held in Meyer Goldschmidt’s apartment until 1732, when he rented the part of the building at 46 Gammel Strand, a street that backs Læderstræde. In 1694 acre- age on Møllegade was acquired for a Jewish cemetery, which can be visited to this day. The Portuguese Jews were permitted to hold their own services, which had other rituals, eleven years later. The reason for this delay was probably that they had lacked the ten adult men needed to hold a Jewish service until then. In Fredericia, where the king had granted very advantageous export and import privileges as well as asylum, the few Jews living there were granted freedom of religion and permission to open a synagogue on March 11, 1682.55 By this time the king had granted a certain amount of religious freedom to Calvinists and Catholics, and bishop of Zealand Hans Bagger was distraught. He wrote to the king on November 12, 1685, to remind the king of his duty to uphold the true Church, that is, the Lutheran Church, in the realm. He complained of the activities of Calvinists and Catholics, and said that “there are also Jews here, who gather at their hours of prayer, preaching their wickedness against Christ right in the midst of us Christians, even though I doubt they have permission from Your Royal Highness to do so, and of which I had no knowledge until now.” These foreign worshipers distressed the bishop terribly. He believed that true Christianity was being threatened with extinction, and he strongly appealed to the King:

55 Julius Salomon and Josef Fischer, Mindeskrift i Anledning af Hundredaarsdagen for Anordningen af 29. marts 1814, [Memorial on the occasion of the centenary on the Royal Decree af March 29th 1814] (Copenhagen, 1914), 30. For cemetery see ibid., 149–155. Michael Hartvig, Jøderne i Danmark i Tiden 1600–1800 [The Jews in Denmark 1600–1800] (Copenhagen: Gad, 1951), 85–86. The Orthodoxy of the Seventeenth Century 43

Most gracious king! Thus we are already surrounded and encircled by a multitude of heretics, fanatics, and unbelievers, and if this continues how will it end? Therefore I now take the liberty, most gracious king, to urge you to issue a grave, strict edict against all this, so that our little Christian congregation shall not be scattered, but God’s Church may remain in these lands for our sake and for that of our descendants until the end of the world.56

But time had run out for Bishop Hans Bagger’s views. Only five days after he had sent the king this letter, the king extended to Catholics the privilege of holding religious services at a number of locations.

Baptism of Jews

The first known baptism of a Jewish convert to Christianity in Denmark was performed at Vor Frue Kirke, the Lutheran cathedral in Copenhagen on November 1, 1620. We owe our knowledge of this ceremony to university rector Cort Aslakssøn’s having reported it in Latin in the university register of students and staff, which is evidence of the importance given to this event. As has been mentioned, the rector was one of the great Hebraists of Denmark. The importance of this baptism is also reflected by the eminent status of the godparents. They were the cream of the crop of society, belonging to the royal court, the government, the university and the Church: Chancellor Christian Friis, the king’s most important adviser in respect to Church matters; Royal Councilor Holger Rosenkranz, known for his interest in theology and philosophy, who ran a private academy on his own estate; professor of theology Jesper Brochmand; Doctor Caspar Bartholin; Elisabeth Bille, wife of the royal trea- surer; Bishop H. P. Resen’s wife Anna Eisenberg; and Professor Cort Aslakssøn’s wife Barbara, whose father was Oluf Mortensen, Mayor of Copenhagen. Bishop Hans Poul Resen performed the baptism itself: When the High Mass began, Bishop Resen and Daniel Salomon, a Polish Jew, entered the church at the north entrance to the chancel. Salomon sat on a chair placed just inside the door. Then a little baptismal font with a basin of water was set up in the chancel. When the sermon ended, the bishop and Salomon stepped forward, and the Bishop held a “short, but powerful speech” about baptism and the baptismal

56 Ludvig Helveg, Den Danske Kirkes Historie efter Reformationen [History of the Danish Church after the Reformation] vol. 1 (Copenhagen: J. C. Scharling, 1857), 502–503. 44 Chapter 3 ceremony. He informed the congregation that “the Jew standing by his side” now wished to be purified by the baptismal water and to become a member of the Christian Church. He described David Salomon’s life and the reason for his conversion. Unfortunately the sources lack the text of his speech. David Salomon’s confession came next, after the bishop had asked him in German to confess that he was a Jew by birth, but that he now wished to leave Judaism and to honestly convert to Christianity. He gave his confession in German. When Bishop Resen asked whether he had ever been baptized previously, he answered in the negative. This was followed by an examination on the catechism. Resen asked about chapters in Luther’s Small Catechism and what their content was, and, in German, Salomon recited the first four by heart. The bishop now called upon the congregation to pray together for the baptismal candidate. The exact prayer was not recorded, but it was probably the Lord’s Prayer. While David Salomon knelt, the Bishop performed the actual baptism “according to the rite prescribed by Luther.” As was the custom, Salomon received the new Christian name he had chosen, in this case, Johannes. When the service ended, the new convert and the bishop walked out of the church and the bishop held a dinner in Johannes Salomon’s honor.57 We know nothing of Salomon’s subsequent fate. The government and the Church felt a certain responsibility for such converts. We can see that a few years later the university paid Salomon a sum so that he could travel to Iceland, but we do not know what he was to do there. Ten other Jews are known to have converted to Christianity in the last half of the seventeenth century, but unfortunately we only have information on names, dates, churches, and some of the godparents’ names. Nonetheless, one case can give an indication of the social and familial difficulties Jewish proselytes could confront. Friedrich Christian Cantor had to pay a high price for his baptism in 1651, when his Jewish wife and his children left him, disappearing with all his worldly goods. He requested a passport, which was granted by King Frederick III, making it possible for him to travel around Denmark to search for them. The content of the passport leaves no doubt of the highest worldly authority’s opinion of Judaism and of his wife’s behavior: By the mercy of God and the teaching of the Holy Spirit, Cantor abandoned obdurate Judaism and joined the Christian apostolic faith and was baptized in Flensborg. When his wife and children had left him, taking all his property with them, leaving only “an empty nest” and heavy debts, the king considered that his desire to search

57 S. Birket Smith (see note 41), 1890, 47. The Orthodoxy of the Seventeenth Century 45 for them was Christian and legitimate. Although his wife is an “unbeliever,” it may be that she might yet live with him again, but if she should refuse, the king would help him to at least get his children and his property back, and the king called upon authorities around the country to assist Cantor in his search. As it happened, he later married a Christian woman. On the occasion of the baptism of other Jews, it apparently became usual practice for a collection to be made for them in church, which was allowed by the king, although such things were otherwise forbidden.58

The Chief of Police’s Proposal for a Jewish Ghetto (1692)

In 1692 Copenhagen’s Chief of Police Claus Rasch sent a proposal to the government: “How to make the presence of Jews tolerable . . . and how they should behave as far as their characteristics, commerce, and customs are concerned.” His point of view was that since Jews are second-class citizens, they should be strictly segregated from the rest of the population of the city. A Jewish ghetto out in Christianshavn on the island of Amager should be established to make this segregation possible. His main idea was the establishment of a ghetto. Rasch specified the exact proportions of the houses to be built within a well-defined area and described the building materials and arrangement of the buildings. One of his thoughts was that it would be easier to keep an eye on individual Jewish families if they all lived together in the same place. Twice a year, or as often as the chief of police found necessary, Jews would have to send him reports with lists of family members, their residences and occupations. The establishment of a ghetto was so important for Rasch that he suggested that building materials for the Jewish quarter be imported free of customs duty. On the other hand, each family would have to pay a poll tax. Furthermore, Jews would have to report on how many Christian boys and workmen they employed. None of these men

58 Theodor Hauch-Fausbøll, “Jødernes Færden og Ophold i den danske Stat i det 17de Aarhundrede” (Migration and residence of the Jews in the state of Denmark in the 17th century), in Tidsskrift for jødisk Historie og Litteratur [Journal of Jewish history and literature] 2, Copenhagen 1919–1921, 106–120. For the other proselytes, see Martin Schwarz Lausten, Kirke og Synagoge. Holdninger i den danske kirke til jødedom og jøder i middelalderen, reformationstiden og den lutherske ortodoksi (ca. 1100–ca. 1700) [Church and synagogue: Attitudes of the Danish Church toward Judaism and Jews in the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and Lutheran orthodoxy (ca. 1100–ca. 1700)] (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1992), 477. 46 Chapter 3 would be allowed to stay in the Jewish quarter overnight, and no Jew was to be allowed to employ a Christian woman. At the same time, Christians would not be allowed to let Jews live with them. There would be an evening curfew for Jews, seven o’clock in winter and nine o’clock in summer. He urged that Jews should have to carry letters of safe conduct, and swear an oath of loyalty. They would only be allowed to leave the city if they had obtained a certificate permitting this. Penalties for transgressing these rules would range from fines to expulsion. Foreign Jews who came to town would have to stay “with their own nation,” and their arrival was to be immediately reported to the chief of police. No Jew could witness against a Christian in a court of law, although Jews could witness against Jews. Jews were second-class citizens as far as sexual relations went. A Jew who committed adultery with a Christian woman would be punished severely. As far as religion was concerned, the chief of police suggested that Jews be allowed to build a synagogue in the ghetto and be given a graveyard, perhaps further out on the island of Amager or near the plague hospital outside the west gate of the city. If the king allowed a synagogue to be built, the police chief and the army commander of the city should be given its exact location and plan, so that they could monitor it (§ 5). Two rabbis should be allowed. Jews were not to leave the ghetto on Sundays and Christian holidays, and “they should hold these days holy as Christians do:” they must not do any work. Besides this, they should be prepared to appear before “the professors” (of theology), who might want to talk to them in order to convert them to Christianity. In this case, they should willingly answer any questions put to them (§ 10). Finally, it was important for the police chief that Jews were easy to identify at all times. He did not require them to wear insignia sewn onto their clothing, but would make it compulsory for every Jew to always carry a certificate prepared by the city authorities, establishing that the individual had taken an oath of loyalty. “To be able to better recognize them,” the document should also confirm the bearer’s identity and address. A stiff fine of fifty rix-dollars would be imposed on anyone found without the certificate on his person (§ 2). It was especially offensive that Jews would have to go to the churches of Christianshavn to pay any fines for breaking these rules (§ 6). Rasch’s law proposal is an interesting historical document that clearly shows how a highly placed authority, for no particular reason, felt that Jews constituted a dangerous foreign element, whose freedom of movement ought to be strictly limited. Classical apartheid policy is seen here: social and religious separation of Jews from all others, special mandatory identity papers and arbi- trary, compulsory meetings with theologians who were intent on convincing them to turn away from their religion. His idea of allowing a synagogue was not The Orthodoxy of the Seventeenth Century 47 an expression of tolerance. His aim was to make his control of the Jewish population more efficient by assuring that there be a specific, well-known location inside the ghetto were all the Jews would be gathered for religious services. But it is equally significant that the worldly authorities rejected his suggestion, as they did a second time when he brought it up again two years later. Chapter 4 Convert or be Lost! Controversy and Mission in the Age of Pietism (1700–1760)

The Jewish Community

That any concession was made at all to allow Jews to settle in Denmark and run businesses during the era of strict Lutheran orthodoxy in the State Church was a result of the royal court’s demand for luxury goods and the government’s goals of promoting economic progress and developing business activity, as well as the conviction that there was no real danger of Jews attempting to convert Christians to Judaism. But since opening the country to people of another religion was done from economic considerations, and not ideas of tolerance and freedom of religion, conflicts naturally arose. The government meant to welcome only prosperous and enterprising Jews into the country. Consequently, government policy strictly rejected poor Jews, not to mention the Jews who had entered the country illegally. In addition, the royal court, the leading government authorities, and a great many clerics and academic theologians had embraced pietism with its emphasis on the personal appropriation of faith, on leading an active Christian life, and on commitment to convert, not only ‘dead’ Christians to pietistic Christianity, but also to convince Jews to become Christians. Jews deviated from the rest of society in religion, language, clothing, food customs, and business practices, all of which commanded attention from the authorities, the academic world, and the general public. Prejudice, with its ignorance, insecurities, and foolishness flourished in this Christian country, just as it did in other parts of Europe. This came about even though the Jewish population in Denmark never became particularly large. There were twelve Jewish families in Copenhagen in 1694, sixteen families in 1701, eighteen families in 1714, and sixty-five families in 1726. After the Copenhagen Fire of 1728, there were 282 Jewish individuals in the city, when the total population of the city (1730) was 65,400. Several of the problems that arose had been caused by government policy. When the first generation of Jewish immigrant men who had achieved the right to settle and run businesses in Denmark began to get older and were no longer fit to carry on their business, they often petitioned the government to let their privileges go to their sons or sons-in-law. Following this, widows of

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004304376_005 Convert or be Lost! 49 businessmen naturally tried to take on their deceased husbands’ privileges to be able to continue to conduct business or trade, sometimes together with sons or sons-in-law. Jewish men who had permission to live in Denmark and run businesses could easily sink into poverty when, for example, their business failed or they were struck by catastrophe, which happened to many people as a result of the Copenhagen Fire of 1728. Since the Jewish population of Denmark was small, there occasionally were cases of foreign Jewish men who wanted come to Denmark to marry the daughters of Jews residing here. In such a case, the future father-in-law petitioned for his future son-in-law’s residence and trade permits. Another problem, the illegal immigration of Jews, became a burden both to the Jewish community and to the city of Copenhagen. To clarify the government policy of only allowing prosperous Jews to reside and do business in the country, to expel Jewish illegal immigrants from Copenhagen and elsewhere, and to stop the illegal immigration of Jews, the Ordinance of September 9, 1726 was promulgated. It became the basis for eval- uating and deciding cases in the years that followed. Conditions under which Jews were permitted to settle in Copenhagen included the possession of one thousand rix-dollars or the construction of a building of several stories within a set time “to embellish the city” or the establishment of a clothing factory. The Elders of the Jewish congregation had to notify the city magistrate of the arrival of any foreign Jew.59 Other rules followed, which limited the movement of Jews, hindered the immigration of poor Jews, and fined boat captains for transporting illegal immigrants, obliging them to sail the illegal Jews back again. It was forbidden for Jews to travel from one market town to another without permission, and they were not allowed to stay in villages overnight. On the other hand, in 1751 some changes in the rules eased the immigration of those foreign Jews who wanted to marry Jewish women who lived in Denmark. They now only had to take out a trade license and pay a special tax of one hundred rix-dollars to a police fund.60 There are numerous examples of the hard-handed use of fines, penal

59 “Magistrats anordning af 9. September 1726” (Decree of the Council of Copenhagen of September 9, 1726), in Schou, Chronologisk Register 2 (Copenhagen: Nicolaus Møller), 525–526. 60 “Reskript af 10 apr 1750” (Decree of Apr. 10, 1750) in Laurids Fogtman, Kgl. Rescripter, Reso- lutioner og Collegialbreve [Royal decrees] 1660–1870 (Copenhagen, 1787), 273. “Kgl. reskript af 5 feb 1751,” (Decree of Feb. 5, 1751) in ibid., 585–586. Rådstueplakat efter kongelig rescript af 8. nov 1764 [Placard by royal decree of Nov. 8, 1764) in ibid. Rådstueplakat af 7 oct. 1751 [Placard by royal decree of Oct 7, 1751) in ibid. 50 Chapter 4 labor, and expulsion when Jews without residence permits were discovered.61 Even though the establishment of industry was desired, the law was stringently administered. For example, when Lazarus Levin, who had many foreign Jews employed in his calico printing factory in Næstved, was accused by a local citizen of establishing a synagogue in the town, the Danish Chancellery decided that those Jews in Levin’s employ who lacked letters of safe conduct should be punished in accordance with the law.62 Jews faced other serious restrictions on their economic opportunities. They could not become members of guilds, their children could not be admitted to Christian schools, and it goes without saying that academic studies were also closed to them. In general, they must not deal in those wares that were monopolized by the guilds. What remained for them were money changing and the trade in tea, coffee, chocolate, used clothing, notions, and haberdash- ery (‘Jew wares’), aside from the few merchants who traded in luxury goods such as fine textiles, diamonds, and precious metals for the royal court. Goods from East India and China were sold to peddlers and other small retailers, who had loyal regular customers, but who were naturally greatly tempted to extend their trade into the rest of the country. Besides the bondage, supervision, and restrictions already mentioned above, special fees were imposed on Jews. Although they ran their own poor relief, Jews also had to pay toward the general poor relief. Likewise, Jews had to pay church tax to the neighborhood parish clergy, Further, another special tax on Jews was adopted in 1746 when the Jewish population of Copenhagen had to pay one hundred rix-dollars annually into the police treasury. The rationale was simply that the police budget had a substantial deficit. Another special tax was the so-called Schutzgeld, protection money, which prosperous Jews had to pay to the king. An examination of the numerous applications sent by Jews to the Danish Chancellery gives a clear impression of the mercantile policies of Copenhagen officials. Most of the applications were sent from the Chancellery to Copenhagen’s Police and Trade Authority for an opinion. In many cases, this authority obtained further comment from the Elders of the Jewish community in Copenhagen. Cases from the provinces were sent to regional authorities

61 See Martin Schwarz Lausten, De fromme og jøderne. Holdninger til jødedom og jøder i Danmark i pietismens tid (1700–1760) [The pious and the Jews: Attitudes toward Judaism and Jews in Denmark during the pietistic period (1700–1760)] (Copenhagen: Akademisk forlag, 2000), 119. 62 For a series of examples from the National Archives of Denmark and the Archives of the City of Copenhagen see Lausten, De fromme og jøderne, 118–120. Convert or be Lost! 51 for their assessment if certificates from them had not already been enclosed. Of course, favorable decisions were granted to prosperous applicants and frequently to those who had family members living in Denmark. On an average, two residence permits were issued a year from 1700 to 1780.63 The Copenhagen officials who were in charge of merchants and craftsmen in the city generally had a negative attitude toward the new Jewish merchants. In one case, when Israel Heyman, son of a founder of the Jewish congregation, and Israel David, jeweler to the king, had presented a grand plan for a lottery meant to produce capital for the rebuilding of the city after the Copenhagen Fire of 1728, the project was rejected out of hand with the remark that “the town was already overladen with people of that indigent ilk, who are good for nothing.” Similar remarks were often made, and the City Council could also surpass this in its hostility toward Jews. When Joseph Levin’s maid Lea had been in service for fourteen years and wished to marry Jacob Philip from Altona, but admitted that they both were poor, her application for his residence permit was naturally rejected. The magistrate suggested that she move to Altona instead and join him there so that there would be no increase in the number of poor Jews in Copenhagen: “They are even more pestilent than those who do have funds, though Jews in general do the city no good at all.” A few years later the city officials wrote that the number of Jews in Copenhagen was larger than was good for the city or the Jews themselves. Most of them are poor and to earn their livings “they resort to committing all the fraud they can, buying stolen goods from thieves and selling them.” The city officials admitted that this statement was to the detriment of honest Jews, who were often undeservedly besmirched. During the following years they continu- ally attempted to restrict the Jewish population by rejecting applications or by ordering deportations. At the end of this period, when Abraham Aaron Levi, who was elderly and needed his daughter’s help, applied for permission for his future son-in-law, Simon Samuel Mose Levi, albeit a poor man, to come from Altona and settle in Copenhagen, city officials took a characteristic stance and denied the application:

It would be more desirable if applicant Abraham Aaron Levi and all his children, and other poor Jews like him, were gone from the town, rather than that their numbers should increase, because it is exactly this seg- ment of the Jewish nation that is especially harmful to our citizens, and commit theft and fraud.64

63 Numerous examples can be found in Lausten, De fromme og jøderne, 121–135. 64 Lausten, De fromme og jøderne, 126. 52 Chapter 4

The City Council rarely tried to conceal its contempt for Jews. With such numerous and repeated expressions of prejudice by the city government, it is no surprise that common people openly harassed Jews. The next year, the Elders of the Jewish community complained to the City Council that base, depraved people were attacking Jews, “not only with curses, but also with blows, and by throwing stones and dung at them.” The city had to order Hans Himmerich, the chief of police, to post a proclamation that forbade such behavior (May 5, 1727), but Himmerich, who had strong anti-Jewish feelings himself, put a lot of effort into finding and arresting Jews who were living in Copenhagen without permission. At this same time, he was able to inform the government that he had now caught several such Jews and had put them into the jail on the island of Bremerholm for no fewer than four weeks so that “fear and loathing” would deter “others of their sort” from attempting similar transgressions. Of course the problem of impoverished Jews and Jews who had failed in business was greatest in Copenhagen, where the majority of Denmark’s Jews lived, but the prejudice was prevalent elsewhere. When a Jewish trader, Simon Jøde, had gone bankrupt in Aarhus, the councilmen, convinced that all Jews were like him, refused to allow a very highly recommended man from Fredericia, Moses Henrich, to bring his tobacco factory and settle in their city, because:

The town of Aarhus—praise God!—is neither so empty and deserted that it either needs to be peopled by that Jewish nation, nor is the construction and conservation of the town in need of such people. The councilmen feel it unnecessary to say what harm or loss it would be to us if one of those people were most graciously permitted to settle here . . . experience shows us daily that they are a kind of people who exist to cheat Christians. June 20, 1738.65

But it was not only the city authorities who opposed the presence of poor Jews. Too many of them could also be a burden on the Jewish community in Copenhagen, which felt obliged to urge the City Council the take action against the many ‘beggar Jews.’ Jews also reported other Jews to the authorities if they felt that their own livelihoods were in danger. The majority of the Jews in Denmark during this period were poor people trying to make a living by selling wares from door to door or at market squares, or by taking wares on commission from more successful members of the community. Very few became well-off, though not rich, and some of these lost everything in the

65 Ibid., 125–126. Convert or be Lost! 53

Copenhagen Fire of 1728—Meyer Goldschmidt was one of them. The circumstances of Jews were not especially advantageous in Denmark. Intimate contact between Jews and Christian was of course strictly forbidden. The king had informed the Copenhagen city government that if a Jewish man pursued a Christian woman and perhaps also “actually lay with her,” he should not be punished as others were; the king himself would decide on the appropriate punishment in each individual case. There should be no surprise at the decision made when a Jew, Lazarus Levi, who was in Copenhagen Jail, asked to be permitted to go to the synagogue under guard on Passover to practice his religion and take part in the service. The Ministry of State and the Privy Council denied this request brusquely saying, “No action to be taken in this matter.”66

Religious Affairs Jews had self-government as far as religion is concerned, so unless there was a request for intervention, the authorities were not involved with Jewish religious services, internal conditions, or rules about piety, food, or purity. They had their own butcher, cemetery, and services for marriage, inheritance, and poor relief, all administered by the chief rabbi of Copenhagen. Copenhagen officials could not overturn his judgments in these areas. Naturally a fine balance had to be found between the prevailing Danish laws and the Jewish, Talmudic ones, and later this chapter will discuss how problems of this kind were dealt with. The Copenhagen community was led by three elected Elders and four elected superintendents. Other officials were the chief rabbi, directors of the synagogue, directors of poor relief and education, synagogue caretakers, a sexton, a cantor, and a synagogue officer. However, knowledge of internal affairs of the community during this period is limited because the relevant archives were lost in the Copenhagen Fire of 1795 and in the bom- bardment of Copenhagen in 1807. At first the leader of the community was Meyer Goldschmidt (Stadthagen), and in fact his home was used for religious services. Two situations prevented the Jewish community from being a unified group, however. The Portuguese or Sephardic Jews (see p. 39) had special financial privileges as well as the right to hold separate religious services, since they had different rituals. More disastrously, early in the eighteenth century a debilitating internal feud arose among the German Jews when Joseph Meyer

66 Larids Fogtman, ed., “Kongelig befaling til Københavns Magistrat 23/3 1793” (Royal proclamation to Copenhagen City Council) in Kongelige Rescritper, Resolutions [Royal Decress], vol. 3 (Copenhagen: Gyldendal 1793), 569–570. For the other cases, see Lausten, De fromme og jøderne, 127–128. 54 Chapter 4

Levin and his family turned against Meyer Goldschmidt and the majority of Jews who sided with him. Jacob Meyer Levin of the Levin family had previously complained to the king that he was being persecuted with indignities “by the entire Jewish nation in Copenhagen” at the synagogue and he requested that he might be able to hold services for his followers in his own house. The case was decided in the Chancellery and the Copenhagen City Department of Police and Commerce, but there are no surviving sources to explain the background for, or the result of, his application. But protests from the group under Joseph Meyer Levin grew to such an extent that the government chose to part the warring factions, and the king gave Levin permission to hold services for his family and servants so that they could avoid going to Meyer Goldschmidt’s synagogue. But instead of peace, more conflict ensued in 1723 and 1724. Goldschmidt complained that he was losing members; Levin was drawing them into his ‘school’ by claiming that they belonged to his family. There were actually many strang- ers among them, sometimes as many as forty. The conflicts seemed to be due primarily to personal differences, but there also may have been religious differences of some kind, inasmuch as Goldschmidt’s circle claimed that they had been confronted with absurd accusations about their “synagogue and their ceremonies.” Later there were clashes about issues such as marriages, burials, excommunication, oath taking and synagogue services.67 Those Jews to whom the king had granted the privilege of living and doing business in Copenhagen and other towns were given freedom of religion as well. The document they received contained set phrases such as: “and he shall be obligated, as far as Jewish observances are concerned, to live in peace and quiet without offense” or “they may . . . live here with their families according to Jewish law” and so on. Although permission was given for a ‘synagogue’ in Fredericia in 1682, a Jew could not buy a building until 1714, and only in 1719 did the king allow it to be used as a synagogue, which was rebuilt in 1753. In Copenhagen it took a long time to obtain royal permission for a separate synagogue building, and at this time there probably were no other towns with buildings set aside as synagogues, so Jews used ‘prayer rooms’ in existing buildings. As the following chapters will show, the clergy and worldly authorities were on guard to protect the public from knowing about Jewish religious observances. Especially in the pietistic era, it was a thorn in the side of these authorities that God was worshiped in any other manner than the Lutheran. A certain degree of freedom of religion had to be put up with, but it was to be limited as much as possible. This attitude came to light when the Jews wanted to build

67 For references from the Danish National Archive, Copenhagen, see Lausten, De fromme og jøderne, 128–131. Convert or be Lost! 55 a synagogue (see p. 71), but also on other occasions. When a group of Jews had moved out of the city and settled in nearby Bronshøj during an outbreak of plague in the autumn of 1717, and they celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles, complaints were sent to the government. The king commanded that the county official order the Jews to return to their homes in Copenhagen, because the simple peasants of Brønshøj were scandalized by this celebration. Secular and religious pietistic leaders found Jewish beliefs and practices sacrilegious. Mercantile interest required that they tolerate that Jews followed their religion, but the authorities felt that Jewish beliefs and practices should be restricted as much as possible. Official judgments on individual cases usually reveal this critical attitude and lack of cooperation, although there are some exceptions. A characteristic example is the reaction to a petition from Israel Magnus Gabriel in 1743. He was sixty years old and too old and feeble to walk to the synagogue any longer. He therefore petitioned the king to be allowed to hold services in his own home with ten to twelve other people while he was ill. To show that the grounds for his appeal and his religious intentions were sincere, he said he was willing to continue to pay dues to the synagogue. But the Department of the Chancellery decided on the case precipitously, apparently without sending it further to the Privy Council—with the comment: “Denied. No action to be taken in this matter.”68 In the case of Golde Lorie, the widow of Salomon Abrahams, who wanted to hold prayers during her period of mourn- ing, the police intervened and forbade it, but in this case, the king decided that it lay within her rights, since the Jews had been granted freedom of religion (1717).69 Joseph Benjamin petitioned for permission to become the ritual butcher of the town of Nakskov, apparently without payment. At first the Department of the Chancellery and the Privy Council both denied the petition, but in 1757 when the three Jewish families in Nakskov complained that they were too few to support a butcher, the government relented and approved the petition.70 In many ways the Jewish community was isolated from the rest of Danish society and had its own social and religious rules, but at the same time, Jews lived among Christians, did business with them, were subject to the same regulations, and enjoyed the protection of the law. In this connection it is

68 “Royal letter to Holger Scheel, November 9, 1756,” Lausten, De fromme og jøderne, 132. “To Iver Rosenkrantz, Oct. 10, 1711,” in O. Nielsen, ed., Københavns Diplomatarium, vol. 7 (Copenhagen, 1886), 217. 69 For records concerning Golde Salomon, in the Copenhagen City Archives see De fromme og Jøderne, 134. 70 Ibid., 134. 56 Chapter 4 noteworthy that when there were internal conflicts or irregularities, Jewish leaders or individuals repeatedly sought the help of the royal government or the city officials of Copenhagen or the towns in which they lived. There were instances of Jews turning to the Danish government with complaints: when resident Jews protested the settlement of foreign Jews in Copenhagen, when Jews (also in Copenhagen) complained about one of their own butchers, when there was a conflict between Portuguese and German Jews about a tombstone, when there was a conflict about shunning in Fredericia (in which both parties turned to the government and the local authorities), and when the Elders complained about the numerous ‘peddler Jews,’ and so on.71 At this time the chief rabbis of the Copenhagen community were Abraham Salomon (from the beginning until his death in 1700), Israel Behr (from 1700 to 1728), Marcus David (from 1728 until his death in 1739) and Hirsch Samuel Levy (from 1739 until his death in 1775). The rabbis of Fredericia were Abraham Moses Cohn, who was succeeded by Israel Behr from Copenhagen (1728–1732), who was succeeded by his son-in-law, Kalman Wulff (1732–1755), and then Moses Isaac (1755–1773). A scarcity of sources makes it impossible to describe the theology or the intellectual level of the Jewish religious community at that time. The scanty information and effects that remain are writings by the rabbis, Haggadahs from 1739 and 1741, and some wimpels (Torah bindings), the oldest being from about 1730. This information can be supplemented somewhat by looking into the documents of individual cases handled by the government and by examining reports from German missionaries to the Jews (see p. 80f.). It is clear that the leaders of the community were deeply rooted in their faith, and that the missionaries were impressed by the piety of the Jewish life that they witnessed. It also seems that certain men were avid Talmudists and apparently presented the missionaries with considerable challenge. It is remarkable that in spite of the usual position of women, the women of the Jewish community in Copenhagen were lively participants in theological discussions with the Christian missionaries. In the 1730s there was mention of a man in Copenhagen who was a Karaite, but he seems to have been a single immigrant. Sabbateanism scarcely had any adherents in Copenhagen—the Turkish Jewish mystic Sabbatai Zevi (1626–1676) regarded himself to be the Messiah, and had many followers, then, after being banned by the rabbis of Jerusalem, converted to Islam. After the disappointment over his sad end and the ban on the Sabbatean movement in 1725 in Hamburg and other places, there was no longer a fertile field for Sabbatean ideas. It is interesting that Meyer Goldschmidt,

71 Ibid., 135. Convert or be Lost! 57 leader of the community, had allowed his daughter to marry Josef, son of the well-known Jewish chronicler, Glückel von Hameln (1645–1724), and in von Hameln’s Denkwürdigkeiten [Memoirs], she recalled the overwhelming enthusiasm of the Jews of Hamburg, especially of the Portuguese, but also of the German Jews, when letters with reports of Sabbatai Zevi arrived. She remembered the lively festivities in this connection and the many Jews who sold their belongings in expectation of the beginning of the messianic era. The Sabbatean movement was put down by Jewish orthodoxy, but remained alive in sects, with its greatest struggle taking place almost a hundred years later in Hamburg. The conflict between Chief Rabbi Jonathan Eibeschütz (ca. 1690–1764) and Jakob Israel Emden (1687–1776), whose civil name was Jakob Herschel, had such enormous repercussions that almost all Jewish communities in Europe were involved, in spite of Frederick IV’s attempt to intervene in what was called the ‘Amulet Conflict,’ and to put a stop to the dispute.72

Views of Christian Theologians on Judaism and Jews

The Danish Church, and indeed all of Danish society, entered into a new period with the advent of pietism. One important element of the German pietist program was the attitude toward Judaism and Jews. They thought that the Jews would convert to Christianity at the coming of the new age that they expected. This came from their interpretation of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans 11:25ff., a text that played a prominent role during the entire pietistic period. But efforts by human beings were also necessary. Expectations were expressed differently in the different pietistic groups. Some were radically fanatical and connected their hopes with an image of a New Millennium, basing their descriptions of it in Revelation 19–20. When this catastrophe came to pass, the papacy of Rome would collapse and all Jews would become Christian at once. Others thought that Jews would gradually become Christians. Naturally, it seemed to some that vigorous mission among the Jews would accelerate the coming of the Millennium. Jews should no longer be scorned or oppressed, but in order to get them to convert to Christianity, they should be met with friendliness and be taught the Christian message. However, as in other parts of Europe, there were orthodox Christian theologians in Denmark who strongly opposed not only these ideas, but all mission to the Jews. There also were millennial theologians who agreed with the pietistic idea of a ‘massive conversion of Jews’ and a ‘thousand-year

72 For further information about this conflict see Lausten, De fromme og jøderne, 136–138. 58 Chapter 4 kingdom.’ Finally, there were theologians who were so infatuated with Judaism and Jews that they joined the philo-Jewish wing. One of the more prominent opponents of pietism was Ernst Christian Boldig (1651–1706), priest of Mariæ kirke (Church of Saint Mary) in Helsingør and pastor of Kronborg Castle. In opposition to the German theologian Philipp Jacob Spener’s (1635–1705) German work, Pia Desideria [Heartfelt desire for God- pleasing Reform of the true Evangelical Church], Boldig wrote the 400-page work, Schlechte Hoffnung [Poor hopes for better times for the Church].73 On the title page the reader is informed that the book is about the futility of any hopes there might be for improving the church, for a massive conversion of the Jews, or for a collapse of the anti-Christian Babel (the Roman Catholic Church). One is further informed that the content of the book is based on ‘the infallible word of God,’ and that the book specifically refuted Spener’s hope of better times. He rejected Spener’s assertion that there would be a great conversion of the Jews, which would bring better times for the Church. On the contrary, the Jews are the children of the devil, and where Spener implies that the Jews would one day be in possession of the land of Canaan (298), Boldig coun- tered this with the anti-Jewish work by Luther, Schem Hamporas [Unknowable name] (1543), in which Luther asserted that it is doubtful that any authentic Jews still exist. What we take for Jews is rather a hodgepodge of foreign scoundrels and gypsies, who have merely had themselves circumcised as if they were Jews. Since Jesus said that the Jews would live scattered amongst the nations until the end of the world, then some of them surely must exist here and there around the world. They would never again have an independent country; furthermore, they have mixed the ancient Israelite blood with that of Christians they have ensnared (301). In the second paragraph he turns his attention to the ‘Jews of the present,’ and his deep contempt for Jews comes into view. Jews live and trade among Christians. Thus they have ample opportunity to hear Christian gospel, but they reject it; they avoid Christian churches and thus have closed the door on Christ (325). They follow the nonsense of the rabbis (338); indeed, they are led by the devil himself (339). Boldig concludes that it is just that Jews have been struck by the “punishment of God.” They crucified Jesus Christ, they persecute Christians, and with their contempt for the gospel, they continue to

73 Ernst Christian Boldig, Schlechte Hoffnung I. Besserer Zeiten der Kirchen sowohl [Poor hopes for better times for the Church] vol. 2. Einer grossen Bekehrung der Juden als [A great conversion of the Jews] vol. 3. Gäntzlichen Unterganges des Antichristlichen Babels vor dem Jüngsten Tage und Ende der Welt [Utter destruction of the Babel of the Antichrist . . . the end of the world] (Copenhagen, 1696). Convert or be Lost! 59

Figure 1 Title page Schlechte Hoffnung by Ernst Christian Boldig (1696). 60 Chapter 4 crucify him (349, 332). Finally, he characteristically refers to and cites Luther’s anti-Jewish pieces, since there he writes the truth, that Jews are like devils, damned to perdition. There is no hope of their conversion. We should allow them to wander and not be concerned about what the devil has planned for them (363–366). Another representative of intense hatred of Jews was Christen Lassen Tychonius (1680–1740), priest in the town of Skive. In his Enfoldig og Skriftmessig Betænkning om Jødernes Omvendelse inden Domme-Dag [A simple and scriptural consideration of the conversion the Jews before Judgment Day] he gave a comprehensive treatment of this issue.74 Under the heading “Om en stor eller almindelig Omvendelse af jøder i Guds Ord nogensted er lovet” (Whether an extensive or ordinary conversion of Jews was promised anywhere in the Word of God), he rejects Spener’s and Wagenseil’s interpretation of Deuteronomy 30, in which the Lord promised the land to the Jewish people. He remarks on the danger of this interpretation, because it would fortify Jewish blasphemy and prompt Jews to even more contempt of Christian church services and Christian gospel. Referring to Luther’s anti-Jewish pamphlets, he also rejects the pietistic interpretation of Romans 11:24–25. Tychonius also fishes lines out of the Bible that damn of the Jews of the present. They will never convert to Christianity because the wrath of God will rest on them for all time. But why does God allow them to go on living? Because they are “the mirror of the wrath of God” and because their damnation is edifying for us (164–167). In addition, Tychonius expresses a deeply felt contempt for Jews throughout the book. In general, Jews are “wretches and mongrels, an obstreperous people, they are accursed and blinded, they have killed the son of God, they have swarmed into Europe, their ceremonies are disgusting and ridiculous, etc.” (176). The theologians who were infatuated by the German pietists’ conception of the Millennium and the great Jewish conversion constituted separate group. Hans Hansen Guldberg (died ca. 1707), parish priest in Ramme in Ribe Diocese, treated this in his unpublished work, Det store Seculum eller tilstundende store Forandring i det tilkommende hundrede Aar fra 1700 [The great century, or the imminent great changes of the coming hundred years starting in 1700]. The work includes numerous complicated stories of the arrival of the Anti-Christ, based on random texts from Revelations. He thought that the Jews would convert en masse. Joining with the fanatical German couple, Johann Wilhelm and

74 Christen Lassen Tychonius, Enfoldig og Skriftmessig Betænkning om Jødernes Omvendelse inden Domme-Dag [A simple and scriptural consideration of the conversion the Jews before Judgment Day] (Copenhagen: Giessing, 1770). Convert or be Lost! 61

Johanna Eleonora Petersen, he assumed that Jews should take over the leadership of the eventual paradise.75 Johannes Steenloos (ca. 1711–1755), who ended his career as parish priest in Jersie-Solrød, south of Copenhagen, was also a singular figure. He exhibited his great interest in Judaism when he was still a student, publishing a paper about synagogue services in ancient Israel. It resulted in a royal grant for studies in Halle, where he studied under the well-known pietist Joachim Lange. He also studied with Johann Heinrich Callenberg, the founder of the Institutum Judaicum et Muhamedicum, which came to play a role in the mission to Danish Jews (see p. 80). Den frembrydende morgen-røde just da solen synes at ville dale om Aftenen [The red sky of dawn just when the sun seems to be about to set in the evening], is a work by Steenloos that is only preserved in manuscript. It had been accompanied by drawings, symbols, and numbers to illustrate what will happen during the fast-approaching apocalypse. He believed that at the end of time converted Jews would enjoy an earthly paradise, surpassing all other kingdoms. In a printed work, Om Christi herlige Rige af alle Slags Folk, Jøder og Hedninger over den ganske Verden i de sidste Tider [On the kingdom of Christ of all kinds of people, Jews, and heathens all over the earth at the end of days] (1744–1745), he spoke out for the conversion of Jews and predicted that in the impending apocalypse Jews and Christians would together constitute a pious ‘Philadelphia’ (i.e., brotherly love) community. When the government asked the professors of the theological faculty to judge the work, they swept all of Steenloos’ singular apocalyptic visions off the table and declared that his ideas were politically dangerous. Steenloos also suggested the establishment of a “Proselyte House for Converted Jews,” where they could receive financial and practical assistance; he wanted to set up a fund for that purpose and have official inspections of Jewish homes, and he worked to establish a seminary for the education of missionaries to the Jews. While these men certainly expressed sympathy for the Jews alongside their condemnation of the Jews’ disbelief in Jesus as Messiah, there were a few men who can almost be called philo-Semites or judaeophiles. Holger (Oliger) Paulli (1644–1714) was an enthusiast of spiritualism who conveyed the messages he claimed he had received from the Holy Spirit in the form of visions he had seen and voices he had heard. He published about thirty works, first in Amsterdam and then in Copenhagen, where a number of unpublished manuscripts can

75 Hans Hansen Guldberg, Det store Seculum [The great century], Royal Library, Copenhagen, Center for Manuscripts, Thott no. 221, octavo. For Johann Wilhelm Petersen and Johanna Eleonora Petersen, see Martin Brecht, ed., Geschichte des Pietismus [History of pietism] 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 300. 319 ff. 62 Chapter 4 still be found. His main interest was the advent of the messianic era—the Millennium—when Jews and Christians would be united. God had chosen him to be the spiritual leader for Abraham’s religion; he would be the precur- sor of the Messiah and regent. Sitting on David’s throne, he would carry out the functions of the high priest on behalf of the Messiah. He called the Jewish and Christian believers in this united religion “Jehovaners.” The messianic millennium would begin in the year 1720. To realize this goal, he repeatedly addressed himself to the rulers of Europe, urging them to conduct a crusade to the Holy Land to seize it from the Turks, set up a Jewish state, and rebuild the Temple. In developing these plans, he criticized Christianity, one of its main faults being its teachings about the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Condemned and driven out of Amsterdam and later from Altona, he returned to Copenhagen, where his bizarre ideas were condemned by Bishop Henrik Bornemann, who thought he was demented. Oliger had uttered blasphemies, but since he was the son of a famous royal physician, he suffered the lenient punishment of being placed in the custody of his family. Another odd judaeophile was the well-to-do citizen of Copenhagen, Jens Pedersen Gedeløkke (ca. 1670–1727). The circumstances surrounding his burial were especially remarkable. Shortly after his death and burial in Garnisons Churchyard in Copenhagen, the rumor circulated that he had secretly converted to Judaism. This was a punishable crime according to the State Church. Chief of Police Hans Hammerich interviewed servants, friends, and Jewish residents and then reported that Gedeløkke had not been a genuine Christian, and neither had he been an open follower of Judaism, but was “a secret Jew, who in his heart was a disciple of Jewish faith and teachings.”76 But typically for the police chief, he added that some Copenhagen Jews had tricked Gedeløkke into this. Both the records of the interrogation and an anonymous text, published at the time, corroborated that Gedeløkke had rejected Jesus as Messiah, had rejected the Trinity and the Eucharist, and had secretly held the Sabbath instead of Sunday. He had eaten only kosher food and had praised the doctrine of the imminent advent of the Millennium and of a paradise on earth for the Jews. With harshness, degradation and threats, the police chief and his min- ions forced the Jews of the city to dig the body up, carry it through the streets of Copenhagen, and bury it in the Jewish Cemetery. When the Elders of the Jewish community sent a lengthy remonstrance to the king, he allowed them to dig the corpse up and bury it outside the Jewish cemetery. The king ignored

76 For files on this case, including Himmerich’s memoirs, see Lausten, De fromme og jøderne, 90–99. Convert or be Lost! 63 the police chief ’s objections and his proposal to punish the Jews, but to cover all contingencies, the king did sentence the Jewish community to pay a fine. The men discussed above represented the extreme attitudes toward Judaism and Jews of the time, but otherwise Danish theologians were not very concerned with these questions. An examination of sermons of prominent theologians shows that they took the traditional line of the German Lutheran theologians of their time. Franz Julii Lütkens (1650–1712), Enevold Ewald (1696–1754), Erik Pontoppidan (1698–1764), Peder Hersleb (1689–1757), and Henrik Gerner (1701–1786) are among the more well-known theologians whose sermons have survived and can be examined in this connection. They were all influential people we will meet later in different contexts. These selected theologians and works could easily be supplemented without significantly changing the picture. It is worth noting that the whole question of the relationship between Jews and Christians was apparently of no great interest to a man such as the influential pietist H. A. Brorson. As they had in the earlier Christian tradition, theologians held that Jews were the people specially chosen by the Lord. He had entered into a pact with the patriarchs and He kept it through the ages. They wrote that we must regard the children of Israel as the people of God, protected by the grace of God as revealed in His message to the pharaoh in Exodus 4:22, when he called Israel his first-born son.77 Jewish worship was viewed only in relation to Christian worship. The Law of Moses was given only to the Jews. The strictness of the ceremonial laws and the heavy punishments for infringements of the laws were necessitated by the hard-hardheartedness of the Jews and also needed to keep them separate from all other people. But this was only valid until the advent of Jesus Christ. In his explanation of the catechism, Pontoppidan says that God gave three kinds of laws in the Old Testament: ceremonial Church law, worldly police and government law, and the moral or ordinary law of love and living. Only the last one was still valid for Christians.78 Ewald emphasizes something else. Even though the ceremonial laws of the Israelites were valid only until the coming of Christ, we cannot throw away the Law of Moses, the prophets, or the other Old

77 Enevold Ewald, Det gamle og nye Testamentes herlige Harmonie og fuldkomne Overeensstemmelse i den Lærdom om Christo [The glorious harmony of the Old and New Testaments] 2 (Copenhagen, 1745), 121. 228. 234. 317. 342. 78 Franz Julii Lütkens, Collegium Biblicum secundum logos theologicos adornatum; das ist die fürnehmsten Glaubens Lehren (Copenhagen: Johann Christian Rothen, 1715), 247. 377. 381. 384. 386. Erik Pontoppidan, Sandhed til Gudfrygtighed [Truth to piety] (Copenhagen: det Kongelige Waysenhus, 1737), 10. 30. 64 Chapter 4

Testament writings. On the contrary, according to Ewald’s Christological reading of the Old Testament, Moses was the first written witness of Christ and his coming to the world for the salvation and blessedness of mankind. Jesus and the apostles often refer to Moses and the prophets. Of course we Christians should not obey these special Jewish laws, Ewald explains, because they were nullified when Christ came, and though there is also so much in them that reason cannot justify, we cannot on those grounds claim that they were the fabrication of Moses himself. God was the author of these laws: they were just, holy and wisely suited for the nature of the Israelites of the time. But the great fault of the Jews was that they did not understand the laws, just as they still do not understand them; they are as recalcitrant and blind as always.79 Pontoppidan says that the Jews erroneously believed that circumcision of the flesh, rather than circumcision of the heart, could save them, but instead of circumcision and Passover lamb,80 Jesus established two other sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist. Worst of all, of course, was the Jews’ rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. This had indeed been clearly prophesied for them; there are many proofs of this. But they rejected him. In this connection, Ewald explains the necessity of a Christological interpretation of the Old Testament and of a knowledge of the original languages. In one of his sermons he broke out in a bitter complaint about the Jewish people:

Oh, shameful blindness and imbecility! Oh, greatest ungratefulness and most shameful unfaithfulness and impatience! Not directed toward people, but toward the Lord himself, toward the compassionate and loyal God, the merciful and faithful Savior, who had shown himself to be so merciful, so mighty, and so glorious among them . . . it was the Lord himself, and especially the Savior, the Messiah, against whom the children of Israel trespassed.

In many works, theologians wrote that the culmination of this rejection was the Jews’ crucifixion of the Messiah. But in this connection it should be noted that in Pontoppidan’s explanation of the catechism, he did not repeat the idea

79 Enevold Ewald, Den eeneste Sande og Salige Visdoms Kilde [The Source of the only true and blessed wisdom] (Copenhagen: J. C. Dippel, 1752), 47–51. 67–71. 91–94. 126. 155–162. 232. 241. Ewald, Det gamle og nye, 315. 318. 325. 333. 80 Pontoppidan, Sandhed til Gudfrygtighed, 163. Lütkens, Collegium Biblicum, 246. Convert or be Lost! 65 that the Jews had crucified Jesus, but wrote that the Romans had done it.81 Because of the crucifixion, Jews were struck by the wrath of God and were cast out, and now were lost in darkness and damnation, Lütkens thought, but Ewald emphasized strongly that this rejection was not a specific, firm plan made by God. Hardheartedness and repudiation were not caused by the will of God, but by the unbelief of the Jews. Gerner thinks that since the Jews crucified Jesus and in reckless madness shouted, “His blood be on us and our children,” judgment and ruthlessness have befallen them, but nonetheless God has not entirely rejected his chosen people.82 Therefore, our task is to convert the Jews to Christianity. Gerner discusses the question of the conversion of the Jews because he thinks that it cannot be denied that there is much testimony in the Scriptures concerning the future conversion of the Jews. He refers to the familiar passages in Hosea 3:4 and Romans 11:25–27, but he says that so far there is no sign that such a thing will happen. In resignation, he concludes that you can believe what you like about this matter. Gerner’s contempt for Jews is obvious several times when he says that you cannot take converts seriously, they remain Jews, they are deceitful, and they are scoundrels lacking in constancy.83 Ewald occasionally is unpolemically informative on Jewish matters, for example on Passover and the Sabbath, and he also directly praises the Israelites because they called upon the Lord when they were in need and they read the Scriptures more diligently than do present-day Christians.84 But what matters to these theologians is that they can make use of the relation of the Jews to God in their present task of preaching to Christians. The Jews’ relation to God and the entire story can be a mirror for Christians. This is the prevalent point of view in Ewald. In every single case in which he mentions the conditions of the Jews, he immediately finds a connection to the Christians to whom he is preaching. All the accusations he directs against the Jews, he also directs at the superficial Christians of his time.85 The cause of all the ungodliness of Jews and most Christians is the same, namely, faithlessness. Both groups must undergo a personal conversion or God will punish them:

81 Lütkens, Collegium Biblicum, 246–248. Henrik Gerner, Nogle Merkværdigheder, som angaaer Henric Gerner [Some notable facts that concern Henrik Gerner] (Copenhagen, 1777), 118–119. 122. Ewald Det gamle og nye, 126. 238. 473. 325. 1752, 174. 257. 298. Pontoppidan, Sandhed til Gudfrygtighed, 109. 82 Ewald, Det gamle og nye, 138. 145. 236–240. 339. 353. 368. 369. 372–375. Gerner, Nogle Merkværdigheder, 120. 83 Ewald, Det gamle og nye, 344. 349–353. Den eeneste Sande, 194. 348. Gerner, Nogle Merkværdigheder, 118–128. 84 Ewald, Det gamle og nye, 243. 318. 85 Ibid., 125. 133. 232–234. 239–243, 317–323. 328. 257. 369. 66 Chapter 4

Let the evil and miserable example of the Jews serve you as a warning, and do not follow them in their faithlessness, disobedience, and obstinacy to your own destruction. Or do you think that you can maintain yourself without Christ? Can you save yourself and help yourself without him? Do you think that you can please God with your faithlessness, hypocrisy, and your own carnal ways and deeds? . . . Do you no longer trust in your outward God-worshiping and God- fearing ceremonies?86

Problems of Integration

The small Jewish community was established at the beginning of the eighteenth century. It consisted of Jewish families in Copenhagen, apart from a few individuals in the free city of Fredericia. It was soon clear to the government and the City Council of Copenhagen that the Jewish community was not merely a religious group. Its religious purview often encompassed social issues, so the clergymen of the State Church, the bishops, and the professors of the theological faculty were faced with the questions of how they should deal with Jews and how laypeople would react. During this period of strict piety and State Church, Jews were quite noticeable in the daily life of the city. Since the Middle Ages the Jewish people had been delineated by numerous prejudices, and they belonged to the very religion with which the Christian Church had had an especially hostile relation right from the beginning. Some of the cases that arose will be described. In January of 1725, King Frederick IV decreed that “Christian servants who worked for Jewish families” were to be discharged at short notice. Trespass of this law would be punished by expulsion of the Jews involved and another “suitable punishment” for the servants. This action had been recommended to the king by Chief of Police Ratheken, supported by Bishop Christen Worm. No grounds were given, but there had been debate about this situation among German theologians of the time. Phillipp Jakob Spener was a spokesman for this prohibition. The case provoked considerable debate within the king’s circle, with contributions from the bishop, the theological faculty, and the Jewish community. Bishop Christen Worm wrote a scathing anti-Jewish statement in which he took up cudgels against the practice of Christian servants helping Jews to hold their Sabbath, because it is “repulsive to our God” and because by helping Jews, Christians would strengthen Jews in their unbelief. Christian women should not be wet

86 Ibid., 378. Convert or be Lost! 67 nurses for Jewish infants because the children would grow up to be “demons.” The bishop also referred to Martin Luther’s 1543 work, On the Jews and their Lies. The influential Christian Ditlev Reventlow, president of Altona, and brother- in-law to the king, sent a long dissenting declaration, basing his argument on the Bible and on reasoning. He referred to the piety of Jewish life, which is within the scope of their freedom of religion, and in opposition to bishop Worm, he referred to Martin Luther’s Jewish pro-Jewish work of 1523, That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew. The two Jewish communities of Copenhagen both protested strongly to the king and asked him to withdraw the decree. To be sure, they did not directly criticize the king, but “our persecutors” who had influenced him. They remarked that they would never think of enticing Christian servants into Judaism. They argued that they were instrumental in promoting Danish mercantile life, they provided employment to Christian physicians and artisans, and they contributed financial support to the Copenhagen poor relief system. Also, according to the Law of Moses, they could not exist without help from non-Jews with cooking and lighting lamps on the Sabbath. Two professors of theology, Hans Bartholin (1665–1739) and Søren Lintrup (1669–1731), took a more moderate standpoint. The king could continue to allow that Christian servants work for Jewish families as long as they were not lured into Judaism, did not attend Jewish religious services, were allowed to attend Christian services, and as long as Jews were punished severely if they molested female Christian servants. A third theologian, Hans Steenbuch (1664–1740), assiduously tried to base his reasoning on 2 John 1:10, “Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching,” and on scriptures such as Romans 16:17, as well as 2 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 3:10, in order to argue that the king’s decree be upheld. He concluded that a pious Christian who properly knows and loves Christ should have or be able to find within him or herself an abhorrence to serving a [Jewish] householder about whom he either knows or, alas, hears that he damns his and everyone’s master, the Son of God. There was a highly exceptional result to this entire debate; the king, an absolute monarch, had to admit that he was mistaken. This was not uttered directly, but that very year, the edict was changed, allowing Christian servants to continue to serve in Jewish households as long as the women were over fifty and the men were over thirty years of age. After new protests from the Jewish community, the decree was completely repealed in 1734.87

87 For this case and printed and unprinted documents, see Lausten, De fromme og jøderne, 171–195. 68 Chapter 4

Figure 2 Title page, Enfoldig og Skriftmessig Betænkning om Jødernes Omvendelse inden Domme-Dag by Christen Lassen Tychonius (1770). Convert or be Lost! 69

A problem also under debate among the German Lutherans of the time was the question of whether it was right to “force the baptism of Jewish children.” In Copenhagen in 1725, eight-year-old Salomon, son of Abraham Bendix and Engel Moses had run away from home after an argument with his father. He had been taken up by two students of theology who, with the help of the city chief of police, refused to return him to his parents because he had stated that he wanted to become a Christian. The case was taken so seriously that it was handled in the Chancellery and the Privy Council, in which the king also participated. The king had asked the theological faculty and the bishop in Copenhagen to submit suggestions. And after they had interviewed the child, they were again in disagreement. Bishop Worm and Professors Steenbuch and Trellund thought that the child should be kept from his parents because this lost lamb of Israel’s house was like the sick man at the pool of Bethesda, who so pitifully complained to Jesus that he had no one to help him to the heal- ing pool. None other than God himself sent this Jewish child to us, and if he were given back to his parents, he would grow up in unbelief, hatred, and blasphemy against Christ. If he were returned, he would be doomed, and for this we could be accused on the Day of Judgment. The theologians also referred to similar cases in Leipzig and Gutenberg where theologians had argued for keeping the child in question. But Professor and Royal Confessor, Søren Lintrup and Professor Hans Bartholin could not in all conscience agree with this. The child ought to be returned to his parents. Enforced baptism should not be performed as it was among Catholics. The law of nature put the responsibility of children in their parents’ hands and this could not be overridden by the gospel. Friedrich Petersen Wessel, a Jew who had gone over to Christianity, had accompanied the child to an audience with the king to prevent his return to the parents. However, the parents were also present and, weeping, had begged to get their child back. The king had answered that they could have him back as long as they converted to Christianity. To this they had answered that “they had been born Jews and would die Jews.” His Majesty replied that “since you insisted on remaining Jews, you will certainly face perdition along with other Jews!” The child was kept, granted asylum, and was given a Christian upbringing. His parents left the country, but returned after some years and now desired to become Christians. When the king heard about this, he declared, “So I commanded correctly! I should have been the third professor of theology, so that the other three, who were against this, could have been held in balance. Praise and thank God! It is good when the children lead the parents to God!” The baptism records of Christiansborg Palace Church show that Abraham 70 Chapter 4

Bendix and his three sons were baptized in 1727 and that the king himself was their godfather.88 Finally, we should look at some cases which concerned Jewish religious life more directly. It was important that a rabbi could use shunning as a disciplinary measure in certain cases. A shunning or excommunication could have serious consequences for the civil life of the parishioner involved, just as it could for a Christian. In 1721 when Josef Meyer Levin, mentioned above, going against his fellows, refused to pay a fine he owed the Jewish community, Rabbi Israel Behr and the Elders applied to the City Council for permission to shun him. The Copenhagen Police and Trade Authority asked the king, and the king asked the theological faculty for a recommendation. It was thought to be a highly questionable practice to give the rabbi this right, it would only lead to various sorts of trouble. Jews lived under Christian authorities and these authorities should deal with that kind of problem. The Elders sent a new report to the king that informed him that censure, Cherem, was divided into five levels, but that they only wanted to use the lowest and mildest level, which would not hurt the vic- tim very much with respect to his honor and reputation. These cases were not only those about missing payments, but also all the cases in which members broke the rules of the Jewish community. Dissatisfied with the information he had received from the theological faculty, the king asked the faculty whether granting the Jews the right to use shunning would be inconsistent with anything in Christianity and also asked them to inform him about the customs of the Jewish Cherem ritual. They answered by briefly describing the grades of shunning, Niddui, Cherem, Schmmatha, the connection between them, and the twenty-four grounds for excommunication. The main point made by the theological faculty was that the leaders of the Jewish community should not be permitted to excommunicate Jews. They included a long list of arguments in support of this point. The tone they used was harsh and crude in its overt anti- Jewish stance and its suspicion of the motives of the Jewish Elders. Allowing this would only give the Jews courage, inflate their pride, strengthen them in their unbelief and hardheartedness, prevent their conversion to Christianity, and awaken offense in simple Christians. On the whole, it was unseemly that these people, who were damned by God on high because of their own great hostility toward the crucified Jesus, wanted the freedom to ban each other. In giving them this right, we would take part in their “superstition,” and the professors were convinced that once the Jews were empowered to ban, this power would spread to other areas of life that belong under Christian civil control.

88 For this case and printed and unprinted documents, see Lausten, De fromme og jøderne, 195–204. Convert or be Lost! 71

On the contrary, it would be more beneficial to tie these people’s hands than to give them more freedom. For if it was the intention that they one day creep to the cross, it would be better to humiliate them now instead of favoring them with further privileges. But it was remarkable that in 1722, the king dismissed the theologians and gave the Jewish leadership permission to use their mild shunning practice, on the condition that it only be applied to internal Jewish religious matters and cases where recalcitrant members of the community refused to pay the poor tax.89 After the passage of several years, the Jewish community wished to erect a building to use as a synagogue. In 1684 the king had laid down his conditions for permitting religious services. They were to be held discreetly in a residential apartment so that no one outside could hear what was going on, conditions that remained difficult to follow. The community had grown so much that it could not be contained in the original private rooms. The Elders—Joseph Philip Unna, Berent Jacob, and Israel Meyer—applied to the City Council of Copenhagen to be allowed to buy a plot at “Vandkunsten where we could build a synagogue in a courtyard in order to have peace and quiet for ourselves.” This plot lay at the corner of the streets now known as Rådhusstræde and Løngangstræde. In August and September 1736, the city council had no objection to this, and the community began to buy building materials, but in the spring of 1737 Bishop Christen Worm learned of the project and threw himself into a struggle to get the project blocked. He turned to the first chancellor and the chief of police, declaring that such a building would “have dangerous consequences and would be a great offense to a multitude of God’s children who know Christ.” The chief of police immediately put a stop to the construction, but the Elders sent copies of the documents to the king, noting that they had received permission for the project. They received a message from the Privy Council, saying that they must have misunderstood, that they had never been given permission. They were only allowed to hold religious services in ordinary residences. As punishment for their presumptuous willfulness they were fined the gigantic sum of 800 rix-dollars that was to be delivered to Vor Frelsers Kirke (Church of Our Savior). At the same time the City Council was given a reprimand from the king, who had learned to his great dismay that it had given the Jews permission to build a synagogue. Shortly afterward the fine was for- given. The Elders applied again, this time to be allowed to build an “ordinary” house where a Jewish family could live on the lower floor while the floor above

89 For this case and printed and unprinted documents, see Lausten, De fromme og jøderne, 146–156. 72 Chapter 4 could be designed for religious services, but it seems that the plan was never realized. Services continued to be held on the third floor of Georg Christian Jacobi’s property in Læderstræde, which the community had rented for some years. In 1742 the community bought another property nearby, but it was in such poor condition that they applied to build a new house and install a synagogue. The City Council, however, having been burnt once, stated in answer to a query from the Chancellery that it was not permitted for Jews to erect a synagogue building and that if it happened, such a thing would offend the public. However, if the king nonetheless wished to allow it, such a building should not be situated in the middle of the city, but, for example out in Christianshavn or near the ramparts. Once again the Chancellery refused the application with the rejection given in the standard formulation—“No action to be taken in this matter.” A few years later the Elders repeated their application (see p. 109).90 The swearing of oaths in a court of law was a matter that played a significant role in the relationship between Christians and Jews in every European country. The purpose of the oath is to bring out the truth and to refute lies in the testimony of one of the parties in a case. The oath is taken before God and it supports testimony. Oath taking was originally a religious act, founded on belief in God. An explicit commandment is expressed in Deuteronomy 10:20, “You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall worship him alone; to him you shall hold fast, and by his name you shall swear.” There is a prohibition in Exodus 20:7, “You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not exonerate anyone who misuses his name,” and in Leviticus 19:12, “And you shall not swear falsely by my name, profaning the name of your God: I am the LORD.” In the early Middle Ages, authorities of Christian countries where Jews lived began to require that Jews took special oaths in court cases involving Christians. This form of oath had technical names, more judaico (according to Jewish custom) or juramentum judaeorum (oath of the Jews).The text of the oath and the symbolic ritual involved was supposed to bring down self- imposed damnation on a person who swore falsely, and it described a series of detailed punishments to be dealt out in case of perjury. The ceremonies and symbols were intended to underline the seriousness of the curse upon perjur- ers, to emphasize a general mistrust of the Jew, and to humiliate him. In one oath, the witness was to swear that if he swore falsely, God would punish him with fever and blindness, permit his enemies to steal everything he owned, destroy his home, bring a plague down upon him, let him and his children

90 For this case and printed and unprinted documents, see Lausten, De fromme og jøderne, 219–229. Convert or be Lost! 73 die in the most horrifying way, and be rejected by God. The ceremonies were often even more humiliating than the texts. The person taking the oath might be required to stand on a three-legged chair and pay a fine every time he fell down, or he had to stand facing east, bareheaded, with his hands on the Torah; in other places he had to take the oath wearing the distinctive Jewish hat, or he could be told to stand on the hide of a pig. As a rule the oath was to be sworn inside or just outside the synagogue. These procedures were not changed in Germany and other European countries until the nineteenth century. Distrust of Jews taking oaths also existed in Denmark. The exact ceremony used in the early 1700s is not known, but it was probably similar to those we know from elsewhere: at least ten adult Jewish men had to be present; the person taking the oath had to be clothed in a burial garment; he had to stand at a coffin; black candles had to be lit; the oath had to be taken in a synagogue; the rabbi had to be present, and all the participants had to answer, “Amen.” Clearly, this was all intended to emphasize the serious and sacred character of the oath, something also emphasized in the formulation of the oaths themselves. We know that the professor of theology Matthias Anchersen (1682–1741), who later became bishop of Ribe, had worked out a formulation for the oath, but it has been lost, and it is possible that the oath had to be improvised each time. To straighten this situation out, the king ordered the university to work out instructions for oath-taking rules for Jews. At the university, the case ran the usual course: the rector ordered the orientalist Johann Christian Kall (1714–1775) to compose a proposal for a new oath (1747), and when this was ready, it was sent to the theological faculty, which approved it. Then the rector, on behalf of the university, could report that “none of the professors could think of any reason to oppose it.” In the first part of his proposal J. C. Kall discusses oath-taking rules in general for Christians and Jews, the fact that Jews were not to be trusted in this matter, and the manner in which Jews answer these accusations. In the second part, J. C. Kall expounds on his proposal for a new ritual and a new text for oaths, explaining the grounds for each paragraph. Later, a royal edict was issued, more or less repeating J. C. Kall’s formulation. Kall’s proposal is clearly an expression of a singular ambivalence toward Jews. On one hand, J. C. Kall is ruled by prejudice, is suspicious of Jews, and openly makes coarsely derogatory and prejudicial allegations about Jews in general. On the other hand, he sometimes shows some tolerance, although this is rather restrained and perhaps only a form of arrogant condescension, motivated by calculated opportunism. He urges great caution and close attention to detail in dealing with the oath to be taken by Jews. There are real reasons to fear that Jews act from their religious principles, and that would mean that 74 Chapter 4

on the one hand, this wretched nation is infused with blindness, ignorance, and hardening of hearts, and on the other hand, they have grandi- ose ideas about being the chosen people of God, coupled with an equally great contempt and hatred for all other nations, which they take to be heathens and the enemies of themselves and of God.

But these “wretched people” are now here among us, a living proof of God’s justice and great patience. Since every Jew is so constituted, “he cancels out all the morality of the oath, especially in a case against a Christian.” Before presenting his proposal, J. C. Kall remarked that it should be remembered that, in their hearts, Jews do not feel obliged to obey the Christian authorities. They show obedience only because it is required of them. Likewise, they are permitted to make use of reservatio mentalis (mental reservation) in spite of having sworn an oath, or to say to themselves that they have no intention of complying with the oath. Furthermore, a rabbi could always release a Jew from an oath or he could be released from a promise on Yom Kippur. To back up these false and contemptuous preconceptions about Jews, J. C. Kall refers to a work he deems very reliable, Johann Andreas Eisenmenger’s Entdecktes Judenthum [Judaism unmasked] of 1711. This book was influential all the way into the nineteenth century even though the renowned orientalist, Professor Johann David Michaelis (1717–1791) of Göttingen had evaluated it to be a hostile, unjust, and defamatory work. J. C. Kall endeavored to build his oath on religious ritual, following existing German practice. Since his view was that Jews would lie and deceive, exhorta- tions, warnings and threats were formulated, and the tone of his oath was as severe as possible. The oath-taking procedure was to be held at the synagogue; ten adult men were to be present as witnesses, wearing their hats and ceremonial clothing. The rabbi must ensure that they were kosher, as they should be under Jewish law, and that they were correctly in place according to Jewish custom. After the rabbi’s speech, each witness must say Amen in turn. Finally, the rabbi must read the customary blessing of their garments. The witnesses should then stand before the holiest spot in the synagogue, in front of the Hechal (or the Ark of the Torah, i.e., the cabinet that contains the Torah), with their faces to the east and Jerusalem where the Temple had been. An official of the synagogue is to open the Ark of the Torah. The witness’ testimony should be read aloud clearly, either by someone from the court or by the rabbi, and the rabbi must read an admonition against perjury slowly and clearly. Among other bible texts, J. C. Kall suggests that the rabbi refer to Zachariah 8:16–17, Malachi 3:5 and Hosea 4:2–3. The latter citation is so important to J. C. Kall that he quotes it: “Cursing, lying, murder, stealing, and adultery break out; bloodshed Convert or be Lost! 75 follows bloodshed. Therefore the land mourns, and all who live in it languish; together with the wild animals and the birds of the air, even the fish of the sea are perishing.” He believes that this text shows that perjury would bring God’s wrath down on the entire Jewish nation, an interpretation that can hardly be defended, for despite the fact that it speaks of “God’s judgment of the children of Israel,” it is not something that could be caused by the perjury of one person. J. C. Kall also thinks that “in order to make it absolutely clear what a great sin it would be if a Christian should give a false oath and profane the name of the Lord,” Leviticus 19:12 should be cited: “And you shall not swear falsely by my name, profaning the name of your God: I am the LORD.” The rabbi must also say that the Christians among whom you now live sincerely believe in the true living God. When the scrolls of the Torah are taken out, the coverings they are cloaked in are removed, the scrolls of the Torah must be given to the witness to hold in his right hand, and he is to kiss them. Then the witness must lay his bare right arm on the text of Exodus 20:7. In his exhortation just before the oath is taken, the rabbi must threaten the person swearing the oath with eternal damnation, lunacy, blindness, plague, incurable disease, and banishment from the Jewish people if he should swear falsely. In the oath itself he must swear, without any guileful inventions or false thoughts, in the names the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that he will say nothing but the truth in accordance with the sight of God, he who knows all thoughts, and furthermore, that no testimony can ever free the oath taker from what he has uttered. The royal decree of September 15, 1747, followed J. C. Kall’s proposal very closely. The Jewish community tried to get this humiliating ritual changed several times in the years that followed, but even though there were adjustments— as we shall see later—it was used well into the nineteenth century.91

Mission to the Jews

Pietists wanted to make Christians into serious Christians and non-Chris- tians into Christians. As for non-Christians, Denmark was the starting place for missions to the colonies in Tranquebar, India and in Greenland. It was in this context that mission to the Jews also was of interest to individuals and to the government. The German Jew, Carl Christian, a convert to Christianity, was in Denmark in 1704 with a plan to publish a Yiddish translation of the New Testament. King Frederick IV took a positive view of this and asked the theological faculty to evaluate Christian and his plan. They praised the

91 For Kall´s unpublished proposal, see Lausten, De fromme og jøderne, 232–252. 76 Chapter 4 initiative and its use of Yiddish, the language generally spoken by the Jews of Denmark. They explained that Yiddish consisted mostly of German words mixed with Jewish words and that, with its use, by the grace of God, the Jews of Copenhagen would be converted to Christianity more easily. Christian was allowed to take up a collection at a few Copenhagen churches, but for unknown reasons the project came to nothing. Several years later, two citizens of Copenhagen, Heiden Johnsen and Jørgen Dionijsen, submitted a suggestion for a mission to the Jews because, owing to their own unbelief, Jews were living in wretchedness. They despised Christ and scorned and cursed Christians, but with education and financial support, it would be possible to turn them to Christianity, Johnsen and Dionijsen believed. Missioncollegiet, a ministry in charge of mission set up in 1714, took the case seriously and sent the king a constructive proposal in which some of the funds that had been set aside for military armament would be used. Three theology students who had mastered the Hebrew language would be missionaries to the Jews of Copenhagen, and possible proselytes would be given financial support during their religious education. Strangely enough, the government would not accept this suggestion from the two laymen and the ministry. We do not know why, but there is a brief note in the on the Privy Council’s decision in the 1722 Suppliqveprotocol, the Chancellery records of petitions: “Tabled until a better proposal appears.” The two men continued with their missionary project on their own, however. First they sent a new proposal to the king, but the summary in the records of petitions is so brief that no details can be seen except that the Chancellery chose not to deal with the application, which was rejected ca. August 1723 with the usual text: “Merits no further discussion.” A few months later, at the synagogue, Johnsen and Dionijsen handed out a pamphlet in which they explained that Jews despise and curse Christ and profane the word of God on false premises. The Jews, however, reported the two self-appointed missionaries and delivered the piece to the police. When Johnsen and Dionijsen complained to the king, the Chancellery no longer wished to concern itself with them, but rejected their case in a brief note: “This merits no consideration.” This missionizing proposal came somewhat before its time. Religious instruction, financial support of intended converts during their education, and the establishment of a foundation to fund this were implemented many years later.92 But a few years later the king himself took the initiative to start a mission to the Jews of Copenhagen. The king and his closest advisers had read Spener, who expounded a particular method for converting Jews: All the Jews in the

92 Ibid., 260–262. Convert or be Lost! 77 country should be ordered to attend lectures on Christianity in one of the city churches. Spener had written a piece addressed to the Christian authorities, suggesting a form of compulsory lectures which, although obligatory, would also permit Jews to ask questions.93 The preachers were to be accomplished theologians with a certain degree of knowledge of the Talmud; they should be able to show the connection between the Old Testament and the New Testament and to prove that Jesus was the suffering Messiah, but at the same time they were supposed to maintain a friendly tone. The project would fail if they exhibited prejudice or accused Jews with ruining everything with their “obstinacy and laziness.” Naturally, the intention of mission was to “remove all Jewish depravity” and to lead Jews toward baptism. Preachers were to cite Romans 11:25–26, an important scripture in all mission to Jews, and explain to the Jews that God has not completely abandoned them. They can still achieve salvation, but if they remain obstinate, they will be left to the judgment of God. “We must labor on indefatigably until the Lord fulfills his great plan with them and has them join us in fellowship in our belief in the Messiah, our Lord Jesus, who was born of them.” Spener is usually praised for the sympathy and friendliness he showed to Jews, and it is held that his view of Judaism and Jews was a new departure, a positive development in the position of the Protestant Church. While it is true that he endeavored to show sympathy to the Jews of his time, that he encouraged the use of friendliness, and that he is modern insofar as he was moved by tolerance and patience, he was actually limited by his traditional Christian position. The main difference was simply that his methods were more varied. As we have already seen, and shall often see again, Spener’s thoughts on mission to the Jews were very influential in certain circles at the time and right up to the present. In May 1728, with a few days warning, the king ordered all Jewish men in Copenhagen to attend the church of the new Royal Vajsenhus (orphanage) every Thursday to hear sermons, or more accurately, lectures, by two of the city’s German-speaking clergymen, Heinrich Dürkop (1671–1731) and Matthias Schreiber (?–1746), pastors of Sankt Petri Kirke (Saint Peter’s Church). The king declared that his intention was to have all his dear, loyal subjects worship the almighty God in the manner that God himself had commanded in the Old and the New Testaments, the holiest of His words. This initiative came from two of the king’s most confidential advisers. One was Johan Wilhelm Schröder

93 Philipp Jacob Spener, Theologische Bedencken und andere Brieffliche Antworten auff geistliche . . . Materien [Theological considerations and other epistolary replies concerning religious material] vol. 4 (Halle: Waisenhaus, 1702), 87–99. 78 Chapter 4

(1669–1741), tutor of Crown Prince Christian, member of the Ministry of Mission, and director of the Royal Orphanage. The other was Johann Hermann Schrader (1684–1737), tutor of Princess Charlotte Amalie, daughter of the royal couple. On other occasions these two advisers had shown great interest in converting Jews. The two pastors were given orders that their preaching was to convince the Jews of their error and to get them to convert to Christianity with arguments based on the Bible and on reason. The Jews were to sit and listen in silence and, when the preachers later examined them in order to make them uncertain of their Jewish faith, they were to answer humbly. Until now we have only known about this order to appear at church, and there has been no evidence of whether or to what extent it was put into practice. However, by searching the archives of the pietists in Halle, the present author discovered illuminating records in which German missionaries to the Jews described the information they received in Copenhagen from the converted Jew, Friedrich Petersen Wessel and from the priest of the Royal Orphanage, Enevold Ewald. The Jews attended several meetings from June until September 1728. The lectures of the two clergymen were harsh and condemnatory. They claimed that Jews were living in physical and spiritual wretchedness because they had abandoned the teachings of their fathers. The clergymen threatened them, using passages from Jeremiah 23 and Job 33:19–22, which tell of the death awaiting those who defy God. In a more modern vein, they also tried to engage in dialogue with the rabbi and others present to order to find common ground for discussion. Rabbi Israel Behr held to the Law of Moses and the Talmud, but interestingly, a number of the Jewish men present only held to the Old Testament and not the Talmud. Among the subjects the clergymen brought up were the meaning of the Law of Moses, the interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies, and the question of the Messiah. But after several weeks of meetings—the Elders, Meyer Goldschmidt, Meyer Levin, and Berendt Jacob—petitioned the king to bring the entire project to an end.94 They had taken part in it because, as loyal subjects, they wished to comply with the king’s command, but, as they explained, the whole project was futile. They believed “freely and in good conscience,” and in an unusually direct and daring declaration, they now wrote that they would never give up their Jewish faith:

For we adhere to and stand by the very first preacher, Moses, and the sermons and words he preached and presented on Mount Sinai and by the

94 Holger Frederik Rørdam, “Blade af Waisenhusets ældste Historie” (Pages from the earliest history of the orphanage) in Kirkehistoriske Samlinger 4, ser. 3, 26–96, here 43–45. Convert or be Lost! 79

confirmation of them uttered by the last of all the prophets, Malachi. In accordance with this, each and every one of us, the Jews living here, will remain a Jew until death (45).

Another noteworthy argument they used was that the common people of the city had violently harassed them when they were walking to Royal Orphanage Church, and that indeed, they had been in mortal danger. Satirical broadside ballads about them were in circulation, and people had even said to their faces that it was no worse a crime to kill Jew than to kill a dog—one would not be punished for either act. Events like these could result in their losing credit and trade abroad, they would be ruined and sink down to the most pathetic level of poverty (44). The king’s counselors rejected these complaints as “unfounded prevarications, unprovable, indeed partially false,” and they urged the king to continue in “this commendable Christian task that has been begun in the name of Jesus, so that by the grace of God, one or another soul, although hardly very many, can be won over to a knowledge of Christ.”95 A spokesman for the wealthy Portuguese Jews, Isaak Granada, also urged the king to cancel the project, and he reminded the king that The Portuguese Jews owned forty thousand rix-dollars’ worth of shares in the Danish East Asia Company. Shortly after this, in October, the Copenhagen Fire of 1728 broke out, the greatest catastrophe in the history of the city, leaving Royal Orphanage Church in ruins. The king did not resume the missionary work after the fire.96 In Halle, the pietistic center, the orientalist Johann Heinrich Callenberg (1694–1760) established an institution to specialize in missionary work among Jews, called Institutum Judaicum et Muhamedicum (Institute of Judaism and Muhammadanism]. Callenberg was knowledgeable in Arabic, Turkish, and several other languages of the Middle East and had translated some New Testament texts into those languages. At the institute there was instruction in methods of missionary work, the Hebrew language, the Yiddish language, and rabbinical theology. The institute published translated works and worked out a catechism specially written for Jews, the “Juden Catechismus,” as well as other material to be used in missionary work. The missionaries—theology students or graduates—were sent out in groups of two with big book bags on their backs to seek out Jews and influence them to convert by conversing with them. They collected money, set up local support groups that could point out Jewish candidates for conversion, support them financially, and distribute missionary texts.

95 Lausten, De fromme og jøderne [The pious and the Jews] 275–276. 96 Ibid., 277–278. 80 Chapter 4

A search in the archives of Halle showed that such pairs of missionaries came to Denmark three times, in 1734, 1742, and 1748. Their still unpublished journals, their reports to the institute in Halle, and the correspondence between the institute in Halle and its Danish fund raisers open a window into these missionaries’ work with Jews in Denmark, their methods and theology, and also into the Jewish community, providing information not available to us from other sources. The first pair of missionaries, Johann Andreas Manitius and Johann Georg Widmann, traveled on foot through northern Germany, Holstein, Schleswig, Funen and Zealand, arrived in Copenhagen in April of 1734 and stayed for about three weeks. But it was difficult for them to find any Jews to convert, because “Jews do not walk around the city peddling used clothing as they do in other European towns.” They also had the erroneous idea that there would be many Jews at the stock exchange, and it was a surprise to them to learn that Jews lived in the same houses as Christians. They had a conversation with a Jewish teacher who had invited them to his home near the tea house in Læderstræde, and a Jewish merchant in Odense had given them the addresses of three Jewish families, those of Levin Goldschmidt, Wulf Unna, and Moses Cantor. They also discussed interpretations of the Old Testament, the salvation of mankind, the Talmud, rabbinical interpretations, and the significance of learned Jews such as Moses Maimonides and David Kimhi. They could report that Levin Goldschmidt, son of the founder of the Jewish community of Copenhagen, was the man who had the allegiance of the Jews. He strongly defended Jewish superstition, they noted, adding that he was working on a commentary on the Prophet Isaiah. Wulf Unna and his brother were also interested in theology; they were in a study circle that met with a rabbi twice a week to study the Schulchan Aruch (The Set Table), in which Josef Karo had collected several commentaries on the Talmud (ca. 1500). The missionaries had given Moses (Cantor?) the Judencatechismus, but when they came to retrieve it a few days later, there was a dramatic turn of events. According to their journal, they had been each offered a piece of cake, but they immediately noticed that “an evil spirit” had sneaked in. The mistress of the house quickly fired off a round of remarks and questions at them:

—what do you want with us? We have our own Jewish faith, and we are true to it; what business do you have to do with Jews? Who has allowed you to seek out Jews and scold us? We have our privileges here and we can report you to the authorities! Go and argue with the professors at the university instead, or travel down to the Turks! They won’t let you live long! Convert or be Lost! 81

When the astonished missionaries had recovered, they tried to insist that Jesus was the Messiah and he was the very Messiah who was going to return! But the woman rejected this and asserted that they interpreted the scriptures minisch or heretically. They claimed that they loved the Jews and had come to them out of pure love. One of the men present who had been silent thus far, remarked that the missionaries had come lescheim schomajim (for the sake of Heaven) so one might certainly listen to them, but “She was absolutely furious, that snake,” Widmann noted. He and his colleague now asserted that Judaism was sheer unbelief and that they had come to draw them out of that state of spiritual blindness and save them from eternal damnation, and in a conclud- ing gesture, he lifted his Hebrew Bible into the air and declaimed that here and now the true words in chapter three of Isaiah were truly being fulfilled: the Lord would condemn Israel because it was ruled by women! Shortly after this they realized that Jews had now been prohibited by their own people to speak to them. They sought out the converted Jew, Leyher Alexander who had been renamed Friederich Petersen Wessel. He had written pieces against Judaism (see p. 125), and he could give them a great deal of information about Copenhagen Jews. They also went to services and devotions with the clergymen of the German church in Copenhagen, Saint Peter’s Church, contacted some of the well-known radical pietists of the city, and were also able to speak with some leading government officials of the royal court and with the theology professors Steenbuch and Reuss. The latter did not refrain from criticizing the missionaries’ methods. On their way, home they visited the Nathan family in Nyborg, on the island of Funen, and were pleas- antly surprised by the pious life that family led. In Jutland, where there was also a small Jewish community in Fredericia, the City Council forbade them to contact Jews; public unrest was feared. Before they left Denmark, they visited the leading pietist dean, J. H. Schrader in the southern Jutland town of Tønder. They were pleased with the great sympathy shown by him and others there for their efforts at missionary work. But their journals and letters to Callenberg in Halle reveal that their stay in Denmark had been a great disappointment to them. They prayed to God to forgive the Jews for their “ignorance, their blindness, and harsh words,” and Widmann declared that he was overcome by Wehmuth, melancholia; he feared that “the fire of God’s wrath” would come down upon the Jews of Copenhagen. They were as hard as oak trees, deeply rooted in Judaism. During their extended stay with Schrader in Tønder, they witnessed the dis- covery of the second of the two iron-age Golden Horns of Gallehus in nearby Møgeltønder, which they enthusiastically described in their journal. 82 Chapter 4

In 1742, the next pair of missionaries, Stephan Schultz and Johann Andreas Manitius, visited the support groups that had been built up to promote the mission. Professors Reuss and J. C. Kall received them, and the missionaries had high praise for the diligence and high morals of the students they met. The drunken parties customary at German universities were not to be found here, they wrote. They had also met with Gottlieb Seeboth, the priest at Saint Peter’s Church, and with the influential palace priest, Johannes Bluhme. At Vallø Stift, a well-endowed Lutheran institution for unmarried noble ladies, Pastor Herman Schwarz, Deaconess von Reuss and Princess Eleonora Wilhemina von Württenberg-Neustadt showed enthusiasm for the mission to Jews. On their journey through Denmark other their way home, they visited several clergymen and laymen who were on the mission’s list of patrons. But did they meet any Jews? In a brief note, Schultz claimed that they had done fine work with Jews, but he did not elaborate on this. They gave out tracts to individual Jews in the towns of Nyborg and Odense, and in Fredericia they visited the synagogue and made visits to individual Jews in private houses. Unfortunately there are only meager sources extent about the 1748 visit to Copenhagen made by the last pair of missionaries, Stephan Schultz and G. Bennewitz. Schultz does inform us that he had met with a rabbi—perhaps Rabbi Hirsch Levy—and they had discussed a number of things, including the question of the Messiah. The rabbi supposedly said that he wanted to hear Schultz preach in one of the city churches, but that he himself was afraid to appear there. Schultz had suggested that the churches design specially hidden seats for those Jews who were interested in church sermons, “where they could be discreetly concealed from the rabble.” On this trip, Schultz had been allowed to preach four times in churches in Copenhagen, in nearby Hørsholm, and in Tønder. They had also spoken with Jews in Fredericia and had taught them the ‘correct’ way of celebrating the Sabbath; the Jews had listened “graciously and attentively.” In addition they met many important clergymen, professors and others, among them, Professor Marcus Wøldike, Bishop Hersleb, the Royal Confessor Johannes Bluhme, and the German parish clergymen, A. C. Rohn, Eberhard Hauber, and A. L. Giese. At Vallø Stift, they renewed their contact with the priest and the deaconess. They recorded the names of several supportive clergymen they met in and around the town of Tønder. It is quite interesting that Schultz also experienced Copenhagen as a tourist. He toured all the important sights and described them in great detail; the Royal Library, the Zoological Garden—he described pigeons, leopards, monkeys, pheasants, lions, and so forth—and the modern ice cellar under the palace: enchanted, he related how ice could be kept from melting, even during the summer. He saw the pigment mill in Frederiksberg and gave detailed information on the Convert or be Lost! 83 management of prisoners condemned to death and on the night watchmen, whose whistles especially interested him. The missionaries went to the Round Tower and saw the astronomical observatory, the museum with many stuffed animals, unusual creatures preserved in alcohol, coins, and wax figures of royal personages. Commander Dumreicher showed Schultz and Bennewitz around the Christian the Sixth, a warship in dock. Schultz’s description of the enormous ship was extraordinarily detailed; he gave the number of cannon, the area of the sails, and so on—but then it is as if he remembered that he was in Copenhagen first and foremost as a missionary, not as a tourist, because he ended his lengthy report on the ship, the biggest he had ever seen, with the remark, “But Noah’s Ark was surely even bigger!”97 Not one single convert to Christianity resulted from the journeys made by the missionaries from Halle to proselytize among the Jews in Denmark. This was because the Jews were deeply rooted in their religion, as the missionaries wrote to the leadership in Halle, but also because the particular character traits and methods of the missionaries prevented any success. From the viewpoint of our time, they lacked psychological insight, and their alleged of love of the Jews was expressed in provocations and harsh denunciations of Jews, Jewish teachings, and Jewish religious life. The journals provide a good idea of their self-knowledge, but their real motives are difficult for us to fathom. One essential aspect was their pietist background and their certainty that they were living at the end of time, while their concern for their own edification and for fulfilling their calling also played a role. But they were also men of the 1700s with insatiable curiosity and an interest in experiencing and describing the customs and practices of foreign people. Their reports of meetings with Jewish citizens, their exact descriptions of Danish roads, inns, and tourist sights, and their conversations with ‘commoners’ add to our knowledge of that era. They were both missionaries and explorers. But the mission to the Jews itself was a fiasco.

Conversion of Jews to Christianity

Although the German missionaries could not point out any Danish Jews who had gone over to Christianity as a result of their preaching, it nevertheless happened now and then that Jews did turn to the Church or to the government with the desire of becoming Christians. When the numbers of such would-be converts increased, the government had to lay down a procedure

97 For this content from the unpublished diaries and letters, see ibid., 279–392. 84 Chapter 4 for conversion, and in accordance with the edicts of the period 1744–1746, the procedure was as follows: when a Jewish man or woman wanted to become Christian, he or she must apply to the bishop in Copenhagen, who would interview the applicant and evaluate whether his or her desire was serious and would then send his evaluation to the Chancellery. The bishop’s letter had to include information about the occupational skills the proselyte had or wished to acquire. In several cases the applicant sent a written petition, and some of these letters have been preserved at the National Archives. An extract of the bishop’s text was inserted into the Chancellery records of petitions, which have also been preserved at the archives. The decisions made by the Chancellery at their weekly meetings were written after the minutes of the meetings. After the case was handled there, it was sent to the Privy Council, which also held weekly meetings, usually in the king’s presence. Most often, the Chancellery’s recommendations were followed, but they were sometimes deviated from. For example, the Privy Council might accept a proselyte although the Chancellery and the bishop had doubted their seriousness. However, the opposite could also be the case. If the proselyte was accepted, the case went back to the bishop, who now had to choose one of the clergymen in Copenhagen to give instruction to the proselyte. The bishop had a fixed schedule, consequently this duty was shared among many. The king had also decided that during their period of instruction proselytes should receive a weekly allowance from the church involved. When the instructor thought that the proselyte had acquired sufficient knowledge of the main concepts of the Christian faith, the bishop would hold an examination. If the applicant passed this, he had to sign a statement that said he would not renounce Christianity. The actual baptism would then be held in one of the churches of the city.

What Reasons Did the Proselytes Give? Each person had an individual story. A number of them said the same thing, that they had a heartfelt desire to become Christians. Others said that they could no longer find peace in their hearts as Jews. Some of them stood out by giving lengthy descriptions of their motivations. For example, in 1745 Levin Abraham acknowledged that he had previously lived in blindness and said that now he was certain that Christianity was the only religion of salvation. In 1750 Levi Isaac Dehn, whom the bishop had judged well suited for study because he had mastered Latin and Hebrew, said that he had contemplated the relationship between Judaism and Christianity for four years and now wanted to become Christian. Salomon Nathan wrote in 1757 that for a long time he had thought about Genesis 49:10, which had often been interpreted by the Church as prophecy of the Messiah, and he had also read “Lutheran texts,” and he now Convert or be Lost! 85 doubted that Judaism possessed the truth. Marcus Hecht wrote in 1758 that after fourteen days of discussion with the bishop, he had confessed that he doubted Jewish notions of the Messiah. In some cases it was quite obvious that the bishop and the government were especially pleased with the prospective proselyte and imagined a brilliant future for him. Young Joseph Falk, who applied in 1743, was clever and apt. The Jewish community had used him as a Hebrew teacher. “Since he now wishes to become a Christian, we can hope that he will become a useful tool for getting other Jews to convert,” wrote Bishop Hersleb. Unfortunately, the bishop was mistaken. It soon was obvious that Joseph was staying away from his religious instruction. He was only greedy for the money, stated the preacher who was supposed to instruct him. Great expectations were also held for Jacob Levi in 1745. He had read many rabbinical writings and had taught Hebrew, but now wanted to become Christian. In 1757, it was also a source of considerable prestige to the bishop and the government when Isaac Kalman announced that he was a proselyte. He had been a servant for a Jewish school teacher in Copenhagen, but after many conversations with the bishop he had now come to doubt Judaism, and he wished to save his soul from damnation, he wrote. Some Jews had been influenced by other Jewish proselytes, and fourteen-year-old Martha Menthels (1757) was influenced by Christian playmates who, she told the bishop in 1756, spoke about so many beautiful things. In 1756 the twenty-year-old Dorothea Süss wanted to become Christian because she had seen that Christian girls were allowed to attend school, unlike Jewish girls. How did the families of proselytes react to their plans to change religions? We know of their reactions in several cases. Naturally, many of them reacted very negatively: some of the proselytes had to flee from their families; some were forcibly sent abroad by their families. Seven of the applicants were in prison or were subsequently put there, and it turned out that two of them had previously been baptized. The baptism of converts was usually performed under extremely ceremoni- ous and distinguished circumstances in order to express the rejoicing of the Church about yet another Jew’s conversion and incorporation into the Christian Church. At the same time, a Jew’s conversion was meant to be a demonstration of the power of the Church, an indication to those Jews still not converted— there were no other non-Christians in Denmark—of the magnificent welcome they also would be given if they followed the example of the converts. Thus the baptism service was also a missionary act. This explains why the godparents of these new converts usually came from the very highest levels of society, which also meant that the newly baptized could count on receiving rather impressive gifts from their godparents in the form of significant amounts of money. 86 Chapter 4

We know about the proceedings of a few cases in which converts were baptized. Palace priest Johan Andreas Cramer baptized a Jewish woman, Else Behrends, in Christiansborg Palace Church on March 3, 1755 thus:

After the sermon on the prescribed scripture from the Passion story, he said a short intercessory prayer especially for Else Behrends, who was sitting at the very back of the church. The hymn, “Kom, Gud Faders Ånd fuldgod” (Come, God the Father’s Perfect Spirit) was sung (hymn 303 in the Danish hymnal of 2003). When the last verse was being sung, Cramer positioned himself between the altar and the stairs to the choir. Else Behrends was positioned facing him. After a short speech, whose content is not recorded, Cramer questioned her. According to him, she answered properly and not without emotion and tears. The hymn “Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam” (To the Jordan Came Our Lord, the Christ), Luther’s baptismal hymn, better known in Denmark in the Danish version produced by the nationalist pastor, poet and teacher, Nikolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig, “Vor herre kom til Jordans’s flod.”98 During this she went to the baptismal font at the right of the altar. The baptism was performed. The last verse of the hymn “To the Jordan,” during which she returned to her seat. Cramer held a short speech, not recorded, after which he prayed the Lord’s Prayer and blessed the congregation. Hymn, “Herre Jesu Christ, mit levnets Lys” (Lord Jesus Christ, My Life, My Light).99

Evidently, less sincere applicants for conversion could easily be attracted by the provision granting a weekly cash allowance. In several cases, proselytes started religious instruction and then disappeared after having received their

98 Nikolaj Severin Grundtvig (1783–1872) influenced the Danish Church in many ways through his ideas of the Christian faith as a joyous faith, his demands for freedom in church and society, and with his some 1,400 hymns, still sung very frequently in the Danish Lutheran Church. A contemporary movement in the Church, Grundtvigianism, is named after him. See Hans J. Hillerbrand, ed., The Encyclopedia of Protestantism, vol. 2 (New York: Routledge, 2004), 834. A. M. Allchin et al., eds., Grundtvig in International Perspective (Aarhus: Aarhus Univ. Press, 2000). 99 Josias Lorck, Beytrage zu der neuesten Kirchengeschichte in den dänischen Reichen und Ländern [Contributions to the most recent history of the Church in the Danish kingdom and territories] 1 (Copenhagen and Leipzig, 1758), 89–90. Convert or be Lost! 87 allowance a few times. In 1754 Bishop Hersleb had to admit that “the king’s mercy was being abused—the Church was incurring considerable expense, and he felt betrayed by the Jews applying for conversion.” He suggested that money not be handed out until the police or the City Council had closely examined the applicants’ circumstances. The City Council endorsed the bishop’s words and stated categorically that “most of the Jews who wanted to convert were particularly poverty-stricken or were out of favor with the Jewish community for other reasons, hence they imagined that it would be advantageous for them to go over to Christianity.” The Chancellery was in agreement and suggested that in the future, proselytes should receive only free instruction, not cash. But remarkably, the Privy Council, and probably the king himself, rejected the idea and decreed that the original ruling was to be retained. However, a collection was set up in each diocese, and with the funds collected, a Proselyte Foundation was set up to support Jewish converts from the provinces, though not much money was withdrawn from these funds. A few years later, in 1759, when Bishop Ludvig Harboe had had some negative experience with proselytes, he wrote to the Chancellery:

Nothing could gladden the heart of a true Christian more than seeing those who had been the enemies of the Cross of Jesus brought to his bosom and to the community of his mercy, but on the other hand, it is all the more saddening when you find that many simply want to pay lip service to our religion just for their own advantage or for the purposes of the flesh, and reveal by their deeds that they are still uncircumcised at heart and no different than they had been before. Thus some of those of the Jewish nation who have reported that they were ready to turn to our Church have subjected us to painful trials.100

But the king did not change the procedure until many years later. How many Jewish proselytes were there during this period from ca. 1700 to ca. 1760? Until now research had not examined this and it was supposed that there were twenty-three, including eleven minor children. But the present author’s systematic examination of the Journals of Supplication to the Chancellery (there are two half-volumes of about 600 pages for each year) and of records of baptisms at the relevant churches, as well as the letters in the archives of the Chancellery, revealed that there were 121 applicants, among whom were twenty-nine children under the age of fourteen. Eighty-four

100 Lausten, De fromme og jøderne, 419–426. 452–453. 592. For Bishop Ludvig Harboe’s Statement of 1759 see ibid., 423–424. 88 Chapter 4 of these were actually baptized, twenty-four of whom were children. This includes twenty-six converts from the provinces (from Nykøbing Falster, Øster Alling, Helsingør, Aarhus, Holbæk, Nakskov, Næstved, Aalborg, Ringsted, and Skamstrup). The actual numbers were higher, since in the writings of that time individuals whose baptism records cannot be found are occasionally described as converted Jews. A rather large number of the converts were children and youths who had either run away from home or had come into conflict with the Jewish community. The government felt a certain responsibility for the proselytes after their conversions and helped them with living expenses, legal proceedings, and entrance into guilds and skilled labor. On the other hand, punishment was harsh if they lapsed from the faith or committed immoral or criminal acts, for example, by becoming pregnant outside of marriage. Punishment might be whippings or lifelong imprisonment. In some cases one spouse refused to follow the other into Christianity. The government asked the theological faculty for an evaluation of this problem. Of course they wanted to preserve the institution of marriage, but on the other hand, both the faculty and the government, loyal to the convert, and approved that the convert be granted a divorce.101

101 For a table showing all Jewish proselytes, names of priests who instructed them, baptism if any, etc., see ibid., 535–568. chapter 5 Ordinary Danish Citizens, but with Another Religion The ‘Christian’ and Jewish Enlightenment (1760–1814)

The Jewish Community

What was the state of affairs in the Copenhagen Jewish community during this period? The census of 1787 showed that there were 281 Jewish families in the city, comprising 1,503 individuals. In addition to this, there were 354 Jewish residents distributed among sixteen provincial towns. At this time, Copenhagen’s population was 83,063. In 1801 there were 1,794 Jews in Copenhagen, while the total population of the city was 100,975. There were 666 Jews in the provinces distributed among twenty-eight towns. Throughout the centuries (and in the present in certain circles), there has been a preconception that Jews were extremely wealthy and that they used their wealth in various ways to create trouble for Christians. In this context, an examination of some statistics from that period is enlightening. Mendel Levin Nathanson (1780–1868), the leading figure of the Jewish community at the turn of the 19th century, estimated that about thirty percent of the Jewish families of his day were unquestionably poor, another forty percent belonged to the middle class, but were so badly situated that they “were living from hand to mouth, so to say, and could only manage to keep going by exercising the strictest frugality.” He described the last thirty percent as wealthy. Writing to the king in 1796, Jeremias Henriques reported that 130 of the 230 Jewish families, that is to say, more than half of them, lived in poverty. From 1766 Jewish congregants gathered in the new Jewish synagogue on Læderstræde, and when it was destroyed in the Copenhagen Fire of 1795, no fewer than eleven smaller private synagogues, or rather prayer houses, opened at various points in the city. This could perhaps seem to indicate a robust religious life, but it also testifies to the individualism that characterized Jewish life, for better or for worse. When David Ruben looked back at this situation almost a half century later, he emphatically deplored the damage done to religious life during this fragmentation. Discipline was impaired, since each congregation had its own rules and regulations, and this meant that the educated did not

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004304376_006 90 chapter 5 attend services and the young did not feel a need to do so, either. They had lost respect and reverence for the house of God; indifference was spreading. The congregation was organized with the Elders at the head, as it was elsewhere. In a written response concerning one of their disputes, the Elders claimed that since olden times, “their task had been to be in charge of their people, appear before the government on their behalf, and keep order in the synagogue.” In short, they took charge of the administration of the congregation and represented it to the outside world. They were the ones who had contact with the royal government and the City Council. The Chief Rabbi was the spiritual head of the community; his first and foremost task was to interpret the laws of Moses and the Talmudic Law for modern use, to decide on unclear issues, and occasionally to preach or hold speeches. He performed weddings, divorces, and funerals, made wills, testaments, and marriage contracts. The government had decided that the rabbi in Fredericia was not subordinate to the chief rabbi in Altona, and, of course, neither was the chief rabbi of Copenhagen. Services consisted principally of readings from the Torah and of singing led by the chief cantor. Apart from paying the salaries of the rabbis, the synagogue paid salaries or honoraria to the caretaker, messenger, security officer, physician, porter, Torah scribe, birth and wedding attendants, and women who attended at deathbeds. Naturally, the Jews kept the rules requiring rest on the Sabbath and the rules for holy days. In 1812, Professor Nicolaj Christoffer Kall (1749–1823) , whose feelings toward Jews were ambivalent, complained that Copenhagen Jews still kept the Sabbath, during which they would not light lamps or touch money, and they wore special clothing (hats and prayer shawls) to the services. In vain, the Elders led a spirited campaign to be allowed to keep the Jewish burial custom of burying the dead within twenty-four hours after death. Besides the Jewish cemeteries in Copenhagen and Fredericia, a cemetery in Fåborg was established after the local Jewish community had petitioned for one. In addition to the biographical information they provide, the many gravestones preserved in the cemetery in Møllegade in Copenhagen testify to the Jews’ religious ideals, their belief in the help of angels, and a belief in a life after death. There is an account of the prescribed period of grieving, shiva, and written wills have also given us an impression of religious life. For example, the extremely wealthy David Amsel Meyer (1755–1813) wrote in his will that the chief rabbi was not to deliver a eulogy at his burial, but that ten learned men were to read prayers every morning and evening for a year at one of the private synagogues, the Trier Synagogue. And he now had only one entreaty of the Creator—that his death might atone for all his intentional and unintentional violations, faults, and sins. In another will, that of Isaac Moisling, no fewer than 12,000 rix-dollars Ordinary Danish Citizens, But With Another Religion 91 where set aside for the establishment of a Claus (a kind of study group) of two scholars of scripture, who were to be foreigners and not from the local population or the congregation. They had to be well-versed in the Torah, reverent, with upstanding, blameless behavior, and have no friend or relative who might be indulgent or lenient toward them. They should be free, without business or other burdens that could hinder their diligent study of the Torah, which should be their sole and ceaseless occupation: they should think about it day and night. Circumcision was of course practiced as required, and the pictures on the many preserved wimpels illustrate this part of religious life. Observance of the Jewish holy days, Passover, Purim, Succoth, and Simchat Torah was so important that the authorities were asked to change market and moving days in cases where they coincided with holy days. One issue that occupied the Jewish community, the authorities, and the bakers’ guild was the wish of the Jews to have their bread baked in accordance with Jewish rules. In 1774 a petition for permission to establish a Jewish bakery had failed, and there was a new petition in 1780. The Elders wrote to the City Council that their rabbi had forbidden them to eat bread that contained milk because Mosaic Law did not permit them to mix certain foods; they had therefore paid people to make sure that the Copenhagen bakers respected this when they made bread for Jews, but there were often irregularities at the bakeries. Naturally, the master of the bakers’ guild denied this, and the City Council supported him, but permission was granted. Information on the sale of unleav- ened bread for Passover and the special tax on kosher meat often appears in the sources. Hebrew was the language of religion, and the rabbi and the Elders put up a long struggle to preserve its use in protocols and documents. The custom of writing a culprit’s name on det sorte bræt (the black panel) in the synagogue, was a form of shunning in cases of transgressed rules and overdue fees owed to the congregation. There was a ritual bath associated with the synagogue in Læderstræde. A great deal of social work was done by the congregation to help members who were impoverished, and this was extended to aid to poor Jewish immigrants. Religious rigor was also shown in the considerations put forward in connection with the particular oaths to be taken by Jews, although the list of criticisms cited was certainly intended to convince the worldly authorities to completely abolish the special oaths for Jews. As far as the organization of the community was concerned, the chief rabbi and the Elders worked to maintain traditional Jewish rules and procedures and to continue the practice of choosing Elders by drawing lots, as they did when choosing a rabbi, arguing for this on religious grounds. They were supported in this by the greater part of the congregation, just as a great many still supported 92 chapter 5 a conservative position as late as the 1790s. In this connection, one of the written arguments reflecting internal discord in the late 1790s makes it clear that the education and upbringing of Jewish boys in Copenhagen took place solely within a religious framework. They learned Hebrew and German and read the Talmud and the commentaries, for which the anonymous author reproaches the leadership of the community because the children did not learn arith metic, writing, and other subjects conducive to an education in the surrounding Danish society. These various features seem to give a picture of a congregation that was conservative in matters of religion, a view that is confirmed by an examination of the theological basis for the administration and life of the congregation. During the great conflicts of the 1790s and at the beginning of the 1800s, which will be dealt with later, the conservative faction claimed innumerable times that authority lay with the books of Moses, the prophets, and the Talmud commentaries. Both the written and oral revelations had to be recognized, the Torah and the Talmud were equal:

Jewish religion is based on the Law of Moses, the Old Testament in general, the Talmud with the many writings, which are presumed to be books of instruction, and failing to act in accordance with them is the same as failing to be a Jew . . . We Israelites who . . . have received the Torah must always and forever follow and observe all 613 commandments precisely, both those that were written and those in the Talmud.102

This was averred many times by the leaders in Copenhagen; they had the leaders of the Jewish congregations in Berlin and Altona also send written statements, agreeing that this was the true basis of Judaism. Professor N. C. Kall also had occasion to express this clearly:

That the Jews in our land consider the Talmud in general as a book of law, and that anyone who transgresses this Talmud is considered to be a trans- gressor of the Torah, is hereby attested to upon your request.103

The documents from the end of this period of internal conflict show how zeal- ously it was insisted that all the religious laws and regulations be followed.

102 Martin Schwarz Lausten, Oplysning i kirke og synagoge [The Age of Enlightenment in Church and Synagogue] (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 2002), 110–111. 103 Ibid., 42–43. Ordinary Danish Citizens, But With Another Religion 93

As in the previous period, sources show that men studied the Torah and the Talmud. In 1773, when the king had decreed a new day of prayer and penance, Israel Soldin published a piece that adds to our knowledge of Jewish religious life; the work reprints the Hebrew text and a German translation of an ode and a cantata, a glowing homage to the king, Christian VII and to Crown Prince Frederick, that was performed in the synagogue. The tradition of holding special days of prayer and penance in the churches of Denmark originated with the Lutheran reformation. After that the custom continued, and in the 1700s such prayer days were held in 1745, 1749, 1760 and 1773. These days of prayer were mainly held to thank God, because he had mercifully warded off wars and misfortunes, put an end to cattle plague and times of scarcity, or had given a bountiful harvest. Bishop Harboe was asked to choose biblical texts, formulate prayers, and choose hymns, and this material was then sent to the other bishops and further to the priests in their dioceses. No royal command to the Jewish congregation to establish such a day of prayer and thanksgiving has survived, but it is very interesting that the Jewish congregation in Copenhagen, like the Christian ones, held this special service at the synagogue, occasioned by the king’s order to the Christian congregations. The Jewish service was not a ritual of penance, but of praise to God for his creation and a tribute to the royal family. This was a testimonial to the Jewish congregation’s wish for solidarity with Christian congregations, a wish to adopt a stance as Danish subjects of the common royal father, without forgetting their Jewish inheritance. Because the sources are so few, it can be a bit difficult to get a reliable impression of the chief rabbis of this period. Members of the pro-reform faction had nothing but contempt for those who refused to leave the traditional line, and this attitude subsequently affected feelings against the chief rabbis. Hirsch Samuel Levy came from Poland, where he had been a rabbi for more than twenty years, and became chief rabbi in Copenhagen for more than thirty years, 1739–1775. Gedalia Levin was chief rabbi from 1776 to 1793, and thus experienced the beginning of the great upheaval within the congregation, when more and more pressure was put on the conservatives by the reformists. During his term of office, conflict arose about meal tickets for poor immigrants, about wearing wigs and modern clothing in the synagogue, and about cantors. He faced the fierce attacks from Moses Fürst and others and also the establishment, on January 6, 1792, of a commission to make changes in the Jewish community. Certainly, the attacks were not made against him personally, but naturally he was the recipient of continued accusations against old-fashioned rabbinical practice, and the reformists’ condemnation of him was unmerciful. Nathanson spoke with contempt of the contemporary 94 chapter 5

rabbis of the Polish race, entirely devoid of all knowledge, and of Gedalia Levin’s unbelievable ignorance . . . a priest . . . who did not know the least bit about the country in which he was living, nor of its language, in short, a priest who could in no way, neither in sermons nor by other means, contribute to fostering enlightenment, because his own level of culture was abysmal.

Nathanson adds that the rabbi had neither the power nor the competence to put an end to the strife in the congregation or to reproach the Elders for their despotism.104 This how he must have looked in the eyes of the reformers. But for the conservatives, Levin represented a praiseworthy struggle to uphold traditional Judaism. Stated on his gravestone is: “The crown among men, like the eternal light burning in the Temple, the best man among the strong.”105 Two of Levin’s sons became rabbis in Poland, and one of these, Abraham Gedalia, after some years as rabbi in Gniezno, became assistant to his father in Copenhagen. In 1787 he was spoken of as assistant rabbi, and after his father’s death, he was chosen to be chief rabbi, a position he held from 1793 until his death in 1837. Like his forebears, he was housed in the building that held the synagogue on Læderstræde, and in addition to the loss of his home in the period after the Fire of Copenhagen, he also had to endure the fact that the Jews of the city now met in many private synagogues or prayer rooms around the city. And the Portuguese Jews also had their own separate synagogues. This situation lasted throughout his period as rabbi. One of these synagogues met with him, at his own home on Vandkunsten. The scattering of the congregation did not make it easy for him to carry out his duties. His greatest difficulty was the constant pressure from the reformists for changes in the religious life of the congregation and in the entire life of the community. They claimed that Abraham Gedalia and his followers represented the “overwhelming dominance of the rabbinate.”106 A few documents written by Gedalia survive: an homage to Crown Prince Frederick on his return from participating in the Danish-Norwegian campaign against Sweden in 1788, a consolation he wrote on the occasion of

104 Mendel Levin Nathanson, Historisk Fremstilling af Jødernes Forhold og Stilling i Danmark, navnlig Kjøbenhavn [History of the circumstances and position of Jews in Denmark, especially in Copenhagen] (Copenhagen: F. H. Eide, 1860), 30. 38. 105 Julius Salomon and Josef Fischer, Mindeskrift i Anledning af Hundredeaarsdagen [Commemoration on the occasion of the hundredth anniversary] (Copenhagen: Danmark Loge u.O.B.B., 1914), 152. 154. 106 Lausten, Oplysning i kirke og synagoge, 47. Ordinary Danish Citizens, But With Another Religion 95 the Copenhagen Fire, and a long, unpublished report written to the Danish Chancellery, in which he rejected several suggestions for reform. In his homage to the prince, Gedalia found biblical passages that, with a bit of good will, could be applied to the current situation and the prince’s involvement in military affairs. His interpretation shows a fine knowledge of rabbinical literature; his style—as far as can be seen in the German version—is lively and earnest. Several times, he refers to “My dear brothers,” speaking to them in familiar terms—“you know that it says . . .”—and he clearly emphasizes that, although the Copenhagen Jews constitute an Israel, they wish to be considered “fellow citizens” and participants in the national celebration.107 He followed the same practice in his piece about the fire. He chose a biblical text and one or more events in the Bible that seemed to resemble the present situation; then, in his interpretation, he tried to show that biblical texts could answer current questions. Writing about the catastrophe of the fire, he took hold of the classical theological problems in both Christianity and Judaism. Gedalia’s method of interpretation, in which he incorporated biblical texts and rabbinical literature to explain other texts, could have been used in any Christian church of the time, except that instead of rabbinical literature, texts from the New Testament would have been used, and there would scarcely have been any talk of an innocent, righteous person. His style here was more urgent and lively than in the previously mentioned speech: he appealed to his audience by speaking to them directly, asked rhetorical questions, and dialectically worked through his interpretations. The rabbi’s speech attests to the desire that Jewish community appear to be a loyal part of the greater Danish society. The piece addressed to the Chancellery shows that he was a strong guardian of tradition in Jewish religious and worldly society.108 The disapproval of Nathanson and other reformists was severe, but Gedalia was also known for his Talmudic learning and honorable conduct. Even Nathanson had to admit that he was a “highly honorable and peaceable man,” but Nathanson, who had personal experience of the chief rabbi, added that “as for his knowledge and breeding, he was far behind the times.” Nathanson reproached the rabbi especially for visiting only rarely the many prayer houses

107 Abraham Gedalia, Heilige Rede des Geistlichen der Hoch-Teutschen Juden-Gemeinde R. Abraham Gedalja zur Feier der erfleheten Wiederkunft Seiner Königlichen Hoheit des Kronprinzen [Religious address of the clergyman pf the High German Jewish congregation in celebration of the desired return of his Royal Highness the Crown Prince] (Copen- hagen, 1789). 108 Abraham Gedalia, Exegetische Gelegenheitsrede nach gedämpfter Feuersbrunst [Exegetical talk on the occasion of the extinguishing of the fire] (Copenhagen, 1794). 96 chapter 5 around the city, for merely being satisfied to advocate for the construction of a new, common synagogue, and for lacking the will to change the congregation’s unfortunate state of affairs. This criticism from his contemporaries carries some weight, but the question is whether Gedalia had any real possibility of changing the course of events.109

Enlightenment Movements

Although the great confrontation between the conservatives and reformists arose within the ranks of the Jewish congregation, external forces, that is, from the royal government and Christian theologians, played a decisive role. Paramount in this conflict was the fact that both the government and some leading Christian theologians were fascinated by the ideas of the Enlightenment and that the Jewish Enlightenment movement of Germany had quickly taken hold in Copenhagen. The Enlightenment was a broad European movement touching almost all aspects of culture, science, and religion, which also invigorated commercial life. Frederick V was king from1746 to 1766, during the first years of this period. He was not very active in governing and was scarcely capable of it, or interested in it; instead, he threw himself into erotic adventures and increasing alcoholism. Political power was in the hands of noble landowners such as Johan Ludvig Holstein and Johan Ernst Bernsdorff, who were in charge of foreign policy. The dominating figure in Church matters was Adam Gottlob Moltke of Bregentved. Frederik V’s successor, Christian VII, king from 1766 to 1808, was only seventeen years old when he inherited the throne. The regime was unstable at first. What was more serious was the king’s mental illness, schizophrenia, which only worsened as he grew older. In 1768 the German doctor Johan Friedrich Struensee (1737–1772) was appointed royal physician to the king, and two years later he took control of the state. A freethinker influenced by Voltaire, he accomplished reforms in administration, foreign policy, juris- prudence, and in conditions for peasants. It is hardly surprising that his will- ful, single-minded rule earned him enemies in the government, and he incited implacable hatred by removing Queen Dowager, Juliane Marie, her son and heir presumptive, Prince Frederick (Christian VII’s half-brother), and their loyal counselor, theologian Ove Høegh-Guldberg (1731–1808) from all political power. Furthermore, it was widely known that Struensee and Christian VII’s wife, Queen Caroline Matilda, were lovers. In January 1772, the Queen Dowager, Høegh-Guldberg, and their circle, assisted by members of the court and by

109 Nathanson, Historisk Fremstilling, 112. Ordinary Danish Citizens, But With Another Religion 97 military officers, arrested Struensee, who was executed several months later. The new government, with Ove Høegh-Guldberg wielding the power, was reac- tionary, and many of Struensee’s innovations were reversed. Nationalism was emphasized: unlike the German Struensee’s notions, the old ways were truly Danish. One important result of the new rule was the Act of Citizenship of 1774, which ensured that only Danish, Norwegian, and Holsteinian subjects of the king could fill government positions. In 1784 a palace coup brought Høegh-Guldberg down, and power was taken by Crown Prince Frederick and his supporters, Andreas Peter Bernstorff, Christian Colbjørnson, Ludvig and Christian Ditlev Reventlow, and Ernest Schimmelmann, and others. The Dowager Queen Juliane Marie and heir presumptive, Prince Frederick, were removed. When King Christian VII died in 1808, the crown prince was crowned Frederick VI and ruled from 1808 until 1839. The king and his followers were men of the Enlightenment. They strove to promote individual, political, and economic freedoms in the firm belief in the superiority of the ability of human reason to master existence. This required tolerance, freedom of conscience, and a desire for general enlightenment. Their ideas had an impact on the theology of the time and on the relationship between Christians and Jews, and hence are important to the subject of this book. They believed that reason and revelation were not in opposition to each other, and that it was important that religion have practical utility: a virtuous life would bring about happiness. Theologians such as Peder Rosenstand-Goiske and Høegh-Guldberg were influenced by German theology; their enlightened theology and tolerance for others were quite influential on their society and on future theologians. This was also true of Royal Confessor Christian Bastholm (1740–1819) and the bishop of Zealand, Nicholai Edinger Balle (1744–1816) and, at the end of the period, professor of theology and later bishop of the diocese of Zealand, Frederik Münter (1761–1830).110 These ideas about the rights of the individual, human reason, individual liberty, freedom of conscience, freedom of belief and thought, and freedom to criticize authority could not fail to penetrate Jewish circles in Europe, including the Jews of Denmark, and there was cooperation between enlightened Jews and other like-minded members of society, who initiated the emancipation of Danish Jews in areas such as their legal rights and their political, social, and cultural equality with Danish citizens. The leading light of the Jewish Enlightenment or Haskalah, was Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786), the philosopher of religion, translator, and interpreter of the Bible, and the spiritual leader of the Jewish community in Germany. In general, Mendelssohn

110 Lausten, Church History of Denmark, 179–194. 98 chapter 5 wanted to bring Judaism into the Enlightenment of the modern non-Jewish society that surrounded it. He adhered to the requirement of obedience to the Law of Moses, but also strove for a culturally open Judaism, in which faith and reason were in harmony. However, it was Prussian Minister of War Christian Wilhelm Dohm (1751– 1820) who brought the question of the position of Jews in Christian society into public debate with his work Über die bürgerliche Verbesserrung der Juden [On the civil improvement of Jews] in 1781. Based on modern humanistic ideals, concepts of tolerance, and rational argument, he presented an analysis and a social and political program for the future position of Jews in society. In accordance with the idea of Enlightenment, he aimed to make Jews socially useful citizens. The governments of every country were to take the responsibility of seeing to it that this undertaking was accomplished.

The Copenhagen Haskalah Of particular interest is the close contact Moses Mendelssohn had with circles in Denmark. First of all, there were his family connections: Moses Fürst, a businessman in Copenhagen, was married to a sister of Moses Mendelssohn’s wife, Fromet Guggenheim, thus Joseph Guggenheim was Mendelssohn’s brother- in-law. Another of Mendelssohn’s important connections was his association with author and civil servant, August Adolph Friedrich Hennings (1746–1826). Furthermore, Frederik Münter (1761–1830), later to become professor of theology and bishop, had sought out Mendelsohn and had had several conversations with him in Berlin during his travel abroad in 1784. He had visited him two times and wrote his first impressions of the celebrity in his journal. Since it is missing in Alexander Altmann’s biography of Mendelssohn, it is added here in translation:

(August 26, 1782) I went to Moses Mendelssohn. A hideous little hump- backed man. Wore sleazy clothing. When he was standing next to me, I could not recognize him, although I had seen pictures of him. It was at his place of business. You could not at all detect his character from his outer appearance. He looks entirely like a Jew. He also had a kippah on his head. We talked about Hennings. He said that you could not deny that he was a warmhearted young man, but he thought he should be a little more humble and not consider himself perfect. He ought to follow the advice of wise people.111

111 Øjvind Andreasen, ed., Aus den Tagebüchern Friedrich Münters, I. Teil [From the diaries of Friedrich Münter, part 1] (Copenhagen, 1937), 38–39. Øjvind Andreasen, ed., Friedrich Ordinary Danish Citizens, But With Another Religion 99

Following this conversation, they exchanged opinions on several German men of learning. Through these contacts, Copenhagen Jews who supported the Enlightenment movement quickly learned of the newest trend in the Jewish scene abroad, the Haskalah movement, represented by Mendelssohn and his circle. Many of them subscribed to the periodical for the German Jewish Enlightenment, Ha-Me’assef [The collector], which was published in Berlin by Isaac Abraham Euchel, who actually came from Copenhagen.

What were the goals of these Copenhagen Jews of the Enlightenment? This question was answered by Wulff Lazarus Wallich in 1795, namely, “to improve the condition of an unhappy nation and to further its culture and happiness.”112 He often used the expression “the refinement of the congregation,” and, in the area of religion, the goal was the blessedness of the Jews. Thus there were both religious and social goals. They strove for the full recognition of Jews as citizens of Denmark, and thus a strong emphasis on the patriotism of Danish Jews was an important concept for them.

What means did the men of the Haskalah use to attain their goals? 1) They ceaselessly fought the tyranny that they claimed the Talmud and rabbinate had exercised. They wanted to replace this with natural religion, or simply with the Torah—this thinking is a little unclear, since the Torah has to be interpreted by rabbis if it is to be used in daily life. The fundamental defects of Judaism were, Wallich claimed, “the prescripts of the Talmud and the later rabbis.” A good picture of the Judaism that the reformers promoted is presented in Lærebog i Religionen for Ungdommen af den mosaiske Troesbekjendelse [Textbook on religion for youth of the Mosaic faith]. The goal of the individual is to achieve blessedness; fulfilling one’s duty to God and to fellow human beings is the means to this goal. Threats of punishment and promises of reward, in this life and in the hereafter, will make this happen. The duty of loyalty to the king and fatherland is emphasized. The expression ‘Old Testament’ is used, but the Talmud and the rabbinate are not mentioned. The entire contents of the book and its approach corresponds—aside from the necessary differences—to the textbooks on Christianity published in Denmark at the same time.

Münter. Et Mindeskrift [Friedrich Münter, a commemoration] (Copenhagen and Leipzig 1954), 389–392. 112 Wulf Lazarus Wallich, Forslag til Forbedring i den Jødiske menigheds Forfatning i Kiøbenhavn [Suggestion for the improvement of the condition of the Jewish congregation of Copenhagen] (Copenhagen, 1795), prefix. 100 chapter 5

2) Other important means of achieving blessedness were enlightenment and education. They proposed this repeatedly, mentioning primary school, technical training, and academic education. The section on education took up a great deal of space in Mendel Levin Nathanson’s proposal, and Nathanson himself, as always, was very much engaged in the establishment and support of schools for Jews. The same is true of an anonymous proposal in 1796, which contains an impassioned plea to the state for the establishment of a department of Jewish education in Copenhagen, “Min Stemme i Anledning af Dagens Stridsskrifter om den jødiske Ungdoms Opdragelse” (My voice on the occasion of today’s polemical piece about the upbringing of Jewish youth). Until this time Jewish children had merely learned a little Hebrew by rote—some passages from the Bible and excerpts from the Talmud. Friskolen for fattige børn af den mosaiske Tro [Free school for needy children of the Mosaic faith], a primary school for poor Jewish boys, was established in 1805 with Nathanson, physician Samuel Jacobi, merchant S. S. Trier, and Gottleb Euchel on the board of directors. The school had an accomplished teacher, Gedalia Moses, who also was a follower of the Mendelssohn school of thought, and who had written a book with a storytelling method of teaching the Bible. His tombstone survives, and its inscription reflects his theological views. It is noteworthy that Danish theologians from the State Church and other Christian teachers taught both at the school for Jewish boys and at the newer school founded for Jewish girls in 1810, which was a clear sign of a new era. 3) Thirdly, they vigorously refuted the attacks, mostly based on prejudice and false notions about Jews and Judaism, voiced by anti-Jewish forces during the ‘Literary Feud about the Jews.’ 4) Finally, an effective agency of reform was the reformists’ cooperation with the men of the Danish Chancellery who, in accordance with ideals of the Age of Reason, were determined to effect radical changes in support of Danish Jews.

Conflicts about Jewish Reforms

What was it that the two factions debated so fiercely? There were conflicts concerning the choice of Elders, concerning charges of corruption leveled at the Jewish superintendent and the Elders, concerning the entire administration of the Elders, the treatment of poor immigrant Jews, the appropriateness of following current fashions in wigs and clothing, the employment of foreign cantors, and plans for a new synagogue. The more Danish society was affected by the modern societal and cultural reforms of the Enlightenment, the more Ordinary Danish Citizens, But With Another Religion 101 insistent became the debate about where Jewish society should position itself in relation to the surrounding society. Could the ‘old-fashioned,’ insular, Jewish identity with its language, clothing, and family life, be maintained? Could a social life, with every aspect regulated by Mosaic rules and their traditional interpretations be kept up? Ought not Judaism conform to the ideals of the Enlightenment as Christianity has? Should not children be allowed to receive good schooling, participate in social and cultural life, and be a part of the life outside the Jewish community? These debates among Jews became quite furious, and it is notable that the different factions, competing individuals and groups, regularly appealed to secular authorities, the king or the City Council, for support. There were appeals, sometimes anonymous and sometimes signed, from private individuals, and there were petitions signed by larger or smaller groups of Jews. The government, influenced by the ideals of the Enlightenment, enacted certain reforms and was receptive to appeals, for example, by taking the Jewish holy days into account when planning market days, but its most significant action was to set up two great commissions, in 1792 and 1795, which would finally modernize the Jewish community. This intrusion into the “internal affairs” of the Jewish community also resulted in passionate debate. Substantial printed and unprinted material from both sides exists—it is typical that the pro-reform faction also appealed to the larger Danish public—and an analysis of the material shows that the conservative side, the Board of Representatives of the community and the chief rabbi, expressed a clear will to uphold the inherited, traditional Jewish learning and way of life. Judaism’s mandatory base was the Law of Moses, with equal reliance on the Talmud. No infringement of any rule could be tolerated, they declared. Their responses show great knowledge of the writings of Jewish scholars such as Moses Maimonides (Rambam), Joseph Karo, Moses ben Israel Isserles (Rema), and many others. They were principally concerned with the role of religion, with the extent of religious freedom to be granted, and with details of the administration of the congregation, the office of the rabbi, language and liturgy, education, marriage, kosher meat, inheritance, burials, etc. An interesting detail is that they requested and received declarations in support of their views from Jewish congregations in Berlin and Altona. On the reform side, men such as Jeremias Henriques, Moses Fürst, Wulff Lazarus Wallich and Gottleb Euchel fought for the modernization of Judaism according to Mendelssohn’s ideas. In addition to harshly polemical texts, the material contains a great deal of information on the social conditions of the congregation, including the number of families and private synagogues after the Copenhagen Fire of 1795. A fundamental demand of the reformers was for the government to step in and shape the framework for reformed Judaism 102 chapter 5 in Denmark. Its teachings should be based on “religion of reason, a natural religion,” in contrast to the dominant “rabbinism, superstition and Talmudism.” Their cardinal principle was that all the citizens of the country must be subject to the same laws, and have the same obligations and privileges. That is to say, that the Law of Moses and its interpretations should yield to the law of the land. They strongly emphasized that they were Danish patriots, and they vehemently denied that Jews constituted ‘a state within the state.’ Therefore they would no longer accept that the word nation was used about the Jewish community. The Hebrew and rabbinical language must be replaced by Danish or German, the separate Jewish poor relief should be eliminated, and poverty- stricken Jews should be belong to the official poor-relief system. The wholesale rejection of these reforms, written by the Board of Represen- tatives of the community, was signed by 167 Jewish men. As a result, in 1797 the government chose to shelve the matter. Nevertheless, several reforms were enacted, among them, a reform of the Jewish school system, which showed that the government was consciously working toward the goal of emancipat- ing the Jews. But many of these reforms, concessions to the Jewish citizens of the country, were enacted by the government in spite of protests from the clergy of the State Church, and from the professors of the theological faculty— with the exception of those who were inspired by the ideals of the Enlighten- ment. Therefore this period will also be examined to see how Judaism and Jews were perceived by them. First we will look into the opinions that came to light in some sermons, and then into the attitudes toward some of the reformers.113

Judaism and Jews in the Writings of Christian Theologians

Sermons and Religious Writings One result of the freedom of the press established during Struensee’s brief rule was the publication of many articles and pieces containing virulent attacks on institutions, groups and individuals, often in uninhibited, coarse language. Churches and clergy took the brunt of many attacks, and it was also common that Jews were the victims of such written vilification. A singularly nasty example was Fandens Tale til Smauserne [The devil’s speech to the Yids] of 1771 by Frederik Christian Scheffer (1737–1776) who was priest of Asminderød, Grønholt, and Fredensborg after 1772. As the title divulges, the devil gives a speech—in a jovial and direct tone—to the Jews. The underlying theme is that the Jews and the devil are the best of friends: Jews have the same traits

113 Lausten, Oplysning i kirke og synagoge, 57–142. Ordinary Danish Citizens, But With Another Religion 103 as the devil has, and they love him and object to the Ten Commandments and the like, just as he does. The author shows an extreme degree of anti-Judaism unmatched in his time. Jews are all money-grubbing and deceitful, they cheat, profit from usury, commit perjury, and evade the law of the land in innumerable ways, etc. It is remarkable that pamphlets of this sort were published in the Age of Reason and furthermore, that this author was an academically educated man of the clergy. Andreas Wøldike (1752–1836) was also able to reconcile ideas of enlightenment with rampant attacks on the Jews of his time. He had been priest in Vallø, parish priest at the Church of Saint Mary in Helsingør, palace priest at Kronborg Castle, and from 1789 until his death, was parish priest of Store Heddinge. On Great Prayer Day in 1789, at Christiansborg Palace Church, he gave a sermon on Isaiah 55: 6–7 in which his theme was “the repudiation of the Jews as a dire warning to seek the Lord before it is too late.” In his interpretation, the entire chapter dealt with the rejection by the Jews of the great gift that God had prophesied for them, namely, the coming of Jesus as the Messiah. The consequence of their rejection was the wrath of God, and righteous punishment. Wøldike admits that the Jews have been, and still are, very zealous in their worship of God, indeed they surpass Christians in their zeal. But it is all in vain: they are blind and cannot see their own salvation. Wøldike breaks out in a complaint about contemporary Jews:

Unhappy nation! You search, you wait, you call, you pray; you pray so much. So much, without ceasing, you spread out your hands. But the Lord refuses to hear your cries. The Lord hides his face from you. For your hands are covered with the blood that poured out when Jesus was nailed to the cross. Covered with the blood which, as you cried out, must be on you and your children as punishment, if Jesus of Nazareth was innocent. Unhappy nation! (14)114

Of course, he added, his intention was not to make Christians feel superior to Jews. In the rest of the sermon he issued an urgent appeal to the Danish nation—“Oh Denmark, Oh Denmark! Seek the Lord while you still can find him!” He repeated these notions in other sermons.115 The same views were

114 Andreas Wøldike, Prædikener med flere kortere Taler [Sermons and a number of short talks] vol. 1 (Copenhagen, 1794). 115 Andreas Wøldike, Prædikener med flere korte aandelige taler vol. 2 (Copenhagen, 1802), 193–206. 104 chapter 5 also proclaimed by such theologians as Peder Rosenstand-Goiske, Christian Wilhelm Hansen, Claus Peder Biering and, Abraham Volckersen. But there were also theologians who had abandoned the traditional denunciation of the Jews. After he had been parish priest in Hørsholm and Korsør and palace priest in Asminderød-Grønholt and Fredensborg, Frederik Christian Gutfeld (1761– 1823) became parish priest and dean at Holmens Church in Copenhagen and was one of the famous preachers of the capital city. Like other enlightened clergymen, he was marked by tolerance and by a firm belief in the universal benefits of enlightenment. This had a decisive import for Gutfeld’s relationship to Judaism and Jews. He did not concern himself the Jewish question very much in his sermons and speeches, but his views were clear enough. He gave the title, “The Importance of Public Religious Services” to a sermon on Luke 2:33–40 (on Simeon and Anna) given the Sunday after Christmas, and pointed out that “the advantage” of church worship is “that it brings the teachings of religion to life and makes them easier for reason to grasp, produces an active, common spirit and a noble love of country . . . which binds citizen to citizen, the strongest pil- lars of the state.” No matter which religion is concerned, the goal of worship services is to “proclaim religion and virtue . . . the illumination of the mind, the ennoblement of the heart,” and, although prejudice still rules here and there, it will disappear one day into the darkness with the coming of a clearer light in all religions. This was one of the few times Gutfeld referred to Judaism in this way. He did not take part in the usual denunciation of Jews that so many New Testament texts could give occasion for. In a sermon on Saint Stephen’s Day on Matthew 23:34–39, “Judgment on Jerusalem,” which has so often inspired preachers to make outbursts of that sort, he began by asking what had caused the destruction of Jerusalem, why was the Jewish nation “left abandoned among alien peoples and without friends, exposed to danger and contempt and horrible persecution?” His answer was that the cause was human depravity, indifference to true enlightenment, as well as ambition for power. The rest of the sermon was about the depravity of Christians, and therefore he gave the sermon the title, “Vices as the Foremost Source of Human Misery.” Gutfeld’s sermon for the second Sunday of Advent on Luke 21:24–36—in which Jesus, just after having foreseen the destruction of Jerusalem, talks about Judgment Day and the second coming—bore the title “Hvor ulykkeligt Mennesket gjør sig selv ved utidige Sorger” (How miserable people make themselves with pre- mature sorrows). He deliberately does not mention the Jews, and thus rejects the preachers who use this text against them. In his sermon for Good Friday, Ordinary Danish Citizens, But With Another Religion 105 he also seems to have made a deliberate choice not to talk about the possible responsibility of the Jews for the crucifixion.116 Gutfeld gave these sermons during his service as priest in Korsør. He could hardly have had much contact with Jews there, but did later as dean in Copenhagen, where he became known and admired in Jewish circles. On October 28, 1812, he was asked to be the main speaker at the second anniversary of the Jewish school for girls, the Caroline School (Carolineskolen), which had opened on Pilestræde in 1810. After greetings and praise for the royal family, and a tribute to Princess Caroline, as it was also her birthday—the school had been named after her—Gutfeld immediately turned to the subject of relations between Christians and Jews. As a Christian priest (“a Christian teacher of religion”), he was glad to have been asked to speak, because he was at home wherever education promoted “humanity, virtue, cultivation, and ennoblement.” There, he added—with a hidden reference to Deuteronomy 10:17 (and its reiteration in the in the New Testament in Romans 2:11, Galatians 2:6 and 1 Peter 1:17)—he felt how true it was that God is impartial to a person’s standing, He accepts each and every individual who leads a virtuous life, regardless of ethnicity. Gutfeld was also pleased that it no longer was necessary to defend the Jews. Nevertheless, he did not hesitate to denounce those who have attacked them—“a people who, mocked, abused and subjugated, were so often the victims of the mockery of imbecility.” He especially directed his fury at those who had acted thus in the name of Christianity—at “the poisonous persecutions of utterly unchristian Christians.” Later in the speech, Gutfeld praised the members of the Jewish congregation—whom he called “brothers”—who tirelessly strove for the instruction and education and of Jewish girls and boys, which, he stressed, united Christians and Jews; the Jewish pupils would also learn about God, the Creator, and about Divine Providence, the protector of all children. He also urged both Jewish and Christian men and women to interact in daily life and “to approach one another . . . with mutual goodwill.”117 Nicolai Edinger Balle (1744–1816) was also of this persuasion. As bishop of Zealand from 1783 until 1808, he had a great deal to do with Judaism and Jews in many situations. He was involved in numerous applications from Jewish proselytes, and in many other cases was asked to submit statements in connection

116 Frederik Christian Gutfeld, Taler over de sædvanlige Søndags-Texter [Sermons on the usual Sunday texts] vol. 1 (Copenhagen 1799), 93–108. 363. 117 Frederik Christian Gutfeld, Tale holden i Carolineskolen de 28de October 1812 [Speech held at the Caroline School on October 28, 1812] (Copenhagen 1812), 11–14. 106 chapter 5 with conversions. By looking at these cases (which we will examine in more detail subsequently) we can illuminate Balle’s view of Judaism and Jews. On the other hand, there is very little information to be found in the surviving texts of his sermons. In accordance with his theological standpoint, Balle was persuaded that knowledge of the contents of the Bible was a potent means of creating a personal relationship with God and of combating the many attacks to which the Church was subjected at that time. Therefore he instituted a series of Bible readings and held them at Royal Orphanage Church (and later at Garnisons Church) every Sunday and holy day for a few hours in the evenings. The Bible readings became very popular, attracting large audiences. As time went on, they appeared in eight volumes from 1793 to 1804.118 In these lectures Balle often dealt with the relationship of Jesus and his disciples with the other Jews of the time, and sometimes he drew comparisons with his own time. Of course he maintained the Christian view of Jesus as Messiah; he also could call the Jews stubborn and blinded by the teachings of the rabbis; he blamed Jews for their exclusionary self-understanding; and he held that the Law of Moses is of less value than the Gospels, because the former was brought by an angel, whereas the latter came directly from God. According to Balle, after the coming of Jesus, Judaism was an error, an incorrect understanding of the will of God. How then should Jews be perceived by Christians? It would be unseemly for Christians to mock or mistreat Jews since “it would be treating our Savior’s own people badly.” Besides, God had a definite plan for the Jewish people (681). But Balle goes further—although Jewish worship was mistaken in his eyes, he would not condemn it. On the contrary, every honest worship of God was to be respected:

A truly enlightened Christian honors all worship of God, even when it is completely mixed with error. What matters to God is integrity; and who are you to judge another man’s servant? To ridicule or mock someone who has gone astray in his worship is cowardice that no Christian who fears God would ever allow himself (198) . . . Therefore we should in no way disregard any kind of sincere worship, either in Judaism or in heathenism or in Turkish or Brahman religions. Neither reason nor Christianity allow it . . . If we did, our hearts would certainly become heavy, indeed, filled with shame (670).

118 Nicolai Edinger Balle, Bibelsk Søn- og Helligdags-Læsning [Biblical readings on Sundays and Holy Days] vol. 1 (Copenhagen 1797). Ordinary Danish Citizens, But With Another Religion 107

Balle restrained himself from direct attacks on Jews even though he did not hide that his wish that Jews convert to Christianity, which, for him, was naturally the only true religion. Therefore he was not a spokesman for active Christian mission among the Jews.119 This irenic, conciliatory attitude toward Judaism and Jews is especially apparent in one of his last writings. On October 28, 1813, a few years before his death, Bishop Balle held a speech at the annual celebrations at the school for Jewish girls.120 Nathanson was present, and he reported that the heartfelt speech made by this illustrious personage made a deep impression on the many people who attended and on the pupils gathered there on this occasion. This was understandable, because the speech was not lacking in clarity about the sympathetic and friendly attitude that Christians and Jews should adopt toward each other in Denmark. Balle had been asked to hold the speech, and it was published shortly afterward with the addition of an introduction in the form of a letter (dated November 11, 1813) by the directors of the Caroline school, Joseph Raphael, Moses Wessely, and Mendel Levin Nathanson, in which they expressed their deep gratitude to Balle for the crystal-clear openness and cordiality that his talk represented. They would pray that God grant him unim- paired health “for the good fortune of your surroundings and the happiness of everyone who knows how to appreciate you.” The speech encouraged them to make “unwavering progress on the path they had walked.” Balle celebrated Princess Caroline, praised the school and the country of Denmark, which had extragovernmental, voluntary associations to establish this kind of useful institution while other countries were waging war on each other, for here “public industriousness and uncorrupted harmony” are promoted. It is interesting, but not surprising, that Balle included the two religions, Christianity and Judaism in his talk. To begin with, he concerned himself with what they had in common, namely, love of one’s neighbor. After this, he stated:

Then comes divine revelation: be it made known by Moses or made clear by Christ. One God one lawgiver, one teaching of human duty, one religious precept from God, in the Old as in the New Testament (11).

119 Nicolai Edinger Balle, Vor Herres og Frelsers Jesu Christi . . . Regiering i Himmlen [The reign in Heaven of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ] (Copenhagen, 1804). Lausten, Oplysning i kirke og synagoge, 197–198. 120 N. E. Balle, Tale i Carolineskole den 28nd October 1813 [Speech held at the Caroline School] (Copenhagen, 1813). 108 chapter 5

He meant that cooperation between Christians and Jews must not be destroyed by each side separately advocating its own religion. He said that this naturally does not mean that religion has become irrelevant, but that the old days, when the devil breathed the “winds of persecution into the minds of the smug,” must come to an end. Christians fail their Lord when they let themselves be swept away by “fanatical zeal.” You should not force your faith on people of other beliefs because you think they will otherwise be damned, for who are you to judge another man’s servant, Balle asks, declaring that each individual “stands or falls before his own master.” He makes himself spokesman for the idea that virtuous Jews will find salvation as Jews and virtuous Christians as Christians. This is not to say that Balle hid his own Christian faith in any way: “Far be it from me to hide my faith in any kind of pretense! Two-tongued hypocrites are abhorrent to God and man. I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,” but he added, “for my own part,” that is, this was simply his personal belief. Other people could have different beliefs that led to their salvation. Precisely because his belief was so firm, he was able to have so much “tolerance,” and he had no doubt that there was salvation for “the virtuous” (20). Such were Balle’s thoughts on the Jews, but then he spoke about the Jewish view of Christians. “Israel” has condemned the Christians and has denied that they are “blessed.” Both parts have condemned each other for centuries: “We have, both of us, from both sides, much too much of this shameful sort of thing.” Balle thought that this had ceased by now and asked why this evil “clamor” had begun once more (see p. 119), and he went to the defense of the Jews again. Lastly, Balle carefully touched on the dispersal of Jews around the world, “which did not happen without a cause,” and there is no doubt that God had a distinct intent: “Can the finger of the Almighty go unrecognized?” But this means that we should not attempt to “merge together” Jews and Christians, neither with enticing promises nor with force. That would go against God’s plan. In opposition to Royal Confessor Bastholm (see p. 120), Balle emphasized those elements which Jews and Christians had in common. He rejected the missionary work Christians did among Jews, emphasized that Danish Jews were fellow citizens with their own religious practices, and, not surprisingly, stressed the ideals of enlightenment theology about socially beneficial under- takings and a virtuous life. Other Christian theologians could be mentioned, such as doctor of theology and titular professor Lauritz Smith (1754–1794), and parish priest Balthasar Münter (1735–1794), the very popular preacher at the German St. Peter’s Church in Copenhagen. Their writings show that quite a few clergymen had risen above the prejudicial positions of former times and had taken conciliatory and tolerant stances on Judaism and Jews. Ordinary Danish Citizens, But With Another Religion 109

Remarks by Theologians on Special Jewish ‘Cases’ There were many cases in which the government’s Chancellery asked university theologians or bishops from the State Church to examine Jewish ‘cases’ and write an assessment. These papers reveal differing attitudes during this period, some resembling the anti-Judaism of the past, and others with more tolerant viewpoints. The government’s reaction in each case is noteworthy. Some of the cases will be described briefly.121 Part of a Copenhagen clergyman’s salary came from a tax levied on residents of the parish. In 1757, Archdeacon H. C. Bützow and Bishop Ludvig Harboe (1709–1773) suggested that Jews who lived in the relevant districts should also pay this “gift” to the local priest of the State Church. They reasoned that Jews were living in properties that would otherwise be housing Christians who would be paying toward the priest’s income. The government accepted the proposal and imposed the tax. Later there were plans to assess the tax on all the Jews in the city, but that was abandoned, consequently the tax was limited to the Jewish residents in the parish of Helligånds Kirke (Church of the Holy Ghost), where most Jews lived.122 In the beginning of the 1760s, the Elders again requested permission to build a synagogue. The application was sent on the usual route: to the City Council, then to the Danish Chancellery, which, as it routinely did, asked Bishop Harboe for his judgment in 1765. His reaction to the suggestion was furious. He referred to the previously mentioned ordinance and insisted that in accordance with it, it was forbidden for Jews to have or to build “a so-called synagogue or any special building in which to hold religious services.” They were only allowed to worship in an ordinary residence, with the utmost discretion. Therefore it was “terribly audacious and presumptuous” of them to have torn down the old house on Læderstræde without permission, and to make plans to build a synagogue there and on the lot next door. The bishop went on to say that he could only interpret this to mean that they wanted a larger house than before, that it would not be a private house, but would appear to be a “public building.” If this project was approved, it would have “dangerous consequences and would be found offensive by many people.” Therefore he hoped and prayed that the king would hold to the previous judgment of the matter in 1737. To make his opinion perfectly clear, Harboe added that in 1737 the Jews not only were denied permission, but were also given a fine of eight hundred rix-dollars. Apparently the king ought to do the same thing now.

121 See Lausten, Oplysning i kirke og synagoge, 205–374 for a full discussion of sixteen cases of this sort. 122 Ibid., 205–219. 110 chapter 5

Bishop Harboe seemed to be afraid that a building would be erected that would become a kind of Jewish center in the city, a building that would look like a synagogue. This was categorically opposed to his own view and the views of many others that, although the religious freedom that the Jews had achieved gave them the right to hold services, these should be held as discreetly as possible, hidden from public view. But Jacob Raphaël and Ascher Unna, spokesmen for the council of Elders, informed the king that the planned building was only meant to replace an earlier one on the same plot, and that they would furnish the top floor as “a room where we could gather for our worship services.” It would not be offensive to anyone. Besides this, they would offer up fervent prayers for the king and the entire royal family, and they would also teach their children to be his obedient subjects. The bishop realized that he had spoken without knowing all the details of the case. He told the king that he had believed that the Jews wanted to build a regular synagogue. Now he understood that they simply wanted to arrange one of the floors of the building for their “services”—the bishop could not make himself say “worship services”—but he did what he could to hinder the property from becoming a Jewish gathering place and advised against giving the rabbi permission to live there at the same address. This would give the impression that Jews had been granted more privileges than they had previously held. The City Council was in complete agreement with the bishop; the rabbi could simply rent a couple of rooms on the same street. The City Council felt that he need not “fear harassment from any mob when he walked down the street to and from his workplace”—at any rate no more than when he walked down the street on other occasions, they added. The Danish Chancellery followed the bishop’s and the City Council’s advice, but remarkably, the king did not. He overturned their decision, and in 1765 gave Rabbi Henchel Samuel Levy the permission he had petitioned for, “in consideration of his advanced age.” The original architectural drawings of the synagogue have not survived, but it is possible to get an impression of the building and the synagogue from papers dealing with taxation for fire protection: a long room, so richly appointed it bore comparison with the great synagogues of Germany. Three hundred and twenty seats for men and women had been sold and the venue soon became too small for the congregation. In any case, it was completely consumed by the Copenhagen Fire of 1795.123 On the other hand, in 1767 Bishop Harboe approved the chief rabbi’s right to impose the mild form of excommunication and to write the culprit’s name on the black panel in the synagogue, reasoning that this privilege had already

123 Ibid., 223–227. Ordinary Danish Citizens, But With Another Religion 111 been granted to the chief rabbis. The bishop apparently thought that this would contribute to better discipline of the congregation.124 In 1764, when members of the medical faculty of the university were in favor of letting Jewish physicians study for the degree required for practicing medicine, the theologians and the governing body of the university opposed it. Their arguments were based on the prejudicial belief that the Jews’ ulterior motive was to convert Christians to Judaism, and they insisted on preserving the old requirement that all academic graduates must subscribe to the Augsburg Confession. Later they nonetheless granted the de Mezas, a family of physicians, entrance to the school. However, Doctor Salomon de Meza, his son (Jacob de Meza) and his daughter converted to Christianity in 1783.125 When the Jews petitioned to be allowed to establish a printing house for Hebrew publications, the university responded with a series of strict requirements, expressed in anti-Jewish language. The Chancellery was a bit more receptive and granted permission on the condition that nothing contradictory to Christianity or good morals was printed (1755, 1786, and 1791).126 At the same time, the Chancellery, Archdeacon Plum, and Bishop Balle all reacted positively to the requests of Moses Levin Mariboe and Moses Hechsher, who, in protest against the old Jewish ceremonies, wanted to be “buried in Christian graveyards.” Bishop Balle and Bishop Münter did, however, forbid any participation by the clergy or any bell ringing (1806, 1812).127 There was an important case in 1798 with significant implications for the future. It involved the application of Bendix Koppel, a merchant of Nyborg, to have his son Nathan accepted into secondary school, i.e., Latin school. Bishop of Funen, Jørgen Block, argued against this on religious grounds, but the Chancellery did not follow the bishop’s recommendation and granted the application. The more tolerant attitude of the Enlightenment was also expressed in 1800, when Jews under arrest were given permission to participate in services on the Sabbath and on other Jewish holy days, which had previously been forbidden. And in 1812, when an educated Jewish teacher applied for a position in a Latin school, the Chancellery granted permission in spite of the objection, based on religious grounds, of theology professor Daniel Gotthilf Moldenhawer.128

124 Ibid., 227–229. 125 Ibid., 229–233. 126 Lausten, Oplysning i kirke og synagoge, 234–240. 127 Ibid., 241–248. 128 Ibid., 248–250, 269–271. 112 chapter 5

Bishop Balle also proposed that the government allow a “marriage between a Jewish man and a Christian woman” in 1799. He respected the Jewish man’s reasons for remaining a Jew; it was a matter of conscience and of social considerations, and he thought that the New Testament did not forbid mixed marriages. Any children of the marriage would have to be brought up as Christians, however. This principle was applied in all the later authorizations for such mixed marriages. Bishop Balle’s successor, Bishop Friedrich Münter, reacted with anger and repulsion in 1813 when a priest of the State Church, Hans Jørgen Mackeprang, wanted to marry Esther Kalisch Jacobi, widow of the well-known doctor, Samuel Jacobi, a prominent member of the Jewish community. Bishop Münter accused Mackeprang of contempt for his clerical position, and demanded that Esther Jacobi be baptized. The bishop got his way.129 Furthermore, the government retained the special and humiliating procedure used when Jews had to swear oaths in court. This was advocated by adviser to the government, theology professor N. C. Kall and by Bishop Münter, who had the moral support of his friend, the anti-Jewish German orientalist, Olaf Gerhard Tychsen. The faculty and N. C. Kall took for granted that if they were not threatened with strict regulations, Jews would glibly lie and commit perjury. Cases from many market towns show uncertainty about the Jewish oath, but in spite of protests from the Board of Representatives of the Jewish community in 1812, the old procedure was maintained all the way up to 1843, though in time, a shortened and more considerate version was adopted for swearing Jews into the militia.130 Since it had become possible for Jews to buy land and estates, they might become the owners of churches and become patrons of churches and schools. In the first case of this kind, the county administrator involved had no qualms about it, but Bishop Münter and the local school authorities had a prohibition laid down, so that Jews who bought estates that included churches could not become patrons of schools and churches (1812–1813). Their reasoning was that allowing a Jew be a patron would be beneath the dignity of the Church because Jews harbor hatred and contempt for Christianity, and they certainly could not be allowed to watch over the upbringing “unto virtue and religion” of the youth of the country. The Chancellery followed the bishop’s advice, though it revised the report somewhat and employed a milder tone. The Jewish reformists had written the Textbook on Religion for Youth of the Mosaic Faith in order to prepare them for their examination in religion. Since it was completely free of any reference to rabbinism and Talmudism, the

129 Ibid., 265–269. 130 Ibid., 272–305. Ordinary Danish Citizens, But With Another Religion 113

theological faculty was able to consent to it, though they had formerly asked for a direct repudiation of these concepts, a demand that was not upheld when the Chancellery accepted the manuscript (1812–1814).131

The Conversion of Jews to Christianity

All during the period 1760–1814, a considerable number of Jews applied to the king for permission to become Christians. In doing this, they continued the tradition from the age of pietism. Although earlier research assumed that there had only been ten proselytes, the present author’s research shows that during this period, there were at least 120 applications from Jewish proselytes, including twenty-one children under the age of fourteen. There is proof that sixty-eight of them were baptized, but the real number is uncertain, for there had been more applicants than that and, presumably, more baptisms. Most of this information comes from the protocols of the Danish Chancellery, but in several cases, it is supplemented by other sources. The process of accepting proselytes for education and baptism was the same as it had been during pietistic times (see p. 84). The occupations that the proselytes worked at, or wished to be trained for after baptism, ranged widely—from tailor, language teacher, housemaid, barber, butcher, seamstress, interpreter, signet engraver, shoemaker, dentist, midwife, tea merchant, to hatter, and so on. In all, forty- one priests were involved in the education of proselytes. In about eighty cases, we know where the converts had come from. Forty-eight of them were from Copenhagen, sixteen from Germany, one from Poland, seven from Danish provincial towns, and five came from unspecified places abroad. They had many different motives for becoming Christian. In some lengthy applications, proselytes described the disparity between Judaism and Christianity. There were brief applications in which the proselyte could not give any particular motive, as the bishop noted in several instances. Some examples of the former will be described here. In 1764 Salomon Moses reported that he had read the New Testament and had made comparisons between it and Isaiah 53, one of the texts of the Old Testament that deals with the coming of the Messiah. This had “given him food for thought,” so he had consulted the bishop. In 1784, Jakob Wulf began his well-written letter to the king by declaring that he had become convinced of the fallacy of Judaism and the error of the teachings of the Pharisees, and he had realized that the salvation of the soul could only be found through the teachings of the Christian religion.

131 Lausten, Oplysning i kirke og synagoge, 332–341. 114 chapter 5

In 1770, sixteen-year-old Schene Melchiorsen wrote that she had had occasion to read the New Testament and other Christian books. This had aroused in her a desire to become a Christian. She knew the second part of Luther’s Small Catechism by heart even before she was actually accepted for Christian instruction. Wolf Moses, a former rabbi, cantor, and school teacher of the Amsterdam congregation, related in 1772 that he had also contemplated the usual places in the New Testament that refer to the Messiah and had become convinced that the Messiah had already come and that the Jews were lost. Even before he was accepted for Christian instruction, twenty-year-old Isaac Levin complained to Bishop Harboe in 1774 that he was being harassed by Jews after getting involved in a discussion about the Messiah with another Jewish man. In his letter of complaint he confessed, “From the bottom of my soul I have a fervent belief in Jesus Christ, the very holiest fulfillment of the promises of the holy prophets.” An unusual proselyte, the young Samuel Elkan Wolf (1784), who was well versed in both the Bible and the Talmud and had taught in Altona, made a deep impression on Bishop Balle, who had many conversations with him. The bishop found him a scholarship and supplied him with books. When Wolf was baptized, he incorporated one of Bishop Balle’s names in his new Christian name, Wilhelm Henrich Edinger. Later he earned a degree in theology.132 It was a spectacular event when two sons of the well-known physician, Salomon de Meza, were baptized (see p. 111). Shortly afterward, their father was also baptized. The speeches he held and his profession of faith were published by Bastholm. However, there were also many cases of hypocrisy, perhaps attributable to miserable economic circumstances or trouble with the law. A special little category was the small number of girls who had become pregnant out of wedlock. Of course, they were punished severely when the clergy discovered the true nature of the case. Priests had free rein in teaching the basic concepts of Christianity to proselytes. A handwritten notebook from the priest of Holmen’s Church, Hans Christian Michelsen, gives a good picture of his enlightenment theology and, at the same time, his opposition to Jews.133 Although many Jewish proselytes were still flocking to the Church, it was quite clear that both the priests and the bishops were becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the entire situation. There were several reasons for this. The clergymen thought they had experienced too many disappointments both in their instruction and in the lives that some of the newly baptized proselytes

132 Ibid., 396–400. 133 Ibid., 400–405. Ordinary Danish Citizens, But With Another Religion 115 led afterward. There were also financial considerations, as the Church was paying a weekly stipend to the proselytes while they were under religious instruction. The clergy also complained of the extra burden of work they were assigned in teaching and supervision of proselytes. However, the real reason for their discontent was that the very idea of recruiting proselytes and luring them with a weekly allowance and promises of privileges was out of date. The time had passed when it was seriously believed that the conversion of Jews was a sign from above, proving the truth and victorious progress of the Christian Church. Even the highest authority of the Church, Bishop Balle, now declared outright that he did not want to be known as a “producer of proselytes.” As a matter of fact, at the end of this period, he found it more and more difficult to find clergymen in Copenhagen who would accept the task of religious instruction. Similar views were reflected in the numerous statements and suggestions from Bishop Harboe, Bishop Bloch of Odense, and many other clergymen, who, attempting to make the conversion process as difficult as possible, made proposals for new procedures for Jewish proselyte applicants. Nonetheless, the clergy was bound by the royal edicts of an earlier period. In what follows, some examples of these views by the clergy will be examined. When Efraim Berntz, who came from Altona, presented himself to Bishop Harboe as an applicant for conversion in 1774, in the course of their conversations the bishop tried to get him to give up the idea. The bishop had a feeling that it would lead to no good, as he said in the evaluation he sent to the Chancellery, explaining that the clergy had seen too many bad examples. Nevertheless, the king accepted Berntz’s application, although his baptism probably never came to pass. Nor was Bishop Balle overly enthusiastic about Judith Aron in 1783, although she had a certificate from the landlord of her lodgings at 174 Sankt Pedersstræde that said she had always been faithful, quiet, virtuous, and trustworthy. The bishop could not actually discover that she simply was looking for pecuniary advantage, but he gave her a severe warning anyway. Beside this, she was illiterate and could only speak German, but the bishop had been affected by her appearance, which, he thought, did not show signs of a dissolute life because “she was nothing less than beautiful!” The end result was that the king accepted her petition. Nevertheless, time showed that she was indeed “dissolute,” and later the bishop had to admit that he had been hoodwinked: “I thought that she was honorable and I smoothed the way for her admittance. But I later found out, to my profound regret, that I nonetheless have been shamefully deceived by that utterly vile street whore.” It is quite unlikely that she was ever baptized.134

134 Ibid., 414–415, 456. 116 chapter 5

In the course of a long, serious evaluation, Bishop Balle also tried to get proselyte Seelig Ruben to think twice, and in his report to the Chancellery the bishop added that he always tried to make it perfectly clear to Jewish proselytes what a momentous journey they were about to embark upon. It is interesting that Balle’s principal viewpoint was that a Jew who lived truly in accord with the Jewish faith would be granted the grace of God, but hypocrites of course would not:

I immediately informed him, as I always do on such occasions, that this was a most important step to take, and that every change in religion not grounded in absolute conviction, and in the heart’s desire for truth and virtue must bring about the disapproval of a holy and just God, in whose eyes all falsehood and all hypocrisy are an abomination. I told him that the lost soul who honors God according to his understanding and acts decently will find grace, whereas he who only gives lip service to the truth, while denying it in his heart or in his actions, will suffer the punishment he deserves.135

There are signs of similar unease about the general acceptance of Jewish proselytes in comments made by Tønne Bloch, bishop of Funen, who remarked that it was against a principle of his to recruit proselytes and that he would not make the least effort to do anything of the kind. But if he could see a genuine longing for knowledge, he would not interfere. Since there was so much skepticism about Jewish applicants for conversion, it is not surprising that the clergy were especially cautious in dealing with petitions from very young would-be proselytes. In 1785 Bishop Balle had long talks with sixteen-year-old David Heilbuth and his parents. Balle was especially on guard in cases of young illiterate Jewish girls. He reported that he occasionally rejected young women proselytes outright when he discovered that their desire for conversion was based not on a love of the truth, but rather on a wish to marry a good provider. Even parish priest Balthasar Münter, who was otherwise sympathetic toward Jews, was sometimes skeptical. He wrote about Ellen Birthe, a young Jewish girl with a not very Jewish name, who claimed to have read Christian books; it was generally known that Jewish girls could not read, so where would she have gotten books? And would her parents have allowed her to read them? He concluded that her main objective was money.136

135 Ibid., 534. 136 Lausten, Oplysning i kirke og synagoge, 425, 431, 433, 486, 487, 526. Ordinary Danish Citizens, But With Another Religion 117

The clergymen’s disappointment over having been deceived by many Jewish applicants and their irritation over not having seen through the insincerity of some applicants resulted in their airing of generalizations and remarks about the average run of proselytes in extremely biased language. This happened so often that it almost became formulaic wording in the relevant reports. For example, Hans Henrik Müller, priest of the Church of the Holy Ghost, writing about the case of a Jewish girl who had applied for conversion, but had reverted to Judaism, declared that most of those people who wanted to go over to Christianity “have very little respect for religion.” Shortly thereafter, Bishop Balle repeated this, complaining to the Chancellery that for many years the priests of the city had been heavily burdened by proselytes, “who, as is their custom”—with the exception of Edinger—“have scant esteem for our Christianity.” The priest of the cathedral in Copenhagen, Matthias Thye, used even harsher wording when he had conducted an examination of Sara Bernt Levin’s application for Christian religious instruction in 1787. He established that hers was “the worst sort of reputation,” and he added that most often, “the worst dregs of the Jewish nation were coming to our Church, merely seeking shelter or protection, when, infamous as they had become, they were no longer tolerated among their own people.” In connection with this case, Münter declared that experience had taught him that Christianity was more harmed than honored by the Jewish proselytes, especially the female ones, poverty stricken Jewesses who generally had no concept of God, virtue, or eternity. The Church is mocked by Jews because we are so ready and willing “to accept the dregs of their nation.” Bishop Balle did not refrain from making censorious generalizations about Jews, either. In 1788, when he suggested that Jewish proselytes earn their own way instead of receiving a weekly allowance from the Church, he wrote about “the general sloth and dubious disposition of these people.” Soon after this, in 1789, the unfortunate case of Bronette Meyer from Dusseldorf did not soften the bishop’s views. This was an excellent example, Balle thought, of

how badly Christian credulousness is often taken advantage of by most of the Jewish proselytes . . . the religion is only disgraced by it . . . I do not see why we in Denmark should be committed to accepting or keeping every single scoundrel who is no longer able to earn his living among his own countrymen.137

137 Ibid., 418–420, 424–428. 118 chapter 5

With this in mind, it is not surprising that on several occasions clergymen suggested amending the conversion process or completely discontinuing it. As early as 1784, the government had decided to shorten the procedure so that Jews could consult any priest if they intended to become Christian. Balthasar Münter went further in 1787, submitting a detailed proposal for a complete renovation of the way proselytes were processed. He thought that a report on the individual should be obtained from the leaders of the synagogue every time a Jew applied as proselyte, and he also suggested that proselytes should no longer be paid money during their instruction, but should work for their upkeep. Bishop Balle was more or less in agreement with most of these proposals, but not with the first of them, about cooperation between the Church and the synagogue:

For if I, according to his first comment, were to obtain information from the leaders of the Jews, I would be quite anxious after having read of earlier examples from the past that, no sooner do they hear of the impending conversion to Christianity of a Jew or Jewess, than they immediately seize such a person and secretly remove him or her, which is why, when proselytes are found to be not unworthy of being accepted, I have always had to secure some safeguard from the chief of police for him before he left my house.138

The increasing loss of interest of prominent clergymen in conversion toward the end of this period is exemplified by Balle’s idea that The Jewish Proselyte Fund of 1754 be abolished. It has not been put to very much use, he thought, and it would do a great deal more good if the bishop could spend the money on books for the peasants of Zealand, but the government rejected his suggestion several times. In the end, however, the fund was closed down in 1800, and Balle was able to spend the rather large remaining balance of 5,516 rix-dollars on another initiative he was very involved in, the Charity for Widows of School Teachers and Choir Masters of the Diocese of Zealand.139

138 Ibid., 540–541. 139 Ibid., 555–571. For a table of data on all the proselytes of the period, see Lausten, Oplysning i kirke og synagoge (see note 102), 463–499. Ordinary Danish Citizens, But With Another Religion 119

The Views of Christian Theologians on the Anti-Jewish Literary Feud

As is true of so many other movements in theology, philosophy and literature, the origins of the Danish literary feud about Jews is to be found in Germany. At the turn of the nineteenth century, influential German intellectuals began to air their hatred and revulsion for Jews. The philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762–1814) promoted the ideal of the German nation above all others with its special historical mission, and he conducted a full-scale attack on Jews. With more than fifty publications printed, the literary debate for and against Jews grew to tremendous proportions in Germany during the first years of the 1800s. Before a similar debate arose in Denmark, the former professor of theology, D. G. Moldenhawer had written about the disastrous influence Jews had on financial transactions in Scandinavia, and counsellor and doctor of philosophy, Conrad F. von Schmidt-Phiseldeck, had advised against giving Jews further civil rights because they were money grubbers, constituted a great international conspiracy, could only be viewed as foreigners, were not loyal Danish citizens, etc. The actual ‘literary feud about Jews’ started when author Thomas Thaarup (1749–1821) translated Friedrich Buchholz’s anti-Jewish 1803 pamphlet Moses und Jesus and published it in Copenhagen in 1813 in a slightly abridged form as Moses og Jesus eller om Jødernes og de Christnes intellektuelle og moralske Forhold [Moses and Jesus or On the Intellectual and Moral States of Jews and Christians]. Buchholz was primarily interested in the German state having a powerful national existence, founded in the energy and diligence of its citizens. Jews did not fit into this system. They were disloyal citizens, striving for world domination; they reviled enlightenment, and therefore, “what did Christianity and Judaism have to do with one another?” he asked, and answered, “Nothing whatsoever.” Buchholz’s hatred of Jews was strident and intense. Jews were like parasitic plants, selfish, superstitious, ignorant, morally depraved; they did not want to be emancipated; they were sly, had only an “instinct for money,” were unfit for education, had never made discoveries or shown scientific abilities, were a state within the state, a cancer within the state, etc. As for modern-day “preachers of tolerance,” who became upset and tearful if you criticized the supposed rights of Jews, he had no patience with them. His pamphlet was self- contradictory, full of hateful prejudices and naive concepts. In a long introduction, Thaarup voiced his agreement with Buchholz and here and there added anti-Jewish notes to his translation. 120 chapter 5

A few weeks after Thaarup’s book came out, Otto Horrebow (1769–1823) published his periodical, Jødernes Krønike [Chronicles of the Jews], which appeared in thirteen issues from June to August of 1813. Horrebow was not just anybody. He had a fine theological degree and was assistant dean of the scholarship foundation of the university and thus was closely affiliated with the theological faculty. At the beginning of the new century, he had published his weekly, Jesus og Fornuften [Jesus and Reason]. All religious systems were based on a natural religion, a religion of reason, which was the very one preached by Jesus when he took issue with the Old Testament and Moses, whose God taught people injustice and evil. The entire publication was based on a deep-seated hatred of Jews, and he freely repeated the accusations of Buchholz. Among the more prominent anti-Jewish writers was none other than the royal confessor, Bastholm (1740–1819). He had earlier published Lov-Tale over Messias [Eulogy on the Messiah] in 1772, in which he especially attacked the Jews of Jesus’ time, but refrained from drawing a parallel with the present. However, the book was a sustained attack on the Jewish religion, which was only a “temporary religion.” In a more than one-hundred-page appendix to the last volume of his three-volume Den Jødiske Historie fra Verdens Skabelse til Jerusalems sidste Ødelæggelse vols. 1–3 [Jewish History from the Creation until the Final Destruction of Jerusalem] (1777, 1782) he concerned himself with Judaism, Jews, and Christian views on Jews. He included a wealth of objective information about Judaism, but also dealt with the question of Jews being a chosen people, the Jews’ rejection of Jesus as Messiah, and the attempts of Christians to convert them. His idea was that enlightenment would lead to the conversion of the Jews to Christianity; higher institutions of learning and guilds for skilled workers should be open to them. They should be met with friendliness and not hatred, and if not now, then eventually they will convert to Christianity in eschatological times. While Bastholm was basically opposed to Jews, he was also marked by the ideas of the Enlightenment. Many years later several of his proposals were put into practice. The means he promoted were perhaps modern ones, but his objective was the same as that of the pietists: the Jews are to be converted to Christianity, although his means to this end were somewhat different. Nevertheless, Bastholm became embroiled in the literary feud about the Jews when Einarsson, a typographer—probably on his own initiative—published a compendium of Bastholm’s history of the Jews, in which he listed all the negative attributes of Jews that he could find. Bastholm did not take exception to the publication, but followed it up, hinting that Jews were dishonest in financial transactions, and asking whether Jews were advantageous or harmful to the country. The Board of Representatives of the Jewish community reacted, complaining to the Chancellery, and in an article addressed to the king and to all fellow Ordinary Danish Citizens, But With Another Religion 121 citizens of Denmark, they replied with cold disdain that “we are Danes, sons of the country and your brothers, Danish fellow-citizens all.” They rejected Bastholm’s accusations and declared that just as Christians saw Jesus on Mount Tabor (Matthew 17:1–9), Jews saw Moses on Mount Sinai (Exodus 19), emphasizing features that Jews and Christians had in common:

Time fades away and places are obliterated. But the eternal is one, and the one is eternal, He, the God of our fathers, the God of all, he who is invoked, be it in temple, synagogue, or church, we call upon Him now and at all times with fervent devotion to let his grace stream forth, his wisdom strengthen and protect, and his glory shine down upon Your Majesty’s throne.

In answer to this, Bastholm repeated his accusations and claimed that Jews generally were not on the same cultural and civic level as Christians. The Jewish community responded with other arguments. Gottleb Euchel, who had been active in the reforms of the Jewish Enlightenment in 1795, wrote the article, Til evig Fred (For Eternal Peace) in 1813, saying that his goal was to settle the literary feud. He had always endeavored to have Jews integrated into Danish society through “enlightenment,” and “to spread light and to educate them in every way to be good and useful citizens of the state.” He was appalled that Jews were being met with hatred and conflict from Christians just now, when “enlightenment” was beginning to have an effect. His writing had a cautious style, but his content was caustic and devastating. Euchel undertook to educate Thaarup. He informed him of the relationship between the Talmud and the Law of Moses; explained to him that the controlling principle for Danish Jews was that religious law yielded to Danish law when there was a conflict; and he commented on a series of Thaarup’s misunderstandings and on some of his rather ridiculous assertions. Another contribution from the Jewish side was the anonymous Nordlyset [Northern light] in 1813, which claimed to have been published by the Association for the Advancement of Humanity. Written by a self-professed adherent of the Enlightenment, it carried out a direct and shrewd attack on the above-mentioned anti-Jewish writers. Authors Steen Steensen Blicher (1782–1848) (who had a theological education) and Jens Baggesen (1764–1826) also came to the defense of the Jews. Among the clergy, Grundtvig disdainfully called the attacks on Jews by the lite- rati Skriget mod Jøderne [The shriek against the Jews].140 Thaarup’s publication

140 N. F. S. Grundtvig, “Til Fædrenelandet om dets Tarv og Fare” (To the native country on its wellfare and perils) in Georg Christensen og Hal Koch, eds., N. F. S. Grundtvig, Skrifter i Udvalg [Grundtvig, selected works] l, vol. 2 (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1941), 24–50. 122 chapter 5 and endorsement of Buchholz’s book was “incomprehensible recklessness,” he said, since Buchholz’s theories were palpable lies. Of course there were Jews who had the mentality of a peddler, but they were no different from Christians, indeed they were less ungodly than Christians. He admitted that in the past he had been against giving Jews total admittance into Danish society, but now he had witnessed with extreme dismay the whole of this attack upon Jews. He presented religious points on which Jews and Christians were in agreement, expressed skepticism about Christian mission to Jews, and added some interesting comments on the fates of Jews and Christians at the end of time, when it will be shown

that God is the God of the Jews, for the Jews are his chosen people, and although they are being chastised by him now, at that time they will avow that they have been true to the covenant (Psalm 44), and then the Messiah, in whom they trust, will free them and here on earth the glory of Jehovah will live with them in the last days, for they are the people of God, Israel are His priests (43).

Grundtvig continued, repeating the beginning of Isaiah 2: All nations will stream to the house of the God of Jacob, the revelation will come out of Zion, and the word of the Lord will come from Jerusalem. But he stressed the eschatological and Christian aspect: this would not happen until the end of days, “when the lord has purified his people, and his light has shone into the heart of Israel, then he is enlightened and acknowledges the divine clarity of God’s likeness in the countenance of Jesus Christ” (43). Another response from the clergy was the republication in 1813 of B. Münter’s sermon of 1777 on Matthew 24:15–28, in which he had encouraged Christians to abandon their prejudices and had indirectly demanded more civil rights for Jews.141

‘The Letter of Freedom’: The Royal Decree of March 29, 1814

Thus there was a movement both in Jewish and in government quarters that progressed, step by step, toward the presumptive highpoint of Jewish eman-

141 Balthasar Münter, Labor ipse voluptas. En Præken holden i Petri Kirke I Kjøbenhavn den 25de Søndag efter Trinitatis 1777 [Labor ipse voluptus, sermon held at Church of St. Peter on the twenty-fifth Sunday after Trinity Sunday 1777] (Copenhagen: C. F. Schubart, 1813). Ordinary Danish Citizens, But With Another Religion 123 cipation, the Royal Decree of March 29, 1814.142 The decree had been a long time coming. Its main principles and content had been presented as early as 1796 in the commission’s proposal, but the government had decided to shelve it until later. The uncertain perspectives that Emperor Napoleon’s policy on Jews could have had for the position of Jews in Nordic countries was certainly an incentive for action, but with the Danish involvement in the war in 1807, these plans again stalled. On the other hand, the literary feud about the Jews now clearly induced the king and his men to busy themselves with finishing their work on the edict. The Chancellery presented the draft in early August 1813. The royal resolution followed on August 18, 1813, with the final decree appear- ing on March 29, 1814.

Some main points of the statute and its regulations are:

1. It was clear that the main goal of the men of the Chancellery was to put an end to the idea that Jews constituted a state within the state. On the contrary, Jews were to be woven smoothly into the fabric of Danish society with generally the same rights and duties as all other citizens. In their proposal of August 1813, the deputies of the Chancellery wrote in direct terms that if Jews were to continue to conduct their lives in accordance with the writings of the rabbis, they would merely—continue—to constitute “a state within the state.” This meant that their religion must not have a negative influence on their status as citizens of the country. Furthermore it is clear that in the edict and its regulations, the Chancellery sought to make final decisions on the most important conflicts that had played dominant roles in the Jewish community since the 1790s. 2. The most important decision is found in the beginning of Paragraph One of the edict: Those confessors of the Mosaic faith who were born in Our kingdom, Denmark, or who have achieved permission to reside here, should enjoy the same opportunity as Our other subjects, to earn a living by any legal means. 3. After having set forth these rights, consequences followed, that is, there were a series of demands on the Jews. Aside from the freedoms and rights in Paragraph One, the entire edict actually deals with the obligations imposed on Jews. This is evident in the title, which says nothing of rights, let alone ‘letter of freedom’ or the like, but sets forth the rules Jews “must observe.” The old problem of the necessity of finding a balance between

142 Text in Julius Salomon og Josef Fischer, Mindeskrift (Copenhagen: Danmark loge u.O.B.B., 1914), 102–111. 124 chapter 5

the duties Jews had to Danish law and to Mosaic Law was resolved in that Jews had to “obey the civil laws of the country in every way, with the result that they would never be able to shelter themselves behind Mosaic Law or the so-called rabbinic rules and decisions in any civil matter.” This meant that cases involving probate court, poor relief, and education (with the exception of religious instruction) were placed under the prevailing Danish law. Marriage could not be performed if it ran counter to Danish law, and divorce could only be granted by the king. The conflict about the use of Hebrew was decided with the requirement that obligatory records and certificates would henceforth be written in Danish or German. The Jewish calendar was to be abandoned for the usual calendar. The king also took over other important aspects of the community’s internal affairs: the king was to give permission for the establishment of synagogues, and he was to appoint “priests” to them as well as to appoint “the chief priest, who must live in Copenhagen” and to whom all the other priests who would be subject in all cases pertaining to their offices (paragraph 10). Education in the Jewish religion according to the reform textbook on religion and the subsequent examination or “confirmation” was made obligatory and a requirement for taking an oath in court, achieving citizenship, getting married, becoming a journeyman, or being admitted to the university. 4. It is worth noting the areas in which the government was not receptive to Jewish citizens: it would not abolish or change the discriminating Jewish oath, and it did not open government positions to Jews. The old standards govrnning residence of foreign Jews were retained. It was still necessary to be granted permission from the king for permanent residence. Permission for transit, for a maximum of fourteen days, was also necessary, and as in the past, foreign Jews who were caught begging or making illegal sales would be punished and expelled from the country. The congregation still had the obligation of reporting every newly arrived Jew. This edict applied until the parliament abolished it with Law of April 5, 1850. The Copenhagen City Council sought in vain to hinder the approval of the law, as did Grundtvig, who thought that Denmark would be inun- dated by foreigners. Immigration was already too great, he thought.143

143 Lausten, Oplysning i kirke og synagoge (see note 102), 133–136. chapter 6 Avowals of Converted Jews

Some of the Jews who had converted to Christianity felt the need to publicize their motives and the process of their conversion and baptism. The authors often claimed that these writings could have a missionary effect on other Jews, but it is obvious enough that other, more or less clearly formulated motives also lay behind these avowals, such as a desire to make an impression on Christian circles, or a desire for financial or social support. There is little doubt that both worldly and religious officials were glad to promote this form of literature. Well-known theologians wrote prefaces and recommendations for these books, but it is hardly possible to determine the degree to which the convert him or herself was the author. At any rate, there was cooperation between the convert and the priest in charge of his instruction and baptism. This can be seen, for example, in cases in which the author published the many questions asked at the baptismal examination and the well-written answers, with mul- tiple references to chapter and verse given by the convert. Most of them were written in German in order to reach an international public; reading German was not a problem for Danes in elite circles. Naturally, there was a certain similarity among the books, since they all had the aim of proving the truth of Christianity and the falsity of Judaism. The authors either focused on single themes taken from the classic points of disagreement between Judaism and Christianity, or they reeled off the familiar list of Christian accusations against Jews. Naturally, they all covered the question of the Messiah and usually included harsh and hostile polemics against the Jews. The authors often quoted Hebrew texts, both in order to demonstrate their knowledge of Judaism and also to reach Jewish readers. Like all other religious literature, the books had to undergo censorship and be approved by the theological faculty. In the 1700s, when more of these works were published, there were about fifteen of these works. A few examples will be mentioned. Friedrich Petersen Wessel, named Alexander Leyel before his conversion (see p. 81), published two books in German, with titles that clearly indicate their content and style: Der geistlich todte Jude oder die grosse Verstockung und Blindheit derer Juden [The spiritually dead Jew, or the great obstinacy and blindness of the Jews] 1721, and Die gifftige Quelle des Talmuds [The poisonous source of the Talmud], 1724. Friedrich Christian, whose former name had been Jacob Israel, was a similar author. In a long poem, Kurtzes und Einfältiges Jedoch von Hertzen wohlgemeyntes Erkänntniss und Bekänntniss [Short and

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004304376_007 126 chapter 6 simple but heartfelt and well-intentioned acknowledgment and confession], 1741, he described how, as a Jew, he had stood at the edge of the abyss and would have ended up with the devil in the sulfurous pit if God had not converted him to Christianity. Now he and his wife and three children had been accepted into the covenant of grace, his soul was at peace, and he would put up with all the rejection and persecution he suffered from the Jews. The poem culminates in a strong appeal for help and assistance. He also described his entire conversion, adding the thirty-six questions from his baptismal examination, including questions about his motives, the Messiah, and circumcision. Finally he confessed his Christian creed and listed his and his family’s new Christian names and the baptismal witnesses. We could also mention Jacob Andreas, who was baptized at Øster Alling Church in 1741 and began his piece, En liden Traktat om Vor Frelsere Jesu Christo [A small treatise about Our Savior, Jesus Christ] from 1746, with a tale of the blasphemy in which he had lived as a Jew. His writings were an appeal to other Jews who remained in the Jewish faith, and especially “to my mother, sisters, and brothers.” He felt that now, especially, it was his duty as a son to attempt “to talk all of you out of the Jewish blindness toward God’s beloved son, Jesus Christ.” An avowal of conversion was also written by Johann Ferdinand Eckstein, whose original name had been Isaac Levin. In his book, Des Proselyten aus dem Judenthum Johann Ferdinand Eckstein Ueberzeugungsgründe, dass Jesus der Christen die erfüllte Hoffnung Israels sey [On the reasons why the proselyte Johann Ferdinand Eckstein was convinced that the Jesus of the Christians is the fulfillment of the hope of Israel], 1774, he focused almost entirely on the question of the Messiah. German-born Salomon Nathan, who was baptized Friedrich Julius Sorgenfrey, published the no less than 268-page-long Eines getauften Juden Lebensgeschichte [The life story of a baptized Jew] in Jena in 1775. This book, which later came out in Danish, belonged to the experiential literature of its time and is a kind of adventurous memoir that describes many journeys, dangerous animals, strange people, and foreign cities. He reports on his conversion and also provides many interesting insights, not found in other sources, touching upon the situation of the Jews of Copenhagen. It is not possible to mention all the other writings here, but all this literature by proselytes, which encompasses more than confessions of faith, deserves to become the subject of a larger and more comprehensive study.144

144 For titles and summaries of proselyte literature from the 1700s, see Lausten, De Fromme og Jøderne, 596–605, and Oplysning i kirke og synagoge (see note 102), 571–589. chapter 7 Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849) The Integration of Jews into Society

A Letter of Freedom?

In his memoirs, former Prime Minister Anders Sandøe Ørsted (1778–1860), related that by issuing the royal edict of March 29, 1814, the government had acted in opposition to the stance taken by the broad majority of Danes. The edict certainly had “an extremely beneficial influence on the moral and social condition of the Jews,” but the edict and the resolutions that followed it, “were in no way prompted by public opinion,” which on the contrary, had persecuted the Jews in the press “with unusual rancor and tenacity.” But the government stood firm and implemented its “humane objective, and one that had so much of the prevailing opinion against it.”145 This was an interesting comment from one of the men who had played an important role in the promulgation of the edict of March 29, 1814, often called the ‘Letter of Freedom of the Jews’ (see p. 122ff.) Of course, it made meaningful changes in both the internal circumstances of the Jewish community and, in time, also in the way that the general Danish public viewed Jews. But did the Jews become free Danish citizens? In his memoirs cited above, Ørsted neglected to say that a few years later, he himself had rejected the idea of permitting Jewish citizens, as all other citizens were permitted, to be candidates for election in the newly established Advisory Assembly of the Estates of the Realm (Stænderforsamlingen). His arguments for this are notable. The period from the Edict of 1814 until the Constitution of 1849, which established full religious freedom, is of particular interest. Despite ‘The Letter of Freedom,’ the attitudes of the clergy of the State Church were still of decisive importance for governmental decisions on policies concerning the Jewish community. Aside from anti-Jewish views, which in many cases were based on hatred of Jews, and which were expressed in physical violence and printed words, it could be seen that even in the official view of the matter taken by the state, Jews remained in their position as citizens apart. Jews did not receive full citizenship, inasmuch as they were denied the possibility of being elected into the

145 Anders Sandøe Ørsted, Af mit Livs og min Tids Historie [From the history of my life and my time] (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1855), 296–298.

Assembly of the Estates—only ten years before the adoption of the Danish Constitution (see p. 157).146

Literary Feuds and Street Fights

A few years after what was called the ‘literary feud about the Jews’ of 1813, anti-Jewish attacks in publications were renewed, once again influenced by developments in Germany. One of these attacks, which brutally targeted Jews and the efforts to emancipate them, was written by the historian, Prof. Jakob Friedrich Rühs (1779–1820) of Berlin. He outlined his anti-Jewish sentiments in his Über die Ansprüche der Juden an das deutsche Bürgerrecht [On the Jewish demand for rights of German citizenship] of 1816. In Denmark these same sentiments were brought forth again by anti-Jewish author Thomas Thaarup (1749–1821), who had started the first literary attack on the Jews in 1813 (see p. 119). He translated Rühs’ work and published it two times in the same year, 1816, as Over Jødernes Fordringer paa Tydsk Borgerret [About the Jews’ demands for German citizenship]. In his second edition Thaarup added a long polemical section directed at one of the leaders of the Copenhagen Jewish community, Nathanson, who had earlier taken exception to Thaarup. Rühs completely rejected the Enlightenment idea that the more rights given to the Jews, the sooner would their characters be ennobled, and the more would they become useful citizens of the society, because their present condition is due to the subjugation enforced upon them by Christians. They are sly, sinful and persecute Christians, they are blasphemous, and their rabbis are always incit- ing them to hate all others. Therefore it was imperative to limit their influence and keep them separated from the rest of society. Christian servants should no longer be employed by Jewish families, and Jews should be required to wear visible signs, a pointed hat or a yellow ring on their clothing. The reason for the behavior of the Jews is the strict hold the rabbis have on them, and the belief the Jews have that they are the chosen people of God and will one day rule over everyone else. Here Rühs referred here to statements by Martin Luther. Thaarup added notes here and there, which he usually used to back up Rühs’ points, with references to anti-Jewish men such as Wagenseil, Eisenmenger,

146 Cecilie Schrøder Simonsen, “Frihed med begrænsninger” (Freedom with limitations), in Bent Blüdnikow et al., eds., Jøderne som frie borgere [The Jews as free citizens] (Copenhagen: Det Jødiske Samfund i Danmark, 2014), 76–89. Karsten M. Christensen, “Mindedage og idoler” (Commemorative days and idols), in ibid., 48–59. Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849) 129 and Luther, as well as the 1806 criticism of the Jews by Danish theologian, Daniel Gotthilf Moldenhawer (1753–1823). Rühs’ vehement rejection of Jews and Judaism was followed up by Jakob Friedrich Fries (1773–1843), a professor of philosophy at Heidelberg, who expressed the same opinions. His work was also translated into Danish twice, with each translation published by a different publishing house. The first was Om Forskjellen mellem Jøder og Jødedom, og om dettes Tilintetgjørelse som nød- vendig for Tydskernes Velstand og Characteer af Professor Fries. Oversat . . . af H. C. Wosemose [On the difference between Jews and Judaism, and on its annihilation as a necessity for the wellbeing and character of the Germans by Professor Fries. Translated . . . by H. C. Wosemose] (1816). Hans Christian Wosemose (1784–1862) had a law degree and was teaching in Copenhagen. The second publication was called Om den Fare vor Velfærd og Karakteer udsættes for ved Jøderne . . . oversat ved C. Hansen [On the danger to our welfare and character posed by the Jews . . . translated by C. Hansen], 1816. The Danish transla- tors were not satisfied with having the texts deal only with German conditions, but also drew parallels to local conditions. Danish readers were informed that Jews were unclean, indolent, dishonest, money grubbing, etc., and therefore war should be declared against them to annihilate them all, and we should not allow ourselves to be influenced by people who talk of enlightenment and humanity. The director of the Royal Bank, Conrad G. F. E. von Schmidt-Phiseldeck (1770–1832) also informed the public that Jews constituted a state within the state, and that we should not, with “misguided humanity and excessive preten- sions of humane feelings,” allow them to become regular citizens of Christian countries. “They are foreign to our blood and to our lineage,” with a spiritual and religious arrogance toward everyone else; they are scarcely likely to be truth- ful in court cases against Christians; their excommunication rights should be taken from them; and Talmudists should no longer be admitted to the country.147 But there were also authors who came to the defense of the Jews, including the less well-known Søren Møller and N. Frabe, as well as parish priest Niels Blicher (1748–1839), father of the writer Steen Steensen Blicher, who suggested an open meeting in which the question of the Jews could be discussed.148 A little naively, he thought that once Jewish leaders had read the gospel of the

147 C. G. F. von Schmidt-Phiseldeck, Om den jødiske Nations hidtil værende Forhold til det christne Borgersamfund og dets Omdannelse i Fremtiden [On the relations between the Jewish nation and the Christian society] (Copenhagen: J. F. Schultz, 1817). 148 Niels Blicher, Betænkninger om den jødiske Nation og dens Forening med os Christne [Con- siderations on the Jewish nation and its association with us Christians] (Aarhus, 1819). 130 chapter 7

New Testament, “the truth” would be victorious, and he confidently assumed that “the perfect union of the dear Jewish people with us must not be far away” (16). Very shortly after these new literary attacks on Jews had taken place, the so-called ‘physical feud about the Jews’ broke out. Anti-Jewish leaflets were distributed, and posters urging outright attacks on Jews were put up in Copenhagen. In September of 1819 tumult and riots broke out in the city. Windows of Jewish shops and homes were broken, and looting took place, all inspired by similar riots in Hamburg. The police and the military stopped the attacks. About thirty people, mostly journeymen, apprentices, and women of the lowest class, were punished with a few years’ penal servitude and imprisonment. There was also trouble in Helsingør, Odense, and a number of other towns, but they were hardly organized riots and attacks, and there is a question of the degree to which it all had been inspired by the anti-Jewish riots that took place in Germany at the time. Even though the riots were put down rather quickly—unrest did, however, continue into the first months of the following year—they clearly must have caused fear and serious misgivings in the Jewish community. Could it all be dismissed as mob unrest when the press had been full of attacks on the Jews by Copenhagen intellectuals just a few years before? In 1830 there was tumult again, also inspired by Hamburg unrest, but in Copenhagen the occasion was the laying of the cornerstone of the new synagogue on Krystalgade. The rioters were known to be a mob of boys and grown men; many panes of glass had been broken in Meyer’s Minde, the Jewish home for the aged; a Jewish man, Goldzieher, was attacked and badly injured by kicks and blows; and the riots had spread to other streets. Previously, the unrest had been dismissed as boyish pranks, but extended examination of the archives shows that the situation was not so simple. One journeyman carpenter was committed to thirty days’ imprisonment on bread and water. Foreign diplo- mats reported home about the dramatic events, which also seem to have had a political aspect. It is quite possible, as Marcus Rubin thinks, that these attacks may have induced Jewish families to convert to Christianity.149

149 Martin Schwarz Lausten, Frie jøder? Forholdet mellem kristne og jøder i Danmark fra Frihedsbrevet 1814 til Grundloven 1849 [Freedom for Jews? Relations between Christians and Jews in Denmark from the Royal Decree of 1814 until the Constitution of 1849] (Copenhagen: Anis, 2005), 16–35. Jens Rasmussen, “Jødefejden og de beslægtede uroligheder 1819–1820” [Feud about Jews and related disturbances], in Kirkehistoriske Samlinger 2010, 131–165, English summary, 163–165. Bent Blüdnikow, “Jødefejden 1819– 1820” (Feud about Jews) in Blüdnikow et al. (2014), 60–75. Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849) 131

Jews in the Writings of Christian Theologians

At the beginning of the 1800s, there was a new direction in theological and Church spheres in Denmark. Theologians, influenced by tendencies abroad, began to move away from the Enlightenment idea of the superiority of rational thought, the idea of Jesus as the great moral teacher, and the demand for a virtuous life with the reward of immortality. Now they moved toward a biblical Christianity, a deeper understanding of the meaning of the Bible, centered on the redeeming death of Christ. On October 31, 1817, Bishop Frederik Münter’s pastoral letter on the occasion of the tricentenary of the Lutheran Reformation showed that the new tendency was beginning to make itself felt. The writings of many theologians were marked by the new biblical Christianity, each in its own way.150 With respect to the present study, what can we say about the views of these theologians on Jews and Judaism during the first half of the 1800s? Did they continue the clerical tradition of the previous periods, or were there innovations? A few samples from sermons and writings of some of the more prominent theologians can be examined, though it can hardly be said that they are fully representative.

Bone Falch Rønne (1764–1833) had been priest in Kongens Lyngby since 1802. At first he belonged to the so-called do-gooders of the Enlightenment, who tried to encourage the ennoblement and felicity of mankind by taking action in the fields of poor relief, education, and agriculture. Except for missionary work and the instances in which he baptized Jewish converts, Rønne had little to say about Jews or Judaism in his sermons. He voiced the traditional Christian views of Jesus as a Jew who had been rejected by his own in their blasphemy, but the victory of the “religion of Jesus” was the proof of its divine origin. Rønne was a globalist before the concept had taken on its modern meaning. In one of his sermons he urged that Danes wipe out the “corrupting national hatred and loathing” of Jews.151 In a sermon on Luke 19:41–48 (“Jesus is weeping over Jerusalem”),152 given on the tenth Sunday after Trinity Sunday, he said that Jesus was not pleased about the imminent destruction of Jerusalem, even though its inhabitants had met him with mockery and scorn. This should serve

150 Lausten, Church History of Denmark, 197–199. 151 Bone Falch Rønne, Samling af Prædikener 2 [Collection of sermons] (Copenhagen, 1819), 268–269. 152 Bone Falch Rønne, Anden Aargang af Prædikener 2 [Sermons, second annual publication] (Copenhagen, 1824). 132 chapter 7 us as an example, and we should use the sufferings of the Jewish people as a warning, for their fate is a punishment that God has put upon them: “O! Jewish people! What have you witnessed for 1800 years! And what do you witness for us until this day. O! that from your example and your frightful testimony we might learn to understand what will bring us peace” (241–256). The sermon on Matthew 22:1–14 that he gave on the twentieth Sunday after Trinity Sunday dealt with the parable of the wedding feast of the king’s son and gave Rønne the opportunity to concern himself more closely with Jews, for with this parable, as a warning to ourselves, we should be reminded of the lamentation of the Jews because they had scorned the grace offered them by Jesus and his servants. “O! It is a lamentation whose equal has never struck any peoples on earth.” They were once the people of God, but now they are stricken with a curse they pronounced upon themselves: “May his blood be upon us and our children after us!” This was meant to serve as a warning for Christians, and to incite them to lead an active life of piety with prayer and devotions, to lead a virtuous life, and also to encourage them to do missionary work.153 Thus Rønne carried on the previous periods’ traditional views of Jews and Judaism: The punishment of the Lord had come down upon them because they had rejected the Messiah, and it was a just punishment. Along the way he wove in the usual prejudices about Jews: they were avaricious and selfish and were themselves to blame for their misfortunes.

Jacob Peter Mynster (1775–1854) became the priest of the Lutheran cathedral in Copenhagen in 1811, a doctor of theology in 1815, court preacher in 1826, royal confessor in 1828, member of the administration of the university and bishop of Zealand in 1834. By virtue of his abilities as a preacher and his talents in administration and scholarship, he held the position as both the formal and the actual leader of the Danish Church until his death. On September 7, 1819, during the street riots against the Jews, with all the smashing of windows, looting, and assaults, he gave a notable sermon on Galatians 5:16–24. He was distressed by what was taking place:

Who can forget the scenes he has seen, the screams that fell on his ears? Who can forget it—how can I describe it?—the woeful, upsetting, deplorable sight, when he was walking in our city, which no hostile power had attacked, and yet everywhere saw the signs of devastation, as if enemies had destroyed it?

153 Ibid., 401–416. Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849) 133

Mynster’s sorrow and anger were due to both the rioters’ attack on civic peace and order and their attack on the Jews. Therefore he reminded the congregation of the necessity of civic obedience and order, of tolerance for the believers of other faiths, and of our duty to refrain from regarding only our own relations or only our fellow worshipers as our neighbors. After these introductory remarks, he turned to exhortation, with a strong appeal that one behave in a way defensible to one’s own conscience and to God. The rioters are hastening toward depravity; those assembled in Mynster’s church, on the contrary, the honorable citizens of this city, must now see to restoring peace and order. In his familiar impassioned style, he urged his listeners to imagine themselves in the situation of the Jews, who have suffered from the riots.

Imagine yourselves in their place, the primary target of persecution . . . Are they not people like us? Was there no one in their houses who might tremble? Were there no pregnant women in their houses, no infants, for whom they have the same tenderness as we would? Was there no one sick, no one dying, whose peace was so gruesomely disturbed? Should they flee house and home, seek asylum in foreign countries, if there still is any refuge where persecution could not reach them, those who will not deny the faith of their fathers against their convictions, will not acknowledge another which is not in their hearts, those who will not desert their congregation while it is under oppression and in need?

Yet Mynster, aware that some might have had received the impression that he was so sympathetic toward Jews that he thought Judaism and Christianity were equally valid, quickly added that he himself was committed to Christianity, because he had personally sought a place where he could find peace for his soul, and he had found it in Him, the Word of eternal life. But he had known many Christians who were devoid of Christian feelings, and he had known many Jews who because of their righteousness, their true compassion, deserved respect from us all.154 His Betragtninger over de christelige Troeslærdomme [Observations on the doctrines of the Christian faith], (1–2, Copenhagen, 1833) became the preferred devotional book of its time. It had no particular section on the relationship between Christians and Jews, but of course he mentioned it many times in emphasizing their kinship. In a single section, however, “Israels Forventning

154 Jacob Peter Mynster, “Prædiken paa fiortende Søndag efter Trinitatis 1819” (Sermon on 14th Sunday after Trinity Sunday 1819) in J. P. Mynster, Kirkelige Leilighedstaler [Occasional ecclesiastical speeches] (Copenhagen, 1854), 225–234. 134 chapter 7 af Christus” (Israel’s expectation of Christ), he did approach the question more closely, but his treatment was the traditional one: Israel had received the prophecy that the Messiah would come, but when he did come, they would not accept him as such, because they had imagined a worldly leader who would bring them worldly domination and success. God punished the people. Now there is nothing left of the old greatness. In the middle of this narration, Mynster suddenly interrupted the story and broke out into a direct appeal to the Jews:

You strange, restless, always ambitious and always suppressed people yonder in the despised country! How could such haughty notions of dominion originate with you? How did they come together in the illusion of a ruler, a savior and deliverer of the house of David, from the city of David? How did these thoughts become so powerful that they penetrated into other lands, so according to the heathens’ own account, the entire Orient was steeped in the expectation of a world leader who would come from the land of the Jews? You shepherds of Bethlehem! How did you know that a Lord Jesus, anointed by God, would come . . . O! Christianity had a history before Christ.

Then Mynster depicted Jesus as the Christ whom the prophets had predicted.155 Although Mynster naturally emphasized the truth of Christianity the few times he dealt with Jews and Judaism, his descriptions of them were unpolemi- cal. Mynster respected the Jewish faith, he defended the Jews during the riots, and later he showed a positive attitude in individual cases, but we will also see examples of diametrically opposite views toward the Jews of the country in his writings.

Edvard Mau (1808–1885) joined what were called the ‘divine assemblies,’ the awakening movement that had arisen in the Church at the beginning of the 1800s. At the end of his career he was parish priest in Farum and Værløse. His collections of sermons and edifying writings were published in large editions, translated into other languages, and diligently used by the Danes in America. His work certainly wielded considerable influence. An example of his views on Judaism and Jews can be seen in his sermon on Luke 23:26–31, in which Jesus spoke to the weeping women on the way to Golgotha. He directed a

155 Jacob Peter Mynster, Betragtninger over de christelige Troeslærdomme [Observations on the doctrines of the Christian faith], 1–2 (Copenhagen, 1833), vil. 1, 270–282.vol. 2, 150–151. 240–241. Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849) 135 harsh attack on the Jews of the past. He did not limit himself to the events of the New Testament, but drew a line all the way to the present. The Jews killed Jesus, and the retaliation that they were stricken with long ago was just. But God’s vengeance continues to strike their descendants, who are now to be found throughout the diaspora. After having labeled contemporary Jews as condemned by God, he put forth the ‘replacement theology’ that was similarly well-known in Christian tradition: By the special grace of God, “we have now assumed the heritage of Israel.” But, he added, we have not gathered here today at worship in order to scold the Jews, because the words of Jesus apply to us just as much today. If we do not repent, our fate will be just as frightful, for a Christian sinner is equally guilty of the death of Jesus. In this way Mau also inserted the idea of a kind of solidarity with Jews, as far as sin and guilt were concerned. His style was passionate and emotional and contained vibrant imagery and repetitions.156

Frederik Hammerich (1809–1877), influenced by Grundtvig in his theology, had been a priest in Jutland and in Copenhagen, became a member of the parliament, and starting in 1859, he served as professor of Church history at the university. He wrote Jødefolket efter Christus [The Jews after Christ]157 describing the fate of the Jews, putting forth the usual anti-Jewish prejudices, explaining all the misfortunes of the Jews as the result of their having rejected Jesus as the Messiah, and expounding the idea that they would all convert to Christianity in the end. The point of departure for his entire argument, and the only explanation of the fate of the Jewish people, is to be found in their rejection of Christ. Therefore God took revenge by having Jerusalem destroyed and the Jewish people dispersed; this was the frightfully righteous hour of desolation. The Jews have been despised and persecuted throughout history, almost until the present, but this was their own fault. Their persecutors surely had odi- ous souls, but instead of despising the persecutors, we should rather wonder why Jews clung to their old faith (198). What were the Jewish people like? It is an enigma; one can only understand it if one is familiar with prophecies about them.

156 Edvard Mau, Prædikener over Jesu Christi Lidelseshistorie [Sermons on the Passion of Jesus Christ] (Odense, 1847), 79–92. 26–27. 63–78. 157 Frederik Hammerich, “Jødefolket efter Christus” (The Jewish people after Christ) in Brage og Idun, vol. 3 (Copenhagen, 1840), 178–211. 136 chapter 7

Living among us there is a people, scattered and yet unified, great and yet lowly, famed and yet unknown, without a land and yet ruling over many lands, cowardly and yet with wondrous energy, in short, a people whose entire history is an enigmatic prophecy, only solvable by faith in the truthfulness of the prophets, and that people is the Jewish people.

This people is double-faced, in that it consists of both the divine zeal of the prophet and of the brash intrusiveness shown by the merchant Jew, a parasitic plant on the trunk of the ancient oak of Europe (179). Thus Hammerich put to use all the familiar prejudices and generalizations. He added that the correct interpretation of scriptures such as Deuteronomy 30 and Romans 11 affirmed that the Jewish people will not perish before they return to God at the end of days and kneel down to their eternal king; at that time they will become a great power in the Church of Christ (210–211). In recent years Bruce H. Kirmmse has been deeply engaged in Søren Kierkegaard’s views on Jews and Judaism in Kierkegaard’s journals and note- books and in his collected works. He points out that the language Kierkegaard used describing Jews was much harsher than that of other intellectuals of the time, and that the philosopher seemed to identify himself with Jews, who, he thought, felt utterly miserable, and that the Jewish people were the victims that mankind demanded. It was not surprising that Kierkegaard’s comments on Jews became generally more virulent after his feud with Meïer Aron Goldschmidt, the editor of the satirical weekly, Corsaren [The Corsair] in 1846. For Kierkegaard, Judaism was a stage in a three-part schema, heathenism, Judaism, and Christianity, and he developed this connection further: that being a friend of God came to be expressed through suffering. But subsequently he focused entirely on Judaism as the enemy of Christianity. Even so, most of the faults he charged Judaism with having were the same faults of which he accused the Christianity of his time. Moreover, Kirmmse points out that the notions of Judaism and Jews that Kierkegaard propounded in his journals and papers are also found in his collected works, although his formulation of them was somewhat less emphatic.158 Another Kierkegaard researcher, Peter Tudvad, recently wrote an extensive book on the same subject. In it he convincingly demonstrated Kierkegaard’s conviction of the great opposition of Christianity and Judaism. While Christianity entails offense and suffering, Judaism epitomizes worldly pleasure and sensuality. Judaism is simply the diametrical opposite of true Christianity. In addition, Kierkegaard trotted out

158 Bruce H. Kirmmse, “Kierkegaard, Jødedommen og Jøderne” (Kierkegaard, Judaism, and the Jews), in Kirkehistoriske Samlinger 1992, 77–107. Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849) 137

Figure 3 Title page, Betragtninger over de chistelige Troeslærdom by Jacob Peter Mynster (1846). all the well-worn clichés about Jews—usurers, parasites on Christian society, money grubbers, in control of the press, etc.—and Tudvad concluded that Kierkegaard had become an anti-Semite. The use of the term could be debated, inasmuch as it was coined long after Kierkegaard’s time, but the impact is the same. Of course Kierkegaard here was based in a certain Lutheran tradition, which has been mentioned at many 138 chapter 7 points in the present book. Nevertheless it is important to add that, as has been shown, there were other well-known Danish theologians, contemporaries of Kierkegaard, who did not join in this anti-Jewish chorus. Kierkegaard did not belong in that chorus either.159

Conditions within the Jewish Congregation

The Position of Catechist In connection with the Edict of 1814 the government and the Jewish reformists found it absolutely essential to improve education in order to spread cultivation among followers of the Mosaic faith. This demand was made time after time, and excellent work to this effect was done at the Jewish schools that had been established at the beginning of the 1800s. The goal was that Jewish citizens become citizens like all others, merely with a religion different from that of the majority. The demand for a ‘Jewish confirmation’ was a result of this ambition. As in the case of Christian young people, who had to undergo instruction in Christianity and then be confirmed, young Jewish girls and boys had to pass examinations, and make a solemn promise after having been educated on the basis of the Textbook on Religion for Youth of the Mosaic Faith. The Jewish ritual was also called a confirmation. In order that all young Jewish girls and boys could be served, it became necessary to educate and appoint teachers, catechists, just as in the State Church. The government was in charge of this in accordance with the edict of 1814, and careful preparations were made before the first catechist could be appointed. The Chancellery asked the Board of Representatives of the Jewish community for recommendations, and as was usual, the bishops of the State Church were also asked to point out and evaluate Jewish men who might be suitable catechists. Their answers contain comments made by the bishops and information about the local Jewish community. Very high qualifications were required of the future catechists in accordance with the proposals received from a committee consisting of orientalist N. C. Kall, Chief Rabbi Gedalia, and two prominent men of the Jewish community, headmaster Gedalia Moses and merchant Gottleb Euchel. The catechist had to understand, speak, and write Danish correctly and had to master German well enough to benefit from pertinent German books. The authors mentioned were Moses Mendelsohn, and, surprisingly enough, the German

159 Peter Tudvad, Stadier på antisemitismens vej. Søren Kierkegaard og jøderne [Stages on the road of anti-Semitism. Søren Kierkegaard and the Jews] (Copenhagen: Rosinante, 2010). Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849) 139 theologian J. D. Michaelis, who was critical of Jews. The appointee had to be able to read and interpret the scriptures of the Old Testament in Hebrew, and furthermore, of course, be acquainted with the history of the Jewish people and be able to defend the Biblical texts against the “arguments of free thinkers and those who scorn religion.” Finally, he had to write a “short moralistic and religious speech on a text, not a difficult one, presented to him.”160 The royal decree was amended in accordance with this on September 9, 1817. During this process, the Jews had made it clear that there were hardly enough candidates to fill the posts in the country. As a result, only one catechist was employed in each of the cities of Copenhagen, Odense and Fredericia.

The Position of Chief Rabbi The Danish Chancellery and the avid reformist Jews were not very eager for the conservative Abraham Gedalia, (Rabbi Schachno, as he was called by his parishioners) to continue as chief rabbi; he and his followers were against reforms. But they did not want to depose him out of hand. The Danish Chancellery tried to tell him indirectly that he would be allowed to leave his post. They informed him that the king had decided that if he were to continue after the extensive changes of the Edict of 1814, he would have to apply for his own position. But, they added reverently, that naturally this would not be relevant “if it happened that he, taking his advanced age into consideration, might rather retire on his pension.” He had no intention of doing so; he applied and was “appointed chief priest for the time being.” He held this position—calling himself ‘chief rabbi’, not ‘priest’—until he died on November 8, 1827. The choice of his successor was a complicated business. This was no wonder, considering the involvement of the university theologians. The government still considered the bishop of Zealand an expert on Judaism and their best qualified consultant outside the Jewish community as far as administration and organization of the Jews was concerned. At the time, the government was probably correct. This became clear when the position of chief rabbi was to be filled in 1828. Once Abraham Gedalia had died, some wanted his son, Salomon Gedalia, to be his replacement. Others preferred the catechist, Levison. Following Bishop Münter’s proposal, the Danish Chancellery put Salomon Gedalia into the position temporarily, and called for applicants from abroad. The majority of the Board of Representatives of the Jewish community now preferred appointing a rabbi who was in favor of a ‘modern’ form of Judaism, and Bishop Münter, at the solicitation of the government, sent

160 Lausten, Frie jøder?, 74–80. 140 chapter 7 in a long proposal suggesting the privileges that ought to be accorded to and obligations that ought to be incumbent upon new rabbis. When nine applications had been received, the government turned to Münter again, asking him to evaluate them, and he sent back a twenty-five-page report. In objective and nonprejudicial language, he stated that it was important that the new rabbi had mastered the Talmud, could hold speeches in Danish, and, in conducting marriages and divorces, could find a balance between the ordinary laws of the land and the Mosaic rules, could answer all queries about Mosaic ceremonial laws, and could translate documents from the “Jewish languages.” He outlined the major divisions of Judaism through the ages, Pharisees and Sadducees; the meaning of the Talmud in relation to the Law of Moses; discussed the development of synagogue services since the destruction of the Temple; provided explanatory descriptions of both the Enlightenment Jews of Copenhagen, with their new textbook on religion and confirmation, and the Orthodox Jews, who would accept only Hebrew for the language of religious services, took exception to the position of catechist, to the textbook, and to Jews who took the many rules of the Law of Moses lightly. Bishop Münter used no anti-Jewish or polemical language in his description of Orthodox Jews, although he disapproved of the “unbearable yoke of the Talmud,” and was in favor of reformist Jewish ideas; nevertheless, he advised the government to treat this case with wisdom and caution. The idea was that they should proceed carefully, without directly suppressing the orthodox faction. They should show “tolerance.” Any future rabbi should be able to manage such a balancing act, and Münter imagined the establishment of a committee consisting of men from both factions, led by a clever businessman and an orientalist, who would be able to agree on the construction of a new synagogue. This would be a meeting place for all of the Jews of Copenhagen. Furthermore, he outlined the duties of the rabbinical position, and its salary and vestments. The Chancellery took both the Jewish Board of Representatives’ and the bishop’s recommendations into consideration when it made its decisions. They finally agreed that Abraham Wolff (1801–1891) was the most fitting candidate. They could not have chosen a better man. Remarkably, the Jewish board had suggested that the new rabbi be called ‘High Priest,’ but Bishop Münter suggested the title, ‘Chief Rabbi,’ which was adopted. With Wolff at its head, the congregation entered into a completely new phase. It would be difficult to overestimate the import that this leader had for the congregation and for the entire Jewish community of Denmark. Extremely well-educated in Germany, well-read, skillful at debating with fore- thought and reasoning, eloquent at speaking and polemics, he came to exert an enormous influence. Along with his Talmud studies, he had also completed Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849) 141 university studies in philosophy and in German in Würtzberg and Giessen, had written his doctoral thesis on the prophet Habakkuk, and after further studies, had become chief rabbi in Upper Hesse with residence in Giessen. His promi- nence in Danish Judaism lasted for almost the entire nineteenth century; he did not die until 1891. Wolff had the ability to bring the congregation together again for the most part, although he was also often the target of opposition and attack. Time after time, he was in contact with the Bishop of Zealand and the professors of the theological faculty on official business. In this connection, he will appear many times in the chapters that follow.161

The Battle between Factions and the Triumph of the Wolff Faction It may be difficult to ‘measure’ the level of devoutness in the daily life of a congregation, but what certainly became the main point of dispute between the two factions of the congregation, were disagreements about religious services, its liturgy, language and reform. The long-standing schism between a traditional, orthodox faction and a reformist faction, which had existed since the 1780s, was still present. The battle between the two factions was fought with great energy, and as so often in the past, it was fought in public with both sides appealing for support from both the worldly authorities and the public. Neither side showed restraint in the use of invective and dubious argumenta- tion. On one occasion it came to a fistfight at the synagogue. And it seems that violence was resorted to when Nathan Eibeschütz was expelled from the synagogue. Naturally, it is difficult to base an evaluation of motivation and sincerity on the sources that still exist. There obviously was a very active group, orthodox insofar as its followers would not tolerate departures from traditional liturgy, and by the same token, extremely skeptical of the authorized textbook on religion and of the entire drive to introduce a Jewish confirmation. From their decisions, one easily gets the impression of a group of intolerably cantanker- ous men. But it would be wrong to simply deny that they had genuine religious feelings. They desired to hold on to the old values, whereas the reform faction wanted Judaism to adapt to “the spirit of the times,” as they said. However, the government remained loyal to the reformists. Even a moderately comprehensive description of Jewish religious life in Denmark during this period falls outside the scope of this book. There is still a need for such a presentation, based on study of sources such as wills and testaments, the many preserved wimpels, and gravestone inscriptions and

161 Ibid., 103–105. 142 chapter 7 carvings. Other sources are the many letters and reports from both sides of the congregation, which could illuminate the meaning of religious services and prayers, the use of the Hebrew and Danish languages, and much more. There is also extensive material preserved from Chief Rabbi Abraham Wolff’s time to give a good impression of his theology, his sermons, his view of his office, and other matters. One case must be described here. It gives an inkling that the split was about more than mutual accusations, unrest, and division. In about 1789 merchant Isaac Jacob established a Beth Midrash, a house of study. This institution, also called a Claus, was a residential school for the number of students who could be supported by grants or scholarships. In this instance, there were enough funds for two scholars to exclusively devote their time to studying the Talmud from nine in the morning until ten at night, interrupted only by meals. The grant was large enough for them to live on. A Beth Midrash did not have to be a separate house, it simply denotes the institution. We know of other endowed houses of study of this period. Raphael Ascher Unna had donated the gigantic amount of 10,000 rix-dollars for the education of three men, learned in the Talmud, knowledgeable of the law, and of good repute and behavior. It is no wonder that the grant was coveted, nor that when a grant was vacant, animated debates sometimes arose, even in the newspapers, on topics ranging from organization of the study houses to the qualifications of applicants.162

The first catechist, appointed on July 6, 1816, was the charismatic Isaac Noa Mannheimer (1793–1865), an enthusiastic reformist. He performed the first Jewish confirmation on May 19, 1817, after his students had received his teaching and had passed examinations.163 He was very much favored in avant-garde circles. His speeches were especially met with enthusiasm. The confirmation was indeed something of a sensation. Nathanson had rented a big room in house behind a building on Gammel Strand (number 34 at the time), and had decorated it beautifully. Nathanson had also had poet Caspar Johannes Boye (1791–1853) make a Danish translation of the Psalms of David that Mannheimer had chosen, and he had contracted Friedrich Kuhlau (1786–1832) and Christoph Ernst Friedrich Weyse (1774–1842), very admired composers of the times, to compose music for them.164 Songs had been printed and were sung by a choir consisting of students from the Caroline School and others,

162 Ibid., 58. 163 This ‘Jewish Confirmation’ did not replace the traditional Bar Mitzvah ritual. 164 Boye’s hymns are still to be found in the official Danish hymn book, Den Danske Salmebog, 2003. His hymns, as well as those of the composers, Kuhlau and Weyse, remain standards. Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849) 143 while an organ played and trombones blared. In addition to the children who were examined and confirmed, the participants in the ceremony were their parents, deputies from the Danish Chancellery, and several Christian clergymen from Copenhagen churches. Using the Danish language exclusively, Mannheimer opened with a prayer, examined the children, and gave a sermon and a speech to the children who had just been confirmed. Finally, the chief rabbi gave a blessing in Hebrew. The delegates from the government sent in a report of satisfaction with the examination results, and Mannheimer’s own report showed enthusiasm for the entire process: “The religious feeling, so intense in this group of children, was also expressed in the spirit in which they had movingly uttered their vows of eternal dedication to virtue and religion.” Mannheimer’s surviving sermons seem to show that he was a Jew of the Enlightenment. For example, he wrote that the Bible should be interpreted with the help of reason. He confronted Orthodox Jews but also seemed to try to find a balance between the extremes of the two factions. Rabbi Abraham Gedalia strongly opposed Mannheimer’s teaching, which of course was based on the 1814 Textbook on Religion for Youth of the Mosaic Faith. Nathanson had succeeded in having the government pronounce this book the authorized text. True to Jewish Enlightenment ideals, it asserted that several of the rules in the Mosaic Law were no longer in force. As a conservative rabbi, Gedalia objected to this fiercely, insisting that young Jews were duty-bound to the entire Law of Moses, but the Chancellery rejected his protest.

The reformists now wanted to take advantage of the public wave of sympathy for their ideas and modernize synagogue services. The Chancellery, apparently unaware of the consequences of its decision, granted them permission to hold services in Danish, and to include organ music and speeches by Mannheimer. These services took place a few times in August 1817. The innovations unleashed violent protests from the orthodox sector, with Jacob A. Eibeschütz and his son Natan Eibeschütz in the forefront. There were no fewer than 304 signatures on the complaint to the Chancellery demanding that these services be forbidden for various reasons. For example, men had participated without covering their heads, Mannheimer had allowed an organ to be played, had left out some of the Psalms of David, and had held the services in Danish instead of Hebrew. In his support of the protest, Abraham Gedalia declared that anyone who does not strictly follow the ancient Mosaic rules for religious services “cannot be considered a believer of the Mosaic faith according to our Law.” The split in the congregation now resulted in a course of events similar to one seen before, one side appealed to the worldly authorities, and of course, the government could not ignore a petition signed by more than three hundred Jewish men. 144 chapter 7

A commission was formed, consisting of professors of theology, Claus Fries Hornemann and Peter Erasmus Müller, a professor of philology, N. C. Kall, as well as Abraham Gedalia, Gedalia Moses, Heymann Gerson, and Simon Hertz Neukirch of the Community of the Mosaic Faith. A few others were also members for a time. Comprehensive sources from the period of 1817–1821 survive: minutes of meetings, letters, declarations, etc., which give us a good overview of the views of the two factions. The dispute over the language of religious services was of great import. The professors of theology were in favor of using the Danish language for services, and only using Hebrew for special occasions. But there were Jews representing both reformism and orthodoxy on the commission. The government chose to shelve the case. Mannheimer was dismissed in 1823; he later received great acclaim as rabbi in Vienna. His successor, Esaias Levinson, who held degrees in philosophy and philology, and apparently came from the same reformist faction, published a commentary on the new textbook and later a book of Hebrew prayers used in worship services, with their Danish translations.

An event of supreme importance took place in 1833: the construction of the present Great Synagogue on Krystalgade. This put an end to the enormously chaotic status of the community that had been caused by the destruction of the earlier synagogue by the Copenhagen Fire of 1795. About twenty private synagogues had appeared around the city, contributing to the fragmentation of the community and feeding the growth of the schism between reformism and orthodoxy. As we shall see, tensions between the factions did not disappear entirely, but the erection of the new synagogue had an enormous impact on the community’s perception of itself. The exceptionally beautiful building gave the community a singular meeting place, which could rival renowned synagogues all over Europe, and in Copenhagen, the very existence of the synagogue contributed to Jewish self-respect. Jewish services no longer had to take place hidden in apartments, but now took place in a striking building in the center of the capital city, as great and impressive as the buildings of the State Church.165 After the synagogue was built, Chief Rabbi Abraham Wolff, with the backing of the Danish government, emphasized that this was to be the center of a united community. Fighting, strife and resentment were to cease. Everyone should participate in services at this one synagogue and in the religious life originating from it. Only a year after his appointment, Wolff wanted to have the

165 Ibid., 53–56. Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849) 145 old textbook replaced by one he had written and used in Germany, Religions- lærebog for mosaiske Skoler [Religious textbook for Mosaic schools]. This book gave children an excellent introduction to Jewish religion and history and an explanation of Jewish rituals. In this work, his stance on theology followed the course he later continued: a middle way between traditional and reformist Judaism. He presented the Enlightenment Movement versus biblical conservatism, but he sought to minimize their differences. The main impression he gives is of a closer affinity to the conservative, orthodox faction than to the radicals, who were influenced by the Enlightenment. However, neither the theological faculty nor the bishop of Zealand would endorse the authorization of his textbook, partly because they were wary of new unrest. Its publication had to wait until the Jews were given full religious freedom.166

Wolff had devised an Agende, i.e., a liturgy to be used at the new synagogue, in 1832.167 He had also suggested the formation of an official ‘Church Department,’ a kind of administration of the synagogue, and the adoption of a day of prayer, similar to, and on the same day, as that of the State Church, which would include the singing of Danish hymns. His other innovations were that marriage banns be read from the pulpit as they were in the State Church that some prayers be removed from the service, and that sermons and choral singing be added. The Board of Representatives of the Jewish community advocated his ideas, because the new liturgy would contribute to fostering fellowship, centered in the synagogue, after many years of strife. But it was not to be so easy. Protests poured in from the tiny twenty-five-man Portuguese Jewish synagogue, to which, surprisingly, the Chancellery had granted permission to continue to hold its own services. And a more problematic development occurred: severe, passionate protests came from Jacob Eibeschütz, Heyman Levy and Moses Levy—from what could be called the religious right wing. Their main standpoint was that rituals must remain unchanged. It was intolerable that they be forced to adopt new rituals. Jews had indeed been persecuted for centuries, they wrote, but now persecution was coming from their very own people. Wolff rejected this, calling it wickedness, ignorance, and fabrication. Once again, the government was asked to intervene. The Danish Chancellery requested that Bishop P. E. Müller evaluate the situation. He was in favor of Wolff’s suggestion and, he also informed the Chancellery of the interesting fact that he had

166 Abraham A. Wolff, Religions-Lærebog for mosaiske Skoler [Religious textbook for Mosaic schools] (Copenhagen, 1862). 167 Abraham A. Wolff, Agende [Liturgy] (Copenhagen, 1832). 146 chapter 7 met with Wolff and had discussed several of the suggestions with him. Among other things, the bishop suggested that the word ‘administration’ be substi- tuted for ‘church department,’ and he added that he and Wolff had agreed on changes to the questions that confirmands were asked when they made their confession of faith. On the other hand, the bishop recommended that the singing of hymns only be given a trial period of one year. The Chancellery fully backed Wolff’s suggestion, but A. S. Ørsted, Poul Christian Stemann, and others felt that it would be unfitting and imprudent for Christian officials to make decisions concerning disputes between Jews as to their religion or their church rites. Such disputes should be left to Jews to settle among themselves. The Chancellery should not recommend a liturgy for royal authorization, but might declare that it had nothing against its publication. This was what happened, and Wolff had the Chancellery’s authorization printed on the cover of the book. It was new for the Danish government to decide to refrain from interfering in internal affairs of the Community of the Mosaic Faith, and it did not last long. Two years later, an anonymous complaint to the Chancellery rekindled strife about the language to be used in services. Wolff had fought to introduce Danish into the sermon and into certain other parts of the liturgy, but he was impeded by one handicap: he had not yet been able to learn to speak Danish well enough. He admitted this problem in a long report to the king. A sermon was supposed to arouse edification, lift the soul, and penetrate deeply into the heart, and for the time being he could do so only in his own mother tongue, German. Then again, he knew that he had great ability as an orator; his audience numbered six hundred, and sometimes a thousand! But when he tried to speak Danish, his sermons lacked “decisiveness and enthusiasm.” With the backing of the administration, he asked the king for permission to hold his sermons in German for the time being. Poul Christian Stemann, president of the Chancellery, did not agree. The qualification of fluency in the Danish language was a main component of the government’s integration of the Jews, he declared in his report to the king, and he related how important it was that Jews adopt Danish as their official language because it is

of especial importance to work to get the Jews residing here, who always tend to perceive themselves a people apart, to abandon this old attitude as much as possible, and become fully nationalized, and hardly any approach would better contribute to this purpose than the language of the country also becoming their national and official language, which in turn is more surely effected if they use only Danish in their religious life. Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849) 147

Figure 4 Title page, Israelitisk Bønnebog by Chief Rabbi Abraham A. Wolff (1856).

He proposed that the king rule that for the next two years Wolff preach in Danish every other Sabbath, alternating with German. But the king gave Wolff a longer period of grace; he only had to preach in Danish every fourth Sabbath and on holy days until 1838, but after that he would have to use Danish exclusively.168

Debate on the Adaptation of Jews to Social and Political Conditions

During the brief period of time of 1814 to 1849, many cases that touched upon the social and religious status of Jewish citizens show that the government, the leadership of the Church, and the theologians of the university were earnestly endeavoring to promote the integration of Jews into society. As in earlier times, the government had required that theologians of the State Church take a stand on cases of this sort, and the government entrusted those cases to them. This was seen above in connection with the choice of chief rabbi. Clearly, the many

168 Lausten, Frie jøder?, 147, 257–299. 309–316. 148 chapter 7 cases cannot be examined here, but several cases can, because they especially shed light on the attitudes of Danish theologians.

The Education of Jewish Children and Specifically Their Religious Instruction Lively debate ensued during the years immediately following 1814, when compulsory education for Jewish children and their compulsory religious instruction and examination on Judaism were decreed. But what should be done for the Jews elsewhere in the country, outside of Copenhagen, where there were no Mosaic schools or catechists to undertake religious instruction for Jewish children? The answer was to put them into ordinary primary schools, where they were excused from Christian religious instruction. The Board of Representatives of the Jewish community were in favor of such shared schools, precisely because they fostered integration. In 1815, when the headmaster of a private school suggested that the Jewish children in his school be grouped into a separate class, the Board objected; they could “in no way” agree to this, because it would lead to hostile misrepresentations in the minds of both the Christian and the Jewish children. But as far as religious instruction went, the Jewish children could be taught Judaism at home or in special lessons at school. It would be directly detrimental to Jewish children if children of the two religions were prevented from going to school together; it was there they would form friendships that would outlast their school years, and in this way all citizens would be united, the Board wrote when the subject came up again in 1817. When A. D. Cohn, the catechist of Funen, wrote that he had established a Jewish school in which he taught Hebrew and the Jewish religion, besides the ordinary subjects, Frederik Plum (1760–1834), bishop of Funen, approved, but he would not accept that it be compulsory. Archdeacon of Funen Jens Paludan- Müller (1771–1845), asserted that shared schooling would indeed promote the integration of Jews.

Nothing better facilitates and implements the merging of the culture of the Mosaic community with that of the rest of society than the early interaction of Jewish children with Danish children and their going to school together (1823).169

But then they went a step further and discussed whether there was any reason Jewish children in the public schools should not go to the Christian instruction given in the schools. After all, many of them lived where there was no

169 Ibid., 147. Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849) 149

Jewish religious instruction available. The Board of Representatives of the Jewish community had rejected this idea. Bishop Plum also rejected it on the grounds that in such a scenario, it could easily look as though the teachers had thrown themselves into “proselytizing”; this must be absolutely avoided. Paludan-Müller also rejected it, adding, however, that it might be allowed if teachers and parents so desired. A singular question arose when a Jewish merchant in Skjælskør was unable to find a Jewish teacher to give his son religious instruction. Therefore he asked the local school board—of which the local priest was the chairman—whether “the Lutheran schoolteacher” might teach the boy “about the Jewish religion.” He got a negative response from the school board on the grounds that, in this case, the religious sensibilities of the peasants would be offended, and that the schoolmaster would not be able to avoid talking about “messianic dignity of Christ,” while if he omitted it he would be speaking contrary to his own knowledge and against his own conscience. Therefore the school board rejected this proposal, and in 1817, the Chancellery upheld this. But after these cases, the government made the final decision in 1827 that Jewish children certainly might attend the public schools, including religion lessons, if they so desired. Another special problem arose when the prominent Jewish businessman, Hartvig Philip Ree of Aarhus, wanted to employ a Jewish teacher from abroad as private teacher for his children so that they could learn Hebrew and religion, but he wanted to be excused from paying the fee to the state coffers for this foreigner’s immigration. Bishop Andreas Birch of Aarhus commended and supported Ree, because it could only be advantageous that Jewish children attained “fundamental knowledge of the religion of their fathers.” As a result, they would also have reverence for “religious feelings in general.” Nonetheless, in 1819 this was rejected by both the Jewish Board of Representatives and the Chancellery: Ree had to find a suitable teacher for his children among the Jews of Denmark.170

The Society for Rewarding the Placement of Young Jews as Artisans and Craftsmen In order to promote the integration of Jews, the king had signed an edict on September 29, 1788, which was meant to encourage the guilds of Copenhagen to accept young Jewish men as apprentices in all trades on a par with Christian apprentices. The masters were not at all eager to take on Jews. To advance the king’s objective, a Society for Rewarding the Placement of Young Jews as Artisans and Craftsmen, was formed in 1793, to reward Christian trade masters who employed Jewish apprentices despite the difficulties that might ensue.

170 Ibid., 135–162. 150 chapter 7

As the Jewish journeymen became masters themselves, they were also able to employ Jewish apprentices and therefore in the 1830s it was decided that journeymen and masters of both religions would be able to borrow from the foundation in order to establish and consolidate their businesses. The administration of Præmieselskabet, (the Reward Society), as it was called, consisted of two Jewish founders, Heiman Isac Cantor and Levi Isac Cantor, and two Christians, Andreas Buntzen and Lars Larssen. During the period in question, there also were priests of the State Church in the administration: parish priest Johan Lønborg-Paludan (1815–1822), Pastor Michelsen from Holmens Church (1823–1856), and parish priest Carl Holger Visby (1833–1856). Prominent people held speeches at annual general meetings, and it is interesting that with the exception of Abraham Wolff’s speech in 1830, all the speeches were held by priests of the State Church. They made use of the occasion to advocate understanding and good relations between Jews and Christians and to censure the anti-Jewish tendencies of the day. In 1814 Pastor Michelsen lamented the attacks against the great lawgiver of the Israelites . . . “and against you, my believers in the Mosaic faith.” Yet this foundation is a “meeting place for us, we who otherwise are of such different faiths . . . We confessors of Moses and Christ.” The priest Eggert Christian Tryde, later deacon and royal confessor, praised the foundation in his speech in 1841, calling it the first Danish attempt to have Christians and Jews shake hands: it was a sign of “refinement.” Another priest, Carl Holger Visby, said that the society had contributed to fill- ing the unnatural gap between religious believers, who, in spite of their differences, should never forget that in very many things they share the same background (1843). The Reward Society wanted to eliminate religion-based prejudice and to appeal to tolerance. It would be proven that, in spite of having different religions, cooperation was possible in practical, down-to earth work. Thus this society became one of the most admirable institutions because of its ability to bring Jews and Christians together without either of them forgetting their religions, but on the contrary, in mutual respect, with each side preserving its religion while simply engaged in the trade they had in common. At that time, this was an extraordinary initiative, which would spread its influence far beyond craftsmanship and artisanship. The clerics of the State Church were still among the leading opinion makers of the country. It is scarcely possible to overestimate the impact the Reward Society made on Danish society. Many of the speeches focused on religious matters, without evading direct mention of differences of faith, but drawing attention to points on which Christians and Jews were in agreement—among other things, on having the one God, the Old Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849) 151

Testament, the double commandment to love God and your neighbor—and some of the talks went further, ending with prayers and asking for the Lord’s blessing on those present. Several of the talks also dealt with the oppression Christians had imposed upon Jews throughout the ages, and pointed out with pride that this organization had combatted prejudice and intolerance, just as it was optimistic about the prospect that reason would gain more ground in the future. It can be noted that during the Enlightenment, neither the government nor the leadership of the Church would allow a special Christian mission to convert Danish Jews. They felt that such a mission would run counter to integration, and, on the whole, would cause unrest.171

The Admission of Jewish University Students to the Student Residences of Copenhagen The more that Jewish young men were given the opportunity to study at the university, the more pressing became the question of whether they could be admitted into ordinary student residences. This was again a matter of the independence, freedom, and equality of Jewish citizens, and case documents show how much the viewpoints of the professors of theology had changed. The leader of the residence named Regensen, the dean and professor F. C. Petersen, a theologian and classical philologist, wanted to refuse the admission of Jews on the grounds that the residence was a “Christian organization,” and that most of its residents were studying theology. However, in 1840, he was rebuffed by the board of directors of the university, theology professors Henrik Nicolai Clausen, Matthias Hagen Hohlenberg, and Carl Emil Scharling, as well as by the administration of the university. On the other hand, in the case of the student residence called Elers Kollegium, its supervisor, Henrik Nicolai Clausen, interpreted the charter of the residence to mean that Jews could be accepted, but the Consistory of the university objected. In 1841 it ruled that the charter implied that Jews be excluded.172

The Employment of Jewish Scientists as Tutors and Professors A consequence of the advances in integration since the end of the 1700s was that the employment of Jewish men at the University of Copenhagen became another subject of widespread debate. The charter of the University required that every teacher at the university profess his faith in the Lutheran confessional document, the Augsburg Confession of 1530. However, the king

171 Lausten, Frie jøder?, 40–53. 172 Ibid., 225–229. 152 chapter 7 could grant dispensation from the requirement. The philosophy faculty was divided on the issue of Christian Nathan David’s application for permission to hold lectures on political economy. A minority thought that the difference in religion was of no import in the matter, but the majority opposed giving him the permission, raising professional and “religious” objections and also issues of church politics. The main focus was on religious differences (1824–1826). The charter of the university was also used against Adolph Hannover when he applied for permission to participate in a competition for a position as lecturer at the medical school. The members of the administration of the university were split. Kolderup-Rosenvinge and P. O. Hansen were against the authorization, but Lauritz Engelstoft thought that the difference in religion was no hindrance to Hannover’s participation. In a declaration, Chief Rabbi Wolff supported Engelstoft, deeming the case a matter of principle about the freedom of Jews; if the government refused to admit Hannover, then it was not living up to its intention to offer Jews, as well as others, “free intellectual improvement.” The king granted the dispensation in 1843, remarking, however, that Hannover would never be allowed to become a member of the Consistory.173

Jews and Fees Paid to the State Church The government and the theologians of Denmark also demonstrated their receptivity and positive attitude to Jews on many other occasions. When a priest of the State Church proposed that Jews also pay the so-called ‘holy day fee’ (a part of priests’ salaries) to the priests of the State Church, Bishop Müller rejected the idea on the grounds that it was unreasonable: Jews had no contact with priests, and such a tax would only “give rise to animosity, which could be unpleasant in a number of ways.” The Chancellery backed the bishop in 1833, declaring that such a tax could not be levied on believers of the Mosaic faith. Priests of the State Church were exempt from paying the tax for priest’s salaries, and therefore Chief Rabbi Wolff petitioned to also be excused from paying this tax. This was a matter of principle rather than money; Jewish clerics should not be treated differently from clerics of the Danish Church. Nevertheless, the city council and the government rejected his first petition in 1831. He petitioned again a few years later. This obligation was so obviously unreasonable, he claimed, because his office was just as valuable to society as that of priests and bishops of the Danish Church. Dean Tryde of the Cathedral of Copenhagen, answering a query from the Chancellery, said that Wolff must not be acquiesced to, or the state and the Church would be admitting that the chief rabbi was on the same level as clerics of the Church, thereby discounting

173 Ibid., 230–242. Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849) 153 its own value and significance. He felt that a chief rabbi had to accept the consequences of living in a Christian society. Bishop Mynster agreed with Tryde, but in accordance with the high esteem he always had for Chief Rabbi Wolff, he added the suggestion that Wolff’s petition be granted as long as he was chief rabbi. In this way, the bishop believed, the dignity of the State Church would be upheld without having its priests appear to harass a cleric of the Community of the Mosaic Faith, he wrote in 1839.174

The Swearing of Oaths by Jews in a Court of Law During this period, the special procedure used when Jews had to swear oaths in courts of law came up for debate again. It became a matter in which the government, the Church, and the theological faculty proved more than willing to ease the lot of Jewish citizens. Jews objected to the special oaths they had to take, because they were discriminatory and humiliating. They wanted to have the required ceremonies abolished and have oaths taken in the courts rather than at the synagogue. Remarkably, Bishop Mynster of the diocese of Zealand now joined this protest. In 1840 the theologians said outright that Jewish citizens were

no longer foreigners in Denmark, but citizens, and although they had once seen themselves, and had been seen by others, to be opponents of Christians, this is absolutely not the case any longer, as far as civilian matters are concerned, even though traces of this remain among the most uneducated individuals of both religions. Every Jew knows that in the eyes of the law, there is no difference between a Jew and a Christian.175

The ceremony was to be purged of derogatory phrases because Danish Jews had now achieved a sufficient degree of refinement. Taking of oaths was a civic matter. The two sides agreed however, that some sort of religious framework should remain in place. An admonitory speech with religious content was still necessary, the bishop asserted, disagreeing with the chief rabbi and the Representatives of the Jewish community. The innumerable negotiations on this issue ended with the requirement of an admonitory speech with threats of punishment for perjury. The actual formulation of the oath was:

174 Ibid., 225–242. 175 Ibid., 406. 154 chapter 7

By the almighty, omniscient, and just God, who created heaven and earth, and who will not leave unpunished anyone who uses his name falsely, I, John Doe, swear that the testimony I have given in this case (and which has been read aloud to me) is completely in accordance with the truth, and that I have told the whole truth without holding anything back, and that in no part of my explanation have I put a different meaning than what would be understood as the natural meaning of the words and the context. So help me God, the creator of heaven and earth, may His just punishment come down upon me if I have spoken falsely. Amen.176

Although the government, the Church, and the theologians of the university showed positive attitudes toward Jewish fellow citizens and willingness to ease their integration during this period, there also were cases that pointed in the opposite direction. As described above, the literary attack on the Jews, and traditional opposition to Jews in the writings of certain theologians were naturally foremost among such negative examples, but there were also cases in which the government ruled against the wishes of Danish Jews.

Mixed Marriages Mixed marriages were a typical result of the ideas of the Enlightenment (see p. 112). Apparently the government and the bishops felt that they would hasten the integration of Jews into society. This might be true, but from a Jewish point of view, they could be questionable since they could lead to the decline of the Jewish community; integration could lead to assimilation. There had been relatively many such marriages right from the beginning, and for that reason, in 1823 two members of the Board of Representatives of the Jewish community, Lion Israel and Isaac Hartvig, petitioned the City Council of Copenhagen to simply have such marriages forbidden. Their argument was that it could not be expected that the children of these marriages would be brought up in any religion at all, as the spouses each believed in a different religion. Unfortunately we do not have the City Council’s reply to the petition, but mixed couples continued to marry. Later the Board wished to have the government abolish the old requirement that marriage between Jews must be approved by the Chancellery. This was discriminatory and humiliating, and they argued that it was of utmost importance that Jews not be subject to different rules and regulations from those that other citizens had to follow. Remarkably Bishop Mynster, at the request of the government wrote a report

176 Lausten, Frie jøder? 386–427. Kolderup-Rosenvinge, ed., Kgl. Forordninger og aabne Breve [Royal decrees and letters patent], vol. 23, Copenhagen 1844, 778–78. Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849) 155 agreeing with the Board of Representatives. This must be embarrassing for Jews, he thought, and declared that he had no reservations about giving in to their request. The Chancellery went along with him, but for one or another reason, no longer available to us, the king would not agree to the petition in 1842. The requirement was not abolished until May 1849.177

Debate on Voting Rights for Jews and Their Eligibility for Election to the Assembly of the Estates The question of the integration of Jews was especially heated during political deliberations between a group of advisors to the king, the so-called Oplyste Mænd (Enlightened Men) and members of the Assemblies of the Estates in the towns of Roskilde and Viborg during the period 1832–1834. Several clerics of the State Church took part in the debate on the extent to which Jews might have the right to vote and be eligible for election. Contributions to the discussion show that many of the prominent clerics of the day were still ruled by the anti-Judaism of the past, just as were the majority of the other, non- clerical, politicians. Anti-Jewish feelings ran high during deliberations. The message from the podium was that Jews were disloyal, avaricious, deceitful, and not genuine Danes. Bishop Nicolaj Esmark Øllgaard of Viborg was among those who were opposed to the eligibility of Jews to be candidates for election. He informed his audience that if the Jews persisted with the religion of their fathers, then they had nothing in common with Denmark, because they were not in possession of national spirit. Furthermore, they were conceited. Still, it would be acceptable to give them the right to vote, because they would then vote for Christian men. After all, they praised tolerance, he explained. He put forward the idea of a distinctively Danish “national spirit.” Jews had their own nationality, and as the wandering children of Israel they were, they could never become genuine Danes, for “one does not become Danish just by being born on Danish soil; nationality arises from other sources, and has many interacting origins.” To be a citizen of Denmark is closely linked with being Christian, and since Christianity is the only truth, anything else must be false:

Judaism and Christianity are of course not one and the same, and as surely as we believe that Christianity is truth, then we must also view Judaism—as it is, and insofar as it, in its belief and teachings, does not concur with, but deviates from Christianity—as error.

177 Ibid., 202–224. 156 chapter 7

Since religion was intertwined in many civic matters, participation in the political life of society could not be permitted to non-Christians.178 Bishop Mynster and Dean David Seidelin Birch were the clerical delegates of the Roskilde Assembly. The positive views about Jews that Mynster had espoused on many occasions did not show themselves here. Mynster thought that public opinion held that Jews could not stand for election, that Jews were not yet genuine Danes. Moreover, there would be something offensive in the participation of a Jew, if he were elected, in the Christian religious service at the opening of the Assembly of the Estates held in a church, where he must be considered an outsider in many respects. Neither could Jews take part in proceedings on Saturdays, Birch said—even though Rabbi Wolff had written a declaration stating that this was certainly allowed. Some day in the future, Jews and Christians might fuse together, but if they were made eligible for office now, we would produce a “soldered joint,” an artificial juxtaposition of two different materials, a solder easily broken, which, in general, is seldom a pretty sight. Birch supported and supplemented his bishop’s views and stated that Judaism was incapable of giving Jews the ethical impetus necessary for carrying out the societal responsibilities that a politician must assume, because Christianity gave the strongest basis and the most robust support for executing all obligations, including the obligations of citizenship. In this, Mynster and Birch were in complete agreement with Ørsted, the king’s representative at the Assembly of the Estates, who claimed that the Edict of 1814 certainly did not mean that Jewish citizens had achieved full civil rights and were therefore perfectly equal to Christian citizens. It was of course natural that Christians would rather entrust the leadership of their society to those who shared their faith than to those who deviated from it. Ørsted admitted that Jews had become more refined as a result of recent Danish laws, and that the spirit of recent legislation had been to endeavor to do away with inequality between Jews and Christians, but, Ørsted added, it was only possible to realize this to a certain extent, for there were limits to this endeavor. Specifically, the difference in religion was decisive, because the Christian religion contained a guarantee of a proper civic attitude, which could not be found in other religions. Jews simply did not have the interest in the welfare of society necessary for fellow citizens to trust them implicitly.179 Bishop Müller had participated in the meeting of the Enlightened Men in preparation for the Assembly of the Estates, and he completely rejected anti-Jewish views. Müller explained the essence of the Jewish faith and the

178 Ibid., 339–340. 179 Ibid., 348–359. Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849) 157 significance of the obligatory education of Jewish young people, which would contribute to removing prejudices, and he denied that Jews were unpatriotic, maintaining that shutting Jews out would hinder their integration. At the Viborg Assembly of the Estates, Archdeacon Peter Tetens Hald confronted anti-Jewish voices just as resolutely. Jews are no longer foreigners in Denmark; on the contrary, they themselves say that Denmark is their native land, and they place an honor in being called Danish. Only ignorance could maintain that Jewish religion and morals are impediments; prejudices about Jews flour- ish only among the less enlightened. Hald brought criminal statistics into his speech: while the number of crimes committed by Christian citizens had risen to a distressing degree, there were very few Jewish criminals. It is impossible to recount here the innumerable speeches of many other members, proprietors, farmers, lawyers, mayors, and others. Many of the speeches were extremely hostile to Jews, others were markedly friendly toward Jews. The majorities in both Roskilde and Viborg were in agreement on Jews having the right to vote, under certain conditions, but in Viborg there was a majority against making Jews eligible for elected posts, while in Roskilde there was a slight majority in favor of it. Finally, however, in 1834 the king rejected the eligibility of Jews to be candidates for elections—just fifteen years before the Danish Constitution was ratified.180

Missionary Work and the Conversion of Jews to Christianity

Missionary Efforts The endeavor to convert Jews to Christianity had its heyday during the pietistic era. The Enlightenment and its ideas of tolerance, forbearance, and freedom of thought had put a stop to enthusiasm for missionary work, but this had been brought back to life at the beginning of the 1800s. The first Danish priest to take the initiative to do missionary work was the activist, parish priest Rønne, mentioned earlier in this book. The London Society for Promoting Christianity amongst the Jews had been founded in England in 1809. The society started a mission school for educating Jews, a print shop, a book bindery, and a cha- pel in the East End, in which services for Jews were held regularly. The society did a good deal of work with Jewish women, translated the Bible into Yiddish, published the New Testament in Hebrew, and sent missionaries to European countries, North Africa, and the Orient to convert Jews. A German mission, Gesellschaft zur Beförderung des Christentums unter den Juden (Society for the

180 Ibid., 359–361. 158 chapter 7

Promotion of Christianity among the Jews), based in Berlin, was formed somewhat later, in 1822. The activities of these societies inspired Rønne to missionize among Jews. In his Samling af evangeliske Fortællinger, Afhandlinger, Missions- Efteretninger o.s.v. [Collection of evangelistic accounts, articles, reports on missions, etc.], he reported on the work of these missions to foreign lands (1821ff.). These were most often elaborate, sentimental stories of the conversion of individual Jews to Christianity, but in his comments, Rønne expressed the view that the salvation of the Jews was imminent: this showed that we now lived in the times when Paul’s words in Romans 11 and 12 were beginning to be fulfilled. When the Jews were converted, the Kingdom of God would encompass all the ends of the earth, and therefore this new situation gives us great and wonder- ful hope.181 Since Rønne was convinced that many Danes were not at all aware that so much was now being done to save the Jews, and that these efforts were not fruitless, he decided to spread information about the Christian missions. On his initiative, Det Danske Missionselskab (The Danish Mission Society] was formed in 1821, and although its statement of objectives said that the society was founded to spread Christianity among wild and barbaric peoples, Rønne, at least, thought that Jews should also be targets of conversion. He travelled around the country, published tracts, and had collection boxes put up in churches, which were marked “Give a mite for the conversion of heathens, Turks, and Jews.” But Rønne’s missionary efforts triggered an animated debate in clerical circles. There were still leading theologians in the State Church who supported the Enlightenment, and besides this, missionary work did not exactly fit into government plans for integration of the Jews. As early as 1822, the government forbade requests from the pulpit for donations, and Bishop Plum of Funen, in a report requested by the government, rejected the mission to the Jews because men of reason were convinced that missions would accomplish little or nothing toward the spread of the true teachings of Jesus. The general run of proselytes were despicable people, and it should be remembered that Jews had freedom of religion in Denmark. It must be concluded that the meaning of the law was that proselyte-making, unworthy of Protestantism, and always impolitic, should not take place. The government took the case up, and as it had in many cases in the past, asked the bishop of Zealand for his evaluation. He requested and received a twelve-page report from Rønne, in which Rønne passionately explained that mission to the Jews was a sign that the Day of Judgment was approaching. Denmark, as a Christian country, had an obligation to perform mission among Jews.

181 Rønne, Samling af evangeliske Fortællinger, Afhandlinger, Missions-Efteretninger o.s.v (1821), 323–368. Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849) 159

Intriguingly, Bishop Münter took Rønne’s part and wrote frankly that he did not share his colleague, Plum’s opinion. Mission was a Christian duty. Nevertheless, the government stood by its decision, and in 1823 responded that Rønne must not act against the prohibition mentioned above. Rønne continued his efforts in his Dansk Religions Blad [Journal of Danish Religion]. The children of Abraham were misguided and deceived by fraud, and he daringly rejected the integration policy that the government had pursued since the end of the 1790s: the salvation of Jews could not be attained by “amalgamating” (i.e., integrating) them with our own Christians, as most Danes baptized in the Church are indifferent to religion. The only salvation for the Jews is to bring them back to the Savior their fathers had nailed to the cross, so that they can learn to say, from the heart, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” A few years later Moses Treitel, a Jew from Pomerania, converted to Christianity in London and took the name, Johan Christian Moritz. He was employed by the London Society for promoting Christianity among the Jews and began to travel as a missionary to the Jews. He made several attempts to get the Danish government’s permission to do missionary work in Denmark. The government rejected every one of his petitions, but Rønne supported him, published his journals, and wrote about him in his magazine. In this connection, Rønne now tried to found a Society for the Conversion of Jews. He asked for help from Count Frederik Adolf Holstein of Holsteinborg, an influential figure in the new awakening movement, but the count rejected the plan on the grounds that there was not enough manpower for the task, and that Danish theologians would refuse to join. When Moritz sent a new petition to King Christian VIII, the king requested another evaluation. Bishop Mynster was already under pressure from the unrest that he perceived around the country wherever religious awakening had broken out, so he could only “advise against granting the petition.” Such a missionary effort among Danish Jews would have a diametrically opposite effect, and would just result in “provoking the fervor of Jewish zealots,” which would alarm other Jews. Beside this, Mynster was of the opinion that Danish Jews and Christians had such active social connections, that Jews were more likely to be convinced about Christianity through this association than by means of mission. Also, the bishop was hardly impressed by the missionary, Moritz. He totally lacked the qualities needed to mount a Danish pulpit, he wrote in 1844. However, the Dansk Missions-Blad [Danish mission newsletter] continued to promote mission among Jews, albeit beyond the Danish border, and these aspirations came into fruition when a group of followers of Grundtvig, the Christian democratic awakener, sent the clergyman Ludvig Daniel Hass (1808–1881) to Turkey in 1842, where he was to try to convert Muslims and Jews to Christianity. His wife and also his assistant, teacher Christen Kold, traveled 160 chapter 7 with him. The endeavor came to a rather depressing end, seen from a missionary point of view. Hass, who had a peculiar personality, had a falling out with the Danish Missionary Society, and personal problems also arose, so he gave up the entire project in less than five years. Kold left him in the end, travelling from Smyrna to Thisted in 1847. Kold later became a great educational innova- tor and the founder of Grundtvigian folk high schools, schools for the informal adult education of the peasant and working classes. Hass’s mission had no success at all, and at a meeting in the summer of 1848, parish priest Peter Christian Kierkegaard (brother of Søren Kierkegaard) had to confess bitterly that the enterprise had been “a dismal failure, and seems to have been a complete waste, to our sorrow and shame.” Hans Nicolajsen (1803– 1856) from South Jutland also had an interest in missionary work among Jews, which inspired him to go out into the world. He had come from a pietistic envi- ronment in Løgum Kloster, had been educated in Berlin and England, where he had studied Arabic and Hebrew, and had been sent to Syria, Egypt, and North Africa by the English society mentioned above. He ended in Jerusalem, where he worked with Michael Solomon Alexander, who had been appointed Protestant Archbishop of Jerusalem by Germany and England. They established a church, a school for girls, and a hospital, and carried out highly valued social work. However, their congregation was very small; they only baptized a handful of people. Alexander and Nicolajsen were both buried on Mount Zion. The engraving on the plaque on Nicolajsen’s grave says that he was loved in life and mourned in death by Christians, Jews and Muslims.182

Conversion of Jews to Christianity As we have seen, J. P. Mynster, bishop of Zealand Diocese, the leading figure of the Danish Church, on one hand furthered traditional Christian views of Judaism, and on the other hand, took on surprisingly tolerant, impartial views. In 1839 he put forth proposals for a new prayer book and new ritual for the Danish Church. A great debate ensued, and the result was that the proposal was not adopted. As bishop, he was acquainted with many instances of Jewish proselytes, and it is interesting to see what he thought of these Jewish conversions to Christianity. Naturally the many cases in which Jewish parents wished to have their children baptized, although they themselves remained Jewish, were the impetus for Mynster to add a statement to his Forslag til et Kirke-Ritual for Danmark [Proposal for a Church ritual for Denmark], that “children of believers in the Mosaic faith could be accepted for baptism in our churches if their parents

182 Ibid., 444–499. Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849) 161 so desire” (Paragraph 42). As for the question of “home baptism,” he did not deviate to any meaningful degree from the ritual of 1685. Mynster preserved the older rule: Home baptism could be performed when a child was so delicate that it could not be brought to church, but the child had to be “presented” at church within a certain time frame. As for the baptism of adults, in his suggestion for a new church ritual, Mynster wished that anyone from another religious community, who wished to be accepted into the Christian Church, could go to any priest who had a congregation. The priest should “examine the person’s convictions,” and warn him that this step must not be taken to win worldly advantages, but only to achieve the salvation of his soul. (Although there were many female converts, Mynster used male pronouns exclusively.) And he must not take conversion light-heartedly or hypocritically. If he maintained his resolve, the priest was to examine his knowledge of Christianity and then give him religious instruction for as long as necessary. When the instruction was concluded, the priest and the proselyte should report to the bishop, who would examine the proselyte’s knowledge and the “purity of his intentions.” Mynster’s proposal was more flexible than previous procedures had been; he thought that this task could be handed over to a dean if that were more convenient. Indeed, the bishop could even hand the entire ritual over to the priest without further ado, under certain circumstances, which he did not define. That would mean that he could let the priest perform the baptism, provided the bishop had confidence the priest’s “honorableness.” The priest was to follow the procedure for the baptism of adults, and in his examination and his discourses bring out the particular elements of Christianity that differed from those of the proselyte’s former religion. What was Mynster’s procedure for the baptism of adults? In comparison with the former ritual of 1685, it cannot be said to be a less demanding entrance into the Christian Church. His remarks show how he had taken his experience of Jewish proselytes into account. The main points of his proposal were:

1) Baptism is to be performed on a day when no other services are held. 2) Godparents and witnesses are to be seated around the altar, men on one side and women on the other. 3) The priest stands before the altar. A hymn is sung. (Apparently the choice of hymn is open.) 4) The proselyte steps in front of the altar. The priest says a prayer. (It is not described.) 5) The priest holds a speech to the proselyte in “appropriate biblical language.” He is to talk about baptism and about the proselyte “in accordance with his particular circumstances.” 162 chapter 7

6) The priest asks the proselyte whether it is his desire to be accepted into the Christian congregation. This is answered with a ‘yes.’ 7) The priest “goes through the most important items of Christian doctrine” with the proselyte. The priest is to ask questions which are tailored to the proselyte’s “level of knowledge.” However, it should be clear that the person in question knows what every Christian ought to know. 8) The priest holds a speech of admonition to the proselyte. (This is not printed, so the priest is to formulate it himself.) 9) The priest prays, “O almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! We beseech you on behalf of this, your servant, etc.” In the prayer printed in the Prayer Book on page 80, God is beseeched to accept this person who is now being baptized, and bring him or her into the Church so it would become a blessing. 10) The priest reads the words of the baptism from Matthew 28:19–20. 11) The proselyte kneels before the altar. The priest lays his hand on his or her head and prays. 12) The priest turns toward the altar, and a hymn (not specified) is sung. The proselyte sits on a stool before the altar. 13) The baptism takes place at the baptismal fount. After the introductory words used for the baptism of children, the priest asks the individual for “the name he would like to be called hereafter.” Mynster remarks here that it should be “seen to” that the proselyte keep “the surname” he has had so far. He might also keep a given name, but in every case, the proselyte is also to take a new given name “in commemoration of the baptism.” Using the entire new name, the priest asks the proselyte the baptismal questions. After he answers ‘yes,’ the individual kneels on a stool, holds his head over the font, and the priest performs the baptism. 14) The baptized individual stands up, and the priest holds “a short speech” for him and the witnesses, ending with a blessing. 15) All take their places again and a hymn (not specified) is sung. 16) The newly baptized person participates in the Eucharist at the next Holy Communion, “as other Christians do.”183

Another of Mynster’s reforms of the rite that had been in use since 1685 was that the baptism of a proselyte was no longer to be officially announced from the pulpit on the Sunday before the ceremony, and that the priest was no longer to offer a special prayer for the proselyte from the pulpit. His argument

183 Mynster, Forslag til et Kirke-Ritual for Danmark [Proposal of a church ritual for Denmark] (1839), § 62, 45–47. § 63, 47–48. Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849) 163 was that while, of course, there was no shame connected in going over to the Christian faith, provoking special attention was not desirable. This could in fact disturb the devotional spirit of the baptism, and might even fuel an unseemly inflated sense of pride. Priests could be allowed to determine for themselves whether a proselyte was able to pass the baptismal examination. When a priest was satisfied with the examination results, he was to inform the bishop of this. Michelsen, the priest of Holmen’s Church, wrote to Bishop Münter that the surgeon, Martin Franck, and the jeweler, Ludewig Block, both Jews who had married Christian women, had received sufficient instruction in Christianity from him in six months. Therefore he could now include them in his congregation. This note was simply for the bishop’s information.184 The great majority of the Jews in Denmark lived in Copenhagen, so naturally the conversion of a Jew to Christianity was a Copenhagen phenomenon, and the bishops in the provinces might still be a little uncertain as to how to handle Jewish proselytes. In April of 1828, the Chancellery received a query from the bishop of Aalborg diocese because a Jewish man had desired to convert to Christianity. In the presence of the bishop and two priests, he had proven that he was well-versed in “the truths of our religion.” He had vowed that his desire to take this step stemmed from genuine convictions and that he would live in accordance with Christianity. He wished, though, to have his baptism conducted discreetly, in the sole presence of his witnesses and Church officials. In other words, he wanted to be baptized at home. The Chancellery’s reply was that they had no objections to his conversion, but that it had to be performed in church. He could, However,be granted permission for a home baptism if he paid the pertinent fee.185 During this entire period quite a few Jewish men and women converted to Christianity, and many of them also petitioned for permission to have their examination and baptism take place at home. The Chancellery usually granted this permission, but an application had to be made in each case, and in some instances, the local dean tried to put a stop to this procedure. This happened, for example, when a Jewish couple from Slagelse, Jonas David and Frederikke Warburg, wished to convert to Christianity. They had already had all their twelve children baptized, and now they also wanted to be incorporated into the Church. But they wanted their examination and baptism to take place at their home, or at the home of their parish priest, Niels Fuglsang. We are fortunate that they explained their motive in this case: Their grounds were that as

184 Lausten, Oplysning i kirke og synagoge, 447–454. Lausten, Frie jøder?, 507. 185 Tage Algreen-Ussing, Kgl. Rescripter [Royal decrees], vol. 7 (Copenhagen 1834), 149–150. 164 chapter 7 older people (he was fifty-three and she was forty-four) it was difficult for them to learn things by heart and to express their new belief orally. Besides this, their many relatives in Slagelse would most likely be affronted, and if they found out about the conversion before it was completed, they would surely assail them with arguments to persuade them to reconsider. Finally, elaborating on the motivation for their conversion, they said that they wanted to live within the same religious community as their children. After receiving religious instruction, the couple promised to sign a declaration about their new faith before their baptism. Their application was accompanied by a long account written by Pastor Fuglsang. He testified that he had taught and baptized the couple’s many children, and reported that David and his wife had lived in his parish for twenty-two years. They were highly esteemed and respectable citizens, whose social contact was largely with Christian families. Jonas David was revered in Jewish circles as well, to the extent that he had held the position of director of the Community of the Mosaic Faith. However, Archdeacon Peter Hans Mønster took a grave view of the case. He felt that the only way to be sure of the sincerity of the couple’s intent was through a public rite of baptism. Indeed, the very dignity of the Church was at risk. Therefore he demanded that all the priests and other staff of the town’s churches be present. The couple’s written confession of faith had to be examined by the priests and articulated loudly and clearly by the couple; the presence of a high-ranking clergyman was necessary, and a report of the entire procedure was to be sent to the bishop and written into the church record. Afterward, the couple had to confirm their conversion by publicly receiving the Eucharist. Münter, the bishop of the diocese, was in disagreement with his dean’s exacting fervor and tried to mollify him. In his report to the king, he backed the parish priest. A written confession of faith has never been required and was unnecessary. It was enough that the dean be present at the examination. The priests of the town could act as witnesses, and the couple could themselves invite any friends they wished to be godparents. The bishop also thought it unnecessary for all the church employees of the town of Slagelse be present. He completely ignored the dean’s requirement that the priests of Slagelse have the right to quiz the couple on details of the Augsburg Confession. In general, the king followed the bishops’ recommendations. Permission for home baptism was given, priests of the town were to be witnesses, the parish priest was responsible for giving the couple the requisite religious knowledge, and he was to enter the baptism into the church record. But the king did not require the dean to be present. He was simply to be advised of the witnesses’ names, of the place and time of the ritual, and participate “if he finds it Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849) 165

necessary.” The formulation of this decision was reused in many other cases in which dispensations of this sort were granted.186 The case of Herman Kalkar (1802–1886) was unusual. Born in Stockholm, he was the son of Rabbi Simon Isaac Kalkar, who later ended his career as rabbi in Westphalia. In 1823 Herman converted to Christianity, was baptized at the cathedral by Bishop Mynster, and changed his name to Christian Andreas Hermann Kalkar. He studied theology, received the degree of doctor of philosophy in Kiel, became doctor of theology at Copenhagen University in 1836, and was parish priest in the towns of Gladsakse and Herlev from 1843 to 1868. He became examiner at the final university examinations of the theological faculty, did a great deal of work for foreign mission, and authored many works on pedagogy, theology, and missionary history. Among his works is Israel og Kirken [Israel and the Church] of 1881. Kalkar did not directly state his motives for converting, but his biographer, Niels Bundgaard, described how the conversion came about during a profound spiritual struggle. Kalkar revealed a glimpse of this in a letter written to his son, Otto, in 1865, in which he wrote:

I had to go through a very different struggle than most people did, and I am glad that I destroyed all the letters of my youth in order that the memory of that time would disappear; but when I now reflect back on how the mercy of God has led me, in spite of the sin and evil within me, how he kept me and still keeps me under the yoke and sends me many a prompt, then I am full of praise and gratitude, for he so has often guided me to such a different place than the one I had chosen.187

The son of Salomon Daniel Fürst and Rachel Philipsen, Moses Fürst, who had played important roles in many arenas, had himself, his wife, Frederikke Hertz, and their children baptized in 1822, taking the name Martin Ludvig Fürst on that occasion. Another such story is that of the brothers, known as C. N. David and Aron Anton David. C. N. David had himself baptized while the case about his appointment to the university was pending (see p. 152). His biographer, Harald Jørgensen, believed that David had probably wanted to take this step earlier, but had been deterred by consideration for his strictly orthodox father, Joseph David. Shortly after his father’s death in the summer of 1830, C. N. David made the decision to convert to Christianity and was baptized at Slagslunde

186 Lausten, Frie jøder?, 509–511. 187 Niels Bundgaard, Dr. Christian Kalkars Betydning for dansk Kirkeliv og Missionsvirksomhed [Dr. C. K.’s importance for Danish Church and Mission] (Copenhagen: Gad, 1951), 16–22. 166 chapter 7

Church on the first of September, 1830. Before that, his full name had been David Albrecht Joseph Nathan David, and he took Christian Georg Nathan David as his ‘Christian name.’ Jørgensen mentioned how preoccupied David’s contemporaries were by his conversion, and how avidly they discussed his possible motivations. Only a few months later, on December 29, 1830, his brother, Aron Nathan David (1794–1868), was baptized Anthon Aron David at Slagslunde Church. Educated in agriculture, he purchased Folehavegaard in Rungsted adding it to the adjoining farming properties, Rungstedlund (which now houses the Karen Blixen Museum), Rungstedgaard, Sømandshvile, and Flakkehuset. An important proprietor and a prominent figure in agriculture, he was also a member of the parliament for a short period.188 At the time there were also several cases of proselytes being rejected by the Church for different reasons, or who were accepted only after special conditions were met. Louise Davidsen, for example, had been diligent at her Christian studies with the Pastor Christian Gøricke of Garnisons Church, but it was found out that she had had a child out of wedlock with a man she had been living with. The bishop was in great doubt about allowing her baptism; it was a most unfortunate incident, but he gave his permission in 1817, on the condition that she marry the man in question on the same day she was baptized. The Jewess Fanny Levin’s story was also unusual. She applied for a residence permit as soon as she arrived in Copenhagen, saying she wanted to learn the millinery trade. As usual, the police chief asked the Board of Representatives of the Jewish community to give an opinion of her, which it refused to do, inasmuch as nothing was known about her. As a result, the chief of police and the Chancellery denied her application for residence, but she immediately registered as an applicant for conversion to Christianity with Pastor Albrecht Kochen of St. Peter’s Church, Copenhagen. The police and the Chancellery asked Bishop Münter for his opinion of the case, but since the case had taken so much time, the bishop was obliged to disclose that Fanny Levin had already been baptized. It had all gone so quickly. She had passed the examination in 1817 after only three weeks of instruction. Samuel Lublin, a gardener’s assistant at Fuglsang Manor, was also turned down. He had long realized the fallacy of Judaism and the significant merits of the Christian faith in comparison to Judaism, he wrote in his application to the king for economic support for his religious instruction. But the local parish priest, F. C. Dresler was skeptical. Lublin had other motives, he wrote. He was interested in conversion merely in

188 Harald Jørgensen, C. N. David, I (Copenhagen: Gyldendal/Nordisk 1950), 50. 230. Lausten: Frie jøder?, 513. Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849) 167 order to avoid being teased and ridiculed by the other laborers on the manor, and when he wrote that he could not keep to a kosher diet, the truth was that he was simply in the same boat as many other Jews out in the country. The parish priest’s denial of the application was backed by the district court judge and the administrative officer of the diocese. The Chancellery of Denmark resolved the case succinctly in 1841, “The Chancellery cannot get involved in this.”189 The days were past when priests, deans, bishops, local bureaucrats, and the Danish Chancellery would go to great lengths to help Jewish proselytes out of Judaism and into the Christian Church. An extraordinary group of proselytes were the children whose parents arranged their baptism while remaining Jewish themselves. There were many cases of this sort at the time, and of course it is difficult to be sure of the parents’ motives. The well-known set designer Arnold (Aron) Wullf Wallich and his wife Frederikke Wallich had no children yet, but to be on the safe side, they sent an application to the king in 1818, writing that, of their own free will, they had agreed that if they ever had children, they would have them baptized and brought up in the Evangelical Lutheran faith prevalent in Denmark. They added that they would never waver from this decision. Jonas David and Frederikke Warburg, of Slagelse, mentioned above, had all their children baptized together at the same time at Sankt Mikkels Church in 1822, but without giving any reasons for it, they themselves remained Jewish until they were older. Neither did the merchant, Abraham Unna, of the town of Helsingør give any explanation when he applied to have two children baptized at home in 1831, though he and his wife kept the Jewish faith. The same was true of the proprietor of Aakjær Manor near Aarhus, Joseph Gerson Cohen: he and his wife kept the Jewish faith but had their children baptized in 1843.This kind of conversion posed new problems. It was apparently taken for granted that the parents would not participate in the ecclesiastical rite, but how could the Church be confident that the children would be brought up as Christians when their parents were still Jewish? The problem was solved by transferring responsibility for religious upbringing to school authorities.190 More cases could be cited, but two especially prominent ones will be described. One of the Jews who had his children baptized, but remained Jewish himself, was no other than Nathanson, one of the absolutely greatest leading lights of the Jewish community. On that occasion he had his children’s surname changed to Nansen. Ballet master August Bournonville once asked him why he had not also converted to Christianity, since he clearly lived like a

189 Lausten, Frie jøder?, 513–516. 190 Ibid., 518–528. 168 chapter 7

Christian. Nathanson replied, “My dear Bourneville, if you gave up the ballet, the entire thing would fall apart, and if I abandoned the Jews, everything I have worked for, for the sake of my fellow believers, would be wasted. But you are right, in my heart, I am a Christian.”191 In one instance, we know a little of the motive for this rather peculiar behavior. The well-known attorney of the high court, Moses Delbanco (1741–1848) was a prominent man of the Jewish community and a reformist. He became legal consultant for the Board of Representatives in 1805, took part in numerous transactions and nurtured many charitable initiatives. There are many documents in the archives of the Community of the Mosaic Faith that illustrate his substantial influence. Delbanco had his sons Herman Otto and Simon Wilhelm Delbanco baptized at Garnisons Church in Copenhagen in 1821. He did not leave Judaism himself, however. In an interesting letter written to his sons in 1846, two years before his death, he explained his beliefs and his motives for having them become Christians. He was aware that the children had often wished that they all belonged to the same Christian community, and now that he had grown old and had recently decided to be buried in the Jewish cemetery, he wanted to explain to the children why he had had them baptized and why he had not converted to Christianity. Although he had grown up in a traditional Jewish home, he had never been convinced that the Jewish ceremonial laws “were still valid.” He had come to the realization that Jews who desired to live up to these laws could not became good, useful citizens of the countries in which they lived. He had also realized that you ceased to belong to the Jewish faith when you disre- garded the laws of Moses. Judaism was, if he understood the rabbis correctly, much more than just the laws of Moses. It cannot be reduced to mere learning about God and his attributes. On the other hand, he had never been capti- vated by Christian dogma. Since the situation was that the government would not sanction a person confessing belief in only some elements of a revealed religion, he was obliged to make a choice. Either he had to stay in the Jewish faith of his birth, in spite of being obliged to break almost all its laws, or he had to voluntarily go over to Christianity without believing in its teachings, “that is, give it lip service in confessing a faith that had no place in his heart.” The result of these reflections was that he remained in Judaism, because he had always prized “honesty,” and had been inspired by the thought that every individual is called to realize one or another idea. For his own part, he thought that his own calling was to make a contribution toward improving the lot of Jews.

191 Poul Borchsenius, Historien om de danske jøder [The history of the Danish Jews] (Copenhagen: Fremad, 1968), 69–70. Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849) 169

Specifically, it had been important to him to demonstrate that it is possible to be a good, useful citizen and an honorable civil servant without leaving the Jewish religious community. If he has been successful—and that is for others to judge—then he has not lived in vain. For the sake of consistency, he was going to be buried in the Jewish cemetery, although he realized that it would be “awkward” for his children.

Why did he have his children converted? He would have found it “highly demoralizing” to bring them up in Judaism, as they would have seen him break the laws of Moses every day. Therefore they were to be incorporated into Christian society by being baptized and bought up Christian from childhood, in order that Christian teaching would awaken and bring to life a faith that he himself, “as an adult and older person had not been able to embrace.” He felt that thus the family had lived “in the greatest harmony.” He had not allowed anything to be done in the home that went against the Christianity that the children had learned in school and at church. Besides that, he had always tried to avoid discussing “anything having to do with religious dogma.” He added that he had carried this out so vigilantly that he had no idea which, of all the Christian factions, they favored. He was convinced that he and the children shared “an active belief in a beneficent, omniscient, just God, to whose mercy I, as I take my leave from you, commend you. May His word be with you forever, and may He, the heavenly Father, preserve you from all evil! Amen.” The letter could be interpreted in more than one way. At first it can be seen to be an obvious testimonial of Delbanco’s repudiation of Judaism. He openly admits that he could not and would not obey Jewish rules. He had his children baptized because he thought that Christianity was truer than Judaism; his intention was that Christian teachers were to awaken and keep the Christian faith alive in his children. But on the other hand, he could not free himself from Judaism, although one could ask what was left of his Jewish faith. The ending indicates that for Delbanco, religion was reduced to the Enlightenment belief in a beneficent, omniscient God and the duty to lead a moral life. With a more lenient interpretation of the letter, it could be considered an expression of an ecumenical view with a focus on those elements that unite Judaism and Christianity. This also seems to be the way that Delbanco conducted his life. C. H. Kalkar, who had grown up in Delbanco’s home, says in his memoirs that the positive elements of religion had disappeared in Delanco’s time, and thus it was difficult for him to be seized by a lively consciousness of God. Nonetheless, Kalkar says that he would still call Delbanco a genuinely religious man who was happy to go to church and was an admirer of the sermons of 170 chapter 7

Bishops Mynster and Martensen. One of his last joys was to present copies of Mynster’s sermons of 1847 to family members! Kalkar’s conclusion was that Delbanco’s letter should be understood as the self-evaluation of a God-fearing soul presented to Him who sees into our hearts.192 In some instances, we have the sermons held by priests at the baptism of Jewish proselytes. One such sermon was preached at Copenhagen’s Holmen’s Church by Michelsen in 1827 at the baptism of Ferdinand Joseph Mendoza, a fifteen-year-old son of the customs inspector Moses Meldola and his wife Betty Israel. Michelsen had the sermon printed with the title, Høistfornøden og vigtig, men kort Advarsel imod uægte evangelisk Christendom, given ved en ung mosaisk Proselyts Daab i Holmens Kirke den 25de April 1827 [Essential and important, but brief warning against inauthentic Evangelical Christianity, given at the baptism of a young Jewish proselyte at Holmens Church the 25th April 1827]. Not only did Michelsen publish his speech, but he also included the entire program of the baptismal ceremony. In his introductory talk to the congregation, he mentioned that it was not unusual for Christians to question whether the motives of Jewish proselytes were genuine, thinking them based on private economic or political objectives. Michelsen maintained we were not the ones to pass judgment on the real motives of others. After examining the young man, Michelsen directly commanded him to abandon Judaism: “Therefore, renounce now, with a determined mind, with absolute conviction, the religion of your forefathers and all its fallacies, all its teachings that either oppose or at any rate do not agree with the spirit and essence of Christianity.” Next, he was to vow to profess Christianity. Michelsen formulated the profession in four questions:

1) Do you repudiate all ungodliness and all the sins of the flesh? 2) Do you believe in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? 3) Will you, unmoved by all fallacy, grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? 4) Will you be baptized in this faith?

Then the proselyte was took the priest’s hand, said his new Christian name, and the baptism was performed. With his hand on the proselyte’s head, the priest prayed to God, who through baptism had now accepted him into to

192 The letter is found in Chr. H. Kalkar, Mindeblade om Cancelliraad og Landsoverretsprocu- rator M. Delbanco [In Memory of . . . Delbanco] (Copenhagen, 1848), 13–16. Lausten, Frie jøder?, 520–523. Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849) 171

Evangelical Protestant community, to give him strength to never break the vow he had just given. A speech to the newly baptized youth followed. Except for the introductory remarks—“Then, my young brother I am greeting you for the first time, as a member of our Evangelical Christian society”—it was not a particularly cheering speech. On the contrary, Michelsen delivered an austere admonition to the newly baptized young man and to anyone else who might think of destroying Christianity. The proselyte was told that now he had to demonstrate in everything he did that he was a fully genuine adherent of Jesus Christ, in order to thus honor the society to which he now belonged. But in addition to this, Michelsen felt it was his duty to give him a stern warning against going astray, to deem something Christian that was not Christian at all. Neither he nor any others in the congregation should ever throw themselves into fanaticism and hypocrisy. Therefore, Michelsen went on, unswerv- ing, with an urgent call to him to practice the Christian virtues. The last part of the ceremony was an unrecorded prayer, and a blessing. Other baptismal discourses delivered by Rønne, Grundtvig, Vilhelm Birkedal, and Johannes Ferdinand Fenger to proselytes at their baptism, survive from this period.193 The Edict of 1814 made the Jews of Denmark ‘free’ and gave them equality in certain spheres of life. We can also see that the general attitude toward Judaism and Jews of university theologians and of Bishops Müller and Münter had become more positive, although Bishop Mynster was more reserved. In the light of the many cases referred to above, especially those concerning inter- Jewish relations, it would nonetheless be an exaggeration to say that the Jews of Denmark were granted a ‘Letter of Emancipation’ in 1814. Many of the clergymen of the State Church still took the traditional Christian positions. The second wave of literary attacks on the Jews and the debates in the Assembly of the Estates show that there was still a great deal of antipathy toward Jews in many segments of Danish society. Within the Jewish community, the introduction of what was called a ‘confirmation’ gave rise to considerable exertions on behalf of the religious education of young people. The reforms of the liturgy set off bitter disagreement, but, with skillful diplomacy and feats of balance, Chief Rabbi Wolff was by and large able to unify orthodox and more modern Jews. The government, that is to say, the king and the leading men of the Chancellery, realized that it was unwise to interfere in internal Jewish religious issues. Nevertheless, they actually did interfere in all important cases, by having the bishop of Zealand, and sometimes also the theological faculty, act their as experts on Judaism, and provide reports on the faith and lives of

193 Lausten, Frie jøder?, 537–549. 172 chapter 7

Danish Jews. The desire of the Jews to be perceived as ordinary Danes who happened to have a different religion, made an impact on only a few leaders of the state and the Church of this period. This was not the case among many clergymen and politicians or among the common people. The significance that the Constitution of 1849 had for freedom of religion for the Jewish community is a story that belongs to the next period. chapter 8 The Danish People’s Church and the Jews (1849–ca. 1900)

The Independent Jewish Community of Faith

As a result of the Constitution of 1849,194 the Community of the Mosaic Faith became a recognized, independent community of faith with the duties and privileges that ensued. Its clergy had the same professional authority as that of corresponding clergy of the Danish People’s Church to perform religious rituals that would be valid in civil life; a member of the Jewish community was obliged to pay ecclesiastical taxes to his own community only; on the other hand, the rabbi had to be endorsed by the king, and the other clergy had to be certified after being nominated by the Board of Representatives of the Jewish community and the Danish Cultus Minister (i.e., the minister of religious, educational, and cultural affairs, hereafter ‘Minister of Culture’). Furthermore, special rules were in place for building synagogues, congregational governance, conducting marriages and burials, registration in the ministerial records, etc. The Constitution gave full religious freedom. Jews could freely leave the Community of the Mosaic Faith. In this way, they shared the same conditions as other recognized religious groups. It was certainly a significant advance toward the goal of integration for Jews to be regarded as ordinary Danish citizens, who happened to have a different religion. With this in place, one might believe that the relations between Christians and Jews would develop harmoniously. This was not entirely to be the case. These new developments could put the cohesion of the religious community at risk, and various means were used to build up and strengthen the internal life of the community. Moreover, it would soon become clear that many of the old biases of Christians would remain alive for at least the rest of the nineteenth century. Efforts toward integration continued in spite of massive waves of anti-Semitism, which also surged here and there in the Danish People’s Church. Wolff and most of the chief rabbis who succeeded him worked diligently to further integration but had to face the fact that one consequence of religious freedom was that many individuals chose to leave the Community of the Mosaic Faith. During the first years after the adoption of the Constitution,

194 On the constitution, see Lausten, Church History of Denmark, 229–233.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004304376_009 174 chapter 8 there was uncertainty about what the procedure was to be when a person wanted to leave the community. A decision of principle was made on the occasion of a concrete case of this sort. The Board of Representatives wanted to compel people who left the Jewish faith to report what religious group they were about to join, but the Ministry of Culture denied them the right to require this; the congregation could only demand that the withdrawal be formulated like a legal contract, a signed statement by the person in question that said that “all religious and communal connection” with the religious community was severed. The City Council also had to be informed, and would decide on how much the person was now to pay in school taxes. The cap manufacturer, Arnold Koppel, was the first to raise the issue in 1857, and his was the first such document:

I, the undersigned, cap manufacturer A. Koppel, hereby declare that I resign from the Community of the Mosaic Faith and give up all religious and communal connection with it, just as I also give up all the rights and benefits that I would have been entitled to through membership in the Community. In verification of the above statement, I here affix my signa- ture, Copenhagen, date . . .

Numerous resignations occurred during the following years. Some Christians joined the Community, of course, usually in connection with mixed marriages, which we will return to later (see p. 217). However, these new members did not offset the resignations. The 1874 Danish census showed a Jewish population totaling 4072, with 2465 living in Copenhagen and 1607 in the provinces. A law, passed on May 5, 1850, lifted restrictions on Jewish immigration from abroad. In 1885, the Jewish population of Denmark was 4050, with 3542 living in Copenhagen and 508 in the provinces.195 The position of catechist had been established in 1817, but had never func- tioned well; Chief Rabbi Wolff had sent ten reports and complaints to the Ministry of Culture about this problem from the 1830s to the 1850s. It was crucial to him that the congregation be served by competent teachers, “who could improve the faltering health of the Church [sic].” After the ministry had him travel around the country to visit provincial congregations in order to form an impression of their local circumstances, he suggested in a lengthy report

195 Martin Schwarz Lausten, Folkekirken og jøderne. Forholdet mellem kristne og jøder i Danmark fra 1849 til begyndelsen af det 20. århundrede [The Danish People´s Church and the Jews. Relations between Christians and Jews in Denmark from 1849 until the beginning of the 20th Century] (Copenhagen: Forlaget Anis, 2007), 13–16. The Danish People’s Church and the Jews 175 that several teachers of religion be given positions as ‘priests’ so that in addition to teaching, they could also perform religious rites under Wolff’s supervision. He suggested that David Salomon Mielziner be appointed in Aalborg, Meyer Abraham Wreschner in Randers, and Levin Moses Wallach in Faaborg. Following Wolff’s recommendations, the Ministry had the three teachers appointed by the king in 1867 and 1868. Responsible lay people and Chief Rabbi Wolff were very aware that there was a need for the establishment of a specific education for future catechists. Det jødisk-theologiske understøttelsesselskab for Danske (The Society for the Support of Danish Jewish Theologians) was established in 1856 by J. W. Heyman, H. S. Fridericia, and D. Dessau to encourage young Jewish men to become Jewish clergymen, catechists or teachers. The society was to give economic support for their study at Jewish seminaries abroad after they had completed their basic studies in Denmark. The first candidate was an unfortunate choice, however, and Wolff was especially dissatisfied with his level of achievement. There was a difference between a catechist and a rabbi, he explained. In the end, the Ministry asked him to outline a course of study for those who might be considered eligible for rabbinical positions in Denmark, aside from the rabbinate of Copenhagen. It cannot be denied that he set exacting requirements: they had to master Hebrew, be able to analyze and interpret biblical texts, master rabbinical theology, catechism, ethics, Jewish religious and literary history, Danish law, excerpts from the Talmud, etc. The Ministry of Culture wanted the theological faculty of the university to appoint one of its professors and also a professor from the philosophy faculty to the examining committee, but to the ministry’s surprise, the theologians refused to participate. Their “reservations were of the most serious kind,” they said. First of all, they made it clear that like Paul in 2 Corinthians 30:14–16, they had to pronounce judgment against all Jews. There was still a veil covering their hearts, hence they could not understand the truth. Of course, the Christian faith was based on the revelations of the Old Testament, but there was nonetheless a great deal of difference between Christianity and Judaism, for the Savior, the only truth and the only way to God, had been rejected by the Jews. The professors pointed out that Judaism was based not only on the Old Testament, but also on an inordinate number of traditions, many of which were polemically opposed to Christianity. Thus, if a Christian theologian allowed himself to be appointed to such an examination commission, it would give the impression that he approved of teachings to which, from his standpoint, he would feel obliged to object. Also, some modern European Jews had proclaimed that Judaism was going to become the new world religion, and even though Copenhagen Jews might not be of the same opinion, one 176 chapter 8 could never know what might happen. Finally, the professors remarked that Christians and Jews working together would evoke much serious disapproval among the members of the People’s Church, for it would give the impression that the theology professors, who were duty-bound to hold personal Christian convictions, were indifferent to religion (1875). The theology professors thus chose to focus on the elements that divided Christians and Jews instead of making use of the opportunity for cooperation. The examination commission was therefore comprised of men from the philosophy faculty, who did not have the same reservations as the theologians, and some men from the Community of the Mosaic Faith. While the catechist profession was being restructured, the Copenhagen catechist, Esaias Levison, was kept out of the discussions. By then, in 1877, he had been in that office for fifty-three years, and now he agreed to step down. A new Copenhagen rabbinical position was created to add to that of the chief rabbi. The new rabbi was to fill the functions of both priest and of religion teacher; the position was first called priest’s aide, then assistant priest, and then assistant rabbi. The first to hold the office was twenty-five-year-old David Simonsen, the most highly educated Danish Jewish theologian in Denmark. He had not only passed the new Danish catechist examination with the highest grades, but had also completed studies at the renowned Jewish school of theology in Breslau (now Wroclaw). He was succeeded by Elias Kalischer (1893–1897) and Hirsch Goitein (1899–1903), who had been chosen from among the scores of candidates who applied after the position was advertised abroad.196 During almost the entire period, the chief rabbi was still Wolff, who died in 1892 after sixty-five years at his post in Copenhagen. In one of his reports on the planned Danish Jewish theological education for catechists, he listed the educational requirements for the post of chief rabbi of Denmark:

A priest who is to take the lead in a large Jewish congregation as well as the Israelite community of an entire country, must not only be perfectly versed in the especially difficult and extensive Jewish theology, but also in Christian theology; he must be knowledgeable of the various philosophical systems and especially of the natural sciences, in order to be able to show that faith and science are incommensurable; he must be well grounded in the history of literature, and be absolutely steadfast in his convictions, be above the rival factions that exist in every church, and with his erudition be capable of winning the esteem of so-called scholars of Judaism.

196 Ibid., 17–32. The Danish People’s Church and the Jews 177

We can only agree with the comment Wolff added to the quotation above, namely that in all modesty, he believed that he had lived up to these standards himself. He was succeeded in 1892 by David Simonson, who, however, resigned in 1902.197 Ever since the major disputes between the orthodox traditionalists and the reformists around 1800, there had been unrest brewing in the community. The Orthodox Jews continued to complain for years about Wolff and the changes he had made to the liturgy; they wrote to the Board of Representatives and to the Ministry, demanding outright that the services remain unchanged, as they had been for millennia. But the opposite faction, the ‘moderns’ or the ‘reformists,’ as they were called, complained to Wolff because he did not address the problem that young people were becoming increasingly more indifferent to religion. These reformists organized and in 1850 issued a programmatic declaration in which they demanded that more of the Hebrew prayers of the liturgy be said in Danish, that some of the prayers be dropped entirely, as they were no longer appropriate, and that services should be held in a more peaceful and orderly manner. Wolff tried to find a balance between the warring factions. He declared that he considered himself an Orthodox Jew, immediately adding that he intended to fight prejudice and hyper-orthodoxy and that, as chief rabbi, he intended to remain above factional politics. He refused to have the Hebrew prayers translated into Danish but was willing to add some prayers in Danish and allow the singing of hymns before and after the sermon. In the end, the Board of Representatives backed the orthodox faction, so the reforms were not carried out. The battle between factions was subsequently renewed and has had dire consequences ever since.198 An important institution was created In the middle of the 1800s and must be included in this overview of the state of the Mosaic congregation. Most Jewish children went to regular primary schools and were allowed to be excused from the Christian religious instruction given there. They were not given regular religious instruction until they were of an age to prepare for the Bar Mitzvah, the confirmation for Jewish boys. Therefore, some of the members of the community took the initiative of establishing the Religionsskolen af 1853 (School of Religion of 1853). It was voluntary for children to go to lessons after school and learn their own religion, but for many years attendance was poor; in 1878 there were thus only thirty-six pupils, and a few years later the number had fallen to under thirty. Wolff spoke at the school’s twelfth examination and ceremony in 1878, censuring those parents

197 Ibid., 36–37. 198 Ibid., 37–47. 178 chapter 8 who seemed indifferent to this important institution, and he had harsh words to say about those parents who even went so far as to allow their children to go to Christian religious instruction at their primary schools: they were simply ungodly. He tried to explain how important it was that Jewish children were taught the Old Testament by a teacher who had the correct interpretation, which can only be found within Judaism. He stressed how important it was that the children learned Hebrew at the School of Religion and that they learned the substance of the prayers in both Danish and Hebrew. The School of Religion of 1853 continued to exist until late in the twentieth century.199

Confrontation between Chief Rabbi Abraham Wolff and the ‘Enemies of the Talmud’

Before continuing our examination of attitudes toward Jews and Judaism found in the factions of the Danish People’s Church, we should examine an unusual conflict that occurred between Chief Rabbi Wolff and a few leading clergymen of the People’s Church. Nicolai Gottlieb Blædel (1816–1879), priest at Garnisons Church, was a stern proponent of conversion and of church discipline, but was also very involved in Christian urban social work, and as such became one of the leaders of the Inner Mission of Copenhagen, founded in 1865. In 1876 he wrote a book on preparation for the confirmation in the People´s Church.200 In the preface of the almost one-thousand-page book, he informed the reader that it was based on material he had used in teaching confirmands, which he had expanded considerably. He had a fundamentalist reading of the Bible; he took all biblical accounts and words literally. For him the Old and New Testaments were a single entity, and he cited from them right and left, mixing them up indiscrimi- nately. Characteristically, he was not content with pointing out the theological disparities between Christianity and Judaism; at many points he declared his own position on Judaism and the Jews. He described the character traits of “the Jewish essence,” as he called it, and tried to explain the moral, social and political background, as well as the consequences, of having a Jewish presence in society. All Jews have indelible traits. They all resemble one another and make up one huge alliance, they own enormous wealth, are ruled by fear and

199 Ibid., 48–52. 200 N. G. Blædel, Udvidet Confirmations-Undervisning eller evangelisk-luthersk Kirkelære [Expanded preparation for confirmation or Evangelical Lutheran Church doctrine] (Copenhagen, 1876). The Danish People’s Church and the Jews 179 cowardice, are intrusive and pushy, are talented and endowed with oriental fantasy and imagery, and they intend to use their money, the press, and politics to conquer the entire world. They are so evil that a Judas could be born only among them, and they hold the most implacable hatred for Christians. The reformist Jews, with their indifference to religion, are the worst of them, having arisen in wake of the French Revolution, in which they found “certain human rights” that have little or nothing to do with the Christian faith. Blædel made it very clear that the Antichrist, the antithesis of God, the worst of all beings, and who will be in evidence at the End of Days, will be a Jew. But God does have a special plan for the Jewish people: they will be converted to Christianity at the End of Days and this can be proven in Ezekiel 37; this is all going to happen soon, for just now the Jews are in a sheer “state of disintegration” (844–847). Blædel’s interpretations and ‘proof texts’ from the Bible are absolutely arbi- trary; his anti-Semitism is obvious; and his arguments are self-contradictory. This is all part of God’s grand plan, he claimed, but at the same time he regret- ted the methods God has apparently used to develop His plan. For example, human rights and democratic tendencies are evils, and he thought the equal status Jews now had with Christians was one of the greatest dangers ever to threaten all of Christendom. In any case, he obviously had an influence on the priest Johannes Kok, who published a book two years later, in 1878, called Det hellige Land og dets Nabolande i Fortid og Nutid, Til Vejledning og Opbyggelse for Bibellæsere [The Holy Land and its neighboring countries in the past and the present, for the instruction and edification of readers of the Bible]. This was an adaptation of a German work, to which Kok had added an independent section.201 At that time, there were many travelogues published by Christian theologians who had taken trips to Palestine. They contained descriptions of the country, its sights and people. With their numerous references to biblical writings, they were supposed to contribute to the edification of Christian readers. Kok reiterated Blædel’s opinion of Judaism and Jews. From the beginning until the present, the fate of the Jews is an expression of the will of God, and the same is true of the spirit of fear and cowardice that has burdened them in the diaspora. The End of Days is approaching rapidly, which can be seen by the state of society. Tolerance and open-mindedness have spread. The name of Christ is being obliterated, and what have we put in its place? “Brotherhood, equality, humanity, and tolerance,” Kok fumed, and this had resulted in “Jews and heathens mixing at will, and speaking up about social arrangements which are founded

201 Friedrich Adolph und Otto Strauss, Die Länder und Stätten der Heiligen Schrift [The land and locations in the Holy Scripture] 2nd printing (Leipzig 1877). 180 chapter 8 on, and also deeply rooted in, Christianity.” The worst thing was that Jews have been given full equality with Christians in all civil affairs (87–88). The attitude that bishop of Zealand, Hans Lassen Martensen (1808–1884), expressed toward Jews was especially noteworthy and consequential. He had been professor of theology since 1850 and also held the post of preacher to the royal court. He became bishop in 1854 and was soon one of the most renowned Danish theologians both at home and abroad. He was extraordinarily influential. Martensen dealt with Jews and Judaism extensively in the second volume of his handbook on ethics.202 In the chapter on “Hedenskab og Jødedom i den christelige Stat” (Heathenism and Judaism in the Christian state) (§ 47) he explained that the Christian state and the Christian people were in the process of disintegration. We find ourselves facing an abyss, and modern Judaism is one of the most powerful forces causing the disintegration of Danish Christian society. That Jews were subjugated until recent times was their own fault. Unfortunately, we have now given them full rights as citizens, so now they are able to forge ahead aggressively in opposition to Christendom. What characterizes these Jews is their desire to found a messianic empire on earth so that they can exercise domination over everyone else. They base this on the cosmopolitan principles of human rights stemming from the French Revolution. In the vein of other anti-Semites, Martensen claimed that the means Jews will use are money, political influence, and influence on the press and modern literature, and that their initial aim is to drive Christianity out of public life. It was offensive to them that all the laws and institutions of society are based on the Messiah the Christians believe in, but who was denied and crucified by the Jews. Like other anti-Jewish Christian theologians, Martensen also believed that Jews would be converted to Christianity at the end of time, but in the meantime, they were hardened and blind, and Martensen was more insistent than other writers in alleging that Jews were disloyal citizens. They were cosmopolitans by nature and had no patriotic feelings toward the countries they lived in. On the contrary, Jews felt that they are a nation, that they are superior to all others. The civic and humane virtues in which they cloak themselves are only superficial. Their pretense of being loyal citizens is merely superficial; consequently it has been a mistake to give Jews the same political rights, without restrictions, as the children of the land, for

202 H. L. Martensen, Den christelige Ethik [Christian ethics] 1–3 (1871–1878), vol. 2. Den sociale Ethik [Social ethics] (1878). The Danish People’s Church and the Jews 181

they are merely guests in every land and should be treated as such, with all humanity. But no matter how much hospitality you show a guest, it never occurs to you to make him a co-governor, a co-ruler in your house (113).

Therefore mixed Jewish-Christian marriages were very disquieting and undesirable, although they had been allowed in Denmark for almost a hundred years. Chief Rabbi Wolff was not about to tolerate these violent anti-Jewish attacks. His almost five-hundred-page book Talmudfjender. Et Genmæle mod de seneste Angreb paa Jøderne og Jødedommen [Enemies of the Talmud: A reply to the latest attack on the Jews and Judaism] was published in 1878. Wolff took a stand against the attacks of Blædel, Kok, Martensen, and other Christian theologians. It was the most thorough, rational defense ever made by a Danish Jew against anti-Jewish forces up to that time. With great effect, he put the motto of the book on the title page—a quotation from Paul’s 1 Corinthians 10:32–33: “Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, so that they may be saved.” One of Wolff’s main allegations against Blædel and Kok was that they knew nothing about the subject they were dealing with. They did not know what the Talmud was, and what they reported of its contents came from secondary sources, mostly from the Englishman Alexander Mc Caul’s book, Netivoth Olam [Old paths] 1851. In addition to criticising their ignorance about the Talmud, Wolff attacked their methods and procedures. They did not know the difference between allegory and legend; they did not know that there was a difference between Talmudists and rabbis; they took individual sentences out of context; they did not realize that an interpretation of the contents of the Talmud must be done taking its historical framework into account, they did not know that the contents of Halaka were obligatory, whereas those of Aggadah were not. Indeed, Wolff was able to show that Kok’s knowledge of Christian dogma was also limited, and that Blædel and Kok used quotes from Luther incorrectly. Wolff found it necessary to first give a short explanation of the Talmud, drawing parallels to Christianity. He tries to explain the ethical goals of the use of legends and tales and the necessity of interpreting a work in its historical context. Wolff stresses that the spirit of the work, not the individual sentences, is important, and he mentions a long list of contemporary books that could be an aid to understanding. Then he turnes the tables on the Christian Church, and named Jesus’ and the apostles’ use of biblical sources, for example, the often peculiar 182 chapter 8 interpretations by the Church Fathers, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen. In the third section, Wolff deals with the contention that Jews value tradition over the Bible, which he denies, referring to the fact that the Talmud itself denies it. In one section, Wolff takes exception to the way Blædel and Kok presented several Jewish ceremonies. Their goal was to ridicule the Jews and show that their many regulations were inhuman. Again Wolff accuses them of not having looked into the subject before voicing their opinions and of allowing themselves to spread the venom of hatred. Theologians, like other writers, had used the writer Georg Brandes as a deplorable example of how Jews thought and behaved.203 Wolff finds this both ridiculous and hostile, and he asks what Brandes’ attitude toward religion, literature, and society has to do with Judaism or Jews. On the contrary, Brandes had described himself as a non-believing Jew, and Wolff points out that Brandes had not set foot inside a synagogue since his confirmation. Wolff used all of Chapter VI (317–360) to reply to Bishop Martensen. This man, he said, a philosopher and theologian, who has a place in the upper ech- elons of the literary elite and holds the highest clerical position in the country, has now repeated the hateful attacks on Jews that the two priests had promoted. What was more, this was done in a book on ethics. Wolff repudiated Martensen’s basic idea of a Christian state: on the contrary, the state only existed to serve its citizens usefully; state and church should be separated. He counters Martensen’s assertion that Jews followed their own laws; the law of the land applied to contemporary Jews, because in Denmark, Jews were Danish. And Wolff cites statistics to counter Martensen’s insinuations about the wealth of the Jews and their domination of the press and literature. To call Jews ‘guests’ in Denmark was similarly hateful and hostile; Jews in Denmark were just as patriotic as their Christian fellow citizens and, like them, had only one fatherland and one nationality, which they love with heart and soul, and which they would never forget or deny. Wolff appeals to his Danish Christian fellow citizens to be filled with brotherly love and not hatred for Jews, and he urges Jews not to believe that all Christians resembled Kok, Blædel and Martensen, as there were many thousands of Christians who, unlike them, were in possession of pure love. Jewish fellow citizens also should simply keep the double commandment of love—something Jews and Christians can agree on. The question is whether the book had any effect. You might expect that the many prejudices, assertions, and interpretations that the clergymen had

203 Georg Morris Cohen Brandes (1842–1927) was a Danish literary historian, author and a very influential literary critic. The Danish People’s Church and the Jews 183

promoted would be obliterated, since the highest authority among Danish Jews had branded them false in a rational argument. It might also be expected that theologians of the university and the Danish People’s Church, and university-educated priests of the future would have been more hesitant about making pronouncements like those of Blædel, Kok and Martensen. But this was not the case. The Copenhagen Pastoral Conventicle had planned to publish a reply, but it never came out. The accusations of traditionalist Christians against Jews and Judaism continued as though Wolff’s book had never seen the light of day. On the other hand, Bishop Martensen’s report on Judaism and Jews was used by anti-Semites well into the twentieth century.

Attitudes toward Jews of Different Movements within the Danish People’s Church

The Grundtvig Faction Denmark’s absolute monarchy had come to an end, and during negotiations of the Constitutional Assembly, Grundtvig spoke in favor of giving Danish Jews full and absolute admission to all government positions.204 Experience from history has shown, he said, that Jews rose to the same status as the best citizens of the countries where they had full civic rights. In his great Church history in verse, Christenhedens Syvstjerne [The Pleiades of Christendom] he averred that the Christian Church started precisely in the Hebrew congregation, because popular folk culture, the history and language of the people, had been more widespread and intact there. Of course the torch had been taken from them, but one day the Jewish congregation will be revived and this will signify a renewal of Christendom. He reiterated his deep appreciation of the people of ancient Israel in Kirkespejl [The mirror of the Church], the lectures on Church history that he held at his home in 1860 and 1861. But his views on Judaism and Jews was nether consistent nor clear. Thyge V. Kragh discussed Grundtvig’s esteem for the ancient Jews in his Grundtvigs Syn på Israel [Grundtvig’s view of Israel].205 We can note, though, that Kragh neglected to mention Grundtvig’s polemical outburst against the Jewish writer, Meïr Goldschmidt. During a debate on the relationship between the Danish kingdom and the duchy of Slesvig, concerning Danish national culture and patriotism, Grundtvig had claimed that Goldschmidt, being a Jew, should be counted a foreigner and a

204 On Grundtvig and the Grundtvigians, see Lausten, Church History of Denmark, 238–242. 205 Thyge V. Kragh, Grundtvigs syn på Israel [Grundtvig’s views on Israel] (Copenhagen: Dansk Israelsmissionen, 1971). 184 chapter 8 guest in Denmark, who did not belong to the Danish “people’s congregation.” Goldschmidt belonged to one of the most inflexible peoples in the world and had neither heart nor soul in common with the Danish “people’s congregation,” although Grundtvig was willing to admit that Goldschmidt had a better command of the Danish language than many other authors, and that he wrote about “affairs of state” with much more understanding than we were used to reading. But Goldschmidt had got “the notion” that he was “a thorough Dane,” although he was not. He did not see Denmark as a real Dane would do, but he proposed a “worldly, cosmopolitan way of thinking.” The perception of Danish Jews as “guests” in Denmark in spite of their families having lived in the country for generations, and remarks to the effect that Jews cannot be loyal citizens with patriotic feelings, like everyone else, are obviously anti-Jewish, and came up time after time in anti-Jewish and, later, in anti-Semitic writings. Goldschmidt understood this himself, and he suffered from it for years. Thomas Skat Rørdam (1832–1909), bishop of the Diocese of Zealand from 1895, was a remarkable theologian with Grundtvigian views. He did not concern himself much with Jews and Judaism (this is worth noting in itself), but he did do so occasionally. His book Historisk Oplysning om Den Hellige Skrift [Historical information about the Holy Scriptures], gives an impression of his conservative reading of the Bible, with the idea that the religion of ancient Israel was a forerunner of Christianity, while the new covenant with Christ was the perfect covenant between God and mankind. Skat Rørdam occasionally mentioned Jews in his published sermons, and in them he conformed to traditional Christian thought about the Jews having been chosen, their betrayal, God’s just punishment of them, which was their own fault, and the idea that after the redeeming death of Christ, Judaism was no longer the way to salvation.206 A Grundtvigian with a much harsher anti-Jewish, indeed anti-Semitic, outlook was the professor of history and later bishop, Fredrik Nielsen (1846–1907). We will return to him later (see p. 237). The attitude of Hans Emil Meyling, priest in Roskilde from 1881 to 1909, was even more critical. It is true that he stressed that he himself came from a Jewish family, but in a couple of books he upheld the conventional conception of the lost Jewish people, who would continue to be punished until they became Christians, though he deviated somewhat from other writers by giving the Talmud and its influence a more positive evaluation. He differentiated between the Jews of Eastern Europe

206 Thomas Skat Rørdam, Historisk Oplysning om Den Hellige Skrift [Historical information about the Holy Scriptures] (Copenhagen: Gad, 1866), 12; Naadens aar, 1900 [The year of grace, 1900] (Copenhagen: Gad, 1900), 58, 385, 390, 471–476. The Danish People’s Church and the Jews 185 and the reformed Jews of Western Europe; his denunciation of the latter was harsh. Reformism diluted sincere, genuine Judaism, and caused its adherents to become haughty and arrogant.207 However, there were also important Grundtvigian theologians with positive feelings about Jews. The priest Christian Malta Kragballe (1824–1897) published one of his own poems in his periodical, Kirkelig Samler [Church miscellany] and gave it the title, “Til det gamle Israel!” (To ancient Israel!) In 1856. In the poem he emphasized that there was still hope for Jews; when Christ was resur- rected, they would bow to him. For reasons no longer discernable, Kragballe initiated a correspondence with Chief Rabbi Wolff, who sent him Enemies of the Talmud. Kragballe’s feelings became almost philo-Semitic. In an enthusiastic unpublished letter he wrote to Wolff in 1879, he declared his ardent love of Jews, and asserted that if he happened to meet Danish Jews in the street, he would take their hands in front of the entire clergy, indeed, he would even kiss every single honest Israelite, even if some people might revile him for doing so. The Grundtvigian priest Knud Erik Møhl (1805–1890) also entered into a friendly correspondence with Wolff, sending him congratulations (privately) on his sixtieth anniversary as Rabbi in 1888. At that time, Møhl was the oldest priest of the People’s Church, and he was therefore taking it upon himself, as the senior clergyman of Denmark, to send the senior member of the synagogue his warmest congratulations. He put his greeting into the form of a poem, comparing the old covenant with the new covenant, and emphasized that Christ was the Savior who had brought redemption though his death. But he also emphasized that there is but one God, that Judaism and Christianity, as twins, had the some God. Wolff chose to believe that the poem was well meant. In a calm and friendly tone he replied that he could not totally agree with Møhl’s religious interpretations. But in a new letter, Møhl emphasized the elements that their religions had in common, and expressed the wish that the Synagogue and the Church “would be brought constantly closer together, and would that we soon might meet in the everlasting habitations!” Another friendly correspondence opened between the Grundtvigian parish priest Edvard Mau and Wolff, when Wolff helped Mau with his collection of Danish proverbs in 1879.208 Another clergyman sympathetic to Jews and Judaism was Bishop Christian Ludwigs (1877–1930) of Aalborg Diocese, who was of Jewish origin himself, as he described in his poem, “Min Farfar” (My grandfather).

207 H. E. Meyling, Jøder og kristne [Jews and Christians] (Odense 1894). 208 Lausten, Folkekirken og jøderne, 119–120. 127–134. 186 chapter 8

The friendly contacts Wolff had with the above-mentioned clergymen were concurrent with Wolff’s conflicts with Martensen, Blædel and Kok.209

The Inner Mission Faction The parish priest Vilhelm Beck (1829–1901), had been the supreme leader of the Church Association for the Inner Mission in Denmark since 1881.210 He was also the editor of Den Indre Missions Tiderne [Inner Mission times]. A dynamic, domineering man, he was a skillful preacher who spoke out directly, confrontationally, and disapprovingly against anyone he did not consider to be “holy,” a word that he and his followers used about themselves. The professed goal of the association was to awaken to life those who were asleep in sin. On the one hand, Beck and other leaders of the association showed little concern about the situation of Jews and Judaism in Denmark, but on the other hand, Judaism was nonetheless important to them because they often based their sermons, speeches, and articles on texts taken from the entire Bible. In connection with the Bible, they touched on Jews in general, including contemporary Jews. This was certainly not a goal in itself, but was meant to serve to strengthen the appeals that Beck wanted to make to his listeners and readers, and when Beck spoke of Judaism and Jews, he lived up to the severely judgmental and threatening tone he had so often used against anyone whose beliefs were different from his. He based a Good Friday sermon on the cry that was heard during Pilate’s examination of Jesus, “His blood be on us and on our children!” It was indeed a terrible oath the unbelieving Jews had shouted on Good Friday in their blind fury, he wrote, but it applied to all people who behaved toward Jesus as the treacherous Jews had. The Jews were chastised, Beck said disdainfully; they lost the Temple and now they no longer had a religion, he claimed, declaring that the Jews would end in hell. The descendants of the Jews of Jesus’ time:

lived in every country and reminded every people what would happen to those who would kill Jesus and turn Jesus away. At that time Jesus’ blood had come down like a horrendous curse upon the Jews, and to this very day the curse of His blood weighs upon their children, who live among us . . . and they could never end their lives in any other place than hell; it is the blood of Jesus coming down upon them.211

209 Ibid. 140–144. 210 Lausten, Church History of Denmark, 242–248. 211 Vilhelm Beck, Fra Livets Kilde. En ny Postille [From the spring of life. A new book of sermons] (Copenhagen, 1881), 415–420. The Danish People’s Church and the Jews 187

Another of the widely read authors of the Inner Mission was Carl Christoph Julius Asschenfeldt-Hansen (1856–1934), whose edifying books and interpretations of the Bible have been used up to the present time. In his piece “Israel efter Kjødet” (Israel according to the flesh) of 1894,212 he promoted the traditional teachings about Judaism and the Jews—the chosen people, the rejection of Jesus as the Messiah, the just chastisement of God, which still weighs upon the Jews, the aftereffects of which have been the intense hatred Jews have for Christians, with all the promises passing from the Jews to the Christians. But all this was a sign of the truth of God’s word and ought to be a warning for Christians. The account of the history of the Jews was not merely for enlightenment, but was used in preaching the message of the Inner Mission about consciousness of sin and conversion. The powerful personal appeal— ‘Thou!’—and the threat of eternal punishment if one fails to repent, give an impression of the passionate style he used in his sermons and talks.

Do you hear the sermon that resounds unto every person from the ruins of Jerusalem? Do you hear that solemn question that rises out of the ashes of the holy city? Do you know the hour of your visitation? God’s terrible judgment came down upon the disobedient city, but the fall of that city is only a metaphor of the fall of every faithless soul . . . If you are faithless you will also be cut off (Rom. 11:21–22) just as the Jews were severed from the holy branch because of their unbelief. If you continue to live without true conversion, then like Jerusalem, you will also see your enemies surround you and trouble you from every direction . . . The end is near, woe, oh woe to you, like Jerusalem’s temple, you will sink down into the flames, but into the flames that are never extinguished (25–26).

Following this, he explained that the Jews would convert to Christianity at the end of days; the thousand-year kingdom would be established, the resurrection of Christ would occur, and “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16) would be gathered into one people. Unquestionably the most widely read author of this group was Carl Axel Skovgaard-Petersen (1866–1955), the principal of the Danish Bible School from 1912 to 1929 and Archdeacon at Roskilde Cathedral from 1929 to 1936. His ca. one hundred edifying works and his interpretations of the Bible came out in about 850,000 copies and were translated into several languages. By means of these writings, his work on the staff of the major newspaper Berlingske Tidende

212 C. C. Asschenfeldt-Hansen, “Israel efter Kjødet” (Israel according to the flesh) in Kirkehistoriske Smaaskrifter 5, 1894. 188 chapter 8

[Berling’s times] and his work on educational radio broadcasts, his point of view became very influential throughout the entire country. Another genre he worked in was the travelogue. One work, about Palestine, Landet, hvor Kilderne Sprang [The land where the springs issued forth]213 was remarkable in many ways. Personal experiences, accounts of conversations, nature descriptions, and impressions of the many historical places of Palestine, written in his distinctive exalted style are intertwined with information from scholarly literature (the titles of which he seldom reveals) on theology and biblical archaeology. He described the historic sites he visited by setting them into their historical framework, and explained the opinions that researchers had had of them over time, and he often arrived at his personal evaluation of their trustworthiness. He described Bedouin tents, regional costumes, cui- sine, furnishings of monasteries, trips on foot or on horseback to inaccessi- ble caves, ruins, and villages, and he related anecdotes that he had heard or read about various buildings and historical sites. He took part in events that were seldom experienced by other travelers. The work was also meant for the edification of its readers, and he presents the view of the Bible he had developed in his other books. On the whole, he tried to make citations from the Old Testament and the New Testament correspond to the sights he saw or heard about. The history of Israel was not an ordinary worldly, political history. It had to be understood and evaluated as a “holy” history, since it was possible to see, time after time, how God had intervened in history. This was in accordance with the above-mentioned Christian tradition, and he believed that the entire course of events, from the choice of the Jews to their chastisement, could clarify both the situation and geography of Palestine, as well as the fate of the Jews until the present. The geography of the country was meant to promote a hardy people. God made sure that the people would never achieve its own culture; the Jewish people had never been a leading and creative culture; they had never produced brilliant, groundbreaking artists. After describing the appearance of Jews, he concluded that he actually did not like Jews, even though he was “drawn” to them for religious reasons:

this double feeling has awakened in me of its own accord, as I have known so well from many other occasions: I am drawn to this race “for the sake of the Patriarchs”; and nevertheless I am repelled. I cannot help it, so be it. Thus it is for me and thus it is for many others, and thus it will be until the day the entire Jewish people takes to heart the words of John the Baptist: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near” (1,137).

213 C. A. Skovgaard-Petersen, Landet hvor Kilderne sprang [The land where the springs issued forth] 1–2 (Copenhagen: O. Lohse, 1923). The Danish People’s Church and the Jews 189

Church Center Movement The third of the three factions of the People’s Church was Kirkeligt Centrum, or Church Center. It was begun by a group of theologians who felt at home neither in Grundtvigianism nor in the Inner Mission.214 Their standpoint in theology and church politics came from the views of Mynster and Martensen. In his major work, Menneskehed og Christendom [Mankind and Christianity] (1872–1874), professor of ethics and religious philosophy Carl Henrik Scharling (1836–1920) disposed of Judaism. It no longer had any meaning, he thought, entirely ignoring the Jews who gathered at synagogue services, which had replaced temple services after the diaspora. Israel had had only one function in world history, it was to lead the way to the Christianity that arose with the message of Jesus. Thus Scharling repeated, albeit within the framework of historical philosophy, the old conventional Christian idea. Along the way, he generalized as usual on the appearance and character of Jews, as he also asserted the well-known Christian idea that the Jews would someday have the opportunity to be saved. He, too, had been on a trip to Palestine, and in his descriptions he held to the view that archaeological findings should be used to corrobo- rate the contents of the Bible. The fate of Palestine and Jerusalem was a result of the righteous wrath of God, and the contemporary people of Israel had lost their right to the country. On the other hand, the Christian congregation is now the New Jerusalem. One significant theologian among the Church Center’s members was Alfred Svejstrup Poulsen (1854–1921), bishop in Viborg Diocese as of 1901. He had a deep admiration for the Jewish people, was also respected within Jewish circles, was informative about Jewish matters, publicly protested against the persecution of Jews in Eastern Europe, and was at the same time very involved in proselytizing among Jews. He became chairman of the newly established society, Den danske Israelsmission (The Danish Israel Mission) in 1890. But it is clear that his attitude toward Jews and the relationship between them and Christians was more nuanced than that of the Christian theologians previously mentioned. He almost never went into the relationship between Christians and Jews in his sermons, not even in sermons on texts that might suggest that topic. His book Fra Gethsemane til Emmaus [From Gethsemane to Emmaus] contains many passionately dramatic descriptions of the last days of Jesus, but in connection with the judgment against Jesus, he lays the guilt on the Jewish leaders, who, driven by their own lust for power, incited the people to action. In all his sermons he was especially interested in drawing connections from biblical times to the present with appeals, warnings, admonitions, and consolation. In another collection of sermons from Christiansborg Palace Church, nothing

214 Lausten, Church History of Denmark, 252–254. 190 chapter 8 is said about Judaism and Jews, and in his sermons from Roskilde Cathedral, he touches only once upon the Jews having been the chosen people, but who rejected Jesus. This “delusion” still afflicts them; they are dispossessed and outlawed. It is difficult to determine whether his failure to preach about the relationship between Jews and Christians was purposeful choice or was due to coincidence, because Poulsen was very involved in this subject in other ways. He was interested in drawing attention to the movement that had arisen in Russia over the case of lawyer Joseph Rabinowitch (1837–1899). In the piece Den jødekristelige Bevægelse i Syd-Rusland [The Jewish Christian movement in southern Russia], he wrote about this man, who had converted from Judaism to Christianity, but, with his followers, still adhered to some of the Jewish laws, just as the Jewish Christians of the original Church had done. Poulsen stressed that this movement should not be perceived with the hateful eyes of anti-Sem- itism, but with the hopeful expectation of original Christianity. But Danish Jews were generally a peaceful people, so Danish society simply definitely had reason to regard “our” Jews with high esteem and good will. He added that salvation came from the Jews (John 4:22). Before Poulsen ended his positive description of Danish Jews, however, he did feel the need to attack the author George Brandes. He agreed with those theologians who claimed that Brandes’ hostility to the Church was caused by his Jewish nature, even though he had distanced himself from Judaism long before.215

Religious and Social Problems in the Jewish Community

The more the Jewish community merged with the society around it, the more often did questions arise that might result in conflict. They could be about the swearing of oaths in a court of law, about mixed marriages and the upbringing of children of these marriages, about burials, about the teaching in the religion school, and about whether the professors of the theological faculty should continue to exert influence in Jewish matters. Some of these matters will be described. In 1799, when the government decided to permit mixed marriages in which each partner maintained his or her religion, there was a stipulation that any children of the marriage must be brought up in the Evangelical Lutheran faith.

215 A. S. Poulsen, Fra Getsemane til Emmaus, Prædikener [From Getsemane to Emmaus. Sermons] Copenhagen 1889; “Den jødekristelige Bevægelse i Syd-Rusland” [The Jewish Christian movement in southern Russia] in Smaaskrifter til Oplysning for kristne (Copen- hagen: Schønberg, 1886). The Danish People’s Church and the Jews 191

After the adoption of the Danish Constitution of 1849, a case arose in which a Jewish man and a Christian woman wanted to get married without reporting on the religious upbringing of their possible children; this occasioned comments from the ministry, the City Council and the Board of Representatives of the Jewish community. The Board pointed out that the former Lutheran State Church had been replaced by the Evangelical Lutheran People’s Church, which could no longer “rule” over other communities of faith, and that it “no longer had a lawful right to be considered entitled to preferential treatment, with other faiths considered subordinate to it.” Inasmuch as paragraph 81 of the Constitution gave citizens the right to gather in religious communities as they wished, then parents must also have the right to bring up their children in the religion they chose. Furthermore, the transition from one religion to another had been a constitutional right since the Constitution had been ratified. The Board of Representatives asked the minister to work out rules accordingly. But the Minister of Culture wanted to consult with Mynster, the bishop of Zealand. The bishop admitted that the religious freedom granted in the Constitution must mean that royal permission was no longer required for a Christian-Jewish marriage, but that he found it “very perturbing” if the religious upbringing of the children was left to the parents. Even though he found it hard to believe that the Christian spouse of a mixed marriage would ever accept that the children be brought up in Judaism, he admitted at the same time that it had often been the case that the other religions in such marriages had a tendency to “infringe”—here he was referring both to Lutheran-Catholic marriages and to Christian-Jewish marriages—besides, he feared that the parents of such marriages might merely allow the children to grow up without ties to any faith at all, probably because they could not agree upon one. Therefore the bishop’s solution was that this question be linked with the promises in the Constitution, which said that the charters of the People’s Church and of other communities of faith would be dealt with “later.” Until then, the previous requirement about children’s Christian upbringing would remain in force. The ministry complied with Bishop Mynster’s report and a royal proclamation of January 7, 1850, resolved that such mixed marriages might be carried out without special permission, but that any offspring must be brought up in Christianity. The subject of mixed marriages and children’s religious upbringing continued to occupy politicians, however. Minister of Culture Madvig intended to present a law proposal on Bestemmelsen af den religiøse Opdragelse for Børn, der fødes i blandede ægteskaber [Decision on the religious upbringing of children born into mixed marriages]. Bishop Mynster repeated his former position, but gave in somewhat; he now believed that the decision could be left to 192 chapter 8 parents, but they would have to make a decision and sign a statement about the children’s religion before their wedding. Mynster now suggested that the children adhere to the father’s religion because the father is the head of the family, but he also mentioned the possibility that a son take his father’s, and a daughter take her mother’s religion. In the minister’s suggestion, the parents could decide on the children’s religious upbringing, but if they had not chosen one of their religions, the father should make the decision, and all the children of a family should be brought up in the same faith. And if the parents could not come to agreement on the matter, the children were to be brought up in the religion of the People’s Church. Howevert, his proposal fell away when a proposal for a “Law on Freedom of Religion” was handed in at the Rigsdag, or Parliament. It contained considerations concerning marriage, confirmation, court oaths, and the religious upbringing of the children of mixed marriages. The parliamentary debates were extremely lengthy—the summary of the second debate in the lower house of parliament takes up 650 columns in the annual Rigsdagstiderne [Proceedings of the Parliament], not to mention the first and third debates, as well as the similarly lengthy debates in the upper house. The case also provoked many speeches, queries from the public, and written pieces. Finally, the name of the law proposal was changed to “Proposal of a law about marriage outside the recognized faiths, or between members of different faiths.” There were many clergymen among the members of Parliament, and they took the floor during the discussions, as did many others. The speeches will not be summarized here, but it must be mentioned that theologian and politician Ditlev Gothard Monrad (1811–1887) averred that it was impossible to conceive of a parent bringing up a child in a faith to which he or she did not belong. He also thought that if only one of the parents was to make the final decision about the children’s religious orientation, it should be the mother, because the mother is the one who teaches the children their prayers and teaches them about their Savior. It should also be mentioned that in the upper house of the parliament, the Landsting, A. S. Ørsted wanted to reject the proposal completely. He declared that allowing civil marriages would lower the moral value of the institution of marriage and be an offence to the populace, because it was the fact that the rite was performed in church that gave marriage a dignified, Christian, moral weight. During the proceedings, it was pointed out that Jewish-Christian couples would certainly take advantage of the option of civil weddings, if they were permitted, since neither rabbis nor priests of the People’s Church would care to conduct such weddings. Ørsted remarked that he could well imagine this, but he thought that such a marriage would seem offensive to the populace, The Danish People’s Church and the Jews 193 because the couple might agree on matters concerning the children, such as circumcision, which would violate all Christian sentiments. Ørsted promptly added that his objections should not be perceived as an affront by Jews, whom he, in his official position, had always defended against injustices or transgressions. Ørsted had apparently forgotten about the views he had voiced during the debates in the Roskilde Assembly of the Estates some years earlier! He had nothing against those Jews who remained true to their religion, he said, and added that he found it unthinkable that a Christian would go over to the Jewish religion. A civil wedding should be conducted discreetly. Carl Blechingberg, a member of the upper house of parliament, was of the opinion that children are not the property of parents, and therefore the state had the right to make sure that they were not abused spiritually, as in other respects. The state should retain the possibility to intervene if a Christian mother, whose husband was a Jew, converted to Judaism. In that case, the parents would not have the power to put the children into a Mosaic school, where they would learn to deny the Savior and to hope for a new Messiah, because this would be nothing less than a religious type of abuse. The result was that the Law on Marriage outside the Acknowledged Faiths, or Between Members of Different Faiths was passed on April 13, 1851. It allowed for civil marriages, provided the couple signed a declaration stating the faith in which their prospective children would be brought up. The decision could be altered later if the couple agreed on a new decision, or if one of the spouses died, but in the latter case, the approval of the Ministry would be needed. Finally, the law said that in any case, children must either be brought up in the faith of one of their parents or in that of the People’s Church. With this, the royal proclamation of January 3, 1850, which had been in force for little more than a year, was annulled with respect to the religious upbringing of children. The debates in Parliament and the law passed commanded the attention of the entire country, and opinions in the professional society of clergymen, the Copenhagen Pastoral Conventicle, were much divided. Some priests held that Jewish-Christian couples could be married in the Church if they committed to bringing their children up in Christianity, as had been the case before. Others felt that persons who had been married in civil ceremonies, should not be allowed to partake of Communion. But still other members of the Conventicle felt that each individual priest should determine whether or not he would marry a mixed couple, and the group was absolutely against excluding anyone from Communion. The side in favor of “rejection” was in the majority, however, so it was decided to send a protest to the Parliament. “An Open Letter to the Danish Parliament from the Clergy of Copenhagen and the Members of the Theological Faculty” contained a severe denunciation of the Parliament 194 chapter 8 for even concerning itself with this subject. That parents of mixed marriages could decide for themselves which religion their children would be brought up in, or whether they would be brought up in any religion at all, was unheard of, as far as the Pastoral Conventicle was concerned. It went against the fundamental human rights of the children. A year after the law was ratified, the group sent a new letter to the parliament, in which they again protested against the marriage of mixed couples unless the prospective spouses, members of the People’s Church and dissenters, “just as with Jews,” first signed a promise that prospective children would be brought up in the evangelical religion. The parliament did not take this new letter into account either.216

The Theological Faculty and Chief Rabbi Wolff’s New Textbook on Religion, 1862 After the Constitution of 1849 instituted religious freedom for Danes and independence for the Community of the Mosaic Faith, it was not surprising that Chief Rabbi Wolff desired to have his own textbook of the Mosaic religion used instead of the old one from 1814. When he had tried replace the old text in 1829, theologians of the university and the bishop of Zealand had blocked it. Now he went to the Ministry of Culture to have his book authorized for use in the education of Jewish youth in preparation of their so-called Mosaic conformation. Wolff’s new textbook highlighted the three main values, faith, love and hope: the acknowledgement of one God, and the call to love God and one’s neighbor, the appeal to lead a life of piety and good deeds, in which there is also a place for earthly joys in all their variety, a belief in the reward or punishment of God, an emphasis on the reality of sin, the need for repentance and a diligent life of prayer, and the expectation of a messianic period at the end of time.217 A trace of the influence of the Enlightenment that had marked the older textbook can be found here, but it is not dominant. The presentation of the content, still formed into questions and answers, was much more didactically suitable for teaching, as was the syllabus. The questions he posed were answered briefly, and were reinforced with references to the Bible, Talmudic literature, and Wolff’s own Prayer Book. In many places he added notes with special suggestions and guidelines for the teachers using the book. His explanations often answered questions that the readers must have struggled with. He had striven to produce a non-polemical presentation and to avoid anything that Christians might find objectionable. It is remarkable that he also refuted a variety of the

216 Lausten, Folkekirken og jøderne, 257–303. 217 Abraham A. Wolff, Lærebog i den Israelitiske Religion [Textbook on the Israelite religion] (Copenhagen 1862). The Danish People’s Church and the Jews 195 accusations and prejudices against Jews that were always in circulation, for example, about Jews taking oaths in court, or about the relationship of Jews and Christians in the world of business. He emphasized the messianic age, rather than the figure of the Messiah. It must have been out of habit that the Ministry of Culture decided that Christian theologians of the university would be the best experts to evaluate this book on Judaism. The professors’ reports on this case are to be found in the archives of the university faculty. A few of the professors were of the opinion that Wolff belonged to the faction of modern reformist Jews. Another professor of dogmatics, Johan Alfred Bornemann, felt that the opinion of the entire Jewish congregation should be heard, while Professor Carl Emil Scharling wanted the Ministry of Justice to give a judgment in order to make certain of state security. He felt that the basis for dealing with Jews must not vary from the original Edict of 1814. The fact that the royal edict had been annulled by the Constitution did not seem to worry him. A few professors emphasized the pedagogical qualities of the book, and more of them touched on the question of whether the theological faculty had any jurisdiction at all in this case. The Ministry of Culture did not take the reports of the theologians into consideration and applied to the king to have the book authorized, which ensued on May 1, 1862.218

The Jewish Oath In 1843, a few years before the Constitution was passed, the procedure for Jews taking oaths in court had been altered (see p. 153), but the Jews felt rightly that it was discriminatory that the procedure for them to take court oaths differed so much from that for Christians. It was not surprising that only a few weeks after the Constitution was passed, Chief Rabbi Abraham Wolff applied to the Ministry of Culture to have the practice changed only a few weeks after the Constitution was passed. All differences between Jewish and Christian oaths should be removed, because now we were striving toward equal rights before the law for all citizens, he believed. He favored removing the rule that a Jewish “priest” must be present, because Jews were Danish citizens who first and foremost obeyed Danish law. If the old procedure was kept, it would feed prejudices about Jews and about the oath. His concrete suggestion was that in the future the oath should be, “I swear by God” or “By God and His Holy Word, that . . .” The person should simply raise his or her right hand, and there need be no priest or holy book present. The previously used words of warning could be retained, but if they were, they should be spoken by the judge.

218 Ibid., 250–257. 196 chapter 8

The Ministry of Culture sent the case to the Ministry of Justice, which took its time. Only after a full ten years had passed, and Wolff had sent a reminder asking for a ruling, did the Ministry begin its deliberations. The Board of Representatives of the Jewish community was in favor of Wolff’s proposal. In 1860 the Provincial Superior Court and the Copenhagen Criminal and Police Court ruled, in agreement with Wolff, that the rule for Jews was to be brought into line with the rules for Christians. In spite of this clear finding, the Ministry wished to hear what the theological faculty and the bishop of Zealand had to say about the case—just as it always had before the Constitution was adopted. Here the view of the matter was quite different. A copy of the report that was sent back and related documents are found in the archives of the theological faculty, giving an impression of each professor’s opinion. The various professors were in agreement both with respect to the main point, that Denmark should not comply with Wolff’s proposal of changing the oath-taking procedure, and in their negative—bor- dering on hostile—attitude toward Danish Jews. Professor of Old Testament Studies, Christen Hermansen, former professor of Semitic philology, thought that changing anything would be an expression of much too much leniency. The wording for Jews was certainly somewhat more complicated than that for Christian citizens, but he could not see that there was even one word that cast aspersion upon Jews. A Jew could touch a phylactery instead of the Torah, but he must not do so bareheaded. The ceremony now used was not really necessary, but that did not mean it should be abolished, because it was harmless enough, and besides this, it befitted the nature of the Jewish religion. Bornemann, the controversial professor of dogmatics, claimed that Wolff was not really informed on the subject of Jewish oaths. The old oath should be retained, threats and warnings of punishment were particularly needed when Jews took oaths, and Wolff’s proposal was completely muddled. Professor Hammerich thought that it would be best for the security of the nation if the old procedure was kept, because not all Jews in the country were sufficiently enlightened, and there was still a danger that they might swear falsely, using reservio mentalis (mental reservation). Professor C. E. Scharling did not give a written opinion because, he said, his colleagues had answered so thoroughly. In the final report, the faculty pointed out that you could not trust Jews when they took oaths in court unless the procedure resembled ancient Jewish practices. Laying a hand on a holy scripture should be retained, as should the demand that the head be covered, and a Jewish priest [sic] must be present, the faculty maintained. An even more anti-Jewish opinion was aired in the faculty’s reasoning that it would be an offence to Christians if a Jew simply said “I swear by God” or “By God” or “By God and His Holy Word” as Wolff had The Danish People’s Church and the Jews 197 suggested. Why was that offensive? Because Christians usually understood the expression “God’s Holy Word” in a specifically Christian sense, so the theologians felt that it would not work to let Jews use “God’s Holy Word,” since God was, so to speak, the Christian God, and furthermore, the word “God” should be combined with “the almighty” or “the ever-knowing” or “the Creator of heaven and earth.” In 1860, their conclusion was that there was nothing offensive to Jews about the old ruling, and they were against any changes. Bishop Martensen’s opinions were very similar to those of the faculty. He thought that the ceremonies and the words of the oath were very important, because the ceremony was meant to show the holy seriousness of the act. The bishop also implied that these ceremonies were necessary in order to keep some Jews from using loopholes such as “reservations and distinctions,” and in other words, the long ceremony would prevent Jews from cheating when taking oaths. It was important for the state that members of foreign religious groups took the oath in accordance with their own religious customs. Equality before the law did not mean that believers in different religions had to give their oaths in the same manner. That would make them unequal before the law, because in that case they would have to give up their traditions, which, according to them, were part of an oath-taking rite that was valid before God and conscience. Thus the high-handed, new rule would hinder them from exercising their religion. Wolff’s idea to remove what was especially Jewish from the oath taking should therefore not be adopted. The bishop also found it offensive that a Jew might swear by “God’s Holy Word,” and he expressed serious qualms that the ceremony might be held without the presence of a Jewish priest. The Ministry also requested an evaluation from one of the best scholars of Judaism, the previously mentioned C. H. Kalkar. In general, he sided with Wolff: Jews could now become members of all political assemblies, and it was foreseeable that they could achieve the highest positions (as government min- isters) in society. Therefore requiring special rules for Jews in court would be an “anomaly.” The proposed law titled “The Procedure in Which Followers of the Mosaic Faith Should be sworn in Before the Court” occasioned considerable debate in the parliament in 1863 and 1864. Naturally, many of the priests who were members of the upper and lower houses took the floor, and there was exhaus- tive debate on the subjects of the necessity of swearing on the Torah, baring or covering heads, the presence of a Jewish priest, etc. Some of the members of parliament were well versed in the topic, having read articles and studied the writings mentioned above. The end result was the Law of April 19, 1864, which largely followed Kalkar’s recommendations. A judge, not a Jewish priest, was to give an admonition; the persons taking oaths were to lift their right hands and 198 chapter 8 verify their testimonies with the words: “This I swear, on my honor, so help me God, the Creator of heaven and earth.” All the many ceremonial details were null and void, and the rule of May 10, 1843, was revoked. Parliament had taken no notice of the reservations expressed by members of the theological faculty or by the bishop of Zealand about giving Jews rights equal to those of other citizens in the country. During the last phase of Parliament’s consideration of the proposal and just after the law was passed, Professor Bornemann published an article directed at the public, expounding the views of the theological faculty. In strongly anti-Jewish terms, he directed an attack at Chief Rabbi Wolff. The Jew was a stranger among Christian people, he claimed. He incorporated a new point into his argument: if the phrase, “By God and His Holy Word,” were used, then God meant Christ, because in Christianity “the Word” was a circumlocution for Christ. Abraham Wolff responded sharply. He accused Bornemann of ignorance of the Talmud, of the Jewish practice of law, of the conditions of Jews abroad, and of the position of the Danish chief rabbi. In general, Wolff acclaimed, it was unacceptable that the government still considered members of the theological faculty to be experts in Jewish matters. They still behaved as they had before the Constitution was adopted. And they tried to maintain the old restrictions so that they could remain in control of other communities of faith.219

A Jewish Godmother’s Participation in a Christian Baptism A major case arose when a Jewish woman had been inadvertently allowed to become godmother at an infant’s baptism at Nyborg Church. She had answered the priest’s questions on belief and confession of faith in the affirmative. She was a friend of the child’s mother, lived in the local community and was married to a Christian. It had not occurred to the priest, C. G. Sharper, to ask about her religious affiliation when he entered her name as godparent into the church ministry’s records. The baptism had been performed by Carl Tolstrup, the curate of the church, who was not made aware that the godmother was Jewish until after the baptism. He then wrote an explanatory report in the record book. It is not clear whether the case upset the local community, but it was of the greatest concern among clergymen, and went all the way to the top of the hierarchy. In a report to Christian Thorning Engelstoft, the bishop of Funen Diocese, the parish priest apologized for the mistake, and interestingly, he wrote a mini-thesis on where Christians and, especially, Jews stand in God’s plan for salvation. He referred to the standard texts from Paul’s epistles and the Acts of the Apostles that emphasize that the Jews were still the chosen people,

219 Ibid., 211–250. The Danish People’s Church and the Jews 199 that the Jews would be saved one day, and that this would bring great joy to Christians. He mentioned that Paul acknowledged mixed marriages, as the ‘unbelieving’ partner without faith might be eventually convinced of the truth of Christianity, and he stressed that although the godmother, Natalie Koppel Jensen, certainly was a Jew, she did not follow the rules of her fathers’ strictly. She had no more thought it unnatural to carry the child at its baptism and answer the questions, than the infant’s parents had. On the other hand, Bishop Engelstoft wrote angrily that this case attested to the sorry state of the local congregation. He determined that the baptism was still valid, but declared that the case should be taken very seriously. Discussing the case openly would attract too much attention, but he suggested that the parish priest be given a fine and the curate be reprimanded. The Minister of Culture considered a public missive to the local congregation, or an appendix to the church record, or a canvass of opinion from all the bishops, but finally settled on requesting an evaluation from the leading man of the Church, Zealand’s Bishop Martensen. He was shaken by this highly disgraceful violation of church discipline in connection with the distribution and reception of the sacrament. He thought that the child should be presented in the church again, and he formulated the words the priest was to say about the child being validly baptized, even though something untoward had happened at the baptism. The two priests involved should receive formal reprimands. Bishop Engelstoft, however, rejected a second presentation of the child at church, mainly because he had spoken to the child’s parents, and they had taken exception to the idea. The bishop repeated his suggestion of a fine and a reprimand for the priest and the curate, and the Ministry followed his suggestion.220

Anti-Jewish Prayers in Church One series of the prayers or ‘collects’ the priest was to say at the altar at the beginning of a service in the People’s Church had been handed down in 1556, the age of the Reformation (see p. 30). On the tenth Sunday after Trinity Sunday part of the prescribed prayer was, “We beseech you / to open our hearts / that we sincerely receive it / and not cast it off / as your people, the faithless Jews did.” This prayer remained unchanged, a part of the liturgy until it was modified in 1895, when became “and not cast it away or hear it fruitlessly, as faithless Israel did.” The references to Jews and Israel were not omitted until the revision of 1992. Since then the text has been, “Awaken our hearts, so that we accept it sincerely and do not cast it away or fail to hear it out of indolence!”221

220 Ibid., 304–314. 221 Ibid., 316–317. 200 chapter 8

The Danish Mission to the Jews

After the Constitution of 1849 introduced religious freedom, Johann Christian Moritz, a native of Gothenburg who worked for the English society for Christian mission to Jews, felt that the time was ripe for a new campaign in Denmark.222 He had undeniably been rejected in the 1840s (see p. 159), but now he made a new attempt to bring his mission into the country through the auspices of the Copenhagen Pastoral Conventicle. His application awakened an interesting debate at the Conventicle. Grundtvig, for example, wanted more information on Moritz’s “principles and religious approach” before making a judgment. Martensen thought that there was “no need” for missionary work in Copenhagen, and Professor Hammerich also thought that such work would be redundant: the Jews already had ample opportunity to hear the gospel in Copenhagen. A few priests were a bit more positive, but the result was that in 1849 the Conventicle informed the missionary that they would welcome him “with all brotherly good will,” but that they could not offer more concrete support. It seems that the case was not brought up for discussion at the Conventicle again.223 Inspiration for organized missionary work also came from other individuals. First, a group consisting of parish priest Christian Andreas Hermann Kalkar (1802–1886), parish priest Peter Krag, and the Swedish emissaries, Charlotte Frøhling and Paulus Wolff, discussed mission work in Copenhagen. Then in about 1883, a group of women started a mission circle that met regularly to sew and prepare objects that could be sold in support of the Swedish mission to the Jews. At these meetings, reports of the mission were read aloud, prayers for its success were said, and hymns were sung. In 1884 the group consisted of thirty-five women. A lecture by the Swiss priest Johannes F. A. de le Roi, who had just published the first volume of his comprehensive work on the Israel mission of the Evangelical Church, was of great significance for the creation of the Danish Israel Mission in 1885.224 The board of directors consisted of five lay people and four theologians. With the help of Professor Frants Buhl, contact was made with his colleague Frantz Delitzsch, and his Institutum Judaicum (Jewish Institute) in Leipzig. Buhl also sought to interest theology students in

222 For more on the Danish mission to the Jews, see ibid., 318–358. 223 Ibid., 318–319. 224 Johannes de le Roi, Die evangelische Christenheit und die Juden unter dem Gesichtspunkte der Mission, geschichtlich betrachtet [Evangelical Christendom and the Jews from the point of view of the mission, seen historically] vols. 1–3 (Berlin Karlsruhe, 1884–1892). The Danish People’s Church and the Jews 201 the recent history of the Jews. The following year the first Danish theologian was sent to the German institution on a study trip. The aims of the society and its methods are stated in the opening paragraph of its charter, “The Danish Israel Mission is a society within the Danish Church, which aims to bring the gospel to the people of Israel.” They planned to strive (paragraph 2) “to send out missionaries, if any volunteer, to the countries where many Jews live; to bring the gospel to the Jews there in any way that will serve the cause; to join in the work of other evangelical missions among the Jews as much as conditions allow; and to awaken and carry the love of the congregation to the Israel Mission, and, if possible, to do missionary work directly with the Jews living here.” In a separate section (paragraph 8) they open the possibility of the mission to organize smaller support groups. They would be invited to the obligatory annual general meeting, in which they could participate in discussions concerning matters relating to the association.225

Why Did This Association Desire to Missionize among Jews? A reading of articles of various length in the periodical of the society, Israels missionen [The Israel mission], and the society’s folders, pamphlets, and entire books, shows repeated mention of the missionaries’ various motivations for their work. The individual authors, members of the board of directors, or missionaries sometimes stressed one motive, and sometimes another. Occasion- ally the trace of a disagreement in principle on certain questions is discernible, for example, with respect to attitudes toward the so-called Jewish-Christians. However, they generally agreed on their basic vision. The grounds for the society’s mission work among Jews was the conviction that Jews and Christians worshiped the same God, but that neither a true relationship with God nor salvation could be achieved in Judaism. The Jews were certainly God’s chosen people, but Jewry would not understand that it was only meant to survive until the coming of the Messiah who was prophesied in the Old Testament, the Jewish Holy Scripture. To the Christian way of thinking, Jesus of Nazareth was that Messiah, and through him a new covenant was made between God and man. Since most Jews generally adhere to their original religion, centered on the laws of Moses, the prophets, the Psalms of David, as well as the interpretations of the Talmud, they must be told that they are mistaken, and that they ought to abandon Judaism, and embrace Christianity. According to traditional Christian thinking, the holy chastisement of God has been borne by the Jews until the present day.

225 Israelsmissionen [The Israel Mission] May 1906, 77–78. 202 chapter 8

Missionary work must be performed because it was commanded by God; the call to mission, in Matthew 28:18–20, also includes Jews. Chairman Frederik Torm, professor of New Testament exegesis, could cite the Lord’s call to the prophet Ezekiel to be the shepherd of the house of Israel and to warn the ungodly, declaring that the responsibility of mission rested on the shoulders of the congregation.226 The opportunity to walk in the very footsteps of Jesus was another incentive for joining this mission and, as was often stated, missionary work was done out of love for the Jewish people. Compassion could also be a motivating force: since Jews had to live without inner or external peace because the punishment of God was still upon the Jewish people, we should have compassion for them.227 Christians were also indebted to the Jewish people, because the Savior Jesus had come from that nation, just as it also gave us other men who now belonged to Christianity, Abraham, Moses, David, the disciples, and Paul, etc. In effect, the Christian congregation was “paying off a debt, or paying interest on a spiritual debt owed for this people’s investment in the story of its salvation . . . the Savior comes from the Jews.” Another reason for missionizing was that it was also for the Christians’ own good. Torm went so far as to say: “But no matter whether the fruit of your labors be large or small, labor you shall, if you want to save your soul.” But in another respect, mission to the Jews is to Christians’ advantage, for by converting Jews, Christendom will grow and spread. Inge Hofman-Bang, editor of Israelsmissionen for many years, cited Romans 11:12, which can be interpreted to mean that when Israel is won for Christ, immea- surable spiritual power will be gained, putting prodigious energies into efforts to promote the kingdom of God at home and abroad. The Danish Israel Mission promoted the fulfillment of Matthew 28:18–20.228 The idea earlier proclaimed by the pietists could also be upheld here, that the second coming of Jesus would be hastened if the conversion of the Jews could be brought about. This thinking had its source in Romans 11:25–26. As Paul manifestly thought that all Jews would go over to Christianity at the end of the world, then that day might be hastened by missionizing among the Jews. Just the Church had for centuries discussed just how this would come about, the Israel Mission had

226 Ibid., Apr. 1906, 49–50. 227 Ibid., Feb. 1906, 18–22; Apr. 1909, 53–55. Ferdinand F. Munck, “Israelsmissionen,” in Fra Bethesda [From Bethesda], Feb. 1895, 29. 228 Ibid., July 1933, 152–153; Apr. 1906, 49–50; Inge Hofman-Bang, For og imod Israelsmissionen [For and against mission to the Jews] Aarhus 1911, 6–7. The Danish People’s Church and the Jews 203 also discussed it. For example, Kalkar rejected the notion that there would be a precipitous conversion. For just as God’s punishment had rested on the Jews for centuries, so would their conversion also take a long time. This can serve as further motivation for Christian missionary work among the Jews. At the same time that we express love for the Jewish people, Israelsmissionen wrote, we stand in “a debt of conscience” to them. The thought was that throughout the course of history Christians had frequently persecuted, killed, robbed, and thwarted the development of the Jews.229 Nevertheless, the duty to preach the Christian gospel to the Jews also includes an attack on Judaism as a religion and upon contemporary Jews. Just as anti-Semites claimed that Jews were striving to dominate the world, even an expert theologian like Kalkar also claimed that modern Judaism was striving to become the world religion and to conquer the place of Christianity. He called George Brandes an exemplar of this behavior.230 Another reason for missionizing to Jews at the end of the nineteenth century was that Jews’ dissatisfaction with Judaism made them especially receptive at that time. Although direct mission to Danish Jews had been abandoned, occasionally a call was heard to perform this very mission, on the grounds that there indeed are Jews living right here: we have the Jews right here, not the Japanese, it was said—we have no need to go far to find a people chosen by God or to journey to foreign lands to seek them out. There is something wrong with missionizing far afield while forgetting to missionize among the Jews we see daily. Every Christian has the duty to do this, not only priests and missionaries. They did not neglect to weave in one of the usual anti-Semitic prejudices: “Because for the Jew, who usually is good at acquiring and valuing money, this idea will readily arise: The priests and missionaries are being paid to preach to us! No, it is you, especially, as private persons, who must take on this duty.”231 These motives for taking up mission work with Danish Jews, proclaimed in the publications of the Israel Mission, could be supplemented with countless other citations. They might vary and have different emphases, but they were presented to readers time after time during this period. As has already been indicated, the members of the missionary society had to find a delicate balance

229 Munck 1895, 22. Hofman-Bang 1911, 5–6. 230 Chr. H. Kalkar, Israel og Kirken [Israel and the Church] (Copenhagen, 1881), IX–X. 1874, 7–33. 302–305. Gisle Johnsen, “Hvorfor har Kirken en Jødemission?” (Why does the Church run a mission to the Jews?) in Israelsmissionen, 4, 1909, 55–56. 231 A. Bülow. Israelsmissionen (1886), 7–8. 128. 204 chapter 8

Figure 5 Page from periodical, Israelsmissionen announcing converts (1912). between their oft-expressed love for Jews and an attitude that expressed contempt for Jews, in which the rhetoric matched that of anti-Semitic propaganda. We will see later that Israel Mission members expressed these very racist and anti-Semitic attitudes, which were not far from those expressed by opponents of the Jews, but it must also be noted that the social work they did was a result of their “love” for Jews. The Danish People’s Church and the Jews 205

What Strategies Did the Mission Use? In the beginning it was imperative for the society to make its existence known in Denmark. Meetings were held by members of the board of directors, and individual support groups were established from the very start. But this did not really get underway until the Swedish lay preacher, Efraim Philemon Petri (1860–1924), was enlisted as a travelling preacher. He had converted from Judaism and now travelled far and wide in Denmark, holding meetings about the missionary work and collecting donations. The objective of the mission society was to missionize directly among Jews, but not among Danish Jews. It embarked upon an extensive undertaking among other Jews in Copenhagen, the Jewish refugees from Eastern Europe, but also went into missionary work abroad as soon as willing volunteers arrived on the scene, and as soon as there was an economic basis for it. At first the society joined the mission among Jews that had been established by the missionary society in Leipzig and supported missionaries in Poland. Tensions arose between the two mission societies over their difference of opinion concerning Jewish Christians. Nevertheless, in 1904 two Danish theologians came forward, Stefan Volf and Irenius Fauerholdt. After they had taken a short course at the Jewish Institute in Leipzig, a send-off meeting was held in Copenhagen on October 4, 1905. Volf was sent to Przemysl (Austrian until 1918, and then Polish) and Fauerholdt was sent to Galati in Rumania. Now Denmark had its own Danish mission among Jews. The work in connection with the institute in Leipzig ceased, although the connection was maintained. Volf died early, in 1911, but was succeeded by a series of other Danish missionaries, both men and women, including Hansine Marcher, Wilhelm Kofoed, and Ejner Hoff, who worked there, in Lvov, and in Vienna until 1933. Near the end of the 1930s, the society supported the Swedish mission in Vienna. Two other missionaries were Emil Clausen and Henry Rasmussen, who both later became parish priests in Denmark.232 A great deal of their work was done in conjunction with the local Evangelical church and was linked to the few families or individuals who had already gone over to Christianity. The missionaries’ efforts were many; they made visits to Jewish homes, distributing tracts and copies of the New Testament in Hebrew; they did various forms of social work, for example, teaching English to young Jewish men who were interested in emigrating to France or America; they taught religion and set up a reading room where Jews could read newspapers and other periodicals. They held Christmas parties for children and adults, and in special cases they granted sums of money.

232 Axel Torm, 50 Aars Arbejde for Israel [Fifty years of work for Israel] (Copenhagen 1935), 31–44. 206 chapter 8

It is naturally difficult to evaluate the accomplishments of these missionaries in Eastern Europe. It is clear from their reports and travel descriptions published in Israels missionen that their work was very difficult. Their own living conditions were extremely modest and, naturally, they were met with skepticism and resistance by the Jewish population. In their letters they made no secret of their disappointment and of a certain resignation, although they realized that their efforts could not simply be measured by the number of Jews baptized. They did send occasional reports of baptisms, but the total number, from 1905 to 1933, scarcely reached a dozen. One important element of the mission society’s work was the establishment of a network of ‘support circles’ in Denmark. They supported the work financially and spread knowledge about the mission. They also bought and disseminated the magazine and other publications that the mission sent out. Torm called for the formation of more of these support groups, claiming that the establishment of many of these groups would be an affirmation that the Danish Israel Mission was executing the will of God. In 1931 there were 79 groups, and by 1939 the number had grown to about 150. Many of them were led by local parish priests or their wives. A typical evening meeting started with devotions followed by readings of the letter from the board of directors and articles chosen from the society’s magazine or from a book on the Israel mission. Afterward there was a question and answer period, and the evening ended with a prayer for the missionary work. Some groups held Bible study evenings on prophecies of the Old Testament. Among the books they had been advised to read were Basil Mathew’s Jøden i Verdenskrisen [The Jew in the world crisis], Chief Rabbi Max Friediger’s Landet der Opbygges [The country being built], and in the 1930s, Frederik Torm recommended that they read Rabbi Marcus Melchior’s attack on anti-Semitism, Man siger, at Jøderne . . . [They say that the Jews . . . ]. The most important link between the board of directors and the support groups was the society’s periodical, the Israelsmissionen, which had been started in 1905, the same year that the first missionaries had been sent abroad. It carried illustrated articles on Jewish ceremonies, customs, rituals, and holidays. There were pictures from Palestine and the parts of Eastern Europe where there were missions. It included the minutes of the annual general meetings and other meetings, devotional writings, and edifying articles about the conversion of Jews to Christianity, and in each issue there was a list of donations. The magazine was thus meant to be informative and edifying and to represent the society to the outside world. The society also published books and pamphlets on the mission and on Judaism. Noteworthy was the Dansk Missions-Sangbog for Hedninge-og Israels-Missionen (Danish mission The Danish People’s Church and the Jews 207 songbook for the mission among heathens and Jews], which the society published in collaboration with other Danish mission societies. The songbook had two sections, one with songs for the mission work with heathens and one with songs for the mission society members. Quite a few of the latter had been written by Inge Hofman-Bang. This is one example of her songs:

Melody: Kirkeklokke, ej til Hovedstæder [Church bells, not for great cities] Each time the Jew reads a page of the Bible A shield is laid over his heart, He still is as blind as ever, His soul was never seized by what was said.

He never partook of the source of grace, He never felt peace in his soul, Never felt the mild eye of the Father Chase mortal fear out and let joy in.

Lord, will you open Israel’s ears, Will you allow those eyes to see! Lord, this you alone can achieve. Lord, pray you let the miracle happen!

O let the time of chastisement end, Call your fallen child to your arms! Let them come, Lord, let them come, Soon—we beseech, in Jesus’ name.233

Starting in 1910, The missionaries held a peculiar annual church service, which they called “Day of Atonement” It was held at a different Copenhagen church each year, on the same day as the Jewish Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur, although one could certainly say that there was very little atoning by Christians on that day. On the contrary, the sermons carried out more or less direct attacks on the Jews on the holiest day of the Jewish year. In 1912, the editor of the mission magazine reported that this year the service had been held in Johannes Church, noting that while synagogues all over the world resounded with the weeping and moaning of repenting Jews, who sought atonement without finding it, because they had not recognized the Savior, simultaneously, from the

233 Dansk Missions-Sangbog [Danish mission songbook] number 152. 208 chapter 8

Christian Church, prayers for the wandering people rose up to the throne of the sacrificial Lamb. Priest, and later dean, Ferdinand Munck (1861–1945), one of the Mission’s most active members, held the sermon, painting a gloomy picture of how the Jews observed this holy day, telling the congregation that the atonement the Jews were striving for “had already” been achieved.234 When a stream of Jewish refugees from Russia and Poland reached Copen- hagen at the beginning of the twentieth century, the Danish Israel Mission took on a special responsibility. The social work done included making house visits, holding gatherings at the mission’s headquarters, holding sewing evenings for women, offering Bible study, giving away Bibles in Hebrew, helping with practical arrangements, distributing clothing, bread, milk, and heating fuel, supplying gratis medical treatment, holding Christmas parties, holding open-air meetings, giving language lessons, having the mission’s nurse treat the needy, and as late as the late 1930s, sending mothers and children to summer camp. The statistical information in the mission society’s magazine shows how extensive these activities were.235

What about the Finances of the Danish Israel Mission? Funds for the mission’s activities were based solely on contributions. In 1906, the year in which two missionaries were sent abroad, the society’s expendi- tures were 17,716 Danish crowns. In 1939 they were 61,461 crowns, while the sum of donations received was 59,042 crowns. The magazine carried a list of donations each month, and these lists show that money was collected from parochial support committees of the society and from private individuals at meetings around the country, led by the chairman of the society or by other members. Other revenue was derived from collections that had been permitted at all the churches of Denmark on the tenth Sunday after Trinity Sunday—a collection still held in many of Denmark’s churches on that Sunday. One of the gospel texts read on this occasion is about Jesus weeping over Jerusalem and saying that the day was coming when enemies would destroy the city and its inhabitants, because they had not known the hour of their visitation. Then the gospel tells of how he chased the merchants out of the temple (Luke 19:41–48). In the gospel reading from the second series of the lectionary for that day, the text contains Jesus’ reproach to his contemporaries, because they rejected the Son of Man, and his harsh words about the cities, Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, which would all suffer terrible fates on the day of judgment, because they refused to be convinced by the deeds he had performed there

234 Israelsmissionen Dec. 1912, 145–149; Sept. 1913, 113. 235 Lausten, Folkekirken og jøderne, 2007, 339–340. The Danish People’s Church and the Jews 209

(Matt. 11:16–24). The epistle text is the warning in the letter to the Hebrews against hardening one’s heart to the Lord as the Israelites had done while they were wandering in the desert. The collect of the day, about unbelieving Israel, has been discussed earlier (see p. 199). According to the society’s 1905 financial report, donations on that day came to 3,009 crowns. In 1939 it was 8,889 crowns.236 In addition to the income from regular church collections and funds raised by parochial support circles and during meetings held by the missionary leaders, funds were generated by other means. In time, the society was named in wills, and in 1908 a special collection box was devised to be set up in private homes and brought out to meetings. The box was decorated with a picture of the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. Why had had this motif been chosen? It was a “reminder of the miserable status of the Jews, and of the holy obligation that the Christian congregation owed them.” The annual mission fair was a significant source of funds. It was held in Copenhagen in conjunction with other mission societies, and all the proceeds went to the coalition of mission societies in Copenhagen. Needlework from the sewing circles, preserves, fruit, and other “marketable things” were sent in by the friends of the Israel Mission around the country. In 1939 the fair brought in 2,210 crowns, which comprised more than half the gross yearly income (4,046 crowns) of the Alliance of Friends of the Israel Mission of Greater Copenhagen.237

The Jewish Christians The relatively few Jews who did convert often became especially active, telling the story of their own conversions, criticizing the Judaism they had abandoned, and trying to convince other Jews to follow their example. The Danish Israel Mission movement understood the turmoil that each Jewish convert was going through both inwardly, in his or her own psyche, and outwardly in his or her relationships with family and friends. Furthermore, conversion also might cause social problems. As early as 1907 the Swedish preacher Petri suggested that the Danes adopt the innovation of the Swedish Judekristian Förbundet (Jewish-Christian Union) in which groups of Jewish Christians banded together to help each other to preserve their connection to their Israelite kins- men and work together at winning them for Christ. Petri had often been met with the reproach from Jewish people that converted Jews were entirely lost to their Jewish community. He also mentioned the danger that converts would become isolated because they were shunned by their own people; he had the

236 Israelsmissionen, Apr. 1906, 64; June 1940, 137–138. 237 Ibid., Jan. 1908, 16; Feb. 1910, 31; Sept. 1910, 141; Oct. 1910, 153; Feb. 1940, 23. 210 chapter 8 idea that all the people descended from Israel who had become Christian might meet at least once a year to take the Eucharist together. Thus they would be living testimony to the Christian congregation, and they could also help and encourage one another. A group of this kind was not founded until 1916. Its stated aims were to form a community of Jewish Christians, who would strengthen and help each other toward spiritual growth in faith and courageous confession.238 As others did at the time, Petri used the name ‘Jewish Christians’ to desig- nate the Jews, who, like himself, had become Christian. Petri reasoned that the term made sense since they still belonged to the Jewish people. Here he touched upon a difficulty that all the societies missionizing among Jews have struggled with and which took on social and political implications once anti- Semitic propaganda began to take hold. It is bound up with the question of how to define Jews. Were they people who had familial ties with the Jewish people? Or should the term be used only for those who practiced Judaism? Could the term be used for those who had completely assimilated into the non-Jewish society around them and had consciously distanced themselves from their Jewish backgrounds? It could also be asked why Petri and others used this term at all, instead of simply calling themselves, and others like them, ‘Christians.’ If they still wanted to acknowledge their Jewish background, should they not have called themselves ‘Christian Jews’? The term ‘Jewish Christians’ had another meaning: Jews who had converted, but who still thought they ought to keep certain Jewish customs. The first Christianity was Jewish Christianity and differed from congregations that consisted of former non-Jews. Those Jewish Christians obeyed the laws of Moses about the Sabbath and circumcision, for example, and they took part in services at the temple, but they believed that Jesus was the Messiah. But in early Christian times there were already tensions and differences between the two groups, and the Jewish Christian congregation disappeared in the very early days of the Church. At the end of the nineteenth century, the question came up again in the wake of the messianic movement, Israelites of the New Covenant, that had been started by Joseph Rabinowitz in southwest Russia in 1884 and was the subject of much discussion at the time and afterward.239 The Copenhagen association of Jewish Christians, led by Abraham Scheradsky after Petri’s death, was not a messianic movement, but rather a

238 Ibid., June 1906, 92–93; Sept. 1928, 186. 239 Kai Kjær-Hansen, Josef Rabinovwitsch og den messianske bevægelse [J. R. and the messianic movement] (Århus: Okay-Bog, 1988). Israelsmissionen, Apr. 1907, 53; Dec. 1913, 185–188; Apr. 1917, 90–92. 109–112; Oct. 1928, 199–206; Oct. 1921, 219. The Danish People’s Church and the Jews 211 social group of Jews who had fully converted and who met for the sake of mutual edification through bible study, prayer, and hymn singing. But they also desired to work toward bringing their “brothers of the flesh” to Jesus, so they joined the world alliance of Jewish Christians in 1927. That same year, they celebrated their ten-year anniversary at the home of Professor Frederik Torm, where the decorations on the table included a Danish flag and a ‘Jewish flag,’ namely a flag featuring the Star of David with a red cross in its center. The society held a New Year’s party and an annual bazaar at which they sold donated items. Membership rose during the 1930s, and it was decided to meet more often. On alternate Sundays, they met at the quarters of the Danish Israel Mission for religious services followed by discussions. Sometimes they borrowed one of the Copenhagen churches so that they would also be able to celebrate the Eucharist. Axel Torm’s speech on the twentieth anniversary of the association emphasized the association’s duty to missionize among the Jewish people. In 1940, on the occasion of Frederik Torm’s seventieth birthday, the association launched a scholarship for the education of young Jewish Christians. Professor Torm was honored for his long service, for defending the Jewish people against unjust attack, and especially for his great self-sacrificing work of bringing the message of salvation in the true Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.240

What were the Reactions of the Danish People’s Church and Jewish Groups to the Israel Mission? There was a close connection between the Inner Mission movement and the Danish Israel Mission from the very beginning. When the sewing circle was initiated in 1883, parish priest Krag’s call to support the mission to the Jews was on the front page of the Inner Mission movement’s magazine. The message was that every informed Christian person should be able to grasp that the conversion of Israel was the most important issue of all, since the Lord promises that when it happens, it will be “like life from the dead” Later, Inner Mission also published the society’s annual financial report with a plea for contributions as well as articles by the clergymen of the mission society. The periodical of the Copenhagen branch of Inner Mission, Fra Bethesda [From Bethesda], also printed numerous articles supportive of the Israel Mission.241 Dansk Kirketidende [Danish Church times], a periodical of the Grundtvigian movement, showed interest in mission among Jews even before the first Israel

240 Israelsmissionen, Mar. 1927, 61; June 1927, 121; Feb.1928, 42; Feb.1933, 27–28; Nov. 1933, 230.231; Nov. 1936, 236–237; Sept. 1940, 203. 241 Peter Krag, “Israelsmissionen” in Den indre Missions Tidende [Inner Mission times] 29, 1883, 449. Fra Bethesda [From Bethesda] 14, 1885, 222; 27, 1885, 430. 212 chapter 8

Mission group had been formed. In 1880 they printed a lecture that had been given in Basel by the missionary to the Jews, Johannes de le Roi. It filled no fewer than fourteen columns and was continued in three issues of the magazine. He outlined the history of the status of Jews in Europe and described contemporary Jews in strongly anti-Judaic, condemnatory terms. The condescending language employed by de le Roi was too much for the editor of the periodical, Carl Joakim Brandt. In a note, he wrote that it was hardly necessary to remark that there was much in de le Roi’s speech that was not true of conditions in Denmark. He had nevertheless printed the speech because it showed how circumstances elsewhere were perceived by a man who had had considerable opportunity to learn about them! Dansk Kirketidende sometimes also carried the Israel Mission society’s yearly report. Interest in missionizing among Jews was also expressed elsewhere in the Grundtvigian movement. S. Constantin- Hansen wrote about the objectives and methods of the Israel Mission in the periodical Danskeren [the Dane]. He rejected the assimilation of Jews and was skeptical about conversions of individual Jews to Christianity, stressing instead the Grundtvigian understanding that Christian hope was contingent on the conversion of the Jewish “people.” In this connection he stressed, characteristically, that the Jews were now resurrecting the Hebrew language in order to have a language in common. Paul had also been concerned about the entire people, and Constantin-Hansen directed attention to Joseph Rabinowitz’s Jewish Christian congregation in southern Russia. They had become Christian, but wanted to retain their “identity” as the Jewish people, he said. Mission among Jews is quite different from mission to heathens, since heathens are to be severed from their god, whereas that is not the case for Jews. One must teach them the true relationship to God by instructing Jews to read the Law and the prophets correctly. He pointed out that difficulties caused by Jewish fanaticism and the intolerance of the Russian Orthodox Church meant that Rabinowitz was not able to perform baptisms, but these difficulties might perhaps teach him to better understand the meaning of the baptismal pact, Constantin- Hansen explained, in line with Grundtvigian theology: only when they found solid footing on the bedrock of the baptismal pact would their future be secured.242

242 H. J. Hansen, “Missionen blandt Israel” (The mission to Israel), in Dansk Kirketidende [Dan- ish Church times] June 1880, 94–99; July 1880, 114–119; Aug. 1880, 129–131. S. Constantin– Hansen, Israelsmissionen. Dens Maal og dens Veje [Mission to Israel, its purpose and its means] 1890, 277–281. The Danish People’s Church and the Jews 213

Grundtvigian Mission While the Danish Israel Mission was especially associated with the Inner Mission movement, the Grundtvigians took up their own form of missionary work among Jews, in spite of the earlier failure of their missionary, Hass, in Turkey (see p. 159). This was a one-man mission that H. J. Hansen carried out in Jerusalem in the 1920s and the early 1930s. After studying at mission insti- tutes in Hamburg and London, he traveled to Jerusalem with the support of Grundtvigian congregations in Denmark. Unmarried, he lived a very Spartan life and performed his missionizing by engaging in dialogues, by the power of example, and by teaching children he happened to come across. Hansen wrote two publications, in which his views of mission do not deviate from the usual views of Israel Mission: the Jews should give up their slavery to the Law; God has abandoned them, and now there was only one path forward, the path into Christianity. There do not seem to be many sources extant to further illuminate his work, which came to an end in the mid- 1930s.243

Jewish Reaction to Missionary Work Of course, the Jews also reacted to the attempts to convert them. An anonymous piece “Betragtninger over Missionen blandt Jøder” [Thoughts on Mission among Jews] directed its attack on the former Jew and now parish priest Kalkar and his book Missionen Blandt Jøder. The author—who may have been Abraham Wolff—rejected Kalkar’s main premise that we should missionize and rejoice about those Jews who became Christians. The anonymous author criticized Kalkar for not understanding Judaism, and urged him and the Israel Mission to gather their forces to reconcile the hostile groups of their own church instead, for it was improper and unforgiveable to work to convert Jews, only to draw them into the battles among the many Christian sects. In his previously mentioned Enemies of the Talmud, Wolff had aimed an attack at English mission efforts to convert Jews. Jews had been tempted with money and social benefits, such as hospitals; this was supposed to tempt Jews to abandon Judaism. He thought the money the Christians had collected should have spent on adult education for common people instead. Efforts in Copenhagen to convert East European Jews, led by F. Torm, were also under attack from the Jewish congregation of Copenhagen, but Torm comforted his coworkers, saying that this resistance was God-given proof of the value of their work, and proof that it was recognized by God. “Joint Action against the Mission to Israel,” the second of the nine items on the agenda of the first Scandinavian Jewish Youth

243 Lausten, Folkekirken og jøderne, 353–358. H. J. Hansen, Israels Land og Folk i Brydningstiden [Israel, land and people in time of unrest] (1927, 1929). 214 chapter 8

Congress in 1919, bears witness to how seriously Jewish circles took this missionary work. One of the decisions made at the congress was to send a call out to all Jewish youth organizations to establish charities so that young Jews would not have to apply to the Israel Mission for aid. If young Jews did take this aid anyway, they would be excluded by the youth organizations after due warning, and their names would be published in the all-Scandinavian Jewish periodical, Israeliten [The Israelite] to identify them as having accepted help from the Israel Mission.244

Admittance into the Danish Church and into the Jewish Congregation

The conversion of Jews to Christianity has been discussed above, and in many cases it is possible to discern motives for conversion.245 Although the Danish Israel Mission did not work among Danish Jews per se, the organization did have a certain effect on the Jewish refugees who came to Denmark from Eastern Europe at the beginning of the twentieth century. There were about thirty-five such converts from 1900 until about 1935. They were written about in Israelsmissionen, which occasionally carried articles about individual life stories and ‘conversions.’ The purpose was to present these converts, to appeal to Christians to try to influence other Jews, and to appeal for support for these proselytes with prayers, money and other forms of aid. After religious freedom was instituted in 1849, there were also ‘Danish Jews’ who resigned from the Community of the Mosaic Faith and were baptized and accepted into the Danish People’s Church. A notebook in the archives of the Mosaic community contains the names of persons who resigned in the years 1914 to 1921 and also records the dates of their Christian baptisms. It seems that the register was not kept thereafter, however. Since the process of changing religions was not as bureaucratic as it had been previously, it is difficult to locate sources to determine the number of conversions after 1849. A sample of the archives of the Diocese of Zealand for the randomly chosen period 1863 to 1905 revealed that fifty-three Jews were baptized in this period in this diocese alone.246

244 N. N., Betragtninger over Missionen blandt Jøder [Reflections on the missions among the Jews] (Copenhagen, 1868). Lausten, Folkekirken og jøderne, 350–353. Chr. H. Kalkar, Missionen blandt Jøder [Mission among Jews] (Copenhagen, 1868). 245 For more on the conversions see ibid., 359–402. 246 J. P. Mynster 1853, 13. Dansk Kirketidende 29, 1850, 363. The Danish People’s Church and the Jews 215

Conversion could go in the opposite direction, however. In his article of 1850 “Grundlovens Bestemmelser med Hensyn til de kirkelige Forhold i Danmark” (The Constitution’s stipulations in connection with decisions on ecclesiastical matters in Denmark), Bishop Mynster, shaken to the core, wrote that something had happened that would have been considered “incredible” just a short while ago: some Christians had gone over to Judaism.247 In fact quite a few Christians were accepted into the Jewish congregation in Copenhagen at that time. There is a notebook in the archive of the Mosaic community entitled, “Protokol over optagne i Mosaisk Troessamfund” [Records of admissions into the Community of the Mosaic Faith]. The records were kept by Chief Rabbi David Simonsen: “Those accepted into Judaism by me up to December 31, 1902.” Actually the first records came from a list that Chief Rabbi Wolff had kept, the first date being May 19, 1850. On the back cover Simonsen wrote, “My private property.” One hundred and thirteen individuals are listed, seventy-six from Wolff’s time and forty from Simonsen’s time. The information registered was: name, date and place of birth, and names of parents. The grounds for conversion were not mentioned, except when the individual was to be married to a Jewish person. The dates listed show that acceptance into the Jewish Congregation often happened a few days before the wedding. During Wolff’s period in office, fifty-seven of his seventy-six converts were women. Of Simonsen’s forty converts, twenty-two were women. The new Jewish name taken by the proselyte was also recorded. After 1855 both men and women often took the surname Abraham (or Abrahamsdatter for some women) as well as a Jewish given name. For example, Birthe Sophie Petersen, born 1818, accepted into the Community of the Mosaic Faith January 3, 1856, given the name, Sarah Abraham. Later, during the period 1915 to 1927, another record of converts to Judaism was kept by Chief Rabbis Schornstein, Simonsen, and Friediger. The record was organized with columns for date of acceptance, proselyte’s name, date of birth, and annotations. A few years later, parent’s names and sometimes witnesses’ names were also recorded. Some cases involved re-admittance into the faith. This category included thirty-six people, of whom eleven were children under the age of fifteen. Even though the procedures were quite clear, sometimes problems had arisen as to the validity of conversions and inclu- sion in the synagogue or the People’s Church. There was a case in which a boy was both baptized and circumcised; there was a person in the public sphere who went from Judaism to Christianity and then back to Judaism; there was a woman who went from Christianity to Judaism and then back to Christianity; in one case, a boy’s desire to be baptized was not taken into account because

247 J. P. Mynster, Blandede Skrivter [Various Works], 2 (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1853), 13. 216 chapter 8 his mother had protested, but there was also a case in which a child was baptized against his mother’s wishes. Other sources extant from this period are the sermons that were given by priests of the People’s Church at the Christian baptisms of Jewish proselytes.248

Considerations about Conversions and Admittance to the Faith One question had always concerned people of the Church and the Christian missionaries: how could they be certain that the baptisms of Jews were genuine—that is, that each Jew’s motives were legitimate, that the priests performing the baptism also had pure motives and were not driven by the desire to produce as many converts as possible? Were the methods of the Israel Mission not also a form of enticement? Could the society say it is free of this suspicion? Or was their work with Jews based solely on Christian brotherly love and without ulterior motives? Was the social work performed by the mission society among the Russian and Polish Jewish refugees at the beginning of the 1900s not also a form of enticement? Did this not also apply to the reading rooms, cultural arrangements, Christmas parties with presents given out, and the aid to the poor implemented in Eastern Europe with the support of the Danish Israel Mission? Was it fitting to persuade people to change their religion when this entailed so many unfortunate consequences for the person’s family and entire social life? Furthermore, there was the question of how to determine the degree of seriousness of a Jew’s ‘conversion.’ The history of mission work in Denmark, as well as elsewhere, had examples of less than exemplary new Christians. In addition, there were the theological misgivings about missionizing among ‘God’s chosen people,’ the Jews. These and similar questions had been brought up for consideration at intervals since the early days of the Danish Israel Mission. Kalkar summarized the arguments of a number of Protestant theologians who had repudiated direct Christian mission among Jews, including Friederich Schleiermacher, Richard Rothe, Philipp Konrad Marheineke, and Ludwig Harms. Kalkar rejected their criticisms: the goal of the Israel Mission was neither to convert the entire Jewish people nor to create special Jewish Christian (messianic) congregations, but its objective and its hope was take into the congregation those individual souls who wanted to be saved from the yoke of rabbinism and superstition or the desert of unbelief. Within the ranks of the Israel Mission, there was much awareness of the dangers lurking in conversion. Of course they did not question the correctness of Christian missionary work among Jews, but they appealed to each other to exercise caution in their choice of methods. A missionary the society had

248 Lausten, Folkekirken og jøderne, 399–402. The Danish People’s Church and the Jews 217 sent to Rumania, Irenius Fauerholdt, warned his colleagues against performing baptism too soon. In his usual prejudiced, censorious manner, he explained that, in general, Jews were ruled by their instinct for business, so it was therefore best to be cautious; similarly, there were Protestant priests who simply baptized without due deliberation. Emil Clausen, missionary in Przemysl, condemned Jews who feigned a Christian faith, as well as priests and missionaries who baptized Jews without first making sure of their seriousness, condemn- ing the secret baptisms performed by some of them. Baptism ought to be a matter of confession of faith, he thought, but the entire question of the baptism of Jews was a very difficult one. Even though it was not a matter of the quantity of converts, he nevertheless enumerated the Jews who had gone over to Christianity during the 1800s. Parish priest Benjamin Balslev presented a detailed Christian theological rationale for the necessity of baptism, regardless of the cost to the people involved. The editor of the mission society’s periodical, Inge Hofman-Bang, wrote an article directing a strong appeal to Christian congregations to show respect and patience to newly baptized Jews, who often found it difficult to feel at home in Christian congregations; this was largely the fault of the not very Christian behavior of Christians and was also caused by the excessively great expectations the proselytes had for life after baptism.249 A Christian who wished to embrace Judaism could not simply gain admittance in the community. The cases of children of mixed marriages posed special problems in this connection. A result of the previously mentioned law on mixed marriages and the religious affiliation of the children of mixed marriages was that the parents had the right to decide which religion their children were to be brought up in. In a few cases, parents of mixed marriages thought that by referring to the law on freedom of religion they could ‘demand’ that their children be accepted into the Community of the Mosaic Faith, but Chief Rabbi Wolff protested against this. In 1861, the couple Isac Cohn, a Jew, and Lovise Cohn, a Christian, asked Wolff to enter their child into the community’s official records as a member of the Mosaic community, but he refused to do so. When the couple appealed to the ministry, Wolff replied with a long explanation of his refusal. As the case was a matter of principle, and the decision on the case was later referred to, it will be summarized here. Wolff stated that in matters concerning children of mixed marriages, Jewish law follows the mother’s affiliation: 1) If she is Jewish and is married to a Christian, her children cannot be

249 Kalkar, Israel og Kirken, 373–379. Irenius Fauerholdt, Israelsmissionen, Apr. 1909, 57–60. Benjamin Balslev, ibid., July 1928, 151–157; Inge Hofman–Bang, ibid., Sept. 1928, 182–186; Dec. 1934. 218 chapter 8 denied acceptance into the Mosaic community, and no ceremony is needed other than those usual for children both of whose parents are Jewish. 2) If the mother is Christian, the child is regarded as Christian unless the mother converts to Judaism after the child’s birth. In that case the acceptance of the child into the community would take place in accordance with the same ceremonies held for adult proselytes. 3) Nevertheless, children are denied acceptance if they are not immediately brought into the home of, and under the supervision of, a Jewish family. This is to assure that the child be brought up in Judaism. We believe, he concluded, that the first seeds of religion are planted in the heart of the child by its mother during the first five years of life. It would not be possible for a Christian mother who had been brought up in and confirmed in Christianity to distance herself from the Christian religion’s concepts, principles and views. They would always be visible to the child in expressions and customs, and would thus influence the child’s mind; this would be true as long as the mother was not brought into the faith which disagrees with Christianity “in matters of dogma.” Judaism is not interested in proselytes but adheres to the principle that everyone should keep to his or her religion. Acceptance into the faith cannot occur if the desire for conversion is based on worldly motives. Wolff was dubious about Cohn’s assertion that his wife could imagine becoming a member of the Mosaic faith. In a conversation with Cohn, he had told him the requirements for conversion, and had also told him that the name Cohn denotes that he was a descendent of Aaron, and thus, according to tradition, he ought not marry a proselyte! Cohn had even chosen to get married at Frederiksberg Church. This upset the chief rabbi, who asked why they had not at least opted for a civil wedding. Did this not mean that they were making a mockery of religion, of the servants of the church, and the holy altar of the Lord? You cannot change religions as if you were changing your clothing. The Constitution did indeed grant everyone freedom of religion, but no one can force a clergyman to accept into his congregation people in whom he cannot see a really devout longing to take this step. Without appending a comment, the Board of Representatives of the Jewish community sent Wolff’s long explanation to the Ministry of Culture, which replied to the Board with its decision. Cohn received the decision from the offices of the City Council. The ministry would not, and could not, order Wolff to accept the child into his congregation. Wolff’s long detailed explanation was not gone into. Later, when Simonsen was chief rabbi, a few similar cases surfaced, and he followed Wolff’s example. The Board of Representatives was in agreement with the chief rabbi; he had the sole right to make such decisions.250

250 Lausten, Folkekirken og jøderne, 381–387. The Danish People’s Church and the Jews 219

A remarkable debate about Christians converting to Judaism developed in the press in 1913, when it was reported that eight young Christian women were going to lessons held by Chief Rabbi Max Schornstein in preparation to being accepted into the Community of the Mosaic Faith. The chairman of the Board of Representatives, Carl H. Melchior, refuted the rumor in the Berlingske Tidende on the grounds that Judaism did not pursue proselytes. This induced Bishop Poulsen to ask what evidence he had that Judaism did not practice proselytization. He was of the opinion that the reformist Jews in Germany were interested in mission, and described reports of Judaism’s world mission. To be on the safe side, Melchior asked Chief Rabbi Schornstein to reply, and Schornstein explained, first of all, that Judaism does not missionize because it has a fundamental belief that the pious and just of all nations will share eternal life, that is, that Judaism differs from other religions, which are obligated to missionize in order to convert unbelievers. In addition, the attempt to find proselytes involves the danger that both parties might easily come to compromise their beliefs, for example by trying to please their counterparts, or for the sake of material advantages. He also explained that Judaism tried to guard against proselytes who were not sincere about converting. In practice, this was done by warning the non-Jew who had applied to be accepted; he or she was informed of the many difficulties and disadvantages that would arise. These warnings were repeated several times, but if the individual was determined in his or her desire, the proselyte would be recommended for acceptance. Judaism did not seek non-believers by means of “agents,” but by means of an inherent power to attract new-comers, and by the exemplary life to which it leads its faithful. That is how it happened in ancient times, when the Old Testament was translated into Greek, with the result that a multitude of heathens converted to Judaism. Schornstein pointed out that without this preparatory work paving the way to conversion, and without the shining example of exemplary Jewish men, the rapid progress that early Christianity had made among the heathens would not have been possible. Again in the Middle Ages, Judaism exercised a powerful attraction, and Schornstein’s opinion was that the cause of the many persecutions of the Jews was the fear Christian priests had of this attraction. Unfortunately information on further contact between the correspondents is missing, except for a fragment that suggests that Melchior had sent Schornstein’s explanation on to Bishop Poulsen. The lively traffic of conversions from Judaism to Christianity and the other way around kindled a certain unease among the clergy of the two faiths, and as early as in 1852, priests in Copenhagen requested that the Ministry of Culture keep records of individuals who left the People’s Church, but both Bishop Mynster and the ministry rejected the idea. Later the Mosaic community asked to be informed by the ministry when a Jewish person applied to join 220 chapter 8 the People’s Church. The ministry asked the various bishops, but they could not arrive at a consensus about it. Some of them were in favor of the suggestion, though they only wanted notice to be given after the baptism had actually taken place. Others were completely against it, and Harald Ostenfeld, bishop of Zealand, thought it should be up to the individual proselyte to decide whether or not to inform the rabbi. In this connection, the Ministry informed the Board of Representatives in 1920 that the suggestion could not be put into effect, because “it would face difficulties.”251

251 Ibid., 362–364. 370–371. “Omvendelse til Jødedommen” (Conversion to Judaism), Folkets Avis [People’s News] Oct. 31, 1913. “Interview med Carl H. Melchior” (Interview of Carl H. Melchior) Berlingske Tidende [Berling’s times], Nov. 6, 1913. chapter 9 Sympathy for Jews and Hatred of Jews in the Danish People’s Church (ca. 1900–1948)

The State of Affairs within the Jewish Community

At the turn of the twentieth century the outlook was gloomy as far as membership in the Jewish community was concerned. Assimilation, mixed marriages, and low birthrate were some of the causes of the decline, and the Danish congregation seemed to be facing extinction. By 1901 the Jewish population of Copenhagen was down to 3,065. But this situation changed when a large number of Jewish refugees immigrated to Denmark from Russia and Eastern Europe, fleeing from murder, persecution, miserable socio-economic conditions, and fear of conscription into the Russo-Japanese War. They came in waves, but it is believed that between 10,000 and 12,000 arrived between 1882 and 1914. Most of them travelled further, but about 3,000 remained in Denmark. With their numbers, the Jewish population had swelled to almost 6,000 in 1921. The varied group, called ‘the Russian Jews’ in Denmark, were foreign in more than a geographical sense. They came from different Jewish cultures, had their own dialects, cuisines, dress, and also different religious practices from the Jews of Copenhagen.252 The established Jewish community regarded them with skepticism. Other tensions were caused by a friction between the Russian Jews and Danish trade unions, which regarded Danish Jews as almost completely assimilated. However, we must not forget that attitudes toward the immigrants were not always unsympathetic. Among others, Chief Rabbi Schornstein, Professor Simonsen, and the physician Dr. Louis Frænkel organized a great deal of humanitarian aid. During their early years in Copenhagen, the Russian Jews created their own ghetto-like, Yiddish-speaking community with their own synagogues in the run-down streets around Pilestræde, Landemærket and Vognmagergade. They had their own magazines, newspapers, as well as organizations for a comprehensive array of cultural activities, such as theater, music, and sports. But with time, these refugees adapted to, and also trans- formed, the original Danish Jewish community. Morten Thing, the scholar who has done the most research on this subject, calls the period up to 1943, the

252 Morten Thing, De russiske Jøder i Copenhagen 1882–1943 [Russian Jews in Copenhagen 1882–1943] (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 2008), 116–121.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004304376_010 222 chapter 9 age of integration, and the period after 1945, the age of assimilation, during which Yiddish cultural milieu gradually withered. The Russian Jews became integrated into Danish society much as the original Jews had done, and the present Mosaic community consists largely of their descendants. Finally, the Nazi persecutions of the 1930s brought about 4,500 more Jewish refugees to Denmark, although about 3,000 of them fled elsewhere at the beginning of the German occupation of Denmark in 1940. The Community of the Mosaic Faith was troubled by the number of members withdrawing from the community. In the years 1933 to 1946, 246 members left, with no fewer than eighty-three of them leaving in 1945 and 1946. They were naturally not obliged to give their reason for leaving, and only thirty- seven of them wrote that they had converted to Christianity. It was supposed that most of them were influenced by the catastrophes caused by the Nazi persecution of Jews starting in 1933. Rabbi Marcus Melchior reacted very strongly against these withdrawals. A very passionate debate ensued in the periodical Jødisk Samfund [Jewish society]. The rabbi said he could perhaps respect the Jews who converted to Christianity, but not the Jews who resigned from the community for other, “absolutely abominable,” motives; he went so far as to call them Jewish anti-Semites.253

The Office of Rabbi With his sixty-year-long period in office, Chief Rabbi Wolff made his mark on Danish Jewry, and his influence was felt for a long time—to a certain degree all the way up to our time. In 1892, he was succeeded by Simonsen, who had been highly educated abroad, where he had been offered various positions. But Simonsen soon left his post, as early as 1902, in order to devote himself to scholarship. He became a leading scholar of Jewish theology and philology, but he also threw himself into refugee aid for the Russian Jewish refugees. In 1903, Tobias Lewenstein, chief rabbi of The Hague, took his place. The contract he and the community signed stated that his position was life-long, and that he, as chief rabbi was the supreme authority in all religious matters concerning the congregation. Shortly after he took his position, the congregation realized that Lewenstein’s view of Judaism was a stringently orthodox one, which the majority of the congregation in Copenhagen did not share, having been “brought up” under Rabbi Wolff’s mediating position. Friction between the chief rabbi and the congregation and its Board of Representatives became extremely serious and painful. One of their disagreements was about the

253 Jødisk Samfund [Jewish society], Feb. 1946, 3; Apr. 1946, 5–8; May 1946, 9.12.13; June 1946, 2–3. Sympathy For Jews And Hatred Of Jews 223

children of mixed marriages of Christians and Jews. The Jewish practice was that a child’s religion was contingent on his or her mother’s religion. Thus, there was no problem if a Jewish mother desired that her child be brought into the Jewish community. But if the mother were Christian, and the father Jewish, the child was considered Christian; even so, it had become normal practice to bend the rule and accept such a child into the Copenhagen congregation, if this was sincerely desired. Lewenstein would not do this, however. He required that a child who was to be considered for acceptance had been brought up as a Jew in a home in which the Jewish laws about kosher food were kept and that the child had received instruction in Orthodox Judaism. One concrete case let loose a virulent debate and resulted in members leaving the congregation in protest against the rabbi. Another dispute involved holding Great Prayer Day. This is a holiday still held by the Danish People’s Church in the fourth week after Easter. Wolff had adopted a parallel prayer day in 1832, in a Jewish context, of course, in order to demonstrate that Judaism was a Danish religion on an equal footing with Christianity. He had also made other innovations of that kind in connection with other matters. Lewenstein demanded that the holiday be removed from the calendar: it was un-Jewish; the prayer day had a “Christian and national character,” indeed it was a desecration to hold it in the synagogue. Nonetheless, the Board of Representatives wanted to retain the prayer day. Still another disagreement surfaced when the chief rabbi accused the cantor of carrying an umbrella on the Sabbath. Lewenstein had precipitously changed the rites for weddings and funerals. There was even more friction when a second rabbi, Max Schornstein, was hired in 1906. His outlook was unlike Lewenstein’s, and he felt harassed by him. This all ended dramatically with the dismissal of the chief rabbi. The case that Lewenstein brought against the board for breach of contract went all the way to the highest court in Denmark and ended with Lewenstein’s victory. The congregation had to pay him a significant sum of money, but it ended almost a decade of strife that had been played out “in a degrading fashion for all parties.”254 Schornstein, who took over and held the position of chief rabbi for almost ten years from 1909 to 1919, put a great deal of effort into aiding the Jews fleeing from Russia and Eastern Europe, and strove to maintain and reinforce the integration of Jews into society.255 However, the relationship between Schornstein and the Board of Representatives went

254 Marcus Melchior, Levet og oplevet. Erindringer [Lived and experienced. Memoirs], 2nd ed. (Copenhagen: Hirschsprung 1965), 45. 255 Max Schornstein, Festprædiken i Anledning af Hundredaars-Jubilæet [Principal speech on the occasion of the centenary] (Copenhagen 1914). 224 chapter 9 badly. Friction developed, he became ill, and fell into disgrace when he unin- tentionally broke an embargo on exporting goods by sending a parcel to his family in destitute Austria. He left his post in 1919, and was replaced by Max Friediger, a Hungarian who had earned his doctor of philosophy degree and had passed his rabbinical examinations in Berlin. He was loyal to traditional Judaism, but sought to unite the factions, and he also was in favor of greater fellowship with the Christian world. He held his position from 1920 to 1947. When a favorable opportunity arose (1935) to hire a second, equally well-educated rabbi, Marcus Melchior, who had led the Jewish religious school since 1934, Friediger turned it down.256 Friediger was to lead the congregation during the time when anti-Semitism gained power in Denmark and when the German occupation forces carried out their action to round up Danish Jews in 1943. Friediger was himself deported to the Theresienstadt concentration camp. We will come back to this later. The conflict between Orthodox Jews and more progressive Jews, now almost a century old, continued. The dismissal of the very orthodox Chief Rabbi Lewenstein did not reduce tensions, and finally, the strictly Orthodox Jews started their own society, Machsike Hadas, (literally, those who firmly uphold the law), Forening til Varetagelse af den ortodoxe Jødedom i Danmark (Society to Safeguard Orthodox Judaism in Denmark). The goals stated in their statutes are to establish and maintain necessary institutions for a Jewish congregation in accordance with the laws and rules of Orthodox Judaism as they have been handed down in the Torah and the Talmud and expressed in the code of Jewish law, Schulchan Aruch. To be sure there was no ambiguity with respect to the society’s direction, they wrote that they would maintain the synagogue opened by the rabbi, Dr. Lewenstein, and would appoint a rabbi known to have strong orthodox leanings. In 1914 they chose the German Rabbi and doctor of philosophy Michael Schalom Siegfried Winckler. Their first synagogue was at 7 Nørregade in Copenhagen. They were dissatisfied with the slaughter ritual of the congregation of the main synagogue in Krystalgade, but their prolonged applications for official recognition of a butcher of their own were in vain. When Winckler died during a visit to New York, Wolf B. Jacobsen of Hamburg was engaged as rabbi. Although he and Melchior did not agree on Zionism, they overcame the earlier high tensions between the two synagogues, and could collaborate on the book, Glimt af Jødedom [Glimpse of Judaism], 1941. Marcus Melchior and almost all the Danish Jews fled to Sweden in October

256 Melchior, Levet og oplevet, 208. Sympathy For Jews And Hatred Of Jews 225

1943, and Marcus Melchior was appointed as rabbi for them there.257 During this exile from 1943 to 1945, Jacobsen was appointed second rabbi under Marcus Melchior. After the German defeat, the exiled Jews returned to Denmark in the spring of 1945, and when Max Friediger passed away in 1947, Marcus Melchior was hired as Chief Rabbi.258

Jewish School of Religion Enrollment at the School of Religion of 1853 (see p. 177) had risen and fallen in waves. There had been crises at the end of the nineteenth century, but enrollment now rose, so there were 150 pupils in 1940. Pedagogical innovations were made; teaching material was published; the use of Danish hymns was suggested; a course for instructors, lasting many months, was outlined; and in 1909 Rabbi Schornstein had written a new textbook.259 For its time, it was an excellent, concise, pedagogically sound presentation of the most important topics of Judaism. Important words, concepts and biblical texts were cited in Hebrew, accompanied by a Danish translation. In an appendix, there were two hundred set questions for pedagogical use of the material. Later in 1920, Friediger also published a textbook,260 but in spite of this, Schornstein’s older textbook was republished until as late as 1958. The goal of the school, Friediger asserted in 1920, was to convince the pupils that Judaism had prepared for the future development of humankind and had laid the foundation of human culture. This instruction was meant to awaken a spirit of belief in the children, a religious feeling; it was supposed to strengthen moral understanding, consolidate willpower, and bring about firm devotion to Judaism. In addition to subjects common to all schools, Hebrew would be taught, so that the children could follow the texts used in religious services, and there was also instruction in the main principles of the Talmud. In 1934 Marcus Melchior had been appointed to the leader of the school, which in 1940 counted 150 pupils.261

257 See below p. 251. Bo Lidegaard, Countrymen. The untold story of how Denmark’s Jews escaped the Nazis (London: Atlantic Books, 2014). 258 Martin Schwarz Lausten, Jødesympati og jødehad i folkekirken ca. 1900–1948 [Sympathy for Jews and hatred of Jews in the Danish People’s Church ca. 1900–1948] (Copenhagen: Forlaget Anis, 2007), 17–38. 259 Max Schornstein, Ledetraad ved Undervisningen i Den jødiske Religion [Guide to education in the Jewish religion] (Copenhagen, 1909), 2nd ed. 1958. 260 Max Friediger, Lærebog i den jødiske Religion [Textbook of the Jewish religion] (Copenhagen, 1920). 261 Lausten, Jødesympati og jødehad, 38–44. 226 chapter 9

Christian Theologians and Zionism

In his manifesto Der Judenstaat [The Jewish state] of 1896, Theodor Herzl (1860–1904) declared: “The idea I am developing in this pamphlet is an ancient one: the idea of establishing a Jewish state.” He disapproved of the ghetto mentality, which had estranged Jews from others and had made them dependent on the mercy and goodwill of others while they were awaiting the advent of the Messiah. But he was also against the opposite situation, assimilation, which resulted in Jews being absorbed entirely into the surrounding society and adopting its behavior, language, customs, and dress. The Jewish people must now be mobilized as a people. At first, he had a rather open mind on the choice of the country in which Jews should acquire land and build up a state. He mentioned Palestine and Argentina, and the English suggested Uganda, but in the end, he preferred Palestine, because, he wrote, it was the not-to-be-forgotten, historical home of the Jews. The name alone would be a tremendously stirring rallying cry for the Jewish people. He took for granted that those Jews who migrated to Palestine would be religious Jews, who would mobilize around their rabbis, because only from within the faith of their fathers could they acknowledge their historic fellowship. However, he rejected the notion of establishing a theocracy; the new state was to have freedom of religion.262 At the international First Zionist Congress in Basel it was agreed that Zionism would work to acquire an officially legally recognized homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, brought Zionism into a new phase as the English government declared that it viewed with favor the establishment of a national homeland for Jews in Palestine and would make the greatest efforts to facilitate the attainment of this goal. But the civil and religious rights of the resident non-Jews must not be infringed upon. Jewish immigration to Palestine now increased. There were about 85,000 Jews there just before the First World War broke out. In Denmark, Louis Frænkel founded the Danish Zionist Society in 1903. Other significant members were Josef Nachemsohn, Henri Nathansen—author of the play about Danish Jews, “Inden for Murene” [Within the walls]—and in 1917 Georg Brandes also supported Jewish settlement in Palestine. During the First World War, Denmark, a neutral country, played a part in Zionism when the office of the international Zionist movement was opened in Copenhagen at 10 Hyskenstræde, and the

262 Theodor Herzl, Den jødiske Stat, med Forord af Ben Gurion [The Jewish State, with a fore- word by Ben Gurion] (Copenhagen: Hertz, 1955); The Jewish State (London: Penguin, 2010). Sympathy For Jews And Hatred Of Jews 227

“Bulletins of the Copenhagen Office of the Zionist Organization” was sent out from that address. The Balfour Declaration was ratified by the League of Nations, which in 1922 gave the England the mandate to administer Palestine. The various dramatic consequences of Jewish immigration into Palestine are beyond the scope to this book.

But What Did Christians in Denmark Have to Do with Jewish Immigration to Palestine? Quite a lot, in fact. The basic feature of the relationship between Christians and Jews was the idea—and still is for some—that ancient Palestine was the ‘Holy Land,’ that is to say, the land of the Christians, and everyone understood that the Jews would someday ‘return’ there. Early on, Jerusalem was referred to as Zion. Christians could read—for example, in Psalm 137—about the significance Zion had for the Jews, and when they read “your children are hastening back” in Isaiah 49:17, they understood this to mean that the Jews would someday return to Jerusalem, Zion. In Isaiah 2 they read that at the end of days, all peoples will journey to Jerusalem and worship the Lord. In the New Testament in Matthew 21:5, Jerusalem is called the daughter of Zion, and in Romans 11:26 Paul wrote that the Jews, too, will be saved—as will Christians—because salvation will come from Zion. Zion appears many times in the Danish Hymnal. When the Danish poet Kingo wrote “Up Zion, unlock the gate and the door to your heart (hymn 85 in the current Danish hymnal), this was a call to Jews to convert to Christianity. Similarly, when Grundtvig wrote “Up Zion, do you not see / the palm-leaf-strewn path of victory?” (Hymn 380), he was saying that salvation was also meant for the Jews, on the condition that they first became Christians, of course. In the hymn, “Zion’s watchmen raise their voices/ Wake up, there’s lightening in the east, / Wake up, City of God, Jerusalem” (hymn 268), the author has both Jerusalem and Christians in mind. The hymn, translated into Danish by the previously mentioned Frederik Hammerich, is still a standard in Denmark. It is no wonder that a movement with the name ‘Zionism’ elicited response from various factions of the Danish People’s Church. Ferdinand Munck of the Danish Israel Mission was one of the first to react; he had already described Hertzl’s movement in 1899. While he admitted that Zionism contained great values, he also said that it displayed the defiance and conceit of the Jewish people, who refused to see that salvation was found only in Jesus Christ. The condemnation of God still lay upon the Jewish people, because they had rejected Jesus as the Christ. This was to be the position taken by Israel Mission. The idea of Zionism could only be realized if the Jews converted to Christianity, “There was only one path for Israel to reach Zion: 228 chapter 9

conversion and belief in the Lord and Christ; the Jews’ rejection of him had resulted in their becoming a homeless people.”263 Emil Clausen, the missionary who had worked among the Jews of Poland, reiterated that true Zionism was Christian Zionism, and he believed that the Zionist movement would be struck by the terrible condemnation of God. The movement clearly showed that Jews were motivated by feelings of “racial arrogance and hostility.” Therefore, God was going to allow future persecutions of the Jews in order to drive the Jews toward the Christian faith.264 These opinions were followed up by comments on the numerous news reports on Zionism in the periodical Israelsmission. “The return of Israel to the Holy Land is intrinsically dependent, according to all prophecy, on their conversion as a people to Christ,” declared Hofman-Bang, the editor of the magazine, who repeated this opinion in many articles.265 But in 1939 Frederik Torm, chairman of the organization since 1921, took a more balanced view. Jews did not have more right to the country than the Arabs, who had lived there for 1,300 years, and the Zionist dream of a “Jewish state” in Palestine, would remain a dream for now, he thought.266 Clergy of the Inner Mission took the same view, admitting that Zionism had strengthened the national consciousness of the Jewish people and thus had hindered their dissolution as a people, which was a good thing, for God had a special plan for them. Zionism would experience a collapse, because it was not built upon the cornerstone, Jesus Christ. Chairman Carl Moe thought that the Zionist movement would not succeed until the hour of God arrived. In 1919 the very influential priest and author, C. A. Skovgaard-Petersen wrote that Zionism was beneficial in a worldly sense, and the Balfour Declaration showed that prophecies of the Old Testament were beginning to be fulfilled, but that immigration to Israel had been a fiasco. If the Jews did not turn to Christianity, this attempt would forever fail, for only a reborn Israel, who looked to Him, whom they had pierced, would inherit Palestine.267 The same tone was heard

263 Ferdinand Munck, “Israel og Israelsmissionen” [Israel and the Israel mission], in Nordisk Missionstidsskrift [Nordic mission journal], 1. ser., 1899, 149–172. Alfred Svejstrup Poulsen, Den 10de Zionistkongres [The 10th Zionist Congress], 3rd ser., 1, 1912, 87–91. 264 Nordisk Missionstidsskrift, 3rd ser., 3, 1914, 33–46. Emil Clausen, Det nye Palestina [New Palestine] (Copenhagen: J. Frimodts Forlag, 1918). 265 Inge Hofman-Bang, “Jerusalem erobret” ( Jerusalem conquered), in Israelsmissionen Jan. 1918, 3–5. 266 Frederik Torm, Israelsmissionskonferencer i Buda-Pest og Warschav Apr. 1927 [Conferences for the Israelmission in Budapest and Warschau]. Ibid., 3rd ser., 39, 1928, 34–47. 267 Carl Moe, “De tørre Ben” [The dry bones] in Indre Missions Tidende 72, no. 22, 1925, 253– 256. C. A. Skovgaard-Petersen, Troestanker i onde Tider [Faith in God in bad times] (1916), 101–116; Landet, hvor Kilderne Sprang vol., 2, 20. 377–400. Sympathy For Jews And Hatred Of Jews 229 from other voices of the period in Inner Mission’s periodical, for example from H. C. Vedsted, S. C. Eriksen and F. W. Steinthal. As early as the late 1880s the organ of the Grundtvigians, Dansk Kirketidende and its successor Menighedsbladet [Congregation news] had begun to report on Jewish settlement in Palestine and the strength of Zionism, though anonymous articles expressed some skepticism about “the national sentiments of Jewry.” But an important series of dissenting articles by Alfred Nielsen were published in the late 1930s. Nielsen had done missionary work among Muslims in Syria for many years. He rejected Zionism and immigration, but consciously avoided arguing from a religious standpoint. The great mistake was to set all this in motion against the wishes and hopes of the Arab population. He also distanced himself polemically from the Church circles mentioned above, because the New Jerusalem was to be understood as the spiritual Jerusalem, and one could not transfer prophecies of the Old Testament to the contemporary political situation, in which Jews were going to seize control of Palestine by doing violence and injustice to the Arabs. When Grundtvig wrote the hymn, “In the new Jerusalem / In the great city of kings / Let us all build” (number 332 in the Danish Hymnal), he was speaking in metaphor. He was speaking about a kingdom of God to be built in the congregation of Christ, not about the actual situation in Palestine.268 After 1945, the Danish People’s Church showed a renewed interest in immigration to Palestine and the establishment of the state of Israel, which will be discussed later.

Groupings within the Danish People’s Church and Anti-Semitism (before 1940)

The concept of anti-Semitism was first used as a political war cry by the German journalist Wilhelm Marr in 1879, although the word had been used many years earlier. While there had been religious motives before, now anti-Judaism was supplemented by economic and political factors, and Marr regarded Jews from a racial viewpoint. He felt that they had already almost conquered the German people, and he urged that the law be used to limit the expansion of the Jews and to isolate them. Repercussions of German anti-Semitism reached Denmark in the early 1900s. A. Hagensen wrote Den jødiske Periode [The Jewish era] declaring that this was the correct name for the period of 1864 to 1900, and that George Brandes (see p. 182) bore the greatest responsibility for it. There

268 Alfred Nielsen, Palæstina og den kongelige Kommission [Palestine and the Royal Commis- sion], Copenhagen 1936, 1937, 1939. 230 chapter 9 was an insurmountable racial difference between Jews and Danes, he averred. It was a complete misunderstanding to believe that one should be tactful and ignore this difference, because it was high time to realize that the word ‘Jew’ represented a peculiar, strange race.269 Another such piece was presented by doctor of philosophy Konrad Simonsen, who mustered his racist and anti- Semitic views for an attack on Georg Brandes. The race must be kept clean. Georg Brandes thought that he could deny his Judaism, but that was impossible, because blood was what determined the attributes of a people: no one could free himself from his heritage. When Brandes fought for artistic and intellectual freedom and went against religion and authority, you could see that he involuntarily revealed himself to be a Jew; he displayed the despotic nature of his race, its restless ambition, its alert and manipulating intelligence, both pedestrian and propagandistic. But we had to free ourselves from this, promote the Danish spirit, and the result will be that the Danish spirit in our culture will conquer the Jewish spirit.270 Danish anti-Semites organized in 1917, founding the Dansk Forening til Fremmedelementers Begrænsning (Danish Society for Limiting Foreign Elements). Jews had to be fought as the parasites they were in order to avoid their seizure of all power in Denmark by means of their worldwide network, declared the chairman, the sculptor Rasmus Bøgebjerg. Immigration into Denmark, and the ability for immigrants to attain the rights of citizenship, must be limited. In 1919 the society was renamed Danskerligaen (The Danish league) and Bishop Martensen’s anti-Jewish publications were reprinted in the first issue of its periodical, Dansk nationalt Tidsskrift [Danish national journal]. They also urged for an uprising against Jewry, that Asiatic foreign element, and against its arrogance. Bøgebjerg’s successor, Hans Brunøe, followed this up with articles in which he disparaged specific Danish Jews by name, and in the book he published in 1919, Danskerne og de andre eller Jøder og Jøders Arbejde iblandt os [Danes and the others, or Jews and the work of Jews among us], he explained that we original Danes must combat the Jews as the “guests” they were in our country. Upholding the original Danish Church, built upon Him who swung the lash over the Jews in their Temple was an important part of this battle. He also printed a long excerpt from Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies. We should not pray for the Jews, as some in Church circles encouraged, because they were murderers, who had had blood on their hands throughout

269 A. Hagensen, Den jødiske Periode [The Jewish era] (Copenhagen: Jespersens Forlag), 1904, 5–9. 270 Konrad Simonsen, Georg Brandes: Jødisk Aand i Danmark [George Brandes: Jewish Spirit in Denmark] (Copenhagen: Nationale Forfatteres Forlag, 1913), 7–19, 114–129. Sympathy For Jews And Hatred Of Jews 231 their entire existence.271 At the same time Gudrun Rørdam, under the pseudonym Lauritz Carlsen, published Jødefaren. De verdensberygtede Jødiske protokoller [The Jewish peril: The notorious Jewish protocols]. It was later published under the title Zions Vises Protokoller [The Protocols of the Elders of Zion], a work that used falsified references to prove that Jews desired to seize world domination, which, as the publisher explained, was why this race, on account of its unmistakable racial traits, must be rendered harmless. Other anti-Semitic articles were published in the newspaper, Jyllands-Posten [the Jutland post] by the zoologist Hans Jacob Hansen, who, in a piece published in 1923, had referred to the previously mentioned professor and bishop, Fredrik Nielsen, demanding a pure Danish race, sarcastically pointing out the fact that there were clergymen, even in the Danish People’s Church, of Jewish ancestry.272 Another group was “Det unge Danmark” (Young Denmark) in which young conservatives such as Ole Bjørn Kraft, Alfred Bindslev, J. Christmas Møller and Vagn Bro fought for a new Denmark built on Christianity and turned against foreign influence in Danish culture and commerce, declaring themselves in agreement with many of the views of the Danish League, even recommending its magazine.273 In Young Denmark’s own periodical, Den ny Tid [The new time], the group quite consistently printed articles of nationalistic, anti-Semitic, and racist content written by, among others, Thorkild Gravlund, Gudmund Schütte, and Alfred Råvad. Remarkably, that journal also carried articles by churchmen who later became members of parliament, some of whom later became members of the resistance movement against Nazism, for example, Hans Ostenfeld Lange, Michael Neiiendam, Halfdan Høgsbro, and Tage Schack.

Nazi Anti-Semitism in Denmark After Hitler gained power in Germany in January 1933, attitudes toward Judaism and Jews underwent a dramatic change because now it became possible that anti-Semitism, marginalization, exclusion, and extermination of Jews, essential elements of Nazi ideology, could be put into practice in the areas where Nazis were in power. This development has been much studied and described

271 Rasmus Bøgebjerg, Jødisk Aand [Jewish Spirit] (Copenhagen, 1917). Bøgebjerg, “Uddrag af Biskop H. Martensens Etik.” vol. 2 (Excerpts from Bishop Martensens Book on Ethics) in, Dansk Nationalt Tidsskrift [Danish National Journal]. vol. 1, June 1919, no. 1, 4. Hans Brunøe, “Bonden. Nationen” (The Farmer. The Nation) in Dansk Nationalt Tidsskrift [Danish national journal], Aug. 1920, 118–121; Sept. 1920, 144–146; Nov. 1920, 165–169. Danskerne og de andre [The Danes and the others] 1919, 6–15. 29–47. 121–126. 272 Hans Jacob Hansen, Jødespørgsmaalet [The Jewish Question] (Copenhagen, 1923), 41–47. 273 N. N., Den nye Tid [ New Times] 13, 1919, 155. 232 chapter 9 and will not be repeated here. Anti-Semitism was an important idea in the official government-backed Protestant Church that was loyal to the Third Reich. This ‘German Christian’ movement strove for a synthesis of Nazism and Christianity, with anti-Semitism as one of its most important points. However, a protesting group of priests was formed as early as the autumn of 1933 and was solidified in the Confessing Church movement, which made a declaration of strong opposition to Nazi falsification of Christianity in 1934 in the town of Barmen. This was followed by a battle for the Church, resulting in internal schism and government intervention, which included imprisonments, deportations, and executions. There was great popular support for Hitler, and the failure of Germany’s Evangelical Church to protest against the Nazi regime’s anti-Semitism and brutal extermination of Jews, is one of the most shameful blemishes on its reputation. A few protested in peril of their lives, while some well-known Lutheran theologians wrote books and articles urging obedience to Hitler, the lawful worldly authority, and supporting the government’s policy of violence toward Jews. The former leader of the Danish Boy Scouts and cavalry officer, Cai Lembcke, spent time in various small, fascistic, anti-parliamentary groups in the 1920s, and in November 1930 he founded Danmarks Nationalsocialistiske Arbejderparti (Denmark’s National Socialist Workers’ Party or DNSAP). The party program stated that the Danish people now had to free itself from “world domination by the Jewish materialistic spirit.” Only “members of the Danish folk” could be Danish citizens; they were the only ones “of Danish blood. Jews are not fellow Danes.” Immigration of “non-Danes” must be stopped. As early as 1932, there was a schism when the leader of the party, Wilfred Petersen, broke away and created his own Nazi party, the National Socialistisk Parti (National Socialist Party), later called the Dansk Socialistisk Parti (Danish Socialist Party), which later (in 1942) was combined with other small parties to become the markedly anti-Semitic Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People’s Party, not to be confused with the present-day Dansk Folkeparti). After a coup, Frits Clausen became leader of the DNSAP, and in 1935, the translator Aage H. Andersen broke away to found his own, National Socialistisk Arbejderparti (National Socialist Workers’ Party), a name which he again exchanged for the Dansk Antijødisk Liga (Danish Anti-Jewish League) in 1941, shortly thereafter changing the name again to the Dansk Liga til Fremme af Racebevidstheden (Danish League for the Promotion of Race-Consciousness), which published the periodicals Kamptegnet [Battle flag] and Racetjeneste [Race service] . With these developments, Denmark had a movement that agi- tated for the most rabid, racist anti-Semitism. Kamptegnet attacked Jews, gave specific names and addresses of Danish Jews, encouraged harassment and Sympathy For Jews And Hatred Of Jews 233 assault, called for the establishment of labor camps, the use of the death penalty, etc. The archives of the Danish Anti-Jewish League were seized during the Liberation and are now in the National Archives in Copenhagen.274

How Well Informed was the Danish Church? What did the congregations and the clergy know about Nazi anti-Semitism, violent German policies against Jews, and the situation within the German Church? Early on, the newspaper Kristeligt Dagblad [Christian daily news] carried informative articles on anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews in Germany. The same was true of Præsteforeningens Blad [Journal of the Danish union of clergy]. This was, and is to this day, a weekly magazine for members of the professional organization, carrying news, reviews, articles on theology, discussions, biographical articles and classified advertisements of positions. It is sent to almost every priest in the country, and during the years 1933 to 1937, parish priest Jens Holdt from Bredebro wrote about developments in the German Church. He read countless German books and periodicals and had personal contacts in the country, but being firmly wedded to a Grundtvigian standpoint, in which ‘national folk culture’ played such a central role, Holdt felt sure that what was happening in the German church was a breakthrough for national culture. Thus in many ways he was sympathetic toward the ‘German Christians.” He was certainly not a Nazi; he distanced himself from many dubious practices, and from the extremist faction of the ‘German Christians,’ but he had no sympathy for the Confessing Church movement and its uncompromising stand. He particularly did not like Karl Barth, did not waste many words on the Barmen Declaration, and thought generally that the combatants in the Church battle should each give in, because “both sides” had some good points. He neglected to inform his readers about German anti-Semitism and the official practices in Germany concerning Jews—all this quite apart from the fact that he misjudged the situation time after time, not least when he spoke about the future. But it is notable that during the 1930s there was growing dissatisfaction among the Danish clergy with Holdt’s news about the situation in Germany. After a meeting of the board of directors of the priests’ organization, the minutes read: “Since complaints have been submitted to Nedergaard [editor of the magazine] about Pastor Holdt of Brede, the journal’s reporter on Germany, he has suggested that in the future these articles be handled by Professor F. Torm.”275 Undeniably, this replacement had far-reaching consequences. Now

274 Lausten, Jødesympati og jødehad, 163–170, 303. 275 Jørgen Stenbæk, Præsternes Forening gennem 100 år [One hundred years of the association of priests] (Copenhagen 1999), 156–158. 234 chapter 9 the magazine had a reporter who focused on the German opposition and who related everything having to do with the situation of the Jews. He described the deportations to concentration camps, and the German government’s “shock- ing” policy on Jews. He reported on the ban on preaching, the imprisonment of priests, the problem of Lutheran obedience to worldly authorities, and a great deal more. Paul Nedergaard, the editor of the magazine, and parish priest G. Sparring-Petersen also wrote any articles on similar subjects. Another source of news was the Menighedsraadenes Blad [Journal of parish councils], which was sent—and still is—to more or less all members of all parish councils in Denmark. Until 1939 the editor was the Grundtvigian Peter Severinsen, who published many articles on the situation in the German Church, Nazi theories on race, and Jewish persecution. Unlike Jens Holdt, he did not link Grundtvigian concepts, such as national popular culture and identity, national people’s churches, national popular fellowship, and the like to the contemporary German situation, and he warned against anti-Semitic insanity. In addition to the periodicals received by all clergymen, the journals of the religious factions also treated these subjects, and information could also be obtained from books written by several Danish theologians in the 1930s, including Halfdan Høgsbro, Arne Brandt Pedersen, and Eduard Geismar. The series Kirkens Smaaskrifter [Articles and essays from the Church] also contained informative contributions by theologians including Niels Hansen Søe, Marius Hansen, Benjamin Balslev, Frederik Torm, and Frederik Louis Østrup.276

Anti-Semitism in the People’s Church One priest of the Danish Church positioned himself apart from other priests and bishops.277 Anders Malling (1896–1981), priest in Brøns, Jutland, joined the Danish Nazi Party (DNSAP) in 1932 and quickly rose to power. In 1935 he was the party’s candidate for parliament, and by 1936 he was party leader for Thy, Hard, and Varde, thus for most of western Jutland, which made him the highest ranking leader after party leader Frits Clausen. He preached at the party’s annual meeting in June 1933 at the suggestion of Clausen, and translated the “Horst Wessel Song,” the German Nazi Party’s hymn, into Danish. “For a short time he was Clausen’s most dangerous rival,” John T. Lauridsen stated recently. 278 As another scholar, Sofie Bak, has pointed out, Malling’s background was in Inner Mission, though it appears that did not have close contact with that movement, despite his efforts to add a Christian component to the Nazi party.

276 Lausten, Jødesympati og jødehad. 170–181, 303. 277 Concerning this passage, see ibid., 181–211. 278 John T. Lauridsen, Dansk nazisme [Danish Nazism] (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 2002), 520. Sympathy For Jews And Hatred Of Jews 235

There does not, however, appear to be any evidence to support Hans Palle Lohmann’s claim that Malling was not a fanatical anti-Semite.279 The sermons that Malling delivered at the Nazi Party’s annual meetings in 1933 and 1934 (and subsequently published) give a good impression of his endeavor to shape the Nazi Party into a Christian party. At the party’s annual meeting in Toftlund in 1933 he held a sermon on Ephesians 6:11–12. He chose this text, he explained, because our situation is similar to that of Paul and the first Christians. There is a massive international movement that aspires to drive the entire world back into heathenism. Its name is Communism. Other enemies are unbelief, atheism, and international capital, which has neither conscience nor fatherland and is interested only in charging exorbitant interest rates all over the world. And finally there are those who have always insisted solely on personal freedom for themselves. We must appeal to the great leader, Jesus Christ, daily. Each member must first become a convinced Christian before he can fight the powers of unbelief, as our leader said: You must fight! And we have only one answer: Yes! At the next year’s party confer- ence he held another sermon. This time he chose to base his sermon on the text for that Sunday, the Sunday after Trinity Sunday, (Luke 12:22–48, a warning against pecuniary worries and a call to be faithful servants). He does say that National Socialism and Christianity must not be mixed together, but this con- tradicts his own stance. The call to be a faithful servant is still valid, and making use of the commands of the Old Testament’s prophets, Amos and Isaiah, to the people of Israel, Malling launched his attack on evil capital, because Israelite capitalists had always had difficulty remembering that they were only intended to be caretakers of God’s material goods. He similarly interwove dissatisfaction with parliamentarianism. We lack prophets of this sort today, but Malling thought that if the ideas of the movement really were taken to heart, National Socialism could now fill the role of the old prophets. Therefore Nazis must go to church regularly and not be worried at the local priest’s alarm when he sees the swastikas in their button holes.280 The following year, in his book

279 Sofie Lene Bak, Dansk antisemitisme 1930–1945 [Danish antisemitism] (Copenhagen: Aschehoug, 2004), 167–201. Hans Palle Lohman, Dansk Folkefaellesskab 1936–42: en fascistisk, nationalistisk og idealistisk bevaegelse [Danish people’s fellowship 1936–1942. A fascist, nationalistic and idealistic movement] (Odense: Univ. Forlag, 1984), 39–40. 280 Anders Malling, “Dobbelt-Front. Prædiken ved Danmarks nationalsocialistiske Arbejder Partis Aarsstævne i Toftlund d. 25. juni 1933” [ Double front: sermon at the Danish National Socialist Worker Party’s annual meeting in Toftlund, June 25, 1933 ] (Haderslev, 1933); “Ideens Tjenere. Prædiken ved Danmarks nationalsocialistiske Arbejder Partis Aarsstævne i Aabenraa den 29. juni 1934” [Servant of the idea: sermon at the Danish National Socialist Worker Party’s annual meeting in Aabenraa, June 29, 1934] (Christiansfeld, 1934). 236 chapter 9

Nationalsocialismen og Kirken [National Socialism and the church], Malling explained that Hitler would surely allow a positive form of Christianity to have a free and unhindered path to the German people and that his government generally had been neutral in the battle for the church. But Malling claimed unequivocally and firmly that “Danish National Socialism also recognizes the necessity of racial purity, and the active pursuit of racial hygiene . . . Race is the material basis for the soul of a people, a basis which naturally must be untainted and healthy . . . Danish National Socialism is also anti-Semitic.” In some of his popular speeches, he said that after the swastika banner comes the Christian cross, and that he wished for “a dictator, who, backed by the people’s will, seizes power. That is what happened in Germany.”281 Malling broke with DNSAP in 1936. The reasons are not clear, but in addition to Malling, one of the other leaders of this upheaval was the merchant Johannes Sørensen, and these two men, along with about eighty other members who also left the party, formed the fascist-inspired Dansk Folkefællesskab (Danish People’s Fellowship). This party was a firm opponent of democracy and parliamentarianism, favoring the Fører [Führer] principle, and Malling became the Fører. They did not hold conferences, but ‘ting’ [old Nordic, ‘assembly’] as in the Danish Middle Ages, with religious services, blowing of the medieval horn, the Lur, hailing the leader, and singing rousing songs. The party was very nationalistic, favored a healthy national-religious upbringing for youth, with gymnastics and outdoor activities, stressed family home life, and strongly promoted Christian idealism, in which rural life was the ideal. Decadent city life should be opposed, and so should immoral, licentious literature and the like. All this was typical of the well-known fascistic parties of the time. The Christian emphasis was important to the leaders of Malling’s party, and the party and its periodical were extremely anti-Semitic. During the existence of the periodical of the party from 1936 to 1942, it published about one hundred articles of various lengths about and against Jews, many of which were by Malling. They taunted Danish Jews, singling them out by name and publishing their photographs, and they launched an attack on Bertolt Brecht, who had been granted asylum in Denmark. Here one could clearly see what a destructive cancer political immigrants were. They urged that this “cancer bacillus” be thrown out of Denmark and sent to Russia or Palestine. Articles in the magazine attacked a man of the caliber of Jørgen K. Bukdahl of Askov, who had repudiated German racial theories, and “Herr Trier, the non-Danish founder

281 Anders Malling, Nationalsocialismen og Kirken [National Socialism and the Church] (Fredericia, 1935), 6–11. Lausten, Jødesympati og jødehad, 190–192. Anders Malling archive, Danish National Archives. Sympathy For Jews And Hatred Of Jews 237 of Vallekilde Folk High School,” who had a Jewish background. Whenever a Jew was caught committing a crime, they explained that all Jews are like that. When people protested Hilter’s persecution of the Jews, this was just “flabby sentimental humanism” that said, “What a pity it is for the poor Jews!” No, Hitler’s efforts were an essential process of national purification, because people had been poisoned by Jews for a long time. “Keep out the Jews!” Malling commanded, even after the horrors the German Jews had suffered on Crystal Night in November 1938. In his anti-Semitic agitation, Malling referred to Jesus, Luther, Bishop Martensen, and Professor Fredrik Nielsen.282

Reactions in the Church to Anti-Semitism and Nazism The reactions of the Danish clergy to anti-Semitism at this time are difficult to state simply. Some were in agreement, some were evasive, or were in opposition but were unable to free themselves from similar turns of phrase. Early on there were those churchmen were clearly aware of the danger of anti- Semitism. A lecture series at Studenterforeningen, (Student Association) in Copenhagen in 1917, was informative on mission work among Jews and about current anti-Semitism. The lectures were held by Valdemar Ammundsen, a professor of Church history, by H. O. Lange, chief librarian of the Royal Library and active in Christian social work, and Hans Larsen Møller, who was also director of the business schools and subsequently a Conservative politician. Many other reactions also came to light. But what were the attitudes in the various church circles? Fredrik Nielsen, a Grundtvigian and a professor of church history who became bishop in Aalborg and Aarhus, had supported Bishop Martensen’s anti-Jewish diatribes. As editor of the Grundtvigian periodical, the Dansk Kirketidende, he and his co-editor, Carl Joakim Brandt, had printed no fewer than thirteen columns with excerpts translated from one of the era’s extremely anti-Semitic books, Der Talmudjude [The Talmud Jew] from 1871, written by the German Catholic theologian August Rohling. This consisted of a succession of stock accusations and preconceptions, but Nielsen had supplemented them, stating that the Talmud had a distorted idea of the Messiah, and that the appe- tite for power, vindictiveness, and avaricious nature of Israel stands out in all its oriental glory, a worthy capstone to the Pharisees’ expectation of a mighty worldly Messiah. Furthermore, Nielsen claimed that Jews found it acceptable for Jewish men to exploit non-Jewish women, that conspicuously many “fallen” women were Jewesses, that it was permissible for Jews to bring false witness

282 Lohmann, Dansk Folkefællesskab, 1936, 1, 3, 5, 10, 14, 16, 19, 22; 1937, 10, 19, 23; 1938, 4, 6, 11, 48. 1984. Lausten, Jødesympati og jødehad, 192–197. 238 chapter 9 against Christians, etc. Contemporary Jews came under attack in 1879 in his book, Den moderne Jødedom [Modern Judaism], and he was quite ready to join in when the German Lutheran theologian and politician, Adolf Stöcker, launched his notorious anti-Semitic attacks, demanding that the country be relieved of Jewish influence, this “destructive cancer” on society, demanding as well the limitation of Jewish immigration and the removal of Jews from public positions, etc. In spite of much criticism, Nielsen chose to present Stöcker’s book in Dansk Kirketidende. Readers were informed that Israel was a foreign people among us and that they should be granted rights only when doing so did not threaten to destroy our spirit as a people. They are out to undermine national cultural life everywhere, but now their economic influence should be limited; the level of our Christian national culture was to be raised, and Jewish teachers were to be removed from the schools, etc.283 The Grundtvigian parish priest H. E. Meyling also averred that Jews were avaricious, that they wanted to rule cultural life and attack Christianity, and, citing Georg Brandes as an example, he claimed that the Jews themselves had caused the anti-Semitic movement. He thought that people should certainly distance themselves from racial hatred, but as can be seen, he himself found it difficult to do so. Still, Grundtvigians could get information from other sources. In the periodical Menighedsbladet, theologians such as Jacob Peter Bang. Harald Sandbæk, and Niels Petersen wrote informative, critical articles about the state of affairs in the German Church and about anti-Semitism. In an analysis of Hitler and his ideas, the theologian Arne Brandt Pedersen, teacher at Rødding Folk High School, maintained that hatred of Jews is the most incomprehensible and most outrageous of Hitler’s ideas. But the Grundtvigian Folk High School Movement had a problematic relationship with Nazism. At the Rønshoved and Ollerup Folk High Schools, favorable opinions on Nazism were heard, approving of its popular, national, and Nordic character. It is not surprising that Marcus Lauesen, a well-known writer of the time, attacked nationalistic Grundtvigianism and “the religious swindle with its mixture of national and divine will . . . I take the liberty of assuming that half the Danish high school movement has a fundamentally Nazi orientation; I take this liberty because I have not heard anything to the contrary.” He was hardly made more sympathetic when a series of articles written by Aage Møller, Frede Bording, Mikkel Pedersen Ejerslev (a member of the Nazi Party), and other writers appeared

283 Dansk Kirketidende 31/1877, 507–511. 32/1877 521–529. 23/1878, 363–364. Fredrik Nielsen, Hofpræst Adolf Stöcker af den kristelig-sociale Bevægelse i Berlin [Palace priest Adolf Stöcker . . . Christian social movement in Berlin] (Copenhagen: Schroder, 1886). Sympathy For Jews And Hatred Of Jews 239 in Rønshoved Højskoles Årsskrift [Annual report of Rønshoved High School] in 1933.284 A recent work (2004) by Sofie Bak has shed light on how Inner Mission moved away from a conventional rejection of Judaism and toward a strong denunciation of anti-Semitism. The newsletter of the movement carried news about the situation in Germany, and although in the late 1930s there were still references to God’s judgment of the Jewish people for not recognizing Jesus as the Messiah, there were also expressions of sympathy and tolerance toward the Jews and refutations of Nazi racial theories. The Israel Mission was also quick to acknowledge the upsurge of anti-Semitism. Its chairman, A. S. Poulsen, who later became bishop of Viborg, felt there was a certain legitimacy to the German attack on Jews, because they were a foreign immigrant race, but in spite of this he distanced himself from anti-Semitism, which he called a black mark on the reputation of the nation and abhorrent to Christianity. He deplored Stöcker’s, and thus, Nielsen’s opinions, and when the persecution of Jews broke out in Poland, he wrote an article against this epidemic of medieval barbarism. Ferdinand Munck, another member of the mission’s board of directors, vacil- lated a great deal. He wrote about the unpleasant and repulsive character of Jews and their insatiable desire for economic gain. But he also rejected anti- Semitism, although he said that there was something legitimate in this battle because it would not be a good thing to be ruled by Jews. He also put forth the thought that God Himself stood behind anti-Semitism: it was a tool in His hands, with which He blocked their emancipation and assimilation in order to drive them toward Christianity. The same thoughts were expressed by the editor Hofman-Bang in 1911 and by priest Emil Clausen, who in defense of Stöcker described the Jewish character in detail and thought that anti-Semitism— from which he distanced himself—was the fault of the Jews themselves, and he suggested that in missionary work Jews be met with love. He repeated these views in his later books.285 His presentation is a strange mixture of pseudo- scientific information, his own sentiments, and references to the Bible and to God’s direct intervention into the course of history. In his descriptions of Jews in general, he clearly shows how influenced he was by contemporary theories of race. Parish priest Benjamin Balslev filled thirty-one columns in the mission

284 Arne Brandt Pedersen, Adolf Hitler og den nationale Revolution [Adolf Hitler and the national revolution] (Copenhagen 1933), 16. Henrik S. Nissen, Folkelighed og frihed 1933 [National feelings and freedom] (1992), 587–673. Lausten, Jødesympati og jødehad, 223–230. 285 Emil Clausen, Jødehadet [Anti-Semitism] (Copenhagen: O. Lohse, 1920): Jøde og Kristen [ Jew and Christian] (Copenhagen: O. Lohse, 1923). 240 chapter 9 society’s periodical with his discussion of anti-Semitism, sharply rejecting the Danish League, anti-Semitism, and generalizations about Jews, but stating that Jews were still subject to the judgment of God and his avenging chastisement. Like him, Professor F. Torm, chairman of the Danish Israel Mission from 1921 to 1949, also fought anti-Semitism. He held that the Jews were the chosen people of God; they should be met with love, though Christians should nonetheless steadfastly endeavor to convert the Jews. He made a cautious and urbane attempt to grant that the racists were right on some points: Jews had always isolated themselves from the rest of society and were therefore perceived to be a foreign element of society; they provoked envy, and they often were arrogant, etc. But all the same, he completely rejected the Nazi muddled theory about race and blood, and he averred that no genuine Christian could be an anti-Semite.286 At the beginning, the Church Center movement seemed to be impressed by Malling’s views. The Church Center published two of his articles in its periodical, and one other parish priest, K. Fenger-Eriksen, also wrote about how the National Socialist program seemed to be just the thing society was in need of, but the magazine quickly moved away from these views, as can be seen in later articles.287 Other circles within the Church showed contempt for anti-Semitism and its practical consequences. There was an outcry against Nazi Aage H. Andersen’s Danish translation of the anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion in 1936 (see p. 231), which he accompanied with his Den kristne Kirke i nordisk Belysning [The Christian Church in Nordic light] of 1935. In the latter book, he explained that Jews constituted bacteria of putrefaction within other peoples and races. Andersen explained that Luther was the pillar of the people’s Church and then, in admiration, printed eight densely-packed pages from Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies, entreating the clergy of Denmark to understand that the Devil was not a legend, but that he walked among us, masked behind the grum- bling, scowling, and degenerate faces of Jews. This triggered a vehement reaction in the Berlingske Tidende by theologians such as Professor Frederik Torm, Professor Aage Bentzen, Lecturer Flemming Hvidberg, and Copenhagen’s

286 Benjamin Balslev, 1919, Israelsmissionen July 1925, 160–168, Sept. 1925, 184–188, Nov. 1925, 231–236, Jan. 1926, 4–8, Apr. 1926, 100–107. F. Torm, Israelsmissionen, Dec. 1920, 257–258. For F. Torm’s many articles in Præsteforeningensblad, see Lausten, Jødesympati og jøde- had, 254–256. F. Torm, Jødefolket og Verdenshistorien [The Jewish people and world history] (Copenhagen: Gad, 1939), 39–75. 287 Kirkeligt Centrum 1934, no. 9, 107, 10, 110–113. 137–140. For other articles up to 1939, see Laursten, Jødesympati og jødehad, 231–235. Sympathy For Jews And Hatred Of Jews 241

Bishop Hans Fuglsang-Damgaard, in which they protested such horrifying and meaningless allegations against, and hatred of, Danish citizens of Jewish background.288 Another clear signal was given by the Danish, Swedish, English, and other Churches, in their arrangement for a collection for the relief of German ‘non-Aryan’ Christians, who now had to flee their fatherland. The collection was to take place in churches on August 30, 1936, and in the confidential material sent to the clergy, it was made clear that the help was for Christians of Jewish background. The collection turned into an ecumenical occasion. Every one of the Danish bishops backed the appeal, as did Baptists, Methodists, and all the church movements—with the exception of the Turn of the Times movement, Tidehverv.289 Also, the Christian Social movement, the business community, and the medical community joined them, as did many others. The first collection brought in 30,000 crowns. For comparison, at that time the average yearly wage for a priest was 6,000 crowns. Furthermore, Bishop Fuglsang- Damgaard and Archdeacon Paul Brodersen protested the Nazi anti-Semitic attacks, prayed for “suffering Jews” at their services, and reiterated their views in public speeches. Their actions were supported by 149 Copenhagen priests, who sent out a declaration expressing their deep sympathy with their Jewish countrymen on the occasion of the suffering now borne by their people abroad, suffering that must fill every Christian with horror.290 At this time, Kaj Munk, a very widely read author and parish priest, who had expressed his fascination for the strong leaders of Germany and Italy, broke with fascism on account of the Nazi treatment of the Jews, and published an open letter to Mussolini in the newspaper Jyllands Posten on November 27, 1938. The next year, the Danish Israel Mission suggested designating September 24, 1939, a special prayer day for the Jews who were suffering persecution. That very day was the Jewish Day of Atonement, but many synagogues lay in ruins, and Jews did not dare meet in groups. Red-faced with shame, Danes were witnessing the reckless assault of blind racial hatred. Christians must therefore gather to pray for their Jewish brothers.291 In 1938–1939 the Kristeligt Dagblad [Christian daily news] initiated a substantial nationwide fund-raising effort for needy German Jews. The donations were to be a gift from Danish Christians to the Jews of Germany, and the newspaper coordinated efforts with other Danish and international organizations

288 Berlingske Tiderne Jan.1, 1936. 289 On this movement, see Martin Schwarz Lausten, Church History of Denmark, 292–295. 290 Lausten, Jødesympati og jødehad, 267–270. 274–277. 291 “Bøn i Kirkerne for de forfulgte Jøder” [Church prayers for the persecuted Jews] Kristeligt Dagblad, [Christian daily news], Sept. 23, 1939. 242 chapter 9 in order, for example, to make the money available to help many young Jews to get to Palestine, where they could get an education. The expert methods of the newspaper resulted in donations of a considerable amount of money, and altogether the enormous sum (for the times) of about 98,000 crowns came in; this corresponded to the yearly salaries of fifteen priests. The Board of Representatives of the Jewish community, Chief Rabbi Friediger, and other Jewish persons expressed their deepest gratitude, but characteristically, parish priest Malling protested all this “joyous ranting and raving over a couple of Jewish children,” while the Danish unemployed and their children were being neglected. Kristeligt Dagblad bluntly brushed aside Malling’s words as well as his articles in the periodical of his group, Danish People’s Fellowship, declaring them the most unvarnished and filthy kind of anti-Semitism, which the newspaper would never have had an intention of touching upon had Malling not been a priest in the Danish People’s Church. Malling asserted that he was not a Jew-hater; he referred to the damnation pronounced on the Jews, still in force, that was found in the Bible, and, as he had observed, had been upheld by both Luther and Bishop Martensen.292 Finally, mention must be made of the activities of the Dansk Forbund mod Racehad (Danish Alliance against Racial Hatred), which was partly organized by clergymen. Theater actors such as Poul Reumert and Anna Borg, author Kjell Abell, and theologians such as Østrup, Sophus Boas, and others met to plan to shape public opinion against racism. They produced an event at Odd Fellow Palace, in which Poul Reumert performed Kaj Munk’s Fugl Fønix [Phoenix]; the proceeds were donated to the Kristeligt Dagblad’s collection for Jews.

Jews and Christians during and after the German Occupation

Theologians as Nazis and Anti-Semites By the time Germany occupied Denmark on April 9, 1940, both hatred and sympathy toward Jews had been expressed by different factions in the Danish Church, and it goes without saying that the attitudes of all parties then became more sharply defined. From 1939 to 1943 the Danish Anti-Jewish League’s paper Kamptegnet, which had the one aim of fighting the Jews of Denmark, manifested anti-Semitism with vulgarity, insult and menace previously unheard of in Denmark. It not only vilified Jews in general, but also published the names of individual Jews,

292 Kristeligt Dagblad, Nov. 25, Dec. 4, 1938, Jan. 6, Jan. 16, Jan. 26, Jan. 28, Jan. 29, Feb. 7, Feb. 19, Feb. 28, Apr. 18, Dec. 1, 1939. Sympathy For Jews And Hatred Of Jews 243 advised against doing business with them, and announced Jewish-Christian marriages under the heading, “Race Scandal of the Week.” Slogans in capital letters were placed at the bottom of each page, for example: “Follow Martin Luther, he fought the Jews!” “Jews are the parasites of society!” “Weaken the Jew—Strengthen Denmark!” “One Jew can poison the whole world!” This periodical was the Danish counterpart of Der Stürmer [The attacker] in Germany. A long series of contributions were written under pseudonyms such as ‘Theology Graduate,’ ‘Simple Person,’ ‘Theologian’ or ‘Observer.’ An examination of the archives of the Danish Anti-Jewish League in the Danish National Archives revealed that the actual author was parish priest emeritus Laust Jeppesen Laursen. He had earlier been a staunch supporter of Grundtvigianism and had published books on religious pedagogy. Vainglorious and blustering, he wrote one anti-Semitic article after the other, attacking clergymen and theology professors by name (examples are Hal Koch, N. H. Søe, Aage Bentzen and Regin Prenter)293 calling them “lackeys of the Jews,” and citing them for incom- petence and unscholarly work done “in a cloud of contradiction and nonsense.” He promised that theological studies would be completely revamped when the Nazis got into power. All Hebrew studies would come to an end, indeed all the theology influenced by Judaism (which only produced brain-damaged priests) would be dispensed with. Students of theology would have internships in Germany. Hitler was full of devotion to God, love of country, idealism, etc. It was interesting that many other writers also tried to make use of religious arguments in their attacks on Jews. They were especially pleased with Luther.294 When the Germans withdrew their support of the periodical in 1943, it ceased to exist.

The Alliance of Nazi Priests Priests such as Anders Malling and Laust Jeppesen Laursen were especially active anti-Semites, and as we have seen, other individual priests also exhibited sympathy for their views, but in addition to this, a specific association of Nazi (and thus anti-Semitic) priests was formed at the beginning of the 1940s. Immediately after Denmark was liberated, Uffe Brand wrote about these priests in Kirkens Front [The Church front], originally an underground paper.295

293 On the theologians, see Lausten, Church History of Denmark, 283. 296–303. 294 For his and article by others in Kamptegnet [Battle flag] see Lausten, Jødesympati og jødehad, 311–342. Danskerligaen Arkiv (Archives of the Danish anti-Jewish League) in the Danish National Archives, Copenhagen. 295 Uffe Brand, “Den danske Nazisme og Kirken” (Danish Nazism and the Church) in Kirkens Front [Church front] 19, 20, 1945. 244 chapter 9

Figure 6 Advertisment page in Præsteforeningens Blad (13, 1942). Sympathy For Jews And Hatred Of Jews 245

The group had been founded in March 1942 by priests Hans Meinhardt-Jensen from Vellev, Anders A. Jørgensen from Feldballe, and Holger Jensen. Brand was unable to find much information on the activities of the Nazi group, except for a scheme for appointing priests, and plans for other church procedures that were to be put into practice after the Nazis took power. Strangely, Meinhardt-Jensen was able to place an advertisement in the Præsteforeningens Blad to recruit members. Under the heading, “National Socialist Association of Clergymen,” it said that this group consisted of Danish clergymen who were affiliated with the National Socialist movement. Priests who wished to work for the cause within the sphere of the Church were urged to join the group. Long before the group was formed, Meinhardt-Jensen had already written about his vision for the coming era. He was against the essentially anti-German community singing arrangements and against the participation of Christian youth groups in Hal Koch’s Ungdomssamvirke [Danish Youth Coalition]—“this motley crowd,” which was on the wrong path, led astray by its leaders, with their conglomera- tion of religion and politics. But in the coming constructive era, that is to say, when the Nazis have completely taken control, it would be possible to develop and live a healthy spiritual life. Democratically-minded aberrations would be excised from the Church, replacements would be found among Church volunteers. The goal would be to improve the Church’s preaching of the gospel to the Danish people. He did not mention any attitude toward Judaism or Jews in this connection. After he placed his recruiting advertisement in the clergy’s newsletter, Meinhardt-Jensen claimed that he perceived a significant interest among the clergy for his work. He was pleased with this, because the Danish Nazi Party had always striven for a Christian Danish people; the Party was firmly situated on the foundation of the Danish People’s Church in every respect, he claimed. In an interview in the monthly periodical for theology students, stud. theol., he explained that the Jewish-liberal life view of Georg Brandes and his followers was the cause of the degeneration of the present-day Church, of dechristianization, and all the forces of destruction. This association of Nazi priests, which apparently has not left any written material behind, never became very large; it consisted of only about thirteen members. Among the most prominent were Meinhardt-Jensen, Holger Jensen, Bent Lindhardt, Anders A. Jørgensen, Erik Johannes Strøbech, and Johannes M. Jensen.296 In 1940 Malling was excluded from the party he had founded, and it has been alleged that he quit politics at that point. He himself claimed to have

296 Præsteforeningens Blad, 13, 1942, 268. Fædrelandet [Fatherland], Apr. 11, 1942. Ekstra Bladet [Extra news], Sept. 18, 1940. stud. theol. [theology student periodical], July, 1942, 115–118. Uffe Brand, 1945. 246 chapter 9 burnt his political correspondence. Neither of these claims is true. Malling’s papers are found in his archive in the Danish National Archives, where there is a great deal of informative material on Malling’s splinter party, Danish People’s Fellowship. Moreover, a group of his followers in Jutland founded the Dansk Folkerejsning (Uprising of Danish People) to try to continue Malling’s work under his leadership. It had the same party program as the party he had left. In his correspondence about founding the new party, which according to Malling, planned to become a mass movement, he briefly mentioned that admission criteria to the party would be the same, that is, a member had to be of Nordic origin, Freemasons would not be accepted, etc. When Member of Parliament Svend E. Johansen tried to gather all the nationalist right-wing parties into one group, called the Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People’s Party), he demanded that Malling be removed from power. Malling then left party work, but in 1942 he published his book, Den brændende Tornebusk. Et bidrag til Forstaaelse af Jødespørgsmaalet [The burning bush: A contribution to the understanding of the Jewish question]. His pseudonym, Dr. Boreas, is on the cover of the book. In this book he presented the usual religious attack on the Jews: they still must be punished because they did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah; evil qualities are entrenched in the character of all Jews; they infect their surroundings with this; they are money-grubbing, pushy, destructive, have caused godless- ness, want to break down the old Danish culture; they are only guests in our country; their persecution is their own fault, etc. We should not let this foreign element into our country out of a false sense of humanitarianism. If possible, Danish Jews and other Jews should be gathered into one place, etc. Did Malling give up anti-Semitism? We have no information about this. He avoided the question in later interviews and in autobiographical remarks. In a note in his journal, he wrote that the loathing he had encountered from certain circles had been unfair. After the occupation ended, he avoided public disapproval and punishment. He had been member of Forfatterforeningen (the Danish association of authors), but he was acquitted by their internal court. A dean of the Church demanded that he resign, but nothing was done: he remained in his position as parish priest in Brøns and devoted himself to hym- nology. In 1961 he was knighted with the Order of the Dannebrog. The reason for this seems to be a mystery.

The Theologians’ Battle against Anti-Semitism and Hatred of Jews Olga Eggers, editor of the pro-Nazi Kamptegnet [Battle Flag] from 1940 to 1942, wrote that no one had stood so staunchly against Nazism’s honest and illuminating contributions to the Jewish question as had the priests of the Danish People’s Church. Indeed, of all the peculiar things that happen every day, this Sympathy For Jews And Hatred Of Jews 247 was the most peculiar. First the clergy had simply shut its eyes and denied that there was any problem at all; then, pretending to be personally injured, it had absolutely refused to touch anything so unseemly. You could still hear priests praying for Jews during services. Anti-Semites repeatedly complained to one another that it was almost impossible to induce priests of the Danish People’s Church and other theologians to support Nazi anti-Semitism. This was true. As we have seen above, only a very small number of the priests of the Danish People’s Church expressed anti-Semitic views. On the contrary, from the mid-1930s, more than a few of them spoke out as resolute opponents of anti-Semitism. This tendency escalated throughout the decade, and became especially manifest after the German occupation of 1940. Actions were taken by a range of people in the Church: individuals, groups of priests, bishops, and university theologians. An examination of the anti-Semitic magazine Kamptegnet provides valuable information about the assaults made on the priests of the Danish People’s Church and other theologians. First of all, it is interesting that the Danish Anti- Jewish League allowed the retired priest, Laust Jeppesen Laursen, so much space in their magazine. This was a manifestation of the conscious strategy of the organization’s leadership: an attempt to involve priests in a dialogue in order to convince them of the truth of anti-Semitism. In the article mentioned above, Eggers compared Luther to the majority of Danish clergymen. “Are they building the Danish Church on the foundation Luther had established, or not?” she asked, thinking of Luther’s well-known hatred of Jews. Danish priests were standing on a Jewish foundation, she declared, because they were contami- nated by Jewish poison, because they knew that all of Christianity would fall if Judaism fell. In another article, “Antichrist. Jødisk Blod i danske præsteslægter” [Antichrist. Jewish blood in Danish clerical families], Jens Andersen wrote that the Danish clergy, with a few exceptions, had no conception of the only genuine and real enemy, Judaism, but, blindly and passively, they strolled around with it, arm in arm. One of the strategies of the Jews had been deliberate infiltration into the family trees of clerical dynasties to “Jewify” Nordic blood. Priests praying for the Jews in church services was repeatedly criticized in Kamptegnet. To be convinced that this was taking place, one article said, you only had to turn on the radio broadcast of Sunday services to hear a priest’s unctuous prayer for what he called the chosen people of God. Not only was this a mockery of the name of God, it was misguided humanism and “Jew worship.”297 Naming names, Kamptegnet filled its pages with attacks on priests, university theologians, and others who had expressed sympathy for Danish Jews.

297 Kamptegnet, 10, 1940; 12, 1941; 3, 1942; 51, 1942. 248 chapter 9

For example, J. L. Østrup ought to read Luther’s rejection of the Talmud; Poul Borchsenius had set himself up as a defender of Jews and was ranting against growing anti-Semitism, it said. Christen Fjeldsøe was told that it was completely ridiculous, if not idiotic, to believe that, with prayers and kind words, you could possibly turn Jews from their endless arrogance and their characteristic hateful attitudes toward every non-Jewish point of view. G. Sparring-Petersen was informed that he was furthering Communism by showing sympathy toward Jews. Kamptegnet threatened that Henry Rasmussen should be subjected to the sort of treatment that would make him wake up. Hal Koch was a “lackey of the Jews” and was confusing the Kingdom of God with the world’s most unap- petizing form of politics: corrupt, plutocratic democracy. Aage H. Andersen, the leader of the Danish anti-Jewish League, also berated the editors of the Skydebjerg-Aarup (Funen), Congregational Newsletter, because a certain Mr. Løgstrup (parish priest and later professor) clearly had not known what he was talking about in his article, “Hvad er Jødehad?” (What is hatred of Jews?). Andersen felt obliged to teach him about the contents of Luther’s work, On the Jews and Their Lies. The archives of the Danish Anti-Jewish League contain many clippings from newspapers, church newsletters, and notes taken of other utterances that either were against anti-Semitism, or were directly in support of Danish Jews, and the authors of some of these remarks were then subjected to direct attack by Kamptegnet and by the pro-Nazi Fædrelandet [Fatherland]. They attacked, for example, Bishop Valdemar Ammundsen, parish priest Viggo Fibiger-Erlandsen, Dean Johannes Nordentoft, parish priest Oscar Geismar, parish priest Ernst Klitbo Bach, and Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard.298 Efforts against anti-Semitism were made by individuals and groups within the Church. Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard tried in vain to persuade the government to forbid Kamptegnet. Professor Hal Koch fought a special law aimed at Jews; there was a discussion about what could be done to oppose anti-Semitism in Denmark at a bishops’ meeting in January 1942, at which Dean Nordentoft suggested boycotting kiosks that sold anti-Semitic periodicals. In Brønderslev, Jutland, at the meeting of the Grundtvigian Vendsyssel Pastoral Conventicle, it was decided that men and women of the different church circles should appeal to their local members of Parliament, demanding that they vote against any special law pertaining to Jews. The chairman, priest Otto Paludan, apparently related this to Professor Torm, Holger Kjær of Askov, and Uffe Grosen of Vallekilde, and from there, the news reached Chief Rabbi Friediger. But after Torm and Friediger each had had spoken with the Minister of Church Affairs, Vilhelm Fibiger, they were reassured, and so they asked Paludan to table the

298 Kamptegnet, 10, 1940; 21, 1941; 2, 1942; 3, 1942; 13, 1942; 21, 1942; 23, 1942; 26, 1942; 39, 1942; 51, 1942; 14, 1943. Fædrelandet, Oct. 8, 1941; Feb. 19, 1942; Apr. 3, 1944. Sympathy For Jews And Hatred Of Jews 249 issue. In December 1941, Minister Fibiger told the chief rabbi, “Tell your congregation and the emigrants that they have nothing to worry about. The Danish Government and the Danish people will protect the Jews as far as they are able.” The politician Jørgen Jørgensen averred that Foreign Minister Scavenius had said, in his brusque, dismissive way, that Denmark did not have a Jewish question. The Board of Representatives of the Jewish community and the chief rabbi sent expressions of profound gratitude to the Grundtvigian priests for the sympathy and compassion they had shown for the Jews of Denmark. When the chief rabbi had been arrested and put into the Horserød Prison Camp on August 29, 1943, he asked Paludan to now put his plan into action, but this did not happen because Paludan’s superior, Aalborg’s Bishop D. P. von Huth Smith, rejected the idea. The sympathies of the Vendsyssel Grundtvigian Conventicle for the chief rabbi held firm. Shortly after he had been interned, Paludan sent him a card: “The Pastoral Conventicle sends you warm greetings. May God give you courage every day. Otto Paludan.” The card was dated October 1, but by this time the chief rabbi, and many other Jews who had been arrested, had already been transported to the concentration camp in Theresienstadt.299 Once in a while, the Grundtvigian periodical Menighedsbladet touched upon attitudes toward Judaism and Jews, and it is notable that biblical texts were not used to direct accusations at contemporary Jews. In 1943, Carl Hermansen, a leading Grundtvigian writer, wrote an edifying piece to accompany the text “Jesus wept over Jerusalem” (Luke 19:41–44), which was the gospel text for the tenth Sunday after Trinity, the Sunday on which Jews had been condemned for centuries, and which was also Israel Mission Day. Typically for him, he declared that if this text made you think about the sins of the unbelieving Jews, then you had not understood the gospel, indeed the gospel had not had any effect upon you at all.300 On the other hand, the periodical of the Inner Mission found it difficult to tear itself away from the conventional phrases about the doomed Jewish people. Actually, during the years 1942 to 1945, when the extermination of European Jews had begun and was a known fact, Inner Mission’s periodical printed articles saying that the Jewish people were now being punished by God, so that he could then lead those people in the right direction. Therefore missionary work should be intensified now, while the Jews were especially receptive. In the same vein, parish priest Johannes Magelund explained that the Jewish people were now suffering so much because they were worshipping foreign gods and had brought misfortunes and chastisement, the wrath of God,

299 Letters and papers in the archives of Ottto Paludan, Max Friediger and Frederik Torm in the Danish National Archives, see Lausten, Jødesympati og jødehad 363–370. 300 Menighedsbladet [Congregation News], 35, 1943, 411. 250 chapter 9 down upon themselves just as had been written in Deuteronomy 28:64–67 and 29:16–29. Again, at the beginning of 1945, Parish priest Axel Bülow said that just now it was obvious to see the consequences of the Jews’ rejection of the gift from God, Jesus as the Messiah: “Truly, how a people reacts to a gift from God does mean something . . . Abraham’s kindred are shamed. Not until the pride of this richly gifted people is finally broken by enormous suffering, will they once more come forward into the light.” One can hardly conceive of a greater expression of contempt for the Jewish people, disguised as a Christian message than these produced by a pair of priests from the Danish People’s Church. But other tones were also heard within Inner Mission. Parish priest Anker Bliddal of Copenhagen pointed out in a sermon that Jesus and Mary were Jews, so we should take care not to injure Jews in any way. Holger Sørensen of Hørsholm and Rungsted prayed for the interned Jews and Communists from the pulpit, and parish priest Georg Bartholdy of Copenhagen told his confirmands that he who hates Jews, hates Jesus. Inner Mission Chairman Christian Bartholdy naturally took exception to anti-Semitism and to Luther’s hatred of Jews, but at the same time, he criticized Jews for having assimilated, because it showed that they had forgotten that they were the chosen people. The brothers Georg and Edvard Brandes were egregious examples of such Jews, he said. Christian Bartholdy went on with a conventional anti-Semitic tirade, declaring that the Jews here were only guests, and he became completely condemnatory, explaining that the current persecutions of Jews were an expression of the chastisement of God, and that they would not be free of it until the Day of Judgment unless they converted to Christianity. That is why the Israel Mission was now reaching out to them, he explained. Unsurprisingly, Bartholdy also promoted ‘replacement theology,’ saying that we who were now the Israel of God should keep in mind why we were chosen—for the sake of others, and also for the sake of the Jews.301 The Danish Israel Mission continued on the theological course they had followed since the end of the 1800s regardless of current events. During a service in 1942, Henry Rasmussen said that the Jewish Day of Atonement no longer had any meaning, as atonement before God could only realized by the death of Jesus on the Cross. The Jews were in great difficulty at this time, he thought, and many people desired to “put them in their place.” The Christians also wanted to put the Jews in their place, that is, to bring them toward Golgotha. In 1943, Dagmar Kylling wrote an article, saying that Jews were being shut up in

301 Christian Bartholdy, “Jødeproblemet i Ordets Lys” (The Jewish problem seen in light of the Bible), in Indre Missions Tidende 1942, 9–18. Bülow, Jødesympati [Sympathy for the Jews], ibid., 1945, 59. Sympathy For Jews And Hatred Of Jews 251 ghettoes, branded with gold stars, and reviled everywhere, because they would not hear the voice of their Lord, their God. Hofman-Bang, the editor, went even further, asking readers to remember the millions of Jews who had been exterminated in recent years and to realize that all this was part of God’s plan for the salvation of the Jews. Suffering could be an instrument brought on by God for the people’s salvation. Although the mission society continued with its anti-Jewish rhetoric, individuals from this same society were not deterred from participating in relief work for Jews in need, nor from helping during the rescue of the Jews, when they were sailed cross the Sound to Sweden in October 1943.302 Finally, it should be noted that Malling’s 1942 anti-Semitic work Den bræn- dende Tornebusk [The burning bush] was singled out for harsh criticism by Jørgen Glenthøj, a student of theology. He pointed out Malling’s obvious errors of interpretation in his discussion of the Old Testament, his misunderstandings of Martin Luther, Grundtvig, and Martensen, and inferred that the author was comparable to the Nazi priest Meinhardt-Jensen and the leader of the Danish anti-Jewish League, Aage Andersen. Glenthøj concluded that although the work was fill of lies, one thing was true: the work certainly contributed to an understanding of the Jewish question. The article apparently escaped the eye of the censor.303

Pastoral Letters by the Bishops in 1943 and 1944 In spite of the so-called ‘muzzling’ regulations the government had sent out on October 9, 1942, which should have made the priests and editors censor themselves in order to avoid negative remarks about the occupying forces, there was increased pressure on the bishops to induce them to speak out against anti- Semitism. Pleas were sent by theology professor Jens Nørregaard, who was rector of the University of Copenhagen, by the editors of Præsteforeningens Blad, by a group of Copenhagen clergymen, and by a number of theology professors. At first the bishops could not come to an agreement, but on January 15, 1943, they did send a communication to the Minister of Justice mentioning the appeals they had received from different Church circles, and asking the minister to take appropriate action against the propaganda on racial hatred that was now being spread. When the government had resigned on August 29, 1943, the Germans arrested many prominent Christian and Jewish citizens and interned them in Horserød Prison Camp. Unrest and insecurity were spreading

302 Israelsmissionen, Oct. 1942, 193–196; Apr. 1943, 90–92; July–Aug. 1944, 145–146; June 1943, 122–128. 303 Sursum Corda: Organ for Danmarks Kristelige Studenterbevægelse [Sursum Corda: organ of the Danish Christian student movement], 2. 1942, 30–31. 252 chapter 9 throughout the country, and Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard sent a pastoral letter to the priests of Copenhagen diocese on the same day. He asked them to stay calm and maintain the peace, and to pray for the ancient chosen people of the Lord. A few days later he sent a new letter to his priests. This one was concerned exclusively with the Jews of Denmark. It was natural that the Jewish question lay on all their minds these days, he wrote. He had contacted Director Nils Svenningsen in the Foreign Ministry the day before in order to talk about it. Svenningsen had said that the Germans had not mentioned the topic of the Jews at all, and that no one had been arrested on the grounds of race or religion. Indeed, Svenningsen had even taken the question up with the German plenipotentiary Werner Best, who had answered, “Die Frage ist überhaupt nicht angeschnitten” (The question has absolutely not been touched upon). Now the Bishop could happily transmit this message to the priests in his diocese. The message was also conveyed to other dioceses, but this attempt by the Germans to calm things down was still met with skepticism, and with good reason. From outside Copenhagen it was difficult to be fully informed of the dramatic events that were unfolding, but the attention that had been paid to the plight of the Jews had not waned. Twenty-four Grundtvigian priests and folk high school teachers wrote a concerned letter to the bishops urging them, as representatives of the Danish People’s Church, to investigate whether an infringement of the religious freedom of members of the Community of the Mosaic Faith had occurred, and if that was the case, they urged the bishops to take the topic up in a pastoral letter, or to be adamant about insisting upon religious freedom in some other way. It soon became clear that Best had told an outright lie. As early as the beginning of October 1943 the underground newspaper Kirkens Front [Church front] published the names of Jews who had been arrested, including Chief Rabbi Friediger and his son, the board of directors of the Community of the Mosaic Faith, the director of the synagogue, Axel Margolinsky, and Judge Carl Bertel Henriques. Kirkens Front made it absolutely clear that the Germans were arresting people simply because they were Jewish—the Jewish question in Denmark had been tangibly opened despite Best’s above-mentioned assurances to the contrary. The paper further disclosed that the Germans had later arrested Josef Fischer, a librarian and the director of Jewish social aid, confiscating his vital records of the Jews in Demark. The newspaper asked whether this meant that the hour had come. If it had, then those authorities in Denmark who would hunt Jews down as though they were animals should know that the Danish Church was ready with word and deed to do what it could to protect the persecuted, and they should know that the Danish Church intended to go into battle on all fronts for the sake of these individuals. Sympathy For Jews And Hatred Of Jews 253

Figure 7 Photograph of Bishop Hans Fuglsang-Damgaard.

As is well known, the dreaded moment had arrived, and the arrest of the ca. 500 Jews who had not managed to hide or flee, began on October 2 and 3. They were deported by ship to Germany and interned in Theresienstadt. The history of these deportations and the flight of the many other Jews to Sweden, the protests from political parties, the university, professional associations, and youth organizations has been thoroughly dealt with in many books and articles, and consequently will not be detailed here. The arrest of the Jews triggered Biskoppernes Hyrdebrev [Bishops’ pastoral letter] of October 3, 1943. Actually, none of the bishops was the author; Bishop of Copenhagen Hans Fuglsang-Damgaard had arranged for it to be written by two Copenhagen priests, Niels J. Rald and Thomas Glahn. Fuglsang-Damgaard signed it on behalf of all the bishops. He delivered it to his department chief for presentation at the meeting of parliamentary department chiefs on September 29, and he asked that it be forwarded to the German authorities. Apparently the bishop had not had time to consult with his fellow bishops about this step beforehand, and had to obtain approval after the fact. He asked 254 chapter 9 them to tell their priests to read the letter to their congregations, were the Germans to begin to arrest the Jews. The pastoral letter was entitled “The Position of the Church on the Jewish Question.” It declared that it was the duty of the Christian Church to protest wherever Jews might be persecuted because of their race or religion. Three reasons were given. The first was the Christian one: Jesus Christ was a Jew. This was not stated directly, but inferred between the lines that said that he was born in Bethlehem, child of the Virgin Mary. The authors had meant this to be understood in a positive light, but by calling him Christ (Messiah), and by continuing with the assurance that Jesus Christ’s birth is the fulfillment of the promise that God made to his chosen people, Israel, they insisted on the decisive theological distinction between Christianity and Judaism. To clarify this even more, they added two factors, that Jewish history prior the birth of Christ had only been a long preparation, pending God’s sanction of this birth which allowed the salvation in Christ of all mankind, and also that the Old Testament is part of the Christian Bible. The idea was that Christians have an obligation to protest persecution of Jews because the source of Christianity is Judaism—which the authors nevertheless claimed was only a preparatory stage. It would follow from this reasoning that after the birth of Christ the Jewish religion was no longer an expression of the will of God. This is a traditional Christian notion. But we could ask, why was it necessary, in a letter of protest, to mark the difference between Christianity and Judaism, or even to dismiss Judaism? The argument would have been just as strong if they had been satisfied with saying, “because we can never forget that Jesus was a Jew.” The second argument was that persecution of Jews is in opposition to the concept of humanity and love of neighbor that the Church of Jesus Christ must preach. Jesus Christ pays no attention to a person’s standing, which is affirmed with a quotation from Galatians 28:3. The last argument was that persecution of Jews goes against the common sense of justice embedded in Danish Christian culture. Freedom of religion applies to all Danes. Race or religion can never be reasons to deprive a person of rights, freedom, or property, and “we” will therefore fight to maintain the same freedoms for our Jewish brothers and sisters, freedoms that we prize higher than life itself. In conclusion, the obligation to obey worldly authorities was mentioned. The authors admitted this commitment, but said that at the same time they are constrained by conscience to uphold the law, and protest against any infringement of the law. In that case they would acknowledge the command to obey God rather than man. Sympathy For Jews And Hatred Of Jews 255

The pastoral letter was read aloud at Sunday church services on October 3 or on the following Sunday. There were a few remarkable exceptions. Bishop Henrik Scharling of Ribe, who had the radio-transmitted service that day, did not read the letter until the microphones had been switched off, nor did he instruct the priests of his diocese that they were duty-bound to read it to their congregations. In Aarhus Cathedral, Archdeacon Kai Jensen omitted reading the letter, because he did not want to destroy the congenial atmosphere of a confirmation that was to be held that day. But there is no doubt that the pastoral letter had a great deal of influence, scarcely on the German occupying powers, but within the Danish Church. Many expressed their satisfaction with the bishops finally making a collective protest. Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard’s archives contain many positive reactions, for example, from a group of priests of the Inner Mission, from teachers and students of the Ribe teaching seminary, from a Methodist clergyman, and from the association of parish councils. Shipping magnate A. P. Møller himself wrote a hand-written letter, saying that he had been pleased to read and to hear the bishop’s well-founded, commendable speech, which, even if it did not bear fruit, was of great value. His employees at the harbor had told of the ruthless way old people (i.e., the Jews who were to be transported to Theresienstadt Concentration Camp, having been arrested at the Jewish home for the aged) had been treated: it almost incomprehensible to him. He asked that the pastoral letter be read for several Sundays, so that many more people could hear it, and so that it would offset the distortion of the truth coming from the press and the radio. Among the bishops, the pastoral letter had not been unproblematic. Bishop Scharling in Ribe and Bishop Øllgaard in Odense were dissatisfied with the procedure that had been followed. The latter sent his own pastoral letter to his priests, in which he left out the first point of the original letter. Naturally, Fuglsang-Damgaard also received angry letters from anti-Semites.304 But more than a few priests were of the opinion that the pastoral letter protesting the persecutions did not suffice, and after the murder of Kaj Munk on January 4, 1944, increasing pressure was put on the bishops to send out another joint pastoral letter. On December 16, 1943, suggestions for and critical remarks concerning a new letter had already been discussed at a meeting of Bishops Malmstrøm, Hoffmeyer, Øllgaard, and Noack with parish priest Glahn and about thirty other priests from Jutland and Funen. Christian Baun (subsequently a bishop), was to meet with Werner Best to have the Danish Jews

304 Lausten, Jødesympati og jødehad 378–387. For the rescue and transportation to Sweden of ca. 7000 Danish Jews, see the recent book: Bo Lidegaard, Countrymen. The untold story of how Denmark’s Jews escaped the Nazis (London: Atlantic Books 2014). 256 chapter 9 returned from Theresienstadt. Poul Schou of Aalborg thought that the bishops should appear at Best’s office dressed in their vestments and say, “When are the Jews coming home?” Packages were all very well and good, but not enough: “Instead of demanding their return, we send them overcoats!” Parish priest Harald Sandbæk complained that the Church had put up with persecution of the Jews without doing battle against it, and his critical question was whether the bishops really meant anything by this last paragraph in the pastoral letter of October 3, 1943, that we should obey God before people. The bishops were in serious disagreement among themselves, and it took no fewer than six drafts to come up with a letter to be read from all the pulpits on Sunday, February 28, 1944. Not all the drafts contained an appeal for prayers for the Jews, and one draft was sharper in its formulation than the final one: “Let us pray for God’s own people, that God will help where we cannot find the way.” Fuglsang-Damgaard’s archive contains only a single negative response, this one from the parish priest of Skovshoved, K. E. Nielsen, a man who had earlier earned the praise of the Danish anti-Jewish League.305

Aid to Needy Jews As is well-known, bishops and many priests participated in the rescue of the Jews and their safe passage to Sweden both before and after the Germans took action to round up the Jews and deport them. It is probably too late to produce a complete picture of the efforts made by clergymen and congregations, but reports, biographies, and presumably many private letters tell about these actions. Immediately after the Jews were arrested and deported to Theresienstadt, the Germans gave permission to send them packages of clothing. Research has proven that the Ministry of Social Welfare, the Red Cross, aid committees, and innumerable private individuals cooperated in sending hundreds of packages, some containing food and a special preparation of vitamins. Professor Richard Ege, his wife Vibe, and Ruth Bredsdorff were leaders of this relief work, but parish priest Fritz Lerche and Præsternes Uofficielle Foreningen (Unofficial Association of Clergymen) also played a big role. It is worth noting that Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard was active in this relief work from the very beginning. He took part in the executive committee with Ege and lecturer Brandt Rehberg. And in November 1943, he also sent a communication to Director Svenningsen in the Foreign Ministry on behalf of all the bishops—after sending his drafts round to the bishops, having had his fingers burnt once. He began the com-

305 Lausten, Jødesympati og jødehad (Copenhagen: Forlaget Anis. 2007), 391–392. Sympathy For Jews And Hatred Of Jews 257 munication with a reference to the pastoral letter of October 3, 1943, declaring that the bishops were disappointed and saddened that their protest of the deportation of the Jews had not helped. Their interest in and sympathy for the deported Jews remained undiminished, and now he asked the director to inform Best that the Christian congregations felt a great need to help the interned Jews. The bishops had heard from their congregations how distressing the situation was to their Christian conscience and their sense of justice, and how great their desire to help was. The entire aid project will not be gone into here; it will only be noted that the existing Fuglsang-Damgaard and Lerche archives give a good picture of the extent of their activities.306

The Friendship between the Bishop and the Chief Rabbi It is beyond doubt that the central figure in the Church—with respect to demonstration of sympathy for the Jews, attempts to ward off the dramatic German actions, and, after the roundup in 1943, organization of the Church’s aid and other initiatives—was Bishop Hans Fuglsang-Damgaard. We have seen that he, and also Frederik Torm, were aware of the dangers the Jews faced as early as the 1930s, and that Fuglsang-Damgaard had tried to ward off this danger. It is interesting to see in the surviving letters how a deep mutual trust, not to mention a friendship, grew between the leading bishop of the country and the chief rabbi. On November 13, 1938, when dedicating Lundehus Church, Fuglsang-Damgaard had expressed grave concern for the Jews a few days after the German pogrom, ‘Kristallnacht,’ had occurred. Friediger wrote to thank him for his heartfelt support on the occasion of this appalling catastrophe that had struck his religious fellow worshipers, and he expressed the hope that the prayer the bishop had sent on high to Almighty God, the heavenly Father of all peoples, would be heard, so that neighborly love and peace would again reign on earth. When Fuglsang-Damgaard had tried in vain to have Friediger released from the Horserød Prison Camp, Friediger sent him a letter, almost a religious treatise in nature, which reflected the tense situation in which he found himself. No one knew what the German authorities were planning. In addition, the most important Jewish High Holy Day, Atonement Day or Yom Kippur, was at hand:

306 Ibid., 387–388. Hans Sode-Madsen, ed., “Føreren har befalet! ” [The Führer has commanded] (Copenhagen 1993), 173–219. Erik Thostrup Jacobsen, Som om intet var hændt. Den danske folkekirke under besættelsen [As if nothing had occurred. The Danish People’s Church during the Occupation] (Odense: Odense Univ. Forlag, 1991), 215. 258 chapter 9

Honorable Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard! Incomprehensible are the ways of God. We thank Him in all the situations of our life, for His mercy is eternal, and He is compassionate to all his creatures. He chooses messengers who carry out His will in His name, so that it becomes a blessing. In you, I see a messenger of God. You know that in the nearest future, we will gather in God’s house so that on New Year’s Day, on Atonement Day, and at the Feast of Tabernacles, we can cleanse our souls, so that, with pure soul and heart, we can stand before the throne of the beneficent God, who is the God of all humankind. I put my trust in you and am your faithful Friediger (Horserød, 7 Sept 1943)

Four days later, he again wrote to Fuglsang-Damgaard saying that, in his soli- tude, he was now reading the bishop’s book, Religionspsykologi [Psychology of religion], which gave him much to think about, was beneficial for the soul, and had not only strengthened his firm belief in God, He who is holy to all people, but also his trust in Fuglsang-Damgaard, his humanity, and his will to be a messenger of God. After he had been deported to Theresienstadt, Friediger continued to send letters to the bishop. Of course these letters were read by the German cen- sors, but in any case, they document their friendship. In a New Year’s letter, he thanked Fuglsang-Damgaard for the friendship he had always shown him and reiterated the benefits he had received from reading his book. He reported that he was all right in Theresienstadt, where he could give spiritual comfort to his countrymen and participate in the daily work of the camp, not least in providing care. His son, a chemist, had been put to work at the waterworks. He sent good wishes for the New Year to the bishop and his congregation. During the course of the spring, Fuglsang-Damgaard had sent a package of foodstuffs to Friediger. It had been good for strengthening the body, Friediger said in his letter of thanks, but it had especially given him spiritual encourage- ment, because it showed that friends and well-wishers were keeping the Jews in Theresienstadt in their thoughts. A few months later, Fuglsang-Damgaard informed him that after negotiations it seemed that it would now be possible to send medicine down to them in Theresienstadt via the Red Cross, and a few weeks later, delegates of the Danish Red Cross were allowed to visit the Danish Jews there. On that occasion, they conveyed a personal greeting to Rabbi Friediger from King Christian the Tenth and another one from the bishop. Friediger replied with effusive gratitude for the greetings and for the “gifts of love” that he had regularly received, and he expressed the hope that God would hear the bishop’s prayers, and let peace arise in the hearts of mankind, so that they could once more be united and use their powers on behalf of mankind Sympathy For Jews And Hatred Of Jews 259 and neighborly love. This friendly relationship continued after the war. In 1946 Friediger published his book, Theresienstadt, in which he quoted many of the supportive words the bishop and many priests had said in support of the Jews, mentioned the greetings he had received in confidence through the Danish Red Cross delegation, and exclaimed, “What a blessed country it is, where a king and a bishop send greetings to a Jew!” In his thank-you letter for the book, the bishop wrote that he was pleased with the miracle that God had performed in saving the lives of the Danish Jews, adding “Suffering has joined us together so closely that we can never again be parted. Truly, the Lord has done great things for us and we rejoiced.” (Psalm 126:3)307

“The Church Welcomes the Jews Home” This was the headline in the newspaper Kristeligt Dagblad on June 22, 1945, when the synagogue on Krystalgade was to be rededicated after having been closed since September 1943. Fuglsang-Damgaard, Professor Torm, and Roman Catholic Bishop Theodor Suhr were among the many guests invited to the ceremony. In his speech of thanks to God for granting relief to the Jews in their time of need, Chief Rabbi Friediger said that many had tried in vain to exterminate the Jews and the Book, the source of all ethics, the inspiration of Jewish life, and through it, also of Christianity and a great deal of humanity. He said that he felt fortunate to be living in Denmark, praised King Christian X especially, and expressed his warm gratitude to the Danish Church: “We also thank Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard and we will never forget what the bishop and all the priests of the Danish People’s Church meant to us in the somber, grim days.” Similar, shorter thanks was directed to the Catholic bishop, and then the rabbi returned to the subject of the Danish People’s Church: “We who sat imprisoned would like especially to express gratitude to the Danish Church, for through Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard, we knew that people were praying for us, thinking about us and doing all that was in their human power to help us.” Here he harked back to the greetings he had secretly received from the king and the bishop while he was in Theresienstadt. He thanked Richard Ege and the group responsible for sending aid packages to the concentration camp, the Swedish king, Folke Bernadotte, and the Swedish people. Before the blessing, the choir’s hymn, “King of Kings,” and the final hymn “Lord of the Universe” (Adon Olam), he performed the rededication with great emotion: “I now rededicate this synagogue. The Word of God shall again be heard here and prayers will once more rise up to thee, Almighty God.”

307 For letters and other papers from Friediger’s and Fuglsang-Damgaard’s archives see Lausten, Jødesympati og jødehad, 388–391. 260 chapter 9

A special service was held in the cathedral in Copenhagen on the occasion of the return of the Danish Jews. In his sermon Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard talked about the anxiety he and others had felt when the disease of anti-Semitism was approaching the Danish border and threatening Jewish citizens. He spoke of the promises the Germans had made and broken, the enigma of suffering, and the disgrace that had been brought upon Denmark. He ascribed the sur- vival of almost all the Jews of Denmark to the powers of prayer and the won- derful intervention of God, and he was convinced that it had brought the Jews closer to God, closer to Him who reaches his hand out to them every day. The harmony between church and synagogue continued. Priests wrote for Jewish periodicals, and, with gratitude, the Jews recalled Kristeligt Dagblad’s collection for needy Jews. A typical expression of the feelings of the period immediately after the end of the war was the anniversary and thanksgiving celebration the Danish Israel Mission chose to hold to celebrate its sixtieth anniversary. Afterward, the mission’s newspaper reported that both the return of “our Jewish friends, and the sixty-year anniversary of the society,” had been celebrated at the two- day gathering. Furthermore, the mission had been successful in having Chief Rabbi Friediger attend and hold a talk on the imprisonment in Theresienstadt. He ended his talk by asking how anyone could really have survived the slavery there, and answered that the divine and human inner flame had helped, and the word of God had given them courage. Faith had helped them, but so had faith in people, for in spite of everything, they had not lost their faith in decent people and good hearts.308 This was only one side of the Israel Mission’s attitude toward Jews, however.

Renewed Missionary Efforts among the Jews

After the end of the war, although there was increasingly greater knowledge about the torture, horror, and slaughter that European Jews had undergone in the Nazi concentration camps, the earlier theology and anti-Jewish rhetoric of the Danish Israel Mission remained the same, although at the same time, they spoke of the millions of Jews who had been killed: “Have we not seen ‘Christian’ peoples’ hands covered with Jewish blood? Have not the sufferings of the Jewish people cried out to heaven?” But in 1945 Chairman Frederik Torm, professor of New Testament exegesis, was able to explain this as follows: “The sins of these people demanded the hardest punishment . . . were there four or

308 Ibid., 394–396. Sympathy For Jews And Hatred Of Jews 261 six million, exterminated in that way?” Nevertheless God had saved a remnant of the people so that they could one day become Christian. Therefore, efforts to missionize among Jews should continue. A few years later, he repeated that we Christians should not ask the Jews for forgiveness, but the Jews should learn to forgive. Perhaps the Jews would be punished by God even more severely in the future and go through even greater sufferings. The society’s periodical published—among many similar articles—a series of articles by theology professor Regin Prenter of Aarhus, in which he explained that Jews place the Law where Christ should be, and are thus to blame for the hatred of Jews. The Christians should not harbor hatred of Jews; both that hatred and the Jews’ rejection of Christ can only be defeated by faith in Jesus as the Christ. In 1946, the society inaugurated a new missionary campaign among the Jews of Copenhagen, inviting them to informative lectures and discussions, but almost no Jews attended. Nevertheless, as had happened earlier, this anti-Jewish theology and practice did not prevent the mission society from carrying out social work among needy Jews. For a long time, they held a collection of money for “Jewish refugees and other Jews in need,” administered by Torm’s wife, Elisif, and they also collected used clothing for needy Jewish Christians in Germany.309 Inner Mission also continued with the same ideology; Nazism was “God’s punishment of the Jewish people because they had rejected Jesus, the Son of God, and had let him suffer an ignominious death on a cross,” an article in their periodical said in 1945. In a sermon, Chairman Christian Bartholdy told his congregation that the Jewish people had always elevated themselves above other peoples, but then they had been brought down, and today they had to wander the earth restlessly. “Such is the fate of those who themselves would be Our Lord.” In comparison, the newspaper of the Grundtvigian movement avoided such pronouncements, in edifying pieces on the biblical texts that the Christian Church had traditionally used against Jews, for example Luke 19:41–44, they clearly avoided these interpretations, and instead they applied the texts to contemporary Christians.310 The renewed proselytizing efforts of the Danish Israel Mission provoked Jewish protests. When Rabbi Marcus Melchior, in the periodical Jødisk Samfund, asked missionary and parish priest Henry Rasmussen to explain the matter, Rasmussen evaded the issue and simply painted an idealized picture of the mission’s work, admitting, however, that it was a delicate subject. The controversy escalated when the journalist Rosa Krotoschinsky, disturbed after having heard a lecture by Israelsmissionen’s editor, Inge Hofman-Bang, rebuffed her views as

309 Israelsmissionen, 7, 8, 9, 1947; 3, 5, 1948. 310 Lausten, Jødesympati og jødehad, 431–437. 262 chapter 9 anti-Semitic and an attack on Jews. In the ensuing debate that took place in the periodical Jødisk Samfund from 1948 to 1949, Rabbi Melchior initially tried to take a friendly and conciliatory attitude toward the mission society, but finally rejected it emphatically. At the same time, he strongly encouraged Jewish parents to send their children to religious instruction, so that they could learn how to fend off onslaughts from the Danish Israel Mission.311 The debate on the relationship between Danish Christians and Jews became even more complicated with the establishment of a new mission society on November 2, 1946, Ordet og Israel (The Word and Israel), which still exists. It had formerly been called Carmel Committee. The founders were parish priest Georg Bartholdy, a civil servant named Eyvind Sivertsen, and folk high school principal Fritz Larsen, all of whom belonged to the right wing of the People’s Church. They began publication their own periodical in 1951. The history of The Word and Israel and its clashes with the Danish Israel Mission belong to a period beyond the scope of this book, but it is possible to get an impression of the situation during its first couple of years. In general they focused on “the last days,” the coming of Christ, Judgment Day, and the fate of Christians and Jews. When Christendom collapses, as it soon would, Sivertsen explained, the Jewish people would have total domination and would gather in Jerusalem. Christ would assume power from them when he came. When would it happen? When the Jews had gone over to Christianity. That was why missionary work among Jews was so important. This fundamentalist view of the Bible was underpinned with references to innumerable arbitrarily chosen biblical texts. To this way of thinking, the Jewish takeover of Palestine was an important step, and in similar fashion Sivertsen included other current political events in his vision. The differences between the two mission societies were outlined in the mission organ, Israelsmissionen, and also in the newspaper, Kristeligt Dagblad.312

Reaction in the People’s Church on Zionism and the Creation of the State of Israel

Zionism and its demand for a Jewish state in Palestine found a vigorous spokesman in Marcus Melchior, chief rabbi beginning in 1947. Nevertheless, Melchior stressed that he was a Danish Jew; his Zionism did not make him less Danish, but made him more Jewish. As a Jew who lived and worked in Denmark, there

311 Jødisk Samfund, 2/1946; 6/1946; 12/ 1948; 2–5/ 1949. 312 Israelsmissionen, 3, 4, 5, 1919. Sivertsen, Israels Haab [The Hope for Israel] (Copenhagen: O. Lohse, 1946). Israelsmissionen, 4, 7, 1947; 2, 1948. Kristeligt Dagblad, Jan. 5, 1948. Sympathy For Jews And Hatred Of Jews 263 was no difficulty for him to nevertheless feel connected to the state of Israel, even though it was not the native land of Danish Jews. Den danske Komité til Støtte for Jødernes Forsvarskamp i Palæstina (Danish Committee to Support Jewish Defensive Struggle in Palestine) was founded in 1948 and urged support for the battle that would ensue when the State of Israel was proclaimed on May 15, 1948. Georg Bartholdy was among those who signed on in support: his Christian society, The Word and Israel, was a staunch supporter of Zionism. The battle for Jewish possession of the country was a battle for the fulfillment of the promises given to the Jewish people in the Old Testament, he declared. Jews had a right to the country “despite the relative injustice done to the Arabs of Palestine.” Of course, Zionists were fighting without Jesus—indeed, without God—but God had often used unbelievers to carry out his plans. The Jews would not be converted to Christianity before they were in possession of the country. Missionary efforts would follow. Jews had a historic right to the country, because God had promised Abraham and the prophets that they would one day secure the land for themselves, and experience God’s glory there. Despite Frederik Torm’s forceful protests, Bartholdy was unyielding and, as was typical of him, he had The Word and Israel take the initiative in the so- called ‘Danish Zionist Address’ to the Secretary General of the United Nations in April 1947, which urged the U.N. to live up to its share of the responsibility for creating a national home for the Jewish people, referring to their suffering under Nazism, and to previous decisions by the League of Nations. In 1948 Bartholdy also signed the call sent out by the Danish Committee to Support Jewish Defensive Struggle in Palestine, asking for support for the establishment of a Jewish fatherland. In an article from that time, Bartholdy naturally condemned anti-Semitism, but, paradoxically, he thought that God could use that scourge to punish and to call out to Israel, and that anti-Semitism had now forced the Jewish people to search their souls and return to their own country. In the ranks of the Danish Israel Mission, Frederik Torm once more implored for restraint, because one could not simply apply Old Testament prophecies to the present, and the New Testament says nothing about Jews someday possess- ing the land. Others in the mission society took a more aggressive stance: Israel had to convert to Christianity; that was why missionary efforts were so important, because, as it said in Israelsmissionen, “We judge a Christ-less Zionism to be a death-bringing illusion . . . Without Christ, there is no Jewish national state.” The same opinion was expressed in a series of articles in the Indre Missions Tidende [Inner Mission times] in the late 1940s, which also took an eschatological viewpoint. The “omen of Israel” was the most alarming of all the signs of the times; Jewish immigration to Israel and the creation of the State 264 chapter 9 of Israel showed that the thousand-year kingdom was imminent (Axel Bulow, W. Larsen). In the major newspaper, Berlingske Tidende, C. A. Skovgaard- Petersen wrote that Israel was choosing the path of bombing instead of praying, but he assured the Jews that they would not possess the country until they had converted to Christianity. The Grundtvigian periodical Menighedsbladet ran a series of articles that concluded that there could only be a great daybreak for the Jews when they went through a spiritual resurrection (Marie Christensen). But Alfred Nielsen, reiterating his viewpoint, wrote about Jewish acts of ter- ror and about injustices inflicted on the Arabs; he expected war. He was both pained and angered by the fact that men of the People’s Church had signed the U.N. declaration on Zionism, and there was a fascinating debate between him and Folk High School Principal C. P. O. Christiansen, who defended having signed the address. Religion played a subordinate role for both of them. This was not true of Sivertsen of The Word and Israel, who had two articles published in Menighedsbladet in 1946 and 1947, and presented the views of his group, polemicizing both against Nielsen’s rejection of using the Bible in an argument for the creation of an Israeli state and against Nielsen’s defense of the Arab population.313 Thus almost all of the members of the Danish Israel Mission and the Inner Mission, as well as some Grundtvigian factions, judged Zionism, immigration to Palestine, and the creation of the State of Israel from a religious standpoint. This was also true of The Word and Israel, which went even further and accepted that a violent struggle would be justifiable. Frederik Torm, however, suggested restraint, emphasizing missionary efforts, while Alfred Nielsen did not adopt a religious point of view, but rejected Zionism and defended the Arabs’ right to the country. He felt that the ancient prophecies could not per- tain to current political conditions.

A Bishop and an Archdeacon are Accused of Their Anti-Judaism during the Period of Occupation A group of priests were disturbed that Bishop Skat Hoffmeyer of Aarhus had made statements they considered pro-German and hostile to Jews at a clerical

313 Marcus Melchior in Jødisk Samfund, 2, 10, 11, 1946; 3, 5, 9, 1948. Melchior, Levet og oplevet, 113–115, 137–139. Marcus Melchior in Berlingske Tidende, July 28, 1946. Axel Torm in Israelsmissionen, 4, 67–73, 1946. Hofman-Bang in Israelsmissionen., 9, 1946, 183–188; 8, 1947, 148–152. Janus Rasmussen in Indre Missions Tidende 28, 1946, 332. Axel Bülow, ibid., 4–6, 1947, 16. W. Larsen, ibid., 41, 1949. Georg Bartholdy, ibid., 19, 1947; 24, 1947. F. Torm, ibid., 27, 1947; Georg Bartholdy in Jødisk Samfund 1/1948; 1, 1949. E. Sivertsen, Alfred Nielsen and C. P. O. Christiansen in Menighedsbladet 32, 1946; 29, 1947; 46, 1947; 43, 1949; 47, 1949. Sympathy For Jews And Hatred Of Jews 265 convention they had attended in Randers in 1942. Just after Denmark was liberated, they demanded that a case be brought against him. This elicited a great deal of attention in the press. Letters from 1942 show that many people were upset by the news and rumors in circulation about this affair. The Minister of Church Affairs, Arne Sørensen, who was dismissed in the autumn of 1946, claimed that there were no grounds for a case. His successor, Dean Carl Hermansen, had often criticized Hoffmeyer in the Grundtvigian periodical, Dansk Kirketidende. Now that he had become Minister, he did an about- face, claiming that there was no reason to prosecute. No one knew why, but the answer lies in the dossiers on Hoffmeyer of the Ministry of Church Affairs: the King himself, Christian X, had intervened via the cabinet secretary, Gunnar Bardenfleth, and had exerted pressure on the Minister to drop the case. Bishop Hoffmeyer and his wife were members of the King and Queen’s social circle. What had Hoffmeyer actually said in 1942? It was not possible to find his words, because he had refused to hand over his manuscript of the speech. Nevertheless, his handwritten comments and numerous letters and papers are in the archives. In his lecture he had distanced himself from the German Confessing Church and especially its charismatic leader, Martin Niemöller— who incidentally was put into a concentration camp form 1938 to 1945 as ‘Hitler’s personal prisoner’—he was also against the clergy actively opposing the occupying forces. The pinpricks the priests had given the occupying forces were just histrionics; he rejected universal suffrage, but then he had never really had anything to do with politics. As for Jews, he declared “as for myself, I have always been a heretic in my feelings about Jews, and there is only one reason for it: Brandes.” The Jews of Germany had a very great influence on society, and that was a problem. He could sympathize with the “Aryan paragraph” that ruled that Jews could not be employed in the public sector and that Christian Jews could no longer be clergymen. He thought that there was a parallel between these decisions and “the old idea that a hunchback could not become a priest, but they are not excluded from salvation on this ground.” But people had gone too far in Germany: “The persecutions of the Jews there were a disgrace to our culture.” Concerning a special law about Jews, he said that as a Danish citizen he certainly did not favor a law about Jews, “in any case not now, when it would provoke a huge furor.” In comments he sent to the Ministry together with his lecture, he explained that he had meant that Jewish influence in society should be regulated if it became too dominant, and he would consider such regulation advantageous if Denmark became “overrun by half a million German Jews.” He was against the persecution of Jews, and had signed the bishops’ pastoral letter in October of 1943, but Jews were nonetheless a “problem” for him, because “they seem foreign to me.” He said that this was because of his zealous nationalism: there is a very close tie between Danish culture 266 chapter 9 and Christianity, and Jews remain outside Danish Christianity—except for the rare case in which a Jew had become a sincerely religious Christian person. He could not understand that no one would admit that “Jews in fact have traits that are not immediately sympathetic.” In any event, he had presented his opinions in a closed meeting of priests: those priests who now had risen up against him were simply overly sensitive. Like many before him, he made use of Bishop Martensen’s declarations on Jews and Judaism in his defense. Hoffmeyer was the editor of the church page of Aarhus Stiftstidene [Aarhus times], which had supported him and had criticized the group of priests who were against him. When the priests had been unsuccessful elsewhere, they brought a legal case against the newspaper with the aim of having Hoffmeyer called in as a witness. On the witness stand, he said—in 1946 when the extent of the Holocaust had been known for some time—“I have never been able to like Jews.” The group of priests won the case in the city and district courts. The newspaper was found guilty, but not Bishop Hoffmeyer; he was never put on trial. His friend Professor P. G. Lindhardt had backed him, while Professor K. E. Løgstrup had demanded his removal from office. The case involved several peculiar details. Petitions both for and against the bishop were circulated among the clergy of the diocese. They were sent to the Ministry in the dioc- esan mail, which meant that they all passed across the bishop’s desk en route. His archives contain many letters from priests, asking him to retract his words. Other priests supported him in letters that were equally earnest, but anti- Jewish. When unrest continued, the prosecutor of the extraordinary post-war court made investigations, but concluded that the bishop’s behavior during the occupation had not been detrimental to the nation. His anti-Semitism was not mentioned. Bishop Hoffmeyer never retracted his statements; he could not, as he wrote to his friend Paul Seidelin, because they were opinions he had always held, so if he were to be dismissed because of them, so be it. Archdeacon Christian Baun, a supporter of the Inner Mission and later bishop of Viborg, was the only attendee at the 1942 Conventicle in Randers not to participate in the protest against Hoffmeyer. According to the protesting group of priests, Baun had said that there was something to the difference between the races, and he had said that a curse was upon the Jews because they had crucified Jesus, and we were not the ones to remove it. His words had made a painful impression on the priests, who could not forget them, even though Baun had shown courage in attacking the Germans from the pulpit. He was also supposed to have said that if all the Jews were to be isolated on a desert island after the war, he would have nothing against it. During his court case, Hoffmeyer claimed that Baun’s declaration had shocked him, and that he could never bring himself to say such a thing. Several priests recalled other Sympathy For Jews And Hatred Of Jews 267 derogatory things Baun had said about Jews, but no case was raised against him. He was appointed bishop of Viborg Diocese in 1951. Both Hoffmeyer and Baun carried on with the anti-Judaism that had gripped the clergy and others in the People’s Church since the nineteenth century. Jews had been rejected by God because they themselves had rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Therefore God was just in punishing them, a punishment under which they still suffer and which Christians should not try to remove. With this they interwove the idea that if you were not Christian, you were not really Danish. They made generalizations, spoke of the negative character traits of all Jews, and they had no qualms about the social and political consequences of their theoretical considerations.314

314 For studies made of and detailed references to Hoffmeyer’s archives and archives from the Ministry for Ecclesiastical Affairs in the National Archives of Denmark, Copenhagen, see Lausten, Jødesympati og jødehad, 303, 397–430. chapter 10 Epilogue

Over the course of time, various national governments, the Copenhagen City Council, Christian theologians, and representatives of the Jewish community have discussed with each other and often among themselves how to find a balance between Danish culture, Christianity, and legislation, on the one hand, and the Jewish understanding of religion and co-existence with the surrounding society, on the other. Some of the issues discussed were traditional apparel, food customs, construction of synagogues, education of Jewish children in their own schools and/or in non-Jewish schools, education in the Hebrew language, marriages between partners of different religions, and the religious upbringing of the children of such marriages. There were deliberations on giving permission for Danish Jews to marry foreign Jews and “bring them home” to Denmark. There were debates on whether Jews and Christians worshipped the same God, and whether Jews—“the foreigners”—were genuine Danes, whether Jews were loyal citizens. The threat that many felt Jews posed to Christianity and Danish culture was proven to be pure illusion. The integration of Jews into Danish society was a complete success and Jewish contributions to Danish culture, business life, and the arts and sciences have been manifested in innumerable areas. In our times, however, the debate on all the issues mentioned above has been transferred to the Muslim minority in Denmark. This is an area in which we could learn from history. The ‘Letter of Freedom’ of 1814 officially recognized the Jews of Denmark as citizens with the same rights as other citizens. At that time, the edict was the culmination, for the time being, of a long series of efforts to integrate Jews. Forward-looking men of the government, the Jewish community, and the Church had cooperated on reaching this goal. Since the time of the Enlightenment, there had been Jews committed to working toward integration; they demanded that Jews become fluent in the Danish language, that they become Danish citizens while retaining Judaism as their religion, and that they put Danish legislation above Jewish rules. But from a Jewish point of view, it was unfortunate that for many Jews full integration meant that they have assimilated into society and have forgotten, or consciously given up, their religion and Jewish identity. Efforts for integration met serious resistance from Danish intellectuals during the literary feud about the Jews at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Resistance came from politicians who deliberated in the Advisory Assembly of

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004304376_011 Epilogue 269 the Estates at the beginning of the 1830s and from such theologians as Bishop Martensen and others at the end of the 1800s. In addition, Denmark was also hit with the global upsurge of anti-Semitism that arose in the twentieth century. When faced with a religious minority, the Danish Christian majority can either react with confrontation or with a desire for understanding, patience and tolerance. Time after time in the course of history, Christians have chosen the former in their dealing with Jews, and since the leaders of the Church were among the nation’s foremost opinion-makers until the twentieth century, the anti-Jewish attitudes of theologians had disastrous consequences. They provided arguments that citizens and politicians could make use of in their harassment and subjugation of the minority. Why had the men of the Church steadfastly put forth this opposition to Judaism and Jews? During the first centuries of the Church there had been verbal and literary disagreements between the two sides, and although they sometimes resulted in violent clashes between the two, it was not until the Crusades in about the year 1100 that Christians directly initiated persecution of Jews. The Christians completely lost their moorings. In part, they felt that the conflict Jesus and the first Christians had had with the Jews ought to be carried up through history: the Jewish people must forever be collectively responsible for the Jews of the past having rejected Jesus and for Jesus’ crucifixion by Roman soldiers. And in part, Christians did not limit themselves to rejection of Judaism on religious grounds only, but went further and took social and political measures against Jews. Martin Luther’s point of view is an excellent example of this. For all time, all living Jews were to be harassed or directly punished, because they were Jews. Until the nineteenth century, Christians had a fundamentalist understanding of the Bible; in other words, they took the Bible literally, including many of Jesus’ words about Jews, scribes, and Pharisees. In addition, they had a Christological understanding of the Jewish Bible, the Old Testament. That is, from their viewpoint, Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah spoken of in the prophecies. They could not fathom that Jews did not see this. Therefore Jews must either be blind or obstinate. Throughout history, many Christian theologians have doubtlessly operated on the basis of a strong inner Christian belief and sorrow because the people of Jesus would not become Christian. Others were driven by desire for power or by fear of foreign elements, which they believed the Jews constituted in a Christian society. It is astonishing that ideas and preconceptions of past times persisted among Danish theologians all the way to the middle of the twentieth century even though the historical-critical reading of the Bible began long before then, even though there was freedom of religion, and even though millions of Jews had been exterminated as a result of the sick anti-Semitism of the Nazis. 270 chapter 10

We have seen this in sermons, travelogues, books, and political deliberations. A grotesque example is the justification that the professors of theology gave for refusing to act as examiners at the planned Jewish catechist education in 1875. This thinking reached its height when both clergy and lay people thought they could read God’s mind and declared that the extermination of the Jews under Nazism was part of His plan because the Jews woud not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Comments from another wing of the Church, which also thought it knew God’s plans, were equally offensive; they claimed that the Jewish seizure of Palestine was absolutely legitimate, no matter how much injustice was done to the Arab population. The distinction between religion and politics did not concern these Christians. Research has shown that there also were powers in the Christian Church, specifically since the Enlightenment, who were spokesmen for a positive view of Judaism and Jews and who agreed with the men of the Jewish Enlightenment in holding that Jewish fellow citizens were ordinary Danish citizens who happened to have a different religion. During the Nazi persecution of Jews and the action to deport Danish Jews in 1943, this was emphasized when priests and lay people helped the fugitives to safety. In this connection it should be remarked that historical material on the special cases—points of view and actions that were exceptional, sensational, perhaps in defiance of law—are the ones that are most fully documented in the resource material. It is also true that our sources are incomplete and imperfect. For example, only a minority of priests had Nazi and anti-Semitic viewpoints. The great majority of priests and congregations went about their daily lives without making waves; they presumably knew and had relations with Jewish fellow citizens without having aggressive or condemnatory ideas concerning their religion.

There are three-meter-high statues of Moses and David outside Copenhagen Cathedral. Many anecdotes and jokes have been told about placing the greatest figures of ancient Judaism just in front of the nation’s principal cathedral of the Christian Church: that they were not allowed inside, since they did not belong in a Christian church, or that they refused to come inside, or that they had been placed there because Christianity was based on Judaism, that Jews and Christians are related. The dramatic history of the twentieth century proved that Christians were also able to concentrate on what Jews and Christians have in common. During the German occupation of Denmark, Poul Borchsenius (1897–1973), priest of Sankt Mortens kirke (Church of Saint Morten) in Randers, Jutland, had to flee to Sweden. He was one of the priests who had been assailed by the anti-Semitic newspaper Kamptegnet for being “Jew-friendly.” In Sweden, Epilogue 271 he held a series of morning devotions that were broadcast on the radio and were also listened to by the Danish Jewish refugees in Sweden. He intentionally stressed themes that bound the two religions together, for “Jews and Christians had so much in common on the basis of the first Article of Faith [‘We believe in God the Father, almighty creator of heaven and earth,’ from the Apostles’ Creed] that there is also a good deal in the Christian message to share, which the Jews would also like to hear.” The cantors of the Copenhagen synagogue assisted him at the services, indeed, they were actually the ones who bore forth the Danish hymns, he related. When these morning services later appeared as a book, Rabbi Marcus Melchior declared that it should be a standard fixture in many Jewish homes. There has been renewed debate in recent times about whether there is “more than one way to God.” The debate is not specifically about the relationship between Christians and Jews, but is broader, about the relationship of Christianity to other religions. A bishop and some priests have averred that they did not rule out the possibility that religious people who are not Christians could find their way to the same God we find through Christ. A survey of 572 priests of the Danish People’s Church in 2010 showed that twenty percent of them doubted that Jesus is the only way to God. Other theologians and jurists refuted this view, and threatened them with court cases with in order to get them dismissed.315 In his 1966 book, To Veje? En bog om jødedom og kirst- endom [Two paths? A book on Judaism and Christianity], Poul Borchsenius mentions that two thousand years ago Israel said No to Jesus as Messiah, and since then the single path to God has been split into two paths. The Jews have maintained their rejection: for them the belief in Jesus as the son of God is blasphemy. They are still waiting for the future arrival of the Messiah. After a thematic and chronological presentation of the two religions, each separately as well as in their mutually oppositional relationship, Borchsenius asked if it might be that God has prepared two paths for the salvation of mankind, one via Sinai for Israel, the other via Golgotha for all others, and that the separate paths are hastening toward the same heaven? He admitted that this is a puzzle, the unknowable thoughts and plans of the Almighty, but he emphasized that in spite of these ideas we ought to reject non-committal tolerance, a lukewarm stance toward one’s own religion, for not until the Jew is a true Jew, and the Christian is a true Christian, will they be able to meet with mutual respect and enter a dialogue. He also stressed that differing views about Jesus Christ is the place where the ways part. Here each person must make a choice.

315 Kristeligt Dagblad, Mar. 5, Mar. 6, Mar. 9, Mar. 24, 2010; www.Kristendom.dk/jesus (seen Apr. 3, 2010). 272 chapter 10

Fundamentalists on both sides have the easiest task here: the Christian fundamentalists, who exactingly demand that Jews convert to Christianity, and the Jewish fundamentalists, who view Christians as blasphemers. Borchsenius was quite aware that uncompromising Christians “shudder” at the idea of refrain- ing from Christian missionizing—of letting the Jews go in peace. The Almighty is one, “and yet he gave one part of his light to the Synagogue and another part of his light to the Church . . . they are both waiting for the One who is coming; the Jews for the Messiah and the Christians for Jesus’ return. And those two are one and the same person. Jew and Christian could pray together; ‘your kingdom come’.” Some day in the future, “the two paths shall meet the same Lord and merge together. That day they will no longer be paths, they will have reached their destination.” (173) During the debate about the path or paths to God, doctor of theology Jakob Wolf, a lecturer at the theological faculty in Copenhagen, put it this way: the Christian believes that God gives salvation through Jesus Christ, “but this belief gives us no knowledge of the other possibilities for God to save human beings. If we say that God will only give salvation through Christ, then we are talking about something we have no way of knowing. In that case, we fail to recognize the sovereignty of God and the limits of our own understanding.316

316 Poul Borchsenius, To Veje? En bog om jødedom og kristendom [Two paths? A book on Judaism and Christianity] (Copenhagen: Hirschsprung, 1966). Jakob Wolf “Tro er ikke en mening” (Faith is not an opinion), Kristeligt Dagblad, Mar. 24, 2010. Literature and Sources

General information: where no place of publication is named, it is Copenhagen. Many older sources lack publishers’ names. More comprehensive information on sources and literature is found in the six books by the present author listed on the reverse side of the half title page.

Abbreviation: ISR (Israelsmissionens Blad, a Danish periodical).

Chapter 1: Jews in Literature and Art of the Church: The Catholic Middle Ages

Adams, Jonathan. Lessons in contempt. Poul Ræff’s translation and Publication in 1516 of Johannes Pfefferkorn’s “The Confession of the Jews.” Odense: Univ. Press of Southern Denmark, 2013. Brandt, Carl Joachim og Rasmus Fenger, eds. Christiern Pedersens Danske Skrifter. vol. 2. Gyldendals forlag. 1851. Christensen, C. A. et al., eds. Diplomatarium Danicum. Det danske Sprog- og Litteratur- selskab. ser. 1. vol. 5. 1211–1223. C. A. Reitzels Boghandel. 1957. Danish Medieval frescoes in www.kalkmalerier.dk and www.kalkmaleriinfo.natmus.dk Ebbesen, Sten, ed. Anders Sunesøn. G.E.C. Gads forlag, 1985. Ebbesen, Sten and Laurentius Boethius Mortensen, eds. Andreae Sunonis Filii Hexaemeron. G.E.C. Gads forlag, 1985. Edelmann, Raphael. “En dansk Bog om Antisemitismen.” in Jødisk Samfund, 22, 1948, 10–11. Gelfer-Jørgensen, Miriam ed. Dansk jødisk kunst—Jøder i dansk kunst. Rhodos Internationalt forlag for videnskab og kunst, 1999. Gertz, Martin Clarentius. Gesta Swenomagni regis et filiorum eius (Vitae Sanctorum Danorum). Gads forlag, 1908, 77–137. Gotfredsen, Lise. Råsted kirke. Spil og billede. Akademisk forlag, 1975. Haastrup, Ulla. “Die romanischen Wandmalereien in Råsted.” in Hafnia –. Copenhagen Papers in the History of Art. Univ. of Copenhagen, 1972. 69–138. Haastrup, Ulla and Robert Egevang, eds. Danske kalkmalerier 1175–1275. Nationalmuseet. Chr. Ejlers forlag, 1987. Haastrup, Ulla. Jødefremstillinger i dansk middelalderkunst, in Gelfer-Jørgensen 1999, 111–167. Kirn, Hans-Martin. Das Bild von den Juden in Deutschland des frühen 16. Jahrhundert, dargestellt an den Schriften Johannes Pfefferkorn. Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism. vol. 3. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989. 274 Literature and Sources

Langberg, Harald. Gyldne Billeder fra Middelalderen, Nationalmuseet. 1979. ———. Gunhildkorset. Gunhild’s Cross and Medieval Court Art in Denmark. Selskabet til udgivelse af danske mindesmærker, 1982. Lange, Hans Ostenfeld ed. Jesu Passionsvandring. Gotfred af Ghemens De femten Steder. Facsimile edition. Aarhus, 1915. Lausten, Martin Schwarz. Kirke og synagoge. Holdninger i den danske kirke til jødedom og jøder i middelalderen, reformationstiden og den lutherske ortodoksi (ca. 1100– ca. 1700) Zusammenfassung in deutscher Sprache Kirkehistoriske studier ser. 3, no. 1, Univ. of Copenhagen Akademisk Forlag, 1992. 2nd ed., 2002. ———. A Church History of Denmark. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002. ———. Reformationen i Danmark. Anis. 3rd ed., 2011. Nielsen, Karl-Martin, Alfred Otto and Jens Lyster, eds. Middelalderens danske Bønnebøger I–V. Gyldendals forlag. 1945–1982. Nørlund, Poul. Gyldne Altre. Selskabet til udgivelse af danske mindesmærker, 1926. Petersen, Erik. “Ut nocte uivantes . . . Nogle noter om Sunesen og Skabelsen”, in Præsteforeningens Blad. 50, 1985, 917–924. Pfefferkorn, Johannes. Libellus de Judaica Confessione. Nürnberg: Johann Weyssen burger, 1508. Poulsen, Vagn, et al. Dansk kunsthistorie. Selskabet til udgivelse af danske mindesmær- ker, 1, 1972. Riising, Anne. Danmarks middelalderlige prædiken. G.E.C. Gads forlag, 1969. Shamir, Avner. Christian Conceptions of Jewish Books. The Pfefferkorn Affair. Museum Tusculanum, 2011.

Chapter 2: Martin Luther’s Antipathy toward Jews and the Attitudes of Danish Reformers: The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century

Brecht, Martin. Martin Luther. vol. 3. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1987. Brochmand, Jesper. Universæ theologiæ Systema, vols. 1–2. Lipsiæ et Copenhagen: Joachim Moltke, 1633. Bugenhagen Johannes. Iohannis Bvgenhagii Pomerani Annotationes ab ipso emissae. InDeuteronomium. Basel: Adam Petri, 1524. ———. Die Historie des leydens vnd der Aufferstehung vnsers Herrn Jhesu Christi Aus den vier Euangelisten durch Johannem Bugenhagen Pomer vleyssig zusammen bracht, Wittenberg, 1526. Edwards, Mark U. Luthers last Battles. Leiden: Brill, 1983. Gritsch, Eric. Martin Luther’s Antisemitism. Against his better judgment. Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012. Literature and Sources 275

Langballe, Jesper. “Luthers grovhed og vor tids vulgaritet.” in Kristeligt Dagblad, Nov. 3, 1999. Lausten, Martin Schwarz. Københavns universitet 1536–1588. in Københavns universitet 1479–1979 1, Sven Ellehøj and Leif Grane, eds. G.E.C. Gads forlag, 1991. 79–167. ———. Kirke og synagoge. (see under Chapter 1). ———. Johann Bugenhagen. Luthersk reformator i Tyskland og Danmark. Forlaget Anis, 2011. Luther, Martin. “That Jesus Christ was born a Jew.” in Luther’s Works, American ed. vol. 45, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1962, 195–229. ———. On the Jews and their Lies. in ibid., vol. 47. Philadelphia, 1981, 121–306. ———. “Eine Vermahnung wider die Juden.” in Dr. Martin Luthers Werke. vol. 51, Weimar: Verlag Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1914, 195–196. ———. “Briefe.” in Dr. Martin Luther’s Werke. Briefe. vol. 11. Weimar: Verlag Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1948. ———. Jøderne og deres løgne. Olga Eggers, trans. Nordiske Kvinders Forlag, 1938. Maurer, Wilhelm. “Die Zeit der Reformation,” in Rengstorff, Karl Heinz and Siegfried Kortzfleisch, eds. Kirche und Synagoge I, München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1988, 363–407. Palladius, Peder. Catalogus Hereticorum. 1556. in Kirkehistoriske samlinger 1970, 12–45. ———. “Vor herris Jhesu Christi Pinis, Døds og ærefulde Opstandelsis historie . . . ved Johannem Bugenhagen Pomer. Oc nu vddragen aff vor danske Bibel ved D. Petrum Palladium” in Peder Palladius’ Danske Skrifter 4, Lis Jacobsen ed. H. H. Thieles Bogtrykkeri, 1919–1922, 141– 198. ———. Alterbog. 1556 in ibid. vol. 3. ———. Librorum Moisi, qvi sunt Fons doctrinae Ecclesiae, explicatio brevis et ad usum piorum accomodata. Wittenberg: Hans Krafft, 1559. Stöhr, Martin. “Luther und die Juden”, in Evangelische Theologie 20, 1960. 157–182. Tausen, Hans. Postil, vols 1–2, Bjørn Kornerup ed. Facsimile edition. Ejnar Munksgaards Forlag, 1934. ———. “Sendebrevet,” in Smaaskrifter af Hans Tausen, H. F. Rørdam ed. Thiles Bogtryk, 1870. ———. Vor Herres Jesu Christi Hellige Passies oc pinsels hystori. Magdeburg, 1538. Tidemand, Peder. Hierusalems iemmerlige forstøring oc ødeleggelse. Magdeburg: Hans Walther, 1539. ———. Passio . . . aff Vito Theodoro. Magdeburg: Michael Loccer, 1556. ———. Historien om Christi Jesu vor frelseris pine og død. Copenhagen: Michael Loccher, 1556. Wilhelmsen, Jacob. Elementale Ebraicum. Wittenberg, 1569. 276 Literature and Sources

Chapter 3: Jewish Immigrants, Freedom of Religion, and the Anger of the Bishops: The Orthodoxy of the Seventeenth Century

Aslakssøn, Cort. Grammaticæ Hebrææ libri duo . . . Auctore Cunrado Aslaco Bergensi. Henrik Waldkirch, 1606. Aurilesius, Niels Pedersen. Musæ Hebræorum Hafniæ Danorum familiarius inter se col loquentes, seu colloquia Hebræa, in gratiam juniorum evulgata. Salomon Sartorius, 1628. Brask, Peter ed. Golgotha paa Parnasso. vols 1–2. Munksgaards forlag, 1973. Brochmand, Jesper. Universæ Theologiæ Systema vols. 1–2. Lipsiæ et Copenhagen: Joachim Moltke, 1633. Carøe, Kristian. “Da Claus Rasch vilde lave Ghetto paa Christianshavn.” in Tidsskrift for jødisk Historie og Litteratur. vol. I, 1919, 103–116. Christensen, Thorkild Lyby. “Hans Wandals remonstration.” in Kirkehistoriske Sam linger 1980, 115–135. Dal, Erik. “Ahasverus in Dänemark. Volksbuch. Volkslieder und Verwandtes.” in Festschrift zum 75. Geburtstag von Erich Seemann, Rolf Wilhelm Brednich ed. Jahrbuch für Volksliedforschung. vol. 9. Berlin, 1974. 144–170. Degn, Ole. “Stænder og socialgrupper i Danske Lov.” in Danske og norske lov i 300 år, Ditlev Tamme ed. Jurist- og økonomforbundets forlag, 1983. 35–63. Fasmer, Aage Blomberg. “Jens Steen Sehested. Digteren. Officeren. Godsejeren.” in Fynske Aarbøger 4. Odense: Historisk Samfund for Fyns Stift, 1950–1952. 1–79. Gerson, Christian. Der Jüden Thalmud fürnembster Inhalt vnd Widerlegung. In zwey Bücher verfasset, vols. 1–2. Gera, 1613. Glebe-Møller, Jens. “Jesper Brochmand”, in Ellehøj og Grane (see under Chapter 2) 130–141. Hauch-Fausbøll, Thomas. “Jødernes Færden og Ophold i den danske Stat i det 17de Aarhundrede.” in Tidsskrift for jødisk Historie og Litteratur. vol. 2, 1919–1921. 106–120. Helveg, Ludvig. Den danske Kirkes Historie efter Reformationen. vol. 1. C. G. Iversens forlag, 1857. Jacobsen, Jacob Peter and Richard Paulli. Danske Folkebøger fra det 16. og 17. Aarhundrede. vol. 1. Gyldendals forlag 1915, Vols 63–77. 181–189. 227–267. Katz, Per. Jøderne i Danmark i det 17. Århundrede. C. A. Reitzels Boghandel. 1981. Lausten, Martin Schwarz. Kirke og synagoge. (See under Chapter 1) 376–482. ———. A Church History of Denmark. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002, 127–157. Lindbæk, Johannes ed. Aktstykker og Oplysninger til Statskollegiets Historie 1660–1676, 1–2, Gads Forlag, 1909. Sehested, Jens Steen. Dydernis Prøvesteen. Christian Cassube, 1671. Literature and Sources 277

Smith, Sophus Birket ed. Kjøbenhavns Universitets Matrikel. Gyldendals forlag, 1890. Sønderholm, Erik ed. Dansk Barokdigtning 1600–1750. Univ. of Copenhagen Institute for Nordic Philology. Lærebøger og kompendier. vol. I, 1969. vol. 2, 1971. ——— ed. Jacob Worms Skrifter, vols. 1–3, Reitzels forlag, 1966–1971. ———. Dansk Barok 1630–1700. Gyldendals forlag 1974. Thing, Morten. “Jerusalems skomager i Danmark.” in Rambam. Tidsskrift for jødisk kul tur og Forskning. vol. 10, 2001. 58–77. Thomsen, Ejnar. Barokken i dansk digtning. Munksgaards forlag, 1971. Winstrup, Peder. Epigrammatum libri tres. Jena: Blasius Lobenstein, 1632. 591–597. Worm, Jacob. Jesu Klagemaal over Judas og Jøderne, 1680.

Chapter 4: Convert or be Lost! Controversy and Mission in the Age of Pietism (1700–1760)

Blüdnikow, Bent ed. Fremmede i Danmark. 400 års fremmedpolitik Odense Univ. Studies in History and Social Sciences vol. 104. Odense, 1987. ———. “Jøderne i Danmark. En historisk oversigt”, in Mirjam Gelfer-Jørgensen 1999 (see under chapter 1), 21–45. Boldig, Ernst Christian. Schlechte Hoffnung. Copenhagen und Leipzig: Johan Melchior Lieben, 1696. Buxtorf, Johannes. Synagoga Judaica. Basel: Ludvic König, 1641. Cohen, Asser Daniel. De mosaiske Troesbekjenderes Stilling i Danmark forhen og nu. Odense: Forfatterens Forlag, 1837. Edelmann, Martin. Eden i den rabbinske litteratur. Rosenkilde og Baggers forlag, 1978. Ewald, Enevold. Det Gamle og Nye Testamentes Herlige Harmoni, vol. 2, 1745. ———. Den eneste sande . . . Visdoms Kilde. Gottmann Kisel, 1752. Fogtman, Laurids ed. Kongelige Rescripter, Resolutioner og Collegialbreve 1660–1770, Gyldendals forlag, 1786ff. Frankel, Zacharias. Die Eidesleistung der Juden in theologischer und historischer Beziehung. Dresden: Arnoldische Buchhandlung, 1847. Gerner, Henrik. Nogle Merkværdigheder, som angaaer Henric Gerner. Johann Rudolph Thiele, 1777. Giessing, Christoffer and Christian Lassen Tychonius. Enfoldig og Skriftmessig Betænkning om Jødernes Omvendelse. H. J. Graae, 1770. Hartvig, Michael. Jøderne i Danmark i tiden 1600–1800. Gads Forlag, 1951. Hirsch, Hermann Levin. Det jødiske Trossamfund i Fredericia. Fredericia, 1896. Jørgensen, Harald ed. Indenfor murene. Jødisk liv i Danmark 1684–1984. C. A. Reitzels forlag, 1984. 278 Literature and Sources

Kalkar, Christian Herman. Israel og Kirken. Historisk Overblik over det gjensidige Forhold indtil De nyeste Tider. C. A. Reitzels Forlag, 1881. Lausten, Martin Schwarz. De fromme og jøderne. Holdninger til jødedom og jøder i Danmark i pietismens tid (1700–1760) Kirkehistoriske Studier, udg. af Afdeling for Kirkehistorie, Det teologiske Fakultet, Univ. of Copenhagen. ser. 3, no. 7, Mit deutscher Zusammenfassung), Akademisk Forlag 2000. Lorck, Josias. Beiträge zu der neuesten Kirchengeschichte, 1–2, Leipzig, 1756–1762. Lütkens, Franz Julius. Collegium Biblicum. Christian Rothen, 1715. Nathanson, Mendel Levin. Historisk Fremstilling af Jødernes Forhold i Danmark, navnlig Kjøbenhavn. F. H. Eibe, 1860. Nielsen, Oluf August. Kjøbenhavn paa Holbergs Tid. Forlagsbureauet, 1884. ——— ed. Kjøbenhavns Diplomatarium. vol. 7–8. Gads Forlag, 1886–1887. ———. Kjøbenhavns Historie og Beskrivelse. vol. 6. Gads Forlag, 1892. Pontoppidan, Erik. Sanhed til Gudfrygtighed. Vajsenhusets forlag, 1737. Roi, Johannes de Le. Die evangelische Christenheit und die Juden. Leipzig und Berlin Reuther, 1884. Schoeps, Hans Joachim. Philosemitismus im Barock. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1952. Spener, Philipp Jacob. “Christliches Bedencken wegen der Anstalten zur Bekehrung einiger Juden.” in Spener Theologische Bedencken, 4. Halle: Waisenhaus, 1702. 87–99. Thestrup, Poul. The Standard of Living in Copenhagen 1730–1800. G.E.C. Gads forlag, 1971. Weinholt, Karin. Jødedommen, en udfordring. Gyldendals forlag, 1997. Wessel, Friedrich Petersen. Der geistlich tode Jude. J. G. Hoepffner, 1721. ———. Die gifftige Quelle des Talmuds. J. G. Höepffner, 1724.

Chapter 5: Ordinary Danish Citizens, but with Another Religion: The ‘Christian’ and Jewish Enlightenment (1760–1814)

Albertsen, Leif Ludwig. Engelen Mi. En bog om den danske jødefejde. Med en bibliografi af Bent W. Dahlstrøm. Private edition, 1984. Algreen-Ussing, Tage ed. Alfabetisk Register over Kongelige Reskripter og Resolutioner, vol. 7, Gyldendals Forlag, 1814. Altmann, Alexander. Moses Mendelssohn. A biographical Study. Alabama: Univ. of Alabama Press, 1973. Andreasen, Øjvind ed. Aus den Tagebüchern Friedrich Münters, 1. Forlaget Haase og Søn, 1937. ——— ed. Friedrich Münter. Et Mindeskrift 6. Forlaget Haase og Søn, 1944. Balle, Nicolai Edinger. Bibelsk Søn- og Helligdags-Læsning. I, 1797. ———. Vor Herres og Frelsers Jesu Kristi . . . Regiering i Himlen, 1804. ———. Tale i Caroline-Skole d. 28de October 1813. 1813. Literature and Sources 279

Bastholm, Christian. Den jødiske Historie fra Verdens Skabelse til Jerusalems sidste Ødelæggelse, 3, 1777. ———. Lov-Tale over Messia. Godiche, 1772. Dohm, Christian Wilhelm. Über die bürgerliche Verbesserung der Juden (1781). Hildesheim: Ohms Verlag, 1973. Euchel, Gottleb. Til evig Fred. Thorstein og Rankel, 1813. Frosell, Preben Hampton. Københavns synagoger gennem tre hundrede år, C. A. Reitzels forlag, 1987. Gedalia, Abraham. Heilige Rede des Geistlichen der Hoch-Teutschen Juden-Gemeinde, 1789. ———. Exegetische Gelegenheitsrede nach gedämpfter Feuersbrunst, 1794. Gelfer-Jørgensen, Mirjam. “Synagogen som bygningsværk”, in Mirjam Gelfer-Jørgensen ed., 1999 (see chapter 1) 171–177. Glebe-Møller, Jens. Struenses vej til skafottet. Fornuft og åbenbaring i Oplysningstiden, Museum Tusculanums forlag, 2007. Grundtvig, Nikolaj Frederik Severin. “Til Fædrenelandet om dets Tarv og Fare.” in N.F.S. Grundtvigs Skrifter i Udvalg, 2. Georg Christensen og Hal Koch eds., 1941. 24–50. Gutfeld, Frederik Karl. Taler over de sædvanlige Søndags-Texter, I, Proft og Storch, 1799. Horrebow, Otto. Jødernes Krønike, 1813. ———. Jesus og Fornuften. Et Religions-Blad, 1–8, 1796–1801. Jensen, Hans. De danske Stænderforsamlingers Historie 1830–1848, 1–2. Forlaget J. H. Schultz, 1931. Jørgensen, Harald. C.N. David, I, Gyldendals Forlag, 1950. Kalkar, Christian Herman. Mindeblade om . . . Moses Delbanco, 1848. Kirmmse, Bruce. “Kierkegaard, jødedommen og jøderne”, in Kirkehistoriske Samlinger 1992, 77–107. Kolderup-Rosenvinge, Janus Lauritz Andreas og Jacob Henric Schou eds. Chronologisk Register over de kgl. Forordninger, 23. Forlag Breum, 1844. Lausten, Martin Schwarz. Oplysning i kirke og synagoge. Forholdet mellem kristne og jøder i den danske Oplysningstid (1760–1814). (Kirkehistoriske studier, Udg. af Afdeling for Kirkehistorie, Univ. of Copenhagen, ser. 3, no. 8, mit deutscher Zusaamenfassung). Akademisk Forlag, 2002. ———. A Church History of Denmark. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002. Moldenhawer, Daniel Gotlieb. “Afhandling om den Indflydelse de Jøderne i Spanien tilstaaede Rettigheder . . . havde”, in Det Skandinaviske Litteratur-Selskabs Skrifter, 2, 1806. 122–146. Michaelis, Johann David. Mosaiske Ret, oversat af det tyske, 1–3 Gyldendals forlag, 1780–1783. Münter, Balthasar. Labor ipse voluptas. En Præken holden i Petri Kirke i Kjøbenhavn den 25de Søndag efter Trinitatis 1777 over Mattæi Evangelium 24, 15–28, fordansket. 1813. 280 Literature and Sources

Nathanson, Mendel Levin. Historisk Fremstilling af Jødernes Forhold og Stilling i Danmark, navnlig Kjøbenhavn. F. H. Eide, 1860. N. N. Min Stemme i Anledning af Dagens Stridsskrifter, 1796. N. N. Tidsskriftet Nordlyset, 1813. N. N. Lærebog i Religionen for den jødiske Ungdom i Spørgsmaale og Svar, 1814. Phieseldeck, Conrad Georg von. Om den jødiske Nations hidtil værende Forhold. Forlag Joh. Fr. Schultz, 1817. Rasmussen, Jens. “Jødefejden og de beslægtede uroligheder 1819–1820.” in Kirkehistoriske Samlinger 2010, 131–165, English summary 163–165. Rubin, David. Historisk-pragmatisk Fremstilling af den Kjøbenhavnske israeliti ske Menigheds Gudstjeneste med særlig Hensyn til den for Tiden stedfindende Reformbevægelse. 1850. Salomon, Julius og Josef Fischer. Mindeskrift i Anledning af Hundredaarsdagen for Anordningen af 29. marts 1814. Danmark Loge U.O.B.B., 1914. Scheffer, Fredrik Christian. Fandens Tale til Smauserne, 1771. Schou, Jacob Henric. Chronologisk Register over kgl. Forordninger, 8, Sebastioan Popp, 1795. Thaarup, Thomas. Moses og Jesus, eller om Jødernes og de Christnes intellektuelle og moralske Forhold (Friedrich Buchholz). Fr. Brummer, 1813. Wallich, Wulf Lazarus. Forslag til Forbedring i den Jødiske Menigheds Forfatning i Kjøbenhavn. Forlag F. Møller og Søn, 1795. Werner, Johannes. Gedalia og hans Forfædre. Hirschsprungs Forlag, 1933. Wøldike, Andreas. Prædikener med flere kortere aandelige Taler, 1–2, 1794. 1802.

Chapter 6: Avowals of Converted Jews

These and other avowals of converted Jews are discussed in Lausten, De fromme og jøderne, 2000, 596–605, and in Lausten, Oplysning i kirke og synagogue, 2002, 571–589.

Chapter 7: Freedom for Jews? (1814–1849): The Integration of Jews into Society

Battenberg, Friedrich. Das Europäische Zeitalter der Juden 2. Darmstadt: Wissenschaft liche Buchgesellschaft, 1990. Blicher, Niels. Betænkninger om den jødiske Nation og dens Foreening med os Christne. Aarhus, 1819. Blicher, Steen Steensen. Bør Jødernes taales i Staten?Aarhus: A. F. Elmquist, 1813. Literature and Sources 281

———. “Bedømmelse over Skrivtet Moses og Jesus” (1813). in Blicher: Bør Jøder taales i Staten og andre avisartikler, Esbjerg: M. Oskar Andersen, 1984. Blüdnikow, Bent. “Jødeuroen i København 1830”, in Historie. Jyske Samlinger, new series 14. Aarhus, 1981–83. 633–650. Blüdnikow, Bent og Harald Jørgensen. “Den lange vandring til borgerlig ligestilling” in Jørgensen, Harald 1984, 13–85. Borchsenius, Poul. Historien om de danske jøder. Forlaget Fremad, 1968. Bundgaard, Niels. Dr. Christian Kalkars Betydning for dansk Kirkeliv og Missionsvirk somhed. Gads Forlag, 1951. Christensen, Bent and Bent Blüdnikow. “Politiet og jødefejden i København 1819.” in Politihistorisk Selskab, Årsskrift 1982. 4–38. Christensen, Christian Villas. “Den litterære Jødefejde 1813”, in Museum. Tidsskrift for Historie og Geografi, 1890, 129–168. Christensen, Karsten M. “Mindedage og idoler”, in Bent Blüdnikow et al. eds., 2014. 48–59. Clausen, Emil. Jøde og Kristen. Israelsmissionens Bogfond, 1923. Den Danske Salmebog. Vajsenhusets forlag, 2003. Fries, Jakob Friedrich. Om Forskjellen mellem Jøder og Jødedom og om dettes Tilintetgjørelse som nødvendig for Tydskernes Velstand og Character, oversat af Hans Christian Wosemose, 1816 ———. Om den Fare for vor Velfærd og Karacteer udsættes for ved Jøderne, oversat ved C. Hansen. Fr. Brummers, 1816. Hammerich, Frederik. “Jødefolket efter Christus”, in Brage og Idun, 3, 1840, 178–211. Jørgensen, Harald. Indenfor murene. Jødisk liv i Danmark 1684–1984. C. A. Reitzels forlag 1984. Lausten, Martin Schwarz. Frie jøder? Forholdet mellem kristne og jøder i Danmark fra Frihedsbrevet 1814 til Grundloven 1849 (Kirkehistoriske studier udg. af Afdeling for Kirkehistorie, Univ. of Copehagen, ser. 3 no. 10, mit deutscher Zusammenfassung). Forlaget Anis, 2005. Levison, Esaias. Kortfattet Forklaring over Lærebogen i Religion for Ungdommen af den mosaiske Troesbekjendelse. H. I. Bings Forlag, 1825. ———. Israelitisk Bønnebog paa Hebraisk og Dansk, 1833. Mannheimer, Isaac Noa. Prædikener holdne ved det Mosaiske Troessamfunds Andagts- Øvelser i Modersmaalet, 1819. Mau, Jens Edvard Theodor. Prædikener over Jesu Christi Lidelseshistorie. Odense: J. Milo, 1847. Meyer, Joachim. “De danske synagoger”, in Mirjam Gelfer-Jørgensen (see under chapter 1) 1999, 179– 223. Michelsen, Hans Christian. Tale holden i Præmie-Selskabet, 1814. ———. Høistfornøden . . . Advarsel, 1827. 282 Literature and Sources

Mynster, Jens Peter. Betragtninger over de christelige Troeslærdomme, 1–2. Gyldendals Forlag, 1833. ———. Prædiken . . . ved Aabningen af Provindsealstændernes Forsamling, 1835. ———. Udkast til en Alterbog og et Kirke-Ritual. Forlag J. H. Schultz, 1839. ———. Kirkelige Leiligheds-Taler vol 1. C. A. Reitzels Forlag, 1854. Rønne, Bone Falch. Samling af Prædikener, 1–2, 1819. ———. Anden Aargang af Prædikener, 2, 1824. Simon, Georg. Præmieselskabet for den jødiske Ungdoms anbringelse. C. A. Reitzels Forlag, 1999. Soldin, Israel. Die Königliche Gewalt. Ode und Cantate, 1773. Syskind, Alexander ed. Jøderne som danske Borgere. En Samling Aktstykker. Philipsen, 1897. Simonsen, Cecilie Schrøder. “Frihed med begrænsninger.” in Bent Blüdnikow et al. eds. Jøderne som frie borgere. Det jødiske Samfund i Danmark, 2014, 76–89. Thaarup, Thomas. Om Jødernes Fordringer paa tysk Borgerret (Fr. Rühs). Forlag Christopher Graebe, 1816. Tudvad, Peter. Stadier paa antisemitismens vej. Søren Kierkegaard og jøderne. Forlaget Rosinante, 2010. Visby, Carl Holger. Tale og Cantate ved . . . Præmieselskabet. Forlag A. Seidelin, 1834. Wolff, Abraham Alexander. Die Lehre der Israelitischen Religion, bearbeitet für Stadt- und Landschulen. Stockholm: P. A. Nordstedt & Söhne, 1833. ———. Agende for det mosaiske Troessamfunds Synagoge i Kjøbenhavn, 1833. ———. Danske Bønner for Israeliter til Brug ved Gudstjenesten, i Hjemmet og paa Kirkegaarden. Udg. Den jødiske Religionsskole. P. G. Philipsen, 1856. Ørsted, Anders Sandøe. Af mit Livs og min Tids Historie 3. Gyldendals Forlag, 1855.

Chapter 8: The Danish People’s Church and the Jews (1849–ca. 1900)

Allchin, Arthur Macdonald et al. ed.. Grundtvig in international Perspective. Aarhus: Aarhus Univ. Press, 2000. Asschenfeldt-Hansen, Carl Christoph Julius. Israel efter Kjødet, 1894. ———. Fra Guldgruben. En Bibelforklaring, 1–8. Lohses Forlag, 1894–1904. Balslev, Benjamin. “Daabens Stilling i Missionsarbejdet,”, in ISR. July 1928, 151–157. Blædel, Nicolai Gottlieb. Udvidet Confirmations-Undervisning, 1876. Bornemann, Johan Alfred. “I Anledning af Lovudkastet angaaende Jøders Edsfæstelse”, in Evangelisk Ugeskrift, ser. 2. 1864. 177–189. 225–240. 289–301. Bredsdorff, Morten. “Digteren Goldschmidt og Grundtvig. Et opgør om nationalitet og danskhed.” in Grundtvigstudier 1974, 26–50. Literature and Sources 283

Constantin-Hansen, Sigurd. “Israelsmissionen”, in Danskeren. 3. Kolding, 1880. 277–281. Dansk Missions-Sangbog for Hedninge- og Israels-Missionen 6. Det Danske Missionsselskab, 1920. Den danske Alterbog, Det Kgl. Vajsenhus’ Forlag 1992. Fauerholdt, Irenius. “Missionssindet”, in ISR Feb. 1906. 18–22. ———. “Om Jødedaab”, in ISR Apr. 1909. 57–60. Forordnet Alterbog. Det Kgl. Vajsenhus’ Forlag, 1901. Grundtvig, Nikolaj Frederik Severin. “Christenhedens Syvstjerne.” in N.F.S. Grundtvigs Værker i Udvalg, 6. Georg Christensen og Hal Koch eds. 1944. Gyldendals forlag, 294–390. ———. “Svar paa Hr. Goldschmidts Udfordring til Danskheden”, in Danskeren 44/1849, 689–697. Hansen, Hans J. Israels Land og Folk i Brydningstiden, 1927. ———. Jøders og kristnes indbyrdes Forhold i Nutidsbelysning. Middelfart, 1929. Hofman-Bang, Inge. “Gudstjeneste for Israelsmissionen”, in ISR Oct. 1912. 145–149. July 1913. 113. ———. For og imod Israelsmissionen. Aarhus, 1911. ———. “Døbte Jøder og den kristne Menighed”, in ISR. Sept. 1928. 182–186. ———. “Lidt om Tidspunktet for en Jødes Daab”, in ISR Dec. 1934. 10. Israelsmissionen, publ. by Den danske Israelsmission, 1906–1950 (= ISR). Johnsen, Gisle. “Hvorfor har Kirken en Jødemission?”, in ISR Apr. 1909. 53–55. ———. “Kristustroende Jødedom”, in ISR Oct 1928. 199–206. Kalkar, Christian. Missionen blandt Jøderne, 1868. Krag, Peter. “Israelsmissionen.” in Indre Missions Tidende 29, 1883. 449. ———. “Missionen blandt Israel.” in Dansk Kirketidende 6, 1880, 94–99. Kragballe, C. “Til det gamle Israel.” in Kirkelig Samler, 2, 1856. 89–91. Lausten, Martin Schwarz. “Lammets Livgarde. C.C.J. Asschenfeldt-Hansen, Jøderne og bibelkritikken”, in Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift 1, 2006, 29–42. ———. Folkekirken og jøderne. Forholdet mellem kristne og jøder i Danmark fra 1849 til begyndelsen af det 20. århundrede (Kirkehistoriske studier, udg. af Afdeling for Kirkehistorie, Det teologiske Fakultet, Univ. of Copenhagen ser. 3. no. 12, mit deutscher Zusammenfassung). Forlaget Anis 2007. Kjær-Hansen, Kai. Josef Rabinowitsch og den messianske bevægelse. Aarhus: Forlaget Okay-bog, 1988. Kok, Johannes. Det hellige Land og dets Nabolande i Fortid og Nutid, 1878. Kragh, Thyge. Grundtvigs Syn paa Israel, 1971. Martensen, Hans Lassen. Den christelige Ethik, 1–3, ?, 1871–1878. Meyling, H. E. Kampen mellem Jøder og Kristne. Odense: Den Miloske Boghandel, 1896. Munck, Frederik Ferdinand. “Israelsmissionen.” in Fra Bethesda 2, 1895, 29. 284 Literature and Sources

Mynster, Jakob Peter. Blandede Skrivter, 2, 1853. Møller, Erik. Grundtvig som samtidshistoriker. Gyldendals forlag, 1950. N. N. Betragtninger over “Missionen blandt Jøderne.” Forlag C. Steen, 1868. N. N. “Det mosaiske Troessamfund og Dr. Schornstein. Interview med Carl Melchior.” in Berlingske Tidende. Nov. 6, 1913. N. N. “Omvendelse til Jødedommen”, in Folkets Avis, Oct. 31, 1913. Petri, Philemon. “Jødekristnes Forbund”, in ISR 6, 1907, 92–93. Poulsen, Alfred Sveistrup. Jødefolket i Nutiden. Odense, 1893. Poulsen, Alfred Sveistrup. Prædikener holdte i Christiansborg Slotskirke. Gyldendals Forlag, 1896. ———. Prædikener holdte i Roskilde Domkirke. Gyldendals Forlag, 1901. ———. “Den jødekristelige Bevægelse i Syd-Rusland”, in Smaaskrifter til Oplysning for kristne. Karl Schønbergs Forlag, 1896. Rørdam, Thomas Skat. Historisk Oplysning om Den hellige Skrift, 1866. ———. En Aargang Prædikener. Gads Forlag, 1900. Scharling, Carl Henrik. Menneskehed og Christendom, 1–2. Gads Forlag, 1872–1874. ———. En Pilgrimsfærd i Det hellige Land. Gads Forlag, 1876. Scheradsky, Abraham. “Foreningen af Jødekristne i Danmark”, in ISR 2, 1928, 42. Skagested, Georg. “Israelsmissionen og Menigheden”, in ISR 7, 1933, 152–153. Skovgaard- Petersen, Carl Axel. Landet, hvor Kilderne sprang. Rejserids og Pilgrimstanker fra Det hellige Land, 1–2, Lohses Forlag, 1933. Torm, Axel. 50 Aars Arbejde for Israel. Israelsmissionens Bogfond, 1935. ———. “Fra de jødekristnes Forening,” in ISR 11, 1933, 230–231. 11, 1936, 236–237. Torm, Frederik. “Vor Vidnepligt” in ISR 4, 1906, 49–50. Wolff, Abraham Alexander. Lærebog i den israelitiske Religion. S. Trier, 1862. ———. Til Belysning af . . . Bornemanns Udtalelser?, 1864. ———. Sendebrev til Høistvelbaarne . . . Hr. Madvig, 1864. ———. Endnu nogle Ord til Belysning af . . . Bornemanns sidste Artikel. 1864. ———. Talmudfjender. Et Genmæle od de seneste Angreb paa jøderne og Jødedommen. C. A. Reitzels Forlag, 1878. ———. “Hvad har den jødiske Religionsskole virket under sin tolvaarige Bestaaen?” in Moses Mielziner Hvo er Borgen for Jødedommens Vedligeholdelse? S. Trier, 1865. 11–21.

Chapter 9: Sympathy for Jews and Hatred of Jews in the Danish People’s Church (ca. 1900–1948)

Generally for the entire chapter: Martin Schwarz Lausten, Jødesympati og jødehad i folkekirken. Forholdet mellem kristne og jøder i Danmark fra begyndelsen af det 20. århundrede til 1948, (Kirkehistoriske studier, udg. af Afdeling for Kirkehistorie, Literature and Sources 285

Det teologiske Fakultet, Univ. of Copenhagen, ser. 3, no. 13, mit deutscher Zusammenfassung). Forlaget Anis, 2007. Ammundsen, Valdemar, H. L. Møller and H. O. Lange. Jødedom og kristendom. Tre Foredrag. Gads Forlag, 1917. Bach, Tine. Mellem drøm og dilemma. Dansk zionisme 100 år. Dansk Zionistforbund, 2003. Bak, Sofie Lene. Dansk antisemitisme 1930–1945. Aschehougs Forlag, 2004. Borchsenius, Poul. Historien om de danske jøder. Forlaget Fremad, 1968. ———. To veje?En bog om jødedom og kristendom. 2nd ed. Hirschsprungs Forlag, 1976. Boreas, Dr., alias Anders Malling. Den brændende Tornebusk. Et Bidrag til Forstaaelse af Jødespørgsmaalet. 1942. Bøgebjerg, Rasmus. Jødisk Aand. 1917. Carlsen, Lauritz. Jødefaren. De verdensberygtede Jødiske Protokoller. Eget Forlag, 1920. Clausen, Emil. Jøde og kristen. En Bog om Jødernes Historie og Aandsliv og Israels missionen. Israelsmissionens Bogfond, 1923. Eigaard, Søren. “Frø af ugræs . . .” Danmarks National Socialistiske Arbejder Parti 1930– 1934. Odense: Odense universitetsforlag, 1984. Foss, Øjvind. Antijudaisme, kirke og misjon. Oslo: Gyldendals forlag, 1994. Friediger, Max. Theresienstadt. J. F. Clausens Forlag, 1946. Gelfer-Jørgensen, Mirjam, 1999 (see under chapter 1). Hansen, Jesper Vang. Højreekstremister i Danmark 1922–1945. Odense: Odense universitetsforlag, 1982. Herzl, Theodor. Den jødiske Stat, med Forord af Ben Gurion. Hertz’ Fotrlag, 1955. ———. The Jewish State. London: Penguin Books, 2010. Jacobsen, Erik Thostrup. Som om intet var hændt. Den danske folkekirke under besættel sen. Odense: Odense universitetsforlag, 1991. Lauridsen, John T. Dansk nazisme 1930–1945 og derefter. Gyldendals forlag, 2002. Lausten, Martin Schwarz. A Church History of Denmark. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002. Lidegaard, Bo. Countrymen. The Untold Story of how Denmark’s Jews escaped the Nazis. New York: Atlantic Books Ltd., 2014. Lohmann, Hans Palle. Dansk Folkefællesskab 1936–1942. En fascistisk, nationalistisk og idealistiskbevægelse. Odense: Odense universitetsforlag, 1984. Malling, Anders. Dobbelt Front. Prædiken ved Danmarks nationalsocialistiske Arbejder- Partis Aarsstævne i Toftlund, Haderslev, 1933. ———. Ideens Tjenere. Prædiken ved Danmarks nationalsocialistiske Arbejder Partis Aarsstævne. Christiansfeld, 1934. ———. Nationalsocialismen og Kirken. Fredericia, 1935. ——— see Boreas. Melchior, Marcus. Levet og oplevet. Erindringer, 2. ed. Hirschsprungs forlag, 1965. 286 Literature and Sources

Pedersen, Arne Brandt. Adolf Hitler og den nationale Revolution. Nyt Nordisk Forlag, 1933. Nissen, Hans Henrik. “Højskolen og Nazismen.” in Højskolebladet 28, 1934. 349. Schornstein, Max. Festprædiken i Anledning af Hundredaars-Jubilæet holdt ved Konfirmationshøitideligheden i Synagogen den 29de Marts 1914, 1914. ———. Ledetråd ved Undervisningen i den jødiske religion, 2nd ed. Mosaisk Troessamfund, 1958. Sode-Madsen, Hans ed. “Føreren har befalet!” Jødeaktionen oktober 1943. Samlerens forlag, 1993. ———. I Hitler-Tysklands skygge. Dramaet om de danske jøder 1933–1945. Aschehougs forlag, 2003. Thing, Morten. De russiske jøder i København 1882–1943. Gyldendals forlag, 2008. Torm, Frederik. Jødefolket og Verdensmissionen, 1939. Index of Persons and Places

(Since the most of the events in this book took place in Copenhagen, this place name is not listed here. If churches, buildings, and streets have no further address, they are in Copenhagen. Note that many personages have double first names or double surnames, and that the use of first initials is widespread.)

Aakjær 167 Bak, Sofie 234, 235, 239 Aalborg 112, 202, 215, 228, 286, 299, 307 Balfour, Arthur James 226–228 Aarhus 149, 167, 237, 255, 261, 264, 266 Balle, Nicolai Edinger 97, 105–108, 111–112, Aaron 218 114–118 Abel 17 Balslev, Benjamin 217, 234, 239–240 Abell, Kjell 242 Bang, Jacob Peter 238 Abraham (patriarch) 20, 26, 62, 75, 159, 202, Bardenfleth, Gunnar 265 250, 263 Barmen 232–233 Abraham, Levin 51 Barth, Karl 233 Abraham, Sara 117 Bartholdy, Christian 250, 261 Abrahams, Golde Lorie 55 Bartholdy, Georg 250, 262–263 Abrahams, Salomon 55 Bartholin, Caspar 43 Adams, Jonathan 11 Bartholin, Hans 67, 69 Ahasuerus 38 Basel 29, 212, 226 Alexander, Leyher (Wessel) 81, 125 Bastholm, Christian 97, 108, 114, 120–121 Alexander, Michael Solomon 160 Baun, Christian 255, 266–267 Algreen-Ussing, Tage 163 Beck, Vilhelm 186 Altmann, Alexander 98 Behr, Israel 56, 70, 78 Altona 51, 62, 67, 90, 92, 101, 114, 115 Behrends, Else 86 Ammundsen, Valdemar 237, 248 Bendix, Abraham 69–70 Amsterdam 39, 61, 62, 114 Bendix, Salomon 69 Anchersen, Matthias 73 Benjamin, Joseph 55 Andersen, Aage H. 232, 240, 248, 251 Bennewitz, G. 82–83 Andreasen, Øjvind 98 Bentzen, Aage 290, 293 Argentina 226 Berlin 92, 98–99, 101, 128, 158, 160, 224 Arius 26 Bernadotte, Folke 259 Aron, Judithe 115 Bernstorff, Andreas Peter 97 Askov 236, 248 Bernstorff, Johan H. E. 96 Aslakssøn, Barbara 43 Berntz, Efraim 115 Aslakssøn, Cort 43 Best, Werner 252, 255 Asminderød 102, 104 Bethlehem 134, 254 Asschenfeldt–Hansen, Carl C. J. 187 Bethsaida 208 Augustine, Aurelius 1, 26, 35 Biering, Claus Peder 104 Aurilesius, Niels Pedersen 34 Biersted 15 Austria 205, 224 Bille, Elisabeth 43 Års 17 Bindslev, Alfred 231 Birch, Andreas 149 Bach, Ernst Klitbo 248 Birch, David Sedelin 156 Bagger, Hans 42, 43 Birkedal, Vilhelm 171 Baggesen, Jens 121 Blicher, Niels 129 288 Index Of Persons And Places

Blicher, Steen Steensen 121 Cantor, Moses 80 Bliddal, Anker 250 Canute the Great 1–2 Blixen, Karen 166 Capernaum 208 Bloch, Jørgen 115–116 Carlsen, Lauritz 231 Bloch, Tønne 116 Caroline Mathilde, Queen 96, 105 Bluhme, Johannes 82 Caroline School 105, 107, 142 Blædel, Nicolai Gottlieb 178–179, 181–183, Caseres, Samuel de (Gabriel Gomez) 39 186 Charlotte Amalie, Prinsess 78 Boas, Sophus 242 China 50 Boldig, Ernst Christian 58–29 Chorazin 208 Borchsenius, Otto 168, 248, 270–272 Christensen, Marie 264 Bording, Frede 238 Christensen, Thorkild Lyby 41 Boreas, Dr. (pseud.) 246 Christian III 25–26, 31 Borg, Anna 242 Christian IV 39 Borgbjerg, F. J. 17 Christian VII 93, 96–97 Bornemann, Henrik 62 Christian VIII 159 Bornemann, Johan Alfred 195–196, 198 Christian X 259, 265 Bournonville, August 167 Christian, heir presumptive 96–97 Brand, Uffe 243 Christian, Carl 75 Brandes, Edvard 250 Christiansborg Palace Church 69, 86, 103, Brandes, Georg 182, 226, 230, 238, 245 189 Brandt, Carl Joakim 212, 237 Christiansen, C. P. O. 264 Brecht, Bertolt 236 Christianshavn 40, 45–46, 72 Brecht, Martin 23, 61 Christianshavn Church 46 Bredebro 233 Church of Our Savior 71 Bredsdorff, Ruth 256 Church of Our Lady 43 Bro, Vagn 231 Church of Saint John 207 Brochmand, Jesper 35–36, 43 Church of Saint Mary, Helsingør 58 Broddetorp 17 Church of the Holy Spirit 17, 36, 44, 61, 170 Brodersen, Paul 241 Clausen, Emil 205, 217, 228, 239 Brorson, Hans Adolph 63 Clausen, Frits 232, 234 Brunøe, Hans 230 Clausen, Henrik Nicolai 151 Brønshøj 55 Cohen, Joseph Gerson 167 Buchholz, Friedrich 119–120, 122 Cohn, Abraham Moses 56 Bugenhagen, Johann 26, 28–30 Cohn, A. D. 148 Buhl, Frants 200 Cohn, Isac 217–218 Bukdahl, Jørgen K. 236 Cohn, Lovise 217 Bundgaard, Niels 165 Colbjørnsen, Christian 97 Buntzen, Andreas 150 Cologne 11 Bülow, Axel 250, 264 Constantin-Hansen, S. 212 Bützow, Henrik Christopher 109 Cramer, Johan Andreas 86 Bøgebjerg, Rasmus 230–231 David, Aron Anton 165 Cain 17, 26 David, Christian Nathan 152, 165–166 Callenberg, Johann Heinrich 61, 79, 81 David, Israel 42, 51 Canaan 58 David, Jonas 163–164, 167 Cantor, Friedrich Christian 44–45 David, Joseph 165 Cantor, Heiman Isac 150 David (King of Israel) 19, 62, 134, 142–143, Cantor, Isac Levin 150 201–202, 211, 270 Index Of Persons And Places 289

David, Marcus 56 Ewald, Enevold 63–65, 78 Davidsen, Louise 166 Ezekiel (prophet) 179, 202 Dehn, Levi Isaac 84 Delbanco, Moses 168–170 Fåborg 90 Delbanco, Otto 165 Falck, Joseph 85 Delbanco, Simon Wilhelm 168 Falster 31, 88 Delitzsch, Frantz 200 Farum 134 Dessau, D. 175 Fauerholdt, Irenius 205, 217 Dionis, Albert 39 Feldballe 245 Dionijsen, Jørgen 76 Fenger, Johannes Ferdinand 171 Dohm, Christian Wilhelm von 98 Fenger, R. Theodor 3 Domitian 26 Fenger-Eriksen, K. 240 Dresler, F. C. 166 Fibiger, Vilhelm 249 Dumreicher, J. H. 83 Fibiger-Erlandsen, Viggo 248 Dürkop, Heinrich 77 Fichte, Johann Gotlieb 119 Düsseldorf 117 Fischer, Josef 42, 94, 123, 252 Fjeldsøe, Christian 248 East Europe 213 Flensburg 44 East India 50 Fogtman, Laurids 49, 53 Ebbesen, Sten 9 Frabe, N. 129 Eckstein, Johann F. (Levin, Isaac) 126 France 1, 205 Edinger, Wilhelm Henrich 114, 117 Franck, Martin 163 Edwards, Mark U. 23 Frankfurt am Main 11 Ege, Richard 256, 259 Fredensborg 102, 104 Ege, Vibeke 256 Fredericia 40, 42, 52, 54, 56, 66, 81–82, 90, Eggers, Olga 23, 246–247 139, 236 Egypt 35, 160 Frederick (heir presumptive) 96–97 Eibeschütz, Jacob A. 143, 145 Frederiksberg 82 Eibeschütz, Jonathan 57 Frederiksberg Church 218 Eibeschütz, Nathan 141 Frederick III 39, 44 Einarsson (typographer) 120 Frederick IV 57, 66, 75 Eisenberg, Anna 43 Frederick V 96 Eisenmenger, Johann A. 74, 128 Frederick VII 93–94, 97 Eisleben 22 Fridericia, Louis Sigurd 175 Ejerslev, Mikkel Pedersen 238 Friediger, Max 206, 215, 224–225, 242, Eleonora Wilhelmine von 248–249, 252, 257–260 Württenberg-Neustadt 82 Friedrich, Christian (Israel, Jakob) 44 Elias, Bishop 16 Fries, Jakob Friedrich 129 Elijah (prophet) 26 Friis, Christian 43 Ellen Birthe 116 Frænkel, Louis 221, 226 Else Holgersdatter 5 Frøhling, Charlotte 200 Emden, Jakob Israel 57 Fuglsang, Manor 166 Emmaus 189–190 Fuglsang, Niels 163–164 Engelstoft, C. T. 198–199 Fuglsang-Damgaard, Hans 241, 248, Engelstoft, Lauritz 152 252–253, 255–260 England 1, 157, 160, 227 Funen 80-81, 111, 116, 148, 158, 198, 248, 255 Eriksen, S. C. 229 Fürst, Israel 42 Euchel, Gottleb 100–101, 121, 138 Fürst, Martin Ludvig 165 Euchel, Isaac Abraham 99 Fürst, Moses 93, 98, 101 290 Index Of Persons And Places

Fürst, Salomon Daniel 165 Gunhild, Princess 16–17 Fürst, Samuel 42 Gutfeld, Frederik Christian 104–105 Gøricke, Christian 166 Gabriel, Magnus 55 Gothenburg 200 Galati 205 Göttingen 74 Gammel Strand 42, 142 Garnisons Church 62, 106, 166, 168, 178 Haastrup, Ulla 18 Gedalia, Abraham 94–96, 138–139, 143–144 Habakkuk (prophet) 141 Gedeløkke, Jens Pedersen 62 Hagensen, A. 229 Geismar, Eduard 234 Hague, The 222 Geismar, Oscar 248 Hald, Peter Tetens 157 Germany 1, 11, 23, 35, 38, 73, 80, 96–97, 110, Halle 61, 78–81, 83 113, 119, 128, 130, 140, 145, 160, 219, 231, Hamburg 39, 56–57, 130, 213, 224 232–233, 236, 239, 241–243, 253, 261, 265 Hameln, Glückel of 57 Gerner, Henrik 63, 65 Hammerich, Frederik 135–136, 196, 200, 227 Gerson, Christian 33–34 Hammerich, Hans 62 Gerson, Heymann 144 Hannover, Adolph 152 Gertz, Martin Clarentius 1 Hansen, C. 129 Gethsemane 2, 189 Hansen, Christian Wilhelm 104 Giese, A. L. 82 Hansen, H. J. 212–213 Giessen 141 Hansen, Hans Jacob 231 Glud, Søren 38 Hansen, Marius 234 Gladsakse 165 Hansen, P. O. 152 Glahn, Th. 253, 255 Harboe, Ludvig 87, 93, 109–110, 114–115 Glenthøj, Jørgen 251 Harms, Ludvig 216 Glückstadt 39 Hartvig, Isaac 154 Gniezno 94 Hartvig, Michael 42 Goitin, Hirsch 176 Hass, Ludvig Daniel 159–160, 213 Goldschmidt, Levin 80 Hauber, Eberhard 82 Goldschmidt, Mëier 136, 183–184 Hauch–Fausbøll, Theodor 45 Goldschmidt, Meyer Aron 42, 53–54, 56, 78 Hechsher, Moses 111 Goldzieher 130 Hecht, Marcus 85 Golgotha 38–39, 134, 250, 271 Heilbuth, David 116 Gomez, Gabriel 39 Helsingør 58, 88, 103, 130, 167 Gotfred (Govert) of Ghemen 2 Helveg, Ludvig 43 Gotfredsen, Lise 15–16 Hennings, August A. F. 98 Granada, Isak 79 Henrich, Moses 52 Gravlund, Thorkild 231 Henriques, Carl Bertel 252 Greenland 75 Henriques, Jeremias 89, 101 Grosen, Uffe 248 Henry the Lion 16 Grundtvig, Nicolai F. S. 86, 121–122, 124, 135, Herlev 165 159–160, 171, 183–185, 189, 200, 211–213, Hermansen, Carl 249, 265 227, 229, 233–234, 237–238, 243, Hermansen, Christen 196 248–249, 251–252, 261, 264–265 Hersleb, Peder 63, 82, 85, 87 Grønholt 102, 104 Hertz, Frederikke 165 Guggenheim, Fromet 98 Herzl, Theodor 227 Guggenheim, Joseph 98 Heyman, Israel 51 Guldberg, Hans Hansen 60–61 Heymann, J. W. 175 Index Of Persons And Places 291

Himmerich, Hans 52, 62 Jacobi, Samuel 100, 112 Hitler, Adolf 231–232, 236–239, 243, 265 Jacobsen, E. Thostrup 257 Hoff, Ejner 205 Jacobsen, Wolf B. 224 Hoffmeyer, Skat 255, 264–267 Jelling 14 Hofman–Bang, Inge 202–203, 207, 217, 228, Jensen, Holger 245 239, 251, 261 Jensen, Johannes M. 245 Hohlenberg, Matthias Hagen 151 Jensen, Kai 255 Holbæk 88 Jensen, Natalie Koppel 199 Holdt, Jens 233–234 Jersie-Solrød 61 Holmen’s Church 104, 114, 150, 163, 170 Jerusalem 2–3, 14, 27–30, 38, 56, 74, 104, 120, Holmstrup 15 122, 131, 135, 160, 187, 189, 208–209, 213, Horserød Prison Camp 249, 251, 257–258 227–229, 249, 262 Holstein 80, 97 John (disciple) 15, 18, 67 Holstein, Frederik Adolf 159 John (evangelist) 8, 14, 190 Holstein, Johan Ludvig 96 John the Baptist 14, 26, 188 Holsteinborg 159 Johansen, Heiden 76 Horrebow, Otto 120 Johansen, Svend E. 246 Hosea (prophet) 65, 74 Johnsen, Gisle 203 Hvidberg, Flemming 240 Josephus (historian) 29 Høegh–Guldberg, Ove 96–97 Judas (disciple) 1–2, 38, 40, 179 Høgsbro, Halfdan 231, 234 Juliane Marie, Queen Dowager 96–97 Hørsholm 82, 104, 250 Jørgensen, Anders A. 245 Jørgensen, Harald 165–166 India 50, 75 Jørgensen, Jørgen 249 Ingeborg Predbjørnsdatter 5 Innocent III 8–9 Kalischer, Elias 176 Irenaeus 182 Kalkar, Christian Hermann 165, 169–170, 197, Isaac, Moses 56 200, 203, 213–214, 216–217 Isaac, (patriarch) 75 Kalkar, Otto 165 Isaiah (prophet) 2, 29, 80–81, 103, 113, 122, Kalkar, Simon 165 227, 235 Kall, Johan Christian 73–75, 82 Isidor of Seville 10 Kall, Nicolai Christopher 90, 92, 112, 138, 144 Israel 4, 25–26, 28, 58, 61, 63–65, 69, 75, 81, Kallman, Isaac 85 92, 95, 108, 122, 126, 133–135, 147, 150, Karo, Josef 80 155, 165, 176, 183–185, 187–189, 194, Kiel 165 199–214, 216–217, 227–229, 235, 237–241, Kierkegaard, Peter Christian 160 249–251, 254, 260–264, 271 Kierkegaard, Søren 136–138, 160 Israel, Betty 170 Kimhi, David 80 Israel, Jakob (Friedrich Christian) 125 Kingo, Thomas 227 Israel, Lion 154 Kirmmse, Bruce H. 136 Isserles, Moses ben Israel 101 Kjær, Holger 248 Kjær-Hansen, Kai 210 Jachia, Samuel (Dionis) 39 Koch, Hal 121, 243, 245, 248 Jacob (patriarch) 142 Kochen, Albrecht 166 Jacob, Berent 71 Kofoed, Wilhelm 205 Jacob, Isaac 142 Kok, Johannes 179, 181–183, 186 Jacobi, Esther Kalisch 112 Kold, Christen 159–160 Jacobi, Georg Christian 72 Kolderup-Rosenvinge, Janus L. A. 152, 154 292 Index Of Persons And Places

Kongsted 14 Lindbæk, Johannes 40 Koppel, A. 174 Lindhardt, Bent 245 Koppel, Bendix 111 Lindhardt, P. G. 266 Koppel, Nathan 111 Lintrup, Søren 67, 69 Korsør 104–105 Liutger 16 Kraft, Ole Bjørn 231 Lohmann, Hans Palle 235, 237 Krag, Peter 200, 211 Lolland 31 Kragballe, Christian Malta 185 London 157, 159, 213 Kragh, Thyge V. 183 Longinus 15 Kronborg 58, 103 Lorck, Josias 86 Krotoschinsky, Rosa 261–262 Lublin, Samuel 166 Kuhlau, Friedrich R. 142 Ludwigs, Christian 185 Krystalgade 130, 144, 224, 259 Lundehus Church 257 Kylling, Dagmar 250 Luther, Katharina 23 Luther, Martin 19–24, 26–28, 31, 33–34, Landemærket 221 36–37, 40–45, 48, 54, 58, 60, 63, 67, 69, Lange, H. O. 237 82, 84, 86, 93, 114, 128–129, 131–132, 137, Langballe, Jesper 24 149, 151, 167, 178, 181, 190–191, 230, 232, Larsen, Frits 262 234, 237–238, 240, 242, 243, 247–248, Larsen, W. 264 250–251, 269 Larssen, Lars 150 Lviv 205 Lauesen, Marcus 238 Lyngby 131 Lauridsen, John T. 234 Lyster, Jens 4 Laursen, Laust Jeppesen 243, 247 Lütkens, Franz Julius 63–65 Lausten, Martin Schwarz 1, 45, 50, 92, 130, Læderstræde 42, 72, 80, 89, 91, 94, 109 174, 225, 241 Løgstrup, Knud Ejler 248, 266 Leipzig 69, 200, 205 Løgum Monastery 160 Lembcke, Cai 232 Løngangsstræde 71 Lerche, Fritz 256–257 Levi, Abraham Aaron 51 Mackeprang, H. J. 112 Levi, Jacob 85 Madsen, Peder 7 Levi, Lazarus 50, 53 Magelund, Johannes 249 Levi, Simon Samuel Mose 51 Maimonides, Moses 80, 101 Levin, Fanny 166 Malachi (prophet) 74, 79 Levin, Gedalia 94 Malling, Anders 234–237, 240, 242–243, Levin, Isaac (Eckstein, Johann 245–246, 251 Ferdinand) 114, 126 Malmstrøm, Axel 255 Levin, Jakob Meyer 54, 78 Manitius, Johann A. 80, 82 Levin, Joseph 51 Mannheimer, Isac Noa 142–144 Levin, Joseph Meyer 54, 70 Marcher, Hansine 205 Levin, Lazarus 50, 53 Margolinsky, Axel 252 Levin, Sara Bernt 117 Marheineke, Philipp Konrad 216 Levison, Esaias 139, 144, 176 Maribo 4 Levy, Heyman 145 Mariboe, Moses Levin 111 Levy, Hirsch Samuel 56, 82, 93, 110 Marr, Wilhelm 229 Levy, Moses 145, 182 Martensen, Hans Lassen 170, 180–183, 186, Lewenstein, Tobias 222–224 189, 197, 199–200, 230–231, 237, 242, 251, Lidegaard, Bo 225, 255 266, 269 Lillie, Louise 18 Matthews, Basil 206 Index Of Persons And Places 293

Mau, Edvard 134–135, 185 Münter, Friedrich C. 97–99, 111–112, 131, McCaul, Alexander 181 139–140, 159, 163–164, 166, 171 Meinhardt–Jensen, Hans 245, 251 Møgeltønder 81 Melanchthon, Philipp 24, 26 Møhl, Knud E. 185 Melchior, Carl H. 219–220 Møllegade 5 Melchior, Marcus 206, 222–225, 261–262, Møller, Arnold Peter (A. P.) 255 264, 271 Møller, Hans Larsen (H. L.) 237 Melchiorsen, Schene 114 Møller, J. Christmas 231 Meldola, Moses 170 Møller, Søren 129 Mendelssohn, Moses 97–101 Møller, Aage 238 Mendosa, Ferdinand Joseph 170 Mønster, Peter Hans 164 Menthels, Martha 85 Meyer, Bronette 117 Nachemsohn, Josef 226 Meyer, David Amsel 90 Nakskov 55, 88 Meyer, Israel 71 Napoleon 123 Meyling, Hans Emil 184–185, 238 Nathan (Nyborg) 81 Meza, Christian Jacob Theophilus de 111 Nathan, Salomon 84, 126 Meza, Jacob (Salomon) de 111, 114 Nathansen, Henri 226 Meza, Juliane Marie de 111 Nathanson, Mendel Levin 89, 93–96, 100, Michaelis, Johann David 74, 139 107, 128, 142–143, 167–168 Michelsen, Hans Christian 114, 150, 163, Naur, Elias 39 170–171 Nazareth 5, 16–17, 103, 201, 211, 269 Mielziner, Salomon 175 Nedergaard, Paul 233–234 Moisling, Isaac 90 Neiiendam, Michael 231 Moldenhawer, Daniel Gotthilf 111, 119, 129 Nero 26 Moltke, Adam Gottlob 96 Neukirch, Simon H. 144 Monrad, Ditlev Gothard 192 New York 224 Moritz, Johan Christian 159, 200 Nicolajsen, Hans 160 Mortensen, Oluf 43 Nielsen, Alfred 229, 264 Moses, Engel 69 Nielsen, Fredrik 184, 231, 237–239 Moses, Gedalia 100, 138, 144 Nielsen, K. E. 256 Moses (prophet) 17, 25–26, 32, 36, 63–64, 67, Nielsen, Karl Martin 4 78, 90, 92, 98, 101–102, 106–107, 119–121, Nielsen, O. 55 140, 143, 150, 168–169, 201–202, 210, 270 Niemüller, Martin 265 Moses, Salomon 113 Nissen, Henrik S. 239 Moses, Wolf 114 Noack, Carl W. 255 Mount Sinai 78, 121 Noah 26, 83 Mount Tabor 121 Nordentoft, Johannes 248 Munck, Ferdinand F. 202–203, 208, 227–228, North Africa 157, 160 239 Nyborg 81–82, 111, 198 Munk, Kaj 241–242, 255 Nykøbing Falster 88 Mussolini, Benito 241 Nuremberg 23 Müller, Hans Henrik 117 Næstved 50, 88 Müller, Peter Erasmus 144–145, 152, 156, 171 Nørregaard, Jens 251 Mynster, Jakob Peter 132–134, 137, 153–154, 156, 159–162, 165, 170–171, 189, 191–192, Odense 80, 82, 115, 130, 139, 255 214–215, 219 Ollerup 238 Münter, Balthasar 108, 116–118, 122 Orient 134, 157 294 Index Of Persons And Places

Origen 182 Rasmussen, Henry 205, 248, 250, 261 Oslo 12 Rasmussen, Janus 264 Ostenfeld, Harald 220 Rasmussen, Jens 130 Otto, A. 4 Ree, Hartvig Philip 149 Rehberg, Brandt 256 Palestine 6, 179, 188–189, 206, 226–229, 236, Resen, Hans Poulsen 34, 43–44 242, 262–264, 270 Reumert, Poul 242 Palladius, Peder 25–31 Reuss, Deaconess 82 Paludan, Johan Lønborg 150 Reuss, J. F. 81–82 Paludan, Otto 248–249 Reventlow, Christian Ditlev 67, 97 Paludan–Müller, J. 148–149 Reventlow, Ludvig 97 Paris 8, 11 Ribe 7, 27, 60, 73, 255 Paul (apostle) 16, 19–20, 26, 57, 158, 175, 181, Richard of Saint Victor 11 198–199, 202, 212, 227, 235 Riising, Anne 7 Paulli, Holger (Oliger) 61 Ringsted 88 Pedersen, Arne Brandt 234, 238–239 Robert of Melun 11 Pedersen, Christiern 3 Rohling, August 237 Peter 35 Rohn, A. C. 82 Peter (disciple) 16, 77, 81–82, 108, 122, 166 Roi, Johannes F. A. de le 200, 212 Petersen, Birthe Sophie 215 Rome 9, 57 Petersen, Erik 10 Rosenkranz, Holger 43 Petersen, F. C. 151 Rosenkrantz, Iver 55 Petersen, Johann Wilhelm 60–61 Rosenstand–Goiske, Peder 97, 104 Petersen, Johanne Eleonora 61 Roskilde 155–157, 184, 187, 190, 193 Petersen, Niels 238 Rothe, Richard 216 Petersen, Wilfred 232 Ruben, David 89 Petri, Efraim Ph. 205 Ruben, Seelig 116 Pfefferkorn, Josef 11–13 Rubin, Marcus 130 Pharaoh 63 Rumania 205, 217 Philip, Jacob 51 Rungsted 166, 250 Philipsen, Rachel 165 Russia 190, 208, 210, 212, 216, 221–223, 236 Pilate, Pontius 2, 4, 31, 186 Rühs, Jacob Friedrich 128–129 Pilestræde 105, 221 Ræff, Hans 12 Plathe, Sissel F. 18 Ræff, Poul 11–13 Plum, Frederik 111, 148–149, 158–159 Rønne, Bone Falch 131–132, 157–159, 171 Poland 93–94, 113, 205, 208, 228, 239 Rønshoved 238–239 Pontoppidan, Erik 63–65 Rørdam, Gudrun 231 Poulsen, Alfred Svejstrup 189–190, 219, 228, Rørdam, Holger Frederik (H. F.) 27, 78 239 Rørdam, Thomas Skat 184 Prenter, Regin 243, 261 Rådhusstræde 71 Przemysl 205, 217 Råsted 15–16 Råvad, Alfred 231 Rabinowitsch, Josef 210 Rald, Niels Jørgen 253 Sahl 17 Randers 175, 265–266, 270 Salomon, Abraham 56 Raphael, Jacob 110 Salomon, Daniel 43–44 Raphael, Joseph 107 Salomon, Golde (Lorie) 55 Ramme 60 Salomon, Johannes 44 Rasch, Claus 45–46 Salomon, Julius 42, 94, 123 Index Of Persons And Places 295

Sandbæk, Harald 238, 256 Smith, Lauritz 108 Sankt Pedersstræde 115 Smith, Sofus Birket 34, 44 Saxony 22, 28 Smyrna 160 Scavenius, Erik 249 Sode-Madsen, Hans 257 Schack, Tage 231 Soldin, Israel 93 Scharling, Carl Emil 151, 195–196 Sorgenfrey, Friderich Julius 126 Scharling, Carl Henrik 189 Sorø Church 15 Scharling, Carl Immanuel 255 Spain 1 Scharper, C. G. 198 Sparring-Petersen, G. 234, 248 Scheel, Holger 55 Spener, Philipp Jacob 58, 60, 66, 76–77 Scheffer, Frederik Christian 102 Spentrup Church 17 Scheradsky, Abraham 210 Stadthagen, Meyer Goldschmidt 53 Schimmelmann, Ernst 97 Steenbuch, Hans 67, 69, 81 Schleiermacher, Friederich 216 Steenloos, Johannes 61 Schmidt-Phiseldeck, Conrad G. F. E. von 119, Steinthal, Frederik Wilhelm 229 129 Stemann, Poul Christian 146 Schornstein, Max 215, 219, 221, 223, 225 Stenbæk, Jørgen 233 Schou, H. 49 Stockholm 165 Schou, Poul 256 Store Heddinge 103 Schrader, Johann Hermann 78, 81 Streicher, Julius 23 Schreiber, Matthias 77 Struensee, Johann Friedrich 96–97, 102 Schröder, Johan Wilhelm 77 Strøbech, Erik Johannes 245 Schultz, Stephan 82–83 Stöcker, Adolf 238–239 Schwarz, Herman 82 Suhr, Theodor 259 Schütte, Gudmund 231 Sunesøn, Anders 8–11 Seeboth, Gottlieb 82 Svend (Sweyn) Grathe 16 Sehested, Jørgen Steen 38 Svenningsen, Nils 252, 256 Seidelin, Paul 266 Sweden 94, 224, 251, 253, 255–256, 270–271 Severinsen, Peter 234 Syria 160, 229 Shamir, Avner 11 Süss, Dorothea 85 Sherman, F. 22 Søe, Niels Hansen 234, 243 Simon Jøde 52 Sørensen, Arne 265 Simonsen, Cecilie S. 128 Sørensen, Holger 250 Simonsen, David 176, 215, 218, 221, 222 Sørensen, Johannes 236 Simonsen, Konrad 230 Sindbjerg 14, 17 Tamdrup 14, 17 Sivertsen, Eyvind 262, 264 Tauler, Johannes 26 Skamstrup 88 Tausen, Hans 25–29, 32 Skovgaard-Petersen, Carl Axel 187–188, 228, Tertullian 182 264 Thaarup, Thomas 119–121, 128 Skovshoved 256 Theresienstadt 224, 249, 253, 255–256, Skydebjerg-Aarup 248 258–260 St. Mary, Wittenberg 21 Thing, Morten 221 St. Mortens Church, Randers 270 Thisted 160 St. Ursula, Cologne 11 Thye, Matthias 117 Skælskør 149 Tidemand, Peder 30–31 Slagelse 163–164, 167 Tiexeira, Manuel 39 Slagslunde 165–166 Toftlund 235 Smith, D. P. von Huth 249 Torm, Axel 205, 211, 264 296 Index Of Persons And Places

Torm, Elisif 261 Westphalia 165 Torm, Frederik 202, 205, 211, 213, 228, Weyse, Christoph E. F. 142 233–234, 240, 248–249, 257, 259–261, Widmann, Johann Georg 80–81 263–264 Wilhelmsen, Jakob 32 Tranquebar 75 Winckler, Michael Schalom Siegfried 224 Treitel, Moses (Moritz) 159 Winstrup, Peder 37–38 Trellund, Johannes 69 Wittenberg 21, 28–29, 31, 34, 37 Trier, Ernst 236 Wolf, Jakob 272 Trier, S. S. 90, 100 Wolf, Paulus 200 Tryde, Eggert C. 150, 152–153 Wolf, Samuel Elkan 114 Tudvad, Peter 136–138 Wolff, Abraham Alexander 140–142, Turkey 159, 213 144–147, 150, 152–153, 156, 171, 173–178, Tychonius, Christen Lassen 60, 68 181–183, 185–186, 194–198, 213, 215, 218, Tychsen, O. G. 112 222–223 Tønder 81–82 Worm, Christen 66–67, 69, 71 Worm, Jacob 38 Uganda 226 Wosemose, Hans Christian 129 Unna, Abraham 167 Wreschner, Meyer A. 175 Unna, Ascher 110, 142 Wroclaw 176 Unna, Joseph Philip 71 Wulf, Jakob 113 Unna, Wulf 80 Wulff, Kalman 56 Würzburg 141 Vajsenhus Church 77 Wøldike, Andreas 103 Vallekilde 237, 248 Wøldike, Marcus 82 Vallø 82, 103 Vedsted, H. C. 229 Zachariah (prophet) 74 Vellev 245 Zealand 34–35, 41–42, 80, 97, 105, 118, 132, Viborg 38, 155, 157, 189, 239, 266–267 139, 141, 145, 153, 158, 160, 171, 180, 184, Vienna 144, 205 191, 194, 196, 198–199, 214, 220 Vilslev Church 14 Zevi, Sabbatai 56–57 Virgin Mary 2–3, 6, 15, 21, 36, 254 Zion 122, 160, 227, 231, 240 Visby, Holger 150 Zürich 24 Volckersen, Abraham 104 Volf, Stefan 205 Ælnoth of Canterbury 1–2 Voltaire 96 Værløse 134 Øllgaard, Hans 255 Øllgaard, Nicolaj Esmark 155 Wagenseil, Johann Christoph 60, 128 Øresund (The Sound) 251 Wallach, Levin Moses 175 Ørsted, Anders Sandøe 127, 146, 156, 192–193 Wallich, Arnold Aron Wulff 167 Øster Alling 88 Wallich, Frederikke 167 Østrup, Frederik Louis 234, 242 Wallich, Wulf Lazarus 99, 101 Østrup, J. L. 248 Wandal, Hans 33, 41 Warburg, Frederikke 163 Warburg, Jonas David 163 Wessel, Friedrich Petersen 69, 78, 81, 125 Wessel, Horst 234 Wessely, Moses 107