Saturday, January 30, 2021

Martin Luther and the Jews

Michael Streich

September 11, 2011

Martin Luther’s frequently harsh language regarding the Jews is often attributed to the “old Luther,” while most biographies published before the latter part of the 20^th Century never mention such writings like his treatise Concerning the Jews and Their Lies (1543). Casual observers point out Luther’s influence in Nazi Germany as a rabid anti-Semite, a view of Luther discredited by historians and theologians. Others argue for a psychological explanation, looking for signs of senility. The true or real Luther, however, seen within an historical context, argues for an intensely passionate man completely devoted to St Paul’s message of justification by faith; conversion of the Jews and the notions of “apocalyptic prophecy” flow out of this baseline convictions.

The Reformation as an End Times Event

Luther scholar Heiko A. Oberman demonstrates that for Luther, the Reformation was part of a larger divine plan that would result in the return of Christ in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. This view conflicts with general assumptions linking the Reformation to subsequent decades that featured a Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment. If the Reformation was seen within the scope of eschatological prerogatives per Luther, the Jews were as threatening to God’s people as were the Turks and the papacy.

Luther was a product of the Middle Ages, a period peppered with Jewish discrimination and persecution. During Luther’s lifetime, Jewish communities were uprooted and forced to migrate out of the principalities of the Holy Roman Empire. Luther’s own writings on the Jews are filled with scatological references and the recommendation to burn their houses of worship and sacred writings.

Did Luther hate the Jews? Could he be deemed an anti-Semite? (the term itself is anachronistic). Oberman characterizes a different Luther: “The insistence upon Jewish toleration, to be sure a toleration only in the sense of a coexistence strictly predicated upon conversion, remains a lifelong concern for Luther.” Luther was also aware that in the Last Days, the Jews would convert, accepting Jesus as their Messiah.

Reformation Political and Social Conditions Impacting Luther’s Views

Luther believed that the purity of the Reformation message was being perverted by heretics, detractors, and Jews. Some Christians, for example, were even being converted to Judaism. Historian Mark Edwards comments that, “Having encountered Jewish propaganda and received report of active Jewish proselytizing, Luther became convinced that the Jews and their blasphemy were a threat to the public good.”

At the same time, the Reformation message was being obscured by politics as princes in the Holy Roman Empire became more concerned with the political implications and opportunities of the movement rather than the theological truths. Even the common folk used the opportunity to vent their aggressions as witnessed by the 1524-1525 Peasants’ revolt.

Within the fluid social and political climate, exacerbated by the latest onslaught of Islamic forces besieging Vienna, Luther’s writings against the Jews could well have led to popular incitement resulting in violence similar to the massacres of Jews at the time of the Crusades. According to Edwards, Luther’s more vehement writings were not republished in many areas with the same frequency as his other works, perhaps to avoid bloodshed.

Conversion of the Jews a Primary Goal for Luther

Luther scholars like Oberman have identified several phases that describe Luther’s response to the European Jewish presence. His 1523 writing, That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew, is believed to be sympathetic to the Jews, written with the hope that the Jews would see the errors of their Old Testament exegesis and convert.

In contrast, Luther’s February 15, 1546 An Admonition Against the Jews, written just before his death, reiterates other “old Luther” writings that refer to the Jews as blasphemers who had perverted God’s truth. Although Luther acknowledged that a few might convert, he had all but given up on the Jews as a group.

Explanations for Luther’s Polemics Against the Jews

Edwards maintains that excusing Luther strictly on the basis of a theological explanation is open to debate. Scholars opposing this view note that a purely theological explanation is merely a rationalization that ignores the entire context of historical scrutiny and analysis. Eric Gritsch, a Lutheran Church Historian, wrote that, “Luther was but a frustrated biblical scholar who fell victim to what his friend Philipp Melanchthon called the ‘rabies of theologians’: drawing conclusions based on speculations about the hidden will of God.”

Contrary to Gritsch’s seemingly simplistic evaluation, however, Luther did understand God’s will in regard to the preaching of the Gospel and for Luther, the Gospel message fell on deaf ears when it came to the Jews. Like contemporary evangelicals, Luther also understood the Jews in prophetic terms. Unlike modern evangelicals that still view Israel as God’s chosen (Hal Lindsey, for example, addressed this in at least one of his books in which he devotes a chapter on Luther), Luther believed that the “New Israel” was the Protestant movement.

In Concerning the Jews and Their Lies, Luther addressed obedience to the law and circumcision as the sign of that obedience. But, as Luther writes, the faith of the patriarchs like Abraham was not based on the act but on the obedience to God’s promises incorporated within the law: faith in the coming Messiah who was Jesus.

Luther’s final writings, notably his coarse language, are also taken to suggest signs of old age. Yet, as Oberman demonstrated in 1988, “One should not apologize, by way of psychogrammatic history or periodizations of Luther’s life, to explain away verbal vituperation as that of an old and unhappy man.” Oberman demonstrates, for example, that Luther was using scatological language in 1515 during a sermon reflection on backbiters and the devil.

Luther and the Jews in Context

Luther’s view toward the Jews must be seen within the context of history. This includes the myriad influences on Luther that were social, political, cultural, and religious. Modern observers tend to focus on only one aspect of these influences, resulting in questions such as whether Luther was an anti-Semite, whether he should be held responsible for Nazi Germany, etc. Such questions are like asking if Columbus should be held responsible for the subsequent annihilation of millions of Native Americans.

For Luther, the Jews had rejected Christ as Messiah and their on-going presence was as much a hindrance to the Gospel message of the Reformation as the papacy and the Turks (Islam). He didn’t single them out as a race. Luther’s final admonitions against the Jews can be viewed within the context of the historical moment, which included his theological convictions as well as the prevailing social views of the exiled people.

References:

Edwards, Mark U., Jr. Luther’s Last Battles. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983.

Gritsch, Eric W. “Was Luther Anti-Semitic?” Christianity Today, Issue 39, July 1, 1993.

Luther, Martin. On the Jews and Their Lies. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.

Oberman, Heiko. “Teufelsdreck: Eschatology and Scatology In the ‘Old’ Luther,” Sixteenth Century Journal, Volume 19, No. 3, 1988.

Oberman, Heiko. The Roots of Anti-Semitism In the Age of Renaissance and Reformation. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.

[First published in Suite101. Copyright owned by Michael Streich. Any reprints require written permission]

Friday, January 29, 2021

Tax Collecting in the First Century AD

Zaccheus Illustrates Popular Views on a Despised Profession

Dec 3, 2008

Indirect taxation in the Roman provinces were a source of resentment and bitterness, especially if the tax collectors were contractors from within the local communities.

Tax collection in the Roman imperial provinces during the first decades of what would be called the Pax Romana took varying forms. Direct taxes were extracted from all provinces. Roman citizens were exempt from direct taxation and Italy itself was immune, following a reversal of late republican state policy. Poll taxes were created in some of the provinces such as in Egypt and Palestine. During the life of Augustus, three censuses were conducted to help regulate and assess this tax. Indirect taxes were paid by everyone and these were often a source of much bitterness in the provinces.

Zacchaeus in Luke 19

As one of a handful of chief tax collectors, Zaccheus had great power and had achieved significant wealth. The Roman “publicanus” was essentially a contracted position. As chief tax gatherer, Zaccheus would have had subordinates assisting in the collection of customs levies and tolls and each of these would have kept a percentage. Publicans were viewed as extortionists, taking more than the legal amounts but protected by Roman authority. Over-collecting and bribery was common in the provinces.

Philippe Aries and Georges Duby write that, “Imperial authorities refrained from exhibiting too much curiosity about the way in which taxes were extorted from the peasantry.” Hence, men like Zaccheus could extract a reasonable sum for themselves above the amounts that were due. [1] A chief export of Jericho was the highly lucrative balsam. Tax revenues from its export would have provided Zaccheus with a substantial income, much of it coming from arbitrarily inflated fees. The extent of this extortion is demonstrated by Zaacheus eventual willingness to repay these sums at four times the original amounts.

The Despised Tax Collector

The Zaccheus story also demonstrates the level of antipathy held for tax collectors. The New Testament refers to “Publicans and sinners” in the same phrase, highlighting, particularly for Jews, the wretched nature of the occupation, as in the ninth chapter of Matthew’s Gospel. In Luke 19, however, this disgust is described in some detail and focuses on Zaccheus’ height.

Zaccheu

The Despised Tax Collectors was a short man. On the occasion of Jesus’ visit to Jericho, he wanted to personally see the man the whole countryside was talking about. Being short, however, the throngs of people blocked him. This was certainly intentional. Tax collections, especially those of Zacchaeus status, were protected by Roman authority. But there were ways to demonstrate opposition and hatred. This was one example.

Direct taxes such as the tributum soli were paid to imperial officers as was the poll tax. This was the tax paid by Jesus in Luke 20.19ff. Indirect taxes were "farmed out" or contracted to local agents. For Jews that viewed Roman taxation as anathema, bordering on sacrilege, the fact that Zaccheus was one of them made his position all the more precarious and despised. That Jesus referred to Zaccheus publicly as also being a “son of Abraham” indicates that the Publican was both an outcast and a renegade.

Summary

The story of the tax collector was included to illustrate an aspect of the early Christian message that was diametrically opposed to the norms in Roman society and culture. What other religion or mystery cult could so radically alter an accepted fixture in everyday life? So hated were tax collectors that in later decades Jerome would comment that the peasants welcomed the barbarian invaders to free them from the tax gatherers.

[1] Philippe Aries and Georges Duby, A History of Private Life From Pagan Rome to Byzantium (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1987) p. 117.

New American Standard Bible Reference Edition, 1973.

The copyright of the article Tax Collecting in the First Century AD in Roman History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Tax Collecting in the First Century AD in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Rendering to Caesar

Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome Compared

Roman Civilization Endured as an Empire Because of Self Identity

Dec 26, 2008

The temptation to compare and contrast two great ancient civilizations must be tempered with the fact that Greece and Rome were uniquely different communities.

Why did Rome succeed as an empire yet Greece did not? The answer to this question may well begin with the fact that Ancient Greece never was an empire in the strictest sense of the definition. Other than a brief “imperial” period under Athens – which did not involve all of the Greek city-states, and Philip of Macedonia’s unification of the Greek peninsula followed by his illustrious son’s Asian conquests, Greece could never compare with the centralized structure of Ancient Rome. Hellenisation disseminated Greek culture throughout the Mediterranean world, but this hardly constitutes an empire.

Roman Hegemony during the Republican Period

After defeating their one-time Etruscan masters, the Romans moved to consolidate power in Italy. This was accomplished through war, diplomacy, and the granting of Roman citizenship. The extent of these successes became evident during the Second Punic War when the Italian city-state allies of Rome remained loyal, denying Hannibal the support he needed to decisively defeat Rome.

The Punic Wars determined whether Rome or Carthage would dominate the Mediterranean. The result of the Third Punic War was the destruction of Carthage, recounted by Livy in brutal detail. Following the Punic Wars, Rome turned toward Greece, in part because of the Macedonian-Carthaginian Treaty. Unlike Egypt, which sent the Roman Senate congratulatory remarks following the victory over Carthage, the Macedonians were in league with Hannibal.

By the time Octavian became the first augusti, all of Greece was under the domination of Imperial Rome. Rome’s success was based on many factors that included a willingness to learn strong lessons from defeats and co-opt the ideas of its enemies. The Roman legion owed much to the Greek phalanx of earlier decades and her navy was modeled on Carthaginian designs and strategies. From Greece, Rome took culture and religion. Finally, Rome never interfered with provincial beliefs and customs unless they posed a threat to the core tenets of Roman ideology and practice.

Greek Limitations in the Ancient World

The voluntarily unity of Greek city-states occurred only when outside forces threatened the disparate civilization such as the invasion of Darius I and later Xerxes during the Persian Wars. Yet after these threats were eliminated, the city-states withdrew into their own spheres. Sparta, for example, was more concerned with internal security and control rather than empire building. Even the rise of an imperial Athens seemed motivated more by commercial interests and less by conquest.

The very nature of self interest among the Greek city-states may have been one factor among many in the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, a series of conflicts and changing alliances that ultimately left a power vacuum filled by Macedonia. Unlike the rise of Rome, there was no central, powerfully competent state able to forge an empire with lasting ramifications. The successes of Philip of Macedonia and his son, Alexander, were built upon the personalities of the leaders so when Alexander died, the empire he forged fell apart.

Unlike Rome, no lasting institutional entities tied together an imperial or pre-imperial community of states. Rome had its period of civil wars such as the contest between Marius and Sulla and the conflicts within the triumvirates, yet the cogent example of Cincinnatus reminded the Romans what had made them a great people, an ideal Cato and Cicero kept in the forefront of Roman identity.

:

Mary T. Boatwright, Daniel J. Gargola, and others, The Romans From Village to Empire: A History of Ancient Rome from Earliest Times to Constantine (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004)

Michael Grant, History of Rome (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1978)

Srah B. Pomeroy, Stanley M. Burstein, and others, Ancient Greece: A Political, Social, and Cultural History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999)

The copyright of the article Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome Compared in Ancient History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome Compared in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Roman Emperor Hadrian

Roman Aqueduct in S.France

Photos by Michael Streich

Survival of the Early Christian Church

First and Second Century Christians Chart a Triumphant Future

Dec 26, 2008

The early Christian church faced many internal and external struggles in the first centuries of the Roman Empire but ultimately prevailed as a powerful institution.

The endurance of Christianity during the first centuries of the Roman Empire may be the greatest “miracle” of the faith tradition beyond the resurrection of the founder, Jesus. Attempts to eradicate the sect by a number of emperors merely strengthened the movement and provided it with heroic martyrs that modeled individual faith for neophytes while sharing in the death of Christ. Despite internal conflicts and external pressures, Christianity emerged as the predominant faith, able to preserve key elements of Roman culture once the empire dissolved in the fifth century.

The First Century Christian Church

The early followers of Jesus were Jews that were forced to worship in private homes after growing opposition by Pharisees and Sadducees. These early believers worshiped Jesus as Christ, the promised Messiah. Central in this worship was the re-enactment of the Last Supper, a celebration that would come to be seen as the Eucharist.

The three “missionary” journeys made by St. Paul over a 13 year period universalized the church. By the turn of the century, Christian communities flourished in Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. Christianity also made significant progress in Spain and North Africa.

Roman religion was an eclectic body of mystery cults, schools of philosophy, a pantheon of deities often borrowed from other cultures (such as Greece), and traditional Roman household worship that dated back to Etruscan times. Christianity, however, was monotheistic and its followers refused to participate in Roman religious rituals such as offering sacrifices to the emperors.

The Appeal of Early Christianity and Roman Responses

Christianity taught that all people could experience a relationship with God through Christ. The message was simple and easily understood. It offered a hope to those in the lowest social stratum. The Christian message attracted both the illiterate and the educated. Christians valued all life, taking in orphans and, through a sense of corporate solidarity, took care of each other.

The social values and morality flowing out of Christianity stood in direct contrast to Roman beliefs and practices. Further, Christians – at least the early Christians, met in secret. The Eucharist was not understood by Romans who heard tales of eating flesh and drinking blood. Much like the excesses of some mystery cults like that of Dionysus, which had been suppressed in the late Republic, Christianity was viewed with great caution and suspicion.

When Christians refused to worship the emperor as a divine being the unity of the Roman state appeared to be threatened. Some Christians refused to serve in the army and opposed the use of violence. Numerous persecutions ensued, ending with the “Great Purge” of AD 303 under Diocletian and Galerius.

The Christian church, however, persevered and grew. A common body of sacred literature, compiled by “church fathers” and endorsed as inspired texts, assisted in church organization. At the same time, hierarchical structures enabled the church to provide methods of defense against internal conflicts associated with heresies, some of which made their appearance as early as the second century.

Triumph of the Christian Church

Although the egalitarian nature of Christian social justice in the early centuries enhanced its appeal among peoples longing for a belief that offered Utopian directions rather than the turmoil following the death of Marcus Aurelius, there were many other factors that contributed to the triumph of Christianity.

The third century saw a waning of oriental mystery cults as well as average Romans seeking truth amidst economic and political breakdowns. The apocalyptic nature of Christianity also provided a particular hope that spoke of a new heaven and a new earth. Christians appeared to be united, even during times of great stress and persecution. Thus did this minority group survive to grow into a mighty institution during the centuries following Roman dissolution.

Sources:

Basic Sources of the Judeo-Christian Tradition, Fred Berthold, Jr., Alan E. Carlsten, and others, editors (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1962)

W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church 3rd Ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970)

The copyright of the article Survival of the Early Christian Church in Roman History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Survival of the Early Christian Church in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Basilica of St. Paul

Ancient Views of Religion Affected by Geography

The Gods and the Afterlife Reflected Natural Environments

Jan 26, 2009

Significant geographical differences between the Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations affected popular religious development and views of an afterlife.

Religious belief, mankind’s relationship with a higher force – God or “the gods,” and the afterlife, has always been linked to geographic considerations. This is most evident in the ancient world and can be contrasted in Mesopotamian civilizations with Ancient Egypt. Since the gods controlled the natural world, disasters were often linked with the displeasure of the gods. This idea can be traced back to prehistory when nomadic groups relied upon positive life forces in nature to provide food and shelter.

Geography, Natural Disasters, and the God Force

Immediately after the calamitous effects of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, fundamentalist American preachers used the storm as a jeremiad to drive home the argument that God was displeased with New Orleans, the “sin city” that seemed to epitomize all that was wrong with America. These preachers might as well have lived in the ancient world.

In the Ancient Middle East, the two great, sustaining rivers, the Euphrates and the Tigris, frequently inundated civilizations built along the river banks. Unpredictable, the rivers added credibility to the many ancient “flood myths,” of which the Noah story in Genesis is but one example. When the gods were angry, the forces of nature responded with ferocious vengeance. It didn’t help that the region was barren with no stones or trees, an open, unprotected, arid land mass generally inhospitable to people living there.

The gods were perceived as capricious and uncaring. In the Gilgamesh Epic, the gods undermined the hero’s endeavors, reminding him that mortals can never attain deity. Even the afterlife was dismal: an eternal existence in darkness. Mesopotamian prayers beseeched the “known and unknown god” and asked why the gods gave no answers. The bleak existence in a vulnerable land paralleled the uncaring pantheon of gods.

In Egypt, however, religion was very positive. Osiris, perhaps the most popular god, represented the resurrection from death to life in the remarkable story of his rebirth after being murdered by his evil brother. Osiris presided over the afterlife and in death, all righteous Egyptians became Osiris.

But it was the Nile River that gave life to Egypt and remained for centuries the ultimate fact of life. The earliest gods grew out of this Nile miracle that once a year turned Egypt green. Egypt’s relationship with deity was positive because the gods protected Egypt and made the civilization prosperous. It was the gods, specifically Ptah, who formed Egypt out of a primordial mass into a civilization. And it was Osiris who took Egyptians from cannibalism, gave them the laws, and taught them to grow wheat and barley.

Spiritual Forces from Above

Until mankind fully understood the patterns of weather and climate, the forces of nature were attributed to other worldly machinations. In the Medieval period, priests took the Blessed Sacrament out of the church and held it up to the sky to ward off potentially devastating storms. The great Reformer, Martin Luther, made his decision to pursue religious life in the midst of a thunderstorm during which he almost lost his life.

The primitive view of nature and geographical forces affecting mankind can be traced back to the earliest days of Paleolithic development. Though refined over centuries, such views are still prevalent and many religious traditions teach an end of the world when the forces of nature would once again rebel. For the Ancient Egyptians, it was the return of the snake.

Sources:

R.T. Rundle Clark, Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt (Thames and Hudson, 1959)

Aidan Dodson, The Hieroglyphs of Ancient Egypt (Barnes and Noble, 2001)

Nicolas Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt (Barnes and Noble, 1988)

Sigrid Hodel-Hoenes, Life and Death in Ancient Egypt Cornell University Press, 2000)

John Ray, Reflections of Osiris: Lives from Ancient Egypt (Oxford University Press, 2002)

Kaj Birket-Smith, Primitive Man and His Ways: Patterns of Life in Some Native Societies (World Publishing Company, 1957)

Daniel C. Snell, Life in the Ancient Near East (Yale University Press, 1997)

The copyright of the article Ancient Views of Religion Affected by Geography in Egyptian History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Ancient Views of Religion Affected by Geography in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Nile River

Christianity and the Fall of Rome

Gibbon's Argument Evaluated Relative to Other Consideration

Jan 27, 2009 Michael Streich

The transformation of the Roman Empire took several centuries and was the effect of numerous causes traced back to the 2nd Century but did not include Christianity.

In 1776 Edward Gibbon published The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. A product of Enlightenment rationalism and empirical thinking, Gibbon argues, in part, that Christianity helped weaken the Roman Empire, contributing to the eventual “fall.” Although that thesis is no longer fully accepted, the view that Christianity threatened the unity of Rome by virtue of its exclusionary beliefs is often still listed as one of many possible factors contributing to the dissolution of the Empire. The argument, however, is abstract.

Early Christianity and the Roman Empire

The argument that Christians, on a wide scale, refused to serve in the legions is often cited in support of the broader thesis that Christianity had a weakening affect on Imperial Rome, Yet, as Giuseppe Ricciotti documents in his book The Age of Martyrs: Christianity from Diocletian to Constantine (Barnes and Noble, 1992), at the start of Diocletian’s Great Purge, many of the martyrs had served in the legions and included a prominent Centurion.

Further, Christians comprised a relatively small minority, representing perhaps 30% of the total population at the time of Diocletian and mostly settled in the eastern empire. Comparatives figures for the western empire are below 25%. These figures represent a sect that had existed in the empire for almost three hundred years, indicating slow growth.

Christians, at the time of Diocletian, worked in high government positions and could be found in Diocletian’s own household and imperial court. The last significant persecution had been under Decius in the mid-century and prior to that under Marcus Aurelius who died in 180 C.E. It is difficult to correlate the influence of Christianity with the fall of Rome. Further, following the Diocletian/Galerian persecution, Constantine the Great ended persecution of Christianity, paving the way to growth of the religion.

Other Factors in the “Fall” of Rome

By the third century, the empire was already weakened by a number of factors. The imperial frontiers were fracturing as barbarians sought to cross the Rhine and the Danube into Roman territory. The growing self sufficiency of provinces disturbed trade patterns as did changes in climate that altered agricultural output. Fewer slaves were available and the empire had gone through several disease epidemics in the mid to latter second century.

Politically, the death of Marcus Aurelius ushered in an extended period of poor leadership, allowing a strong Praetorian Guard to dictate leadership by making and unmaking emperors. In order to payoff the men responsible for bringing emperors to power, the imperial coinage was debased, creating commercial problems and weakening the overall economic base.

An argument can be made that these difficult conditions in the third century actually enhanced Christianity by offering a belief system that was more promising, contained a strong element of hope (the belief that Christ’s kingdom was imminent), and equalized all members. If the gods of Rome had failed, the Christian god had not.

Christian Social Teachings

Christianity followed and facilitated certain practices that were un-Roman such as the opposition to abortion, care for widows and orphans, a social network that ensured compassion for the neediest members, and an aversion to the more blood thirsty entertainments enjoyed in Roman coliseums. Yet these practices in no way affected the political realm. During all of the imperial persecutions, it was difficult to prove directly that Christians were guilty of treason.

In some cases, the persecutions resulted from other reasons. Nero used Christians as scapegoats for the burning of Rome. Marcus Aurelius had a personal dislike of Christians based on philosophic ideology. Diocletian was practically forced into promoting the Great Purge by Galerius, who also had an intense personal hatred of Christianity. Very little evidence points to Christianity as a significant factor in the so-called fall of Rome.

Sources:

Frend, W.H.C., The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984)

Gibbon, Edward, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1960)

Ricciotti, Giuseppe, The Age of Martyrs: Christianity From Diocletian to Constantine (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1992)

Riddle, John M., Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992)

Walsh, Michael, The Triumph of the Meek: Why Early Christianity Succeeded (New York: Harper and Row, 1986)

[copyright owned by Michael Streich. Any republishing in any form requires written permission from the author]

Wednesday, January 27, 2021

The First Crusade Preached by Pope Urban II

Michael Streich

December 14, 2008

Pope Urban II proclaimed the First Crusade at the council of Clermont in France November 27, 1095. A holy endeavor to expel a people “enslaved by demons” would serve many purposes: the Seljuk Turks had successfully occupied the holy lands, once part of the Byzantine Empire. Since the pontificate of Gregory VII and the fateful Battle of Manzikert in which Byzantine forces were defeated, the eastern emperor had sent appeals to Rome for help. Now the pope would act, sensing an opportunity that went far beyond sending a few mounted knights.

A Mighty Army Serves Many Goals

Europe was a battlefield of incessant conflict and endless war. Uniting feudal factions against a common enemy would mitigate the likelihood of further wars and redirect resources and energy against the Muslims. “Let those who are accustomed to wage private wars wastefully even against Believers, go forth against the Infidels in a battle worthy to be undertaken…” Pope Urban II declared a plenary indulgence, the first of its kind, to those “struggling against the heathen.” To medieval man fearing the flames of purgatory, this was a powerful absolution.

A successful Crusade would greatly enhance the prestige of the papacy and perhaps even end the schism that had developed between the eastern and western Christian churches. And although Emperor Komnenus requested a comparatively smaller number of professional soldiers – mounted knights, Urban called upon all Christians: knights, footmen, “rich and poor,” and even “plunderers.” Although a mighty army, it would not be led by any kings of note; both Philip I and Henry VII had been excommunicated.

Immediate Rewards and Immediate Consequences

Landowning crusaders had their holding protected and guaranteed by the Church, lest interlopers attempted to steal their lands while the Lords were in distant lands fighting for Christ. Those taking up the cross had their debts forgiven. Since usury was forbidden, many of these debts had been incurred through Jewish money lenders.

The Jews in Europe, however, were not taken into account, even when crusaders began to slaughter them mercilessly throughout Europe, equating the Jews with the so-called Infidels they would soon encounter beyond the confines of Constantinople. Jews appealed to the church for help. Some courageous bishops opened their gates to Jews seeking asylum, yet many others turned a deaf ear to their cries.

Nicea would be liberated from Muslim control in 1097 and by 1099 the crusader army was at the gates of Jerusalem. The ensuring battle was a bloodbath as thousands were beheaded. Fulcher of Chartres recounts that, “If you had been there, your feet would have been stained up to the ankles with the blood of the slain. Not one of them was allowed to live. They did not spare the women and children.”

Legacy of the First Crusade

In March 2000, Pope John Paul II apologized for the sins committed in the name of the Church, including the Crusades. The First Crusade would lead to approximately 150 years of crusading activity both official and unofficial. A Peasant’s Crusade, led by Peter the Hermit, ended in whole scale slaughter beyond the safety of Constantinople while the ill-begotten Children’s Crusade ended when ship’s captains ferried the youths to North Africa instead of the Middle East, there to be sold as slaves.

The Crusade did not end the schism nor did it end Europe’s “private wars.” It did spur a new age of commerce and trade, a significant benefit that would help pave the way toward great prosperity for emerging Italian city-states.

Sources:

Fulcher of Chartres, Chronicle of the First Crusade, M.E. McGinty, trans. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1941), pp. 15-17 and 66-69, in The Middle Ages, Vol. I: Sources of Medieval History, 5^th Ed., Brian Tierney, ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1992) pp.159ff.