4 April 1891 Death of Adolph Saphir, Hebrew Christian Writer and Preacher #otdimjh

Posted on April 4, 2015 by richardsh

SAPHIR, ADOLPH (1831–1891), theologian, born at Pesth in 1831, was the son of Israel Saphir, a Jewish merchant. His father’s brother, Moritz Gottlieb Saphir, was well known as an Hungarian poet and satirist. His mother was Henrietta Bondij, his father’s second wife. In 1843 the Saphir family, including Adolph, were converted to Christianity by the Jewish mission of the church of Scotland. [from Mighty in the Scriptures, a Memoir of the Rev. Adolph Saphir, D.D., by the Rev. G. Carlyle, 2nd ed. 1894; Brit. Mus. Cat.]

page311-2794px-Dictionary_of_National_Biography_volume_50.djvu

Dictionary of National Biography entry on Saphir

At the close of the same year his father sent him to Edinburgh that he might be trained for the free church ministry. Thence in the following year he proceeded to Berlin, where he attended the Gymnasium until 1848. In the autumn of that year he entered Glasgow University, graduating M.A. in 1854. In 1849 he proceeded to Marischal College, Aberdeen, and in 1851 became a student of theology in the Free Church College, Edinburgh. In 1854 he was licensed by the Belfast presbytery, and appointed a missionary to the Jews. His first post was at Hamburg, but, as the Austrian government was desirous of obtaining his extradition for non-performance of military service, he resigned his appointment, and, returning to Great Britain, settled in South Shields in 1856.

After five years he removed to Greenwich, and thence in 1872 to Notting Hill. In 1878 he received the honorary degree of D.D. from the university of Edinburgh. In 1880 he left Notting Hill, and two years later accepted a call from the Belgrave presbyterian church, where he remained till 1888. He died of angina pectoris on 3 April 1891. His wife, Sara Owen, of a Dublin family, whom he married in 1854, died four days before him. By her he had one daughter, Asra, who died young at South Shields.

Like his friend, Dr. Alfred Edersheim, Saphir threw much light on biblical study by his intimate knowledge of Jewish manners and literature. As early as 1852 Charles Kingsley wrote to him: ‘To teach us the real meaning of the Old Testament and its absolute unity with the New, we want not mere Hebrew scholars, but Hebrew spirits—Hebrew men.’ In later life Saphir took much interest in the endeavour of Rabbis Lichtenstein and Rabinowich to convert to Christianity the Jews of Hungary and southern Russia; and in 1887 he was chosen president of an association formed in London to assist them, under the title of the ‘Rabinowich Council.’ Saphir was a theologian of the evangelical school, and many of his pamphlets and lectures were intended to controvert the rationalistic theories of German critics.

His chief publications were: 1. ‘From Death to Life: Bible Records of Remarkable Conversions,’ Edinburgh, 1861, 8vo; 10th edit. London, 1880, 8vo. 2. ‘Christ and the Scriptures,’ London, 1867, 8vo. 3. ‘Lectures on the Lord’s Prayer,’ London, 1870, 8vo. 4. ‘Christ Crucified: lectures on 1 Corinthians ii.,’ London, 1873, 8vo. 5. ‘Expository Lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews,’ London, 1874–6, 8vo. 6. ‘Rabinowich and his Mission to Israel,’ London, 1888, 8vo. 7. ‘The Divine Unity of Scripture,’ ed. Gavin Carlyle, London, 1892, 8vo.

[Mighty in the Scriptures, a Memoir of the Rev. Adolph Saphir, D.D., by the Rev. G. Carlyle, 2nd ed. 1894; Brit. Mus. Cat.]

Reflection and Prayer: Adolph Saphir typifies the Hebrew Christian preacher of the 19^th century. A young man becomes a believer in Jesus through the influence of a mission agency, trains for ministry and develops into a much loved and widely read evangelical preacher. Sapphir always had an interest in his own people, supported the Hebrew Christian Alliance, and the nascent Messianic movement pioneered by Rabinowitz in Kishinev. But this was not something he actively participated in. Like Edersheim, his own identity construction and theological development placed him in a different environment. Whilst I have the utmost respect for this generation of Jewish believers in Yeshua, I also regret that they did not have the options open to the Messianic movement of today, which faces similar challenges of authenticity, coherence, community acceptance and contemporaneity in its theology and practice.

Lord, thank you for the life, ministry and teaching of Adolph Saphir. May our generation of Messianic Jewish teachers and leaders follow in his example of devotion to you and your word, and live our lives with similar character and commitment. In Yeshua’s name we pray. Amen.

http://www.theopedia.com/Adolph_Saphir

http://www.pbministries.org/Newsletter/2000/Jan/saphir01_01.htm

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Saphir,_Adolph_%28DNB00%29

Bernstein adds:

Saphir, Rev. Adolph, D.D. We learn from him the story of his conversion in one short sentence: “I, at that time, a lad in my twelfth year, was the first of our family to accept the Gospel.” Mr. Wingate, [446] who gives an account of the event, says that the Jews testified to Adolph’s being born again from on high. “We heard that the Jews were saying that the Holy Ghost had fallen on Saphir’s son, and that he expounded the Scripture as they had never heard it before.”

In the autumn of 1843, Adolph went to Dr. Duncan in Edinburgh, that he might perfect his knowledge of English, where he remained six months, and then went to Berlin, and studied at the Gymnasium from 1844 to 1848, acquiring a thorough knowledge not only of German literature, but also of German philosophy. In 1848-49, he was tutor in the family of Mr. William Brown in Aberdeen. In 1854, after finishing his theological studies, he was ordained to the Presbyterian ministry, and licensed as a preacher in Belfast.

He then laboured as a missionary to the Jews in Hamburg for one year. Then he had the charge of a church in South Shields, and in 1861 he received a call to Greenwich, where people from various churches flocked to hear him. In 1872 a church was purchased for him at Notting Hill, where his ministry was always attended by all sorts of earnest Christians, especially his Thursday morning lectures. This was also the case wherever he went to preach. Saphir’s love and devotion to his people and to the cause of missions was boundless. He died April 4, 1891, a few days after his wife. His last sermon was on the text, “And Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.”

The following are some of Saphir’s works: (1) “Who is a Jew?”; (2) “Who is an Apostate?”; (3) “Expository [447] Lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews”; (4) “The Hidden Life”; (5) “Our Life Day”; (6) “Found by the Good Shepherd”; (7) “Life of Faith”; (8) “The Compassion of Jesus”; (9) “The Everlasting Nation”; (10) “Christian Perfection”; (11) “The Unity of the Scriptures”; (12) “Christ and the Scriptures”; (13) “The Lord’s Prayer”; (14) “Israel’s Present and Future”; and (15) “All Israel shall be Saved.”

Posted in otdimjh | Tagged article, otdimjh, saphir | Leave a comment

3 April 1821 Levi Parsons, American Pioneer, visits Jerusalem Synagogue #otdimjh

Posted on April 3, 2015 by richardsh

Levi Parsons

In November 1819, the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) sent Levi Parsons (1792-1822) and Pliny Fisk (1792-1825) to the Middle East in order to establish a Palestine mission, based in Jerusalem if possible. The first object of the mission was the restoration of the Jews. [writes Charlotte van der Leest]

Pliny Fisk

From the instructions the Board gave to Fisk and Parsons, however, it becomes clear that the ABCFM did not want to restrict its activities to the Jews. The instructions stated that the missionaries had to try to reach “those who are ‘Christians in name’ and the Jews”. The missionaries were urged to have “two grand inquiries” ever present in their minds:

“What good can be done, and by what means? What can be done for the Jews? What forthe Pagans? What for Mohammedans? What for Christians?”

Moreover, the instructions ended with the prayer that the mission might be accepted by both Jews and Gentiles. Fisk and Parsons were also instructed to learn several languages. First of all they were to learn Arabic, but also Turkish, Hebrew, Greek, French and Italian. After they had left Boston, Fisk and Parsons travelled via Malta to Smyrna, where they arrived in January 1820. At the end of the same year, Parsons left Smyrna in order to visit Jerusalem. During his stay there Parsons distributed Bibles and tracts, and met people of various religious groups and denominations. When he left the city after a couple of months he was optimistic about Jerusalem as a place to establish a mission station. However, he died on 10 February 1822 when he was in Alexandria together with Fisk.

Ethan Genauer adds in “American Christian Evangelical Patronage of

Jews and their Restoration in Palestine, 1800 – 1916″:

…..

America’s first two missionaries each left behind a notable legacy that, despite its rapid early growth, ASMCJ could not match. ASCMJ, after all, produced no martyrs, while Levi Parsons died abroad in 1822. After leaving Boston, Parsons and Fisk stayed together at Smyrna for almost one year, where they distributed Bibles and religious tracts and studied Oriental languages. In December 1820, Parsons left Smyrna in a Greek vessel, “expecting to land at Jaffa and from thence take a direct course to Jerusalem,”” while Fisk remained there. (68) Before he arrived in Jerusalem, he contemplated the spiritual state of the Jews:

With respect to the Jews, it has not been in our power as yet to extend to them the hand of benevolence … From information received, we are led to believe that the veil is still upon their hearts. They seem to be awake to the movement of Christians and are fortifying themselves in their infidelity. But when Jehovah speaks, they will hear … (69)

The journal notes that Parsons took during his stay in Jerusalem, however, show that he did not actually make a special effort to evangelize Jews. He arrived in Jerusalem on February 17, 1821, but did not visit the city’s Jewish synagogues until April 3 [April 7? See Levi Parsons’ Journal]. He tried to sell some Hebrew New Testaments to the Jews who he found there, but they “dared not purchase it without the consent of the Rabbis.” (70) Parsons seems to have spent most of his time distributing over 3,000 Bibles and tracts to Christians, including “priests, bishops, schoolmasters, and inquisitive pilgrims,” within Jerusalem and touring the sites of city and its surroundings. This reflects, perhaps, the disjunction between American Christian perception of Jerusalem as a uniquely Jewish location and the 19th-century reality that far greater numbers of non-Jews inhabited in and visited the city. When Parsons asked some Jews how many lived in Jerusalem, they answered that there was no more than 3,000 — fewer people than Parsons had tracts to distribute. Parsons then left Palestine in May and retired to a Greek island for the summer, rejoined Fisk in Smyrna in December, and contracted a sickness in Egypt, where he died in Alexandria in February with Fisk at his side. News about Parsons’ death did not reach America until July, but was then reported widely in Christian publications. At least three different commemorative poems were written and published in response to Parsons’ death. Although Parsons had resided in Jerusalem for only a few months of his two years abroad, each remembered him primarily for his mission work in Palestine, one as a “mission martyr” and a “harbinger of Judah’s rest.” (71) The most outstanding poem was first published in Christian Spectator, then delivered by a member of Middlebury College’s 1822 annual commencement in Parsons’ home state Vermont, and finally republished in a 431 page biography and collection of his memoirs that his brother-in-law authored in 1825, which ABCFM’s The Missionary Herald reviewed. It lauded Parsons as “virtue’s friend” and asked:

Who now like him shall toil for Judah’s race?
And who like him destroy Mohammed’s sway?

God had guided Parsons to Palestine, the poet said:

‘Twas he who summoned Parsons’ holy soul
From foreign lands to its eternal home.
He will remember Israel’s fallen race,
He will restore them to their fathers land.

Parsons was thus memorialized in association with the prophesied restoration of the Jews, despite the fact that they were not truly the focus of his missionary work in Jerusalem. Just as Parsons’ pre-departure sermon did in 1819, this points to the incredible consistency with which American Christians regarded Palestine and the restoration of the Jews as interrelated subjects in the 1820s.

Prayer: Thank you, Lord, for this early American pioneer, and his brief ministry in Israel. May their example of faith, hope and courage inspire us as we share today in bringing news of the Prince of Peace to a Land, nations and peoples who greatly need to know the reconciling love of our Messiah Yeshua. In his name we pray. Amen.

http://nmyoungfarmers.wikidot.com/evangelists

Charlotte van der Leest writes in

Conversion and Conflict in Palestine Conversion and Conflict in Palestine The Missions of the Church Missionary Society and the Protestant Bishop Samuel Gobat Protestant Bishop Samuel Gobat [46]

Levi Parsons Journal http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&id=hsEEAAAAYAAJ&dq=levi+parsons&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=HzJzAAXLxC&sig=BKXsMEQtWAp3rf74E1OM6_QOx50&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

More here from

Ethan Genauer: “American Christian Evangelical Patronage of

Jews and their Restoration in Palestine, 1800 – 1916″:

While the idea of restoring Jews to Palestine was thus already beginning to gain increased currency in America in the 1810s, a decisive factor that spurred premillenialism’s rise to the forefront of the imagination of many American Christians as the establishment of a mission in Palestine by the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions in the 1820s. In 1818, the ABCFM designated Levi Parsons and Pliny Fish, two graduates of new Haven’s Congregationalist Andover Theological Seminary, as America’s first missionaries to Jerusalem. On November 7, The Christian Herald declared it “most proper that such a mission should be begun by the American people,” because ‘we alone, of all the nations of the earth … have never been engaged in persecuting the Jews.” (39) One month later, it published a page and a half of verse that celebrated the nomination of Parsons and Fish to “lift devotion’s eye” over “desolation’s realm” in Palestine, a land where “once the flowers of Eden flung their sweets” but that now lay in gloom as God’s favor had moved “far to the west.” (40) The poem, in a fashion similar to the questions that del Occidente posed in the New York Times thirty-five years later, inquired why a golden age could not again flourish in the East: “Shall no second Paradise here rise? Nor second choir angels wing the air? Nor second Star announce the rising Sun?” Like del Occidente, and in accord with the narrative of America as a redeeming nation that dominated the 19th century, (41) this poet envisioned a providential role for America’s missionaries. But, whereas del Occidente juxtaposed America’s “free” version of Protestantism against decrepit Islam and the rival “hierarchical” churches of the East, this poem mythologized the enterprise of missionaries Parsons and Fish as a special calling to the jews, delcaring that Providence was shining:

Some rays of bursting splendor midst the gloom:
She sees two youth, of glowing, fearless soul,
Gird on the burnished panoply of heaven,
The destined pioneers to Israel’s tribes
To call them from their wide dispersions home.

After this appeal for Jewish restoration, the poem concluded with a vision of a transfromed Orient no less enthusiastic and insistent than del Occidente’s that sacralized Parsons’ and Fisk’s mission as a step towards the inauguration of a glorious new reality in the East:

Despair, away! Though dark the moral night,
And chill the blast, where milk and honey flowed,
And where the glory subterranean lies: —
Soon Palestine shall hear the potent voice;
Let there be light: from chaos shall emerge
A fairer, holier, more enchanting scene
Then ever smiled beneath an Eastern sky.

The different visions of these two anonymous 19th century American Christians epitomized alternative approaches to a similar objective of redeeming the degraded Orient through the agency of American missionaries. But if, as one possibility, the Christian Herald’s poet represented an isolated voice, and Parsons and Fish did not share the goal of calling “Israel’s tribes … from their wide dispersions home,” then the search for proximate causes of the ultimate preference of many American Christians in the 19th century for the vision of restoring Jews to their ancestral homeland in Palestine would need to probe elsewhere in America’s culture and history. If, however, the two missionaries held this view as their own, as conveyed it to their fellow Christians in America with any eloquence or regularity, then they may have contributed vitally to its transformation from one that was only sporadically represented in the America’s press in the 1810s to its gradual rise to a position of predominance in the premillennialist rhetoric of the late 1800s. What, then, were the attitudes of Parsons, Fisk, and the organization that commissioned them in relation to the restoration of Jews to Palestine?

On October 31, 1819, a few days before they embarked to their initial destination of Malta en route to Palestine, both Fish and Parsons preached sermons at churches in Boston that, the Boston Recorder reported, “were heard with the deepest interest by those who were present.” (42) In his sermon, Pliny Fish revealed no signs that he construed his journey to Palestine as a special mission to restore the Jews. He spoke at length about the “interesting classes of men” — Mahommedans and Jews, and Roman Catholic, Greek, Armenian and Syrian Christians — that inhabited Judea and detailed “the most vigorous efforts” he expected would have to be made to enlighten each of them “of the true spirit of the Gospel.” (43) In his discussion, Fisk actually devoted more attention to the Muslims and Christians of Palestine than to its Jews. Insofar as he spoke about Jews, he did so with the intention of converting them and never implied that their literal restoration to Palestine was a goal of the mission. After his sermon, over $300 was collected for the mission from those in attendance, and then the Secretary of the Prudential Committee of the ABCFM presented a set of “instructions” to the two missionaries. (44) In his speech, the Secretary warned Fisk and Parsons against the temptation of identifying too personally with the storied physical sites where patriarchs, prophets, apostles and martyrs had lived, labored and died, lest they lose sight of their spiritual obligations. If they found that the time was not opportune for the establishment of a mission in Jerusalem, he imparted, they could turn their attempt to “a place less infested with jealousies and of greater salubrity,” such as Bethlehem, or anyplace else to where Providence might direct them. In reference to the jews, the Secretary stated that they “have been for ages an awful sign to the world … but the period of their tremendous dereliction … is drawing to a close.” He declared that “they will return — but only to the mercy of God through their acceptance of Christ, not to the land of Palestine itself. (45) Whereas Christian evanglists throughout the 19th century frequently conflated the distinct ideas of the conversion of the Jews and their literal return to Palestine together, neither Fisk nor the ABCFM exhibited such premillennialism in these pre-departure communications. Rather, they relted an undesrstanding of the mission as being strictly limited to those, including the Jews but not specifically targeting them, who already inhabited Palestine.

The sermon that Levi Parsons delivered on the same day in a different church in Boston, however, was strikingly different. Unlike his partner and the Secretary of the organization that had commissioned him, who had not even addressed the possibility of Jewish restoration, Parsons devoted his entire sermon to the subject. He argued in his sermon, entitled “The Dereliction and Restoration of the Jews,” that Scripture prophesied the literal return of Jews to their Holy Land, whereupon they would “be again a peculiar people, a royal priesthood, a chosen generation.” (46) The Mohammedans of the region, he charged, had been “a tremendous scourge to the children of Israel.” They had filled their Koran with curses against them, armed their disciples to destroy them, “obliged parents to instill mortal enmity into the minds of the children, besieged their cities, demolished their synagogues, drove them into exile, and forbade them to return upon pain of death.” Yet despite these sufferings, plus the awful persecutions of Christians in Europe, the jews had retained their separate identity, “as a standing monument of the veracity of God.” Parsons vehemently objected to Christians who interpreted the langauge of the Bible’s promises of Jewish restoration as figurative — after all, he insisted, the prophecies relating to their dispersion and captivity as aliens in foreign lands had been literally fulfilled, so how could anyone selectively understand those regarding their return as merely metaphorical? Yet, he argued, the jews would not achieve their restoration to Palestine by themselves, for this material event was linked inextricably to their spiritual “restoration to the privileges of the sacred Gospel.” Thus, they needed “the benevolence of the Gentiles — their prayers and their charity — in order for their restoration to become reality. More specifically, they needed bo be “furnished with the word of God, and with the instruction of the Missionaries.” In this sacred transaction, Parsons delegated to himself and Fisk a special role:

Our assistance now is particularly solicited. Many of the Jews are willing to receive the New Testament. Conversions to Christianity are rapidly increasing. A general movement is taking place. Every eye is fixed upon Jerusalem. There they believe the Messiah will come … And if our Savior should revive his work within those consecrated walls, the good resulting would, probably, surpass all calculation. The dispersed abroad, fixing their attention upon this event, might renounce their fatal delusion, and receive him, was was crucified on the calvary, as the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world. (47)

Parsons, therefore, in a manner similar to The Christian Herald’s anonymous poet, considered the first American mission to Palestine as a special prject to recall the Jews from their Diaspora abroad to the Holy Land. He and Fisk were, in Parsons’ imagination, emissaries of Jewish restoration who, by preaching the word of Christ within “those consecrated walls” of Jerusalem, would shine a light that Jews abroad could not fail to notice and respond to. This understanding of the mission as the vanguard of Jewish restoration to Palestine would, however, prove to have a very different influence than the one Parsons expressed in his pre-departure sermon. Throughout the 1820s, letters and reports from the Palestine mission were widely reprinted in American media. As a result, the mission of Parsons and Fisk would ultimately have a much greater impact upon American Christisns than on either Jews living in Jerusalem or those “disopersed abroad.” In the 1820s, the ABCFM’s Palestine mission was one key cause of escalated American Christian speculation about Jewish restoration to Palestine.

……

…..

The journal notes that Parsons took during his stay in Jerusalem, however, show that he did not actually make a special effort to evangelize Jews. He arrived in Jerusalem on February 17, 1821, but did not visit the city’s Jewish synagogues until April 3. He tried to sell some Hebrew New Testaments to the Jews who he found there, but they “dared not purchase it without the consent of the Rabbis.” (70) Parsons seems to have spent most of his time distributing over 3,000 Bibles and tracts to Christians, including “priests, bishops, schoolmasters, and inquisitive pilgrims,” within Jerusalem and touring the sites of city and its surroundings. This reflects, perhaps, the disjunction between American Christian perception of Jerusalem as a uniquely Jewish location and the 19th-century reality that far greater numbers of non-Jews inhabited in and visited the city. When Parsons asked some Jews how many lived in Jerusalem, they answered that there was no more than 3,000 — fewer people than Parsons had tracts to distribute. Parsons then left Palestine in May and retired to a Greek island for the summer, rejoined Fisk in Smyrna in December, and contracted a sickness in Egypt, where he died in Alexandria in February with Fisk at his side. News about Parsons’ death did not reach America until July, but was then reported widely in Christian publications. At least three different commemorative poems were written and published in response to Parsons’ death. Although Parsons had resided in Jerusalem for only a few months of his two years abroad, each remembered him primarily for his mission work in Palestine, one as a “mission martyr” and a “harbinger of Judah’s rest.” (71) The most outstanding poem was first published in Christian Spectator, then delivered by a member of Middlebury College’s 1822 annual commencement in Parsons’ home state Vermont, and finally republished in a 431 page biography and collection of his memoirs that his brother-in-law authored in 1825, which ABCFM’s The Missionary Herald reviewed. It lauded Parsons as “virtue’s friend” and asked:

Who now like him shall toil for Judah’s race?
And who like him destroy Mohammed’s sway?

God had guided Parsons to Palestine, the poet said:

‘Twas he who summoned Parsons’ holy soul
From foreign lands to its eternal home.
He will remember Israel’s fallen race,
He will restore them to their fathers land.

Posted in otdimjh | Tagged abcfm, article, jerusalem, levi parsons, otdimjh, pliny fisk | 1 Comment

2 April 1279 Blood Libel against the Jews of Northampton leads to murder of 300 Jews in London #otdimjh

Posted on April 2, 2015 by richardsh

“The most respectable Jews of London crucified a child on April 2^nd” reports Florent de Worcester (Chron. 222), but it is difficult to find the basis either for the event or the report. The historian Graetz notes:

“The enemies of the Jews did not tire of forging new charges against them. It was reported that the Jews of Northampton had crucified a Christian child. For this alleged crime many Jews in London were torn asunder by horses and their corpses hung on the gallows (April 2, 1279).

On November 17, 1278, all Jews of England, believed to have numbered around 3,000, were arrested on suspicion of coin clipping and counterfeiting, and all Jewish homes in England were searched. At the time, coin clipping was a widespread practice, which both Jews and Christians were involved in, and a financial crisis resulted, and according to one contemporary source, the practice reduced the currency’s value to half of its face value.

In 1275, coin clipping was made a capital offence, and in 1278, raids on suspected coin clippers were carried out. According to the Bury Chronicle, “All Jews in England of whatever condition, age or sex were unexpectedly seized … and sent for imprisonment to various castles throughout England. While they were thus imprisoned, the innermost recesses of their houses were ransacked.” Some 680 were detained in the Tower of London. More than 300 are believed to have been executed in 1279.

The most significant antecedent preceding the roundups and hangings of 1278-1279 was the Statute of the Jewry, imposed by King Edward I in 1275. That statute forbid Jews to deal in usury. Ostensibly, the measure allowed Jews to make a living by commerce in “lawful merchandise … and their labor,” and to lease land for farming (for up to 15 years). But the practical effect of the statute was largely to deprive Jews of a legal livelihood. Jews were also limited in where they could reside, and were now required to wear a yellow badge identifying them as such.

Those who were arrested were then tried and, according to the estimate by historian Zefira Entin, 269 Jews – and 29 Christians – were put to death, in London alone, and more than another 50 in other towns and cities.

Those who could afford it, and who had a patron at the royal court, could buy their way out of their punishment, and there are records of Jews who purchased pardons for themselves. On the other hand, there is little evidence of Jews taking up a royal offer to convert to Christianity – who were soon obligated to attend regular sermons by Dominican priests – as a means of saving their lives.

By May 6, 1279, King Edward announced that anyone suspected of currency violations who had not by then been convicted and executed could settle accounts with the crown by paying a fine. This measure brought an estimated 16,500 pounds, in the form of fines and of confiscated property, into the king’s coffers. That sum is said to have been equivalent to 10 percent of the crown’s annual income at the time

The final expulsion of the Jews took place in 1290. By that time, there were some 2,000 Jews left in the realm to send into exile.

Prayer: Have mercy, O Lord, on us, for the sins committed by the English crown, people and church. Have mercy upon us, pardon us, forgive us, cleanse us and renew us. In Yeshua’s name we pray. Amen.

Medieval English Jews and Royal Officials: Entries of Jewish Interest in the English Memoranda Rolls, 1266?1293…Dec 1999 by Zefira Entin Rokeah

http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/this-day-in-jewish-history/.premium-1.558352

From the Bury Chronicle

http://www.stedmundsburychronicle.co.uk/Chronicle/1216-1539.htm

1278

The King and Queen arrived at Bury on 23rd November on route to Norwich to dedicate a church there.

All the Jews in England were unexpectedly seized and imprisoned. Their houses were ransacked looking for evidence of clipping the king’s coinage. Soon afterwards in November all the goldsmiths and officials of the country’s Mints were also put into custody and their premises searched.

At Bury, despite the privilege of the Liberty, five goldsmiths and three others were marched off to London by the town bailiff. The king then allowed them to be sent back to Bury for trial, as a special favour to St Edmund.

1279

All the Jews and some Christians convicted of clipping or falsifying the coinage, were condemned to hanging. Some 267 Jews were condemned to death in London.

John de Cobham and Walter de Heliun, were the justices appointed to determine pleas over money, and they were sent by the king, Edward I, to Bury to hold a court at the Guildhall. The monks regarded this as flouting in an unheard of way, the liberties of St Edmund’s church. Even worse, any fines levied went to the royal Treasury, and not to the abbey convent. Because the Sacrist was in charge of the Mint at Bury, he was also fined 100 Marks for the transgressions of the moneyers.

Graetz’s version- Regarding the expulsion of the Jews from England: What follows is a synopsis of Heinrich Graetz’s version of the expulsion and its causes or lack of cause offered in Volume 3 of “History of the Jews” pages 641-645:

“At the accession of Edward I they had prospects of a secure existence… They might have lived on in this lowly state, bowed down beneath the burden of the imposts and wearying themselves to satisfy through usury the insatiable demands of the royal treasury, had not a slight occurrence made them the object of the bitter hatred of the monks… In London there lived a Dominican named Robert de Redingge… he had studied the Hebrew language… to enable the monks to convert the Jews by means of their own writings. But instead of converting… he himself became converted. The Dominicans were enraged… and sought to wreak their vengeance upon the Jews. The queen mother Eleanor expelled the Jews from the town of Cambridge which belonged to her and fostered hostile feeling against them throughout the country.

“Incited by the queen mother the House of Commons passed a statute which prohibited the Jews from usury. They were allowed to reside only in royal cities and boroughs. The House of Commons strictly enforced the wearing of the Jew-badge, determined its size and color (substituting yellow for white) and forbade all intercourse with Christians.

“Counterfeit coins were in circulation in England; the coin of the country was often clipped. The charge was directed against the Jews, that they were the sole originators and circulators of the counterfeit coins. It was afterwards proved that many Christians had been guilty of counterfeiting the coin of the realm and that throughout the kingdom only 293 Jews had been convicted of the crime. Nevertheless over 10,000 Jews were made to suffer for this act. The Christians who were implicated, with the exception of three, were liberated on payment of a fine, the 293 Jews were hanged.

“Whilst the queen mother, Eleanor, was exerting herself to inflame the king and the people against the Jews, the queen, also named Eleanor, bestowed the favor on them. She prayed the king confer the vacant chief rabbinate on Hagin Denlacres. The king granted her prayer and installed Hagin as chief rabbi (May 15, 1281).

“When the king settled the chief rabbinate on Hagin, he had no thought of expelling the Jews. Gradually, however the fanatical party and his mother gained more influence over him and disturbed his clear perceptions. This party, probably the Dominicans, appeared before the newly elected pope, Honorius IV, lodging accusations against the Jews, that they encouraged the return of baptized Jews to Judaism, invited Christians on Sabbaths and festivals to the synagogue, made them bend the knee before the Torah and enticed them to adopt Jewish customs. The pope sent a missive to the archbishop and his legate, bidding them employ every means to put a stop to this improper conduct. On April 16, 1287, a church assembly was held in Exeter which renewed all the hateful canonical resolutions against the Jews. A fortnight later (May 2) the king ordered the arrest of all English Jews with their wives and children, an act for which no cause can be assigned. Nor did he release them until he received a large ransom. Three years later in 1290 Edward I, without the consent of Parliament, issued an edict of his own authority, that all the Jews of England were to be banished from the country. 16, 511 Jews of England left the country by the 9th of October.

– See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2009/11/the-situation-in-a-nutshell#sthash.P24yHqs1.dpuf

In 1244 London witnessed an accusation of ritual murder, a dead child having being found with gashes upon it which a baptized Jew declared to be in the shape of Hebrew letters. The body was buried with much pomp in St. Paul’s Cathedral, and the Jews were fined the enormous sum of 60,000 marks (about £40,000). Later on, in 1279, certain Jews of Northampton, on the accusation of having murdered a boy in that city, were brought to London, dragged at horses’ tails, and hanged.

1279 A.D. –The most respectable Jews of London crucified a child on April 2nd. (Florent de Worcester, Chron. 222) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_of_Worcester

FLORENCE OF WORCESTER (d. 1118), English chronicler, was a monk of Worcester, who died, as we learn from his continuator, on the 7th of July 1118. Beyond this fact nothing is known of his life. He compiled a chronicle called Chroniconex chronicis which begins with the creation and ends in 1117. The basis of his work was a chronicle compiled by Marianus Scotus, an Irish recluse, who lived first at Fulda, afterwards at Mainz. Marianus, who began his work after 1069, carried it up to 1082. Florence supplements Marianus from a lost version of the English Chronicle, and from Asser. He is always worth comparing with the extant English Chronicles; and from 1106 he is an independent annalist, dry but accurate. Either Florence or a later editor of his work made considerable borrowings from the first four books of Eadmer’s Historia novorum. Florence’s work is continued, up to 1141, by a certain John of Worcester, who wrote about 1150. John is valuable for the latter years of Henry I. and the early years of Stephen. He is friendly to Stephen, but not an indiscriminate partisan.

The first edition of these two writers is that of 1592 (by William Howard). The most accessible is that of B. Thorpe (Eng. Hist. Soc., 2 vols., 1848-1849); but Thorpe’s text of John’s continuation needs revision. Thorpe gives, without explanations, the insertions of an ill-informed Gloucester monk who has obscured the accurate chronology of the original. Thorpe also prints a continuation by John Taxter (died c. 1295), a 13th-century writer and a monk of Bury St Edmunds. Florence and John of Worcester are translated by J. Stevenson in his Church Historians of England, vol. ii. pt. i. (London, 1853); T. Forester’s translation in Bohn’s Antiquarian Library (London, 1854) gives the work of Taxter also.

Blood Libel Northampton

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=66253

In the 13th century the Jewish community in Northampton must have been shrinking steadily. A number of houses once possessed by Jews in Northampton are mentioned as being granted by the king to other persons, such as to the Master of the Temple in 1215, (fn. 43) the earl of Winchester in 1218, (fn. 44) Philip Marc in 1219, (fn. 45) Stephen de Segrave in 1229, (fn. 46) and Robert de Mara in 1248. (fn. 47) In 1277 the Northampton Jews were charged with a ritual murder, (fn. 48) and in 1278 a general attack on them for clipping and forging coin led to the execution and forfeiture of many Northampton Jews. (fn. 49)

48	V.C.H. Northants. ii, 13.
49	Annal. Mon. (Rolls Ser.), iii, 279; Cal. Pat. 1272–81, p. 362.

http://www.heretical.com/British/jews1290.html

1279, Northampton. A child crucified. Haydn’s Dictionary of Dates, 1847, says of this case: “They [the Jews] crucify a child at Northampton for which fifty are drawn at horses’ tails and hanged.” (Further authorities: Reiley, Memorials of London, p. 15; H. Desportes, Le Mystére du Sang.)

Desportes, Le Mystére du Sang.

http://www.thule-italia.net/religione/Desportes.pdf p67

footnote 2 florent de Worcester chronicle p222

Florence of Worcester (died 1118), known in Latin as Florentius, was a monk of Worcester, who played some part in the production of the Chronicon ex chronicis, a Latin world chronicle which begins with the creation and ends in 1140.^[1]

A.D. 1270.] EDWARD I. CEDES NORMAXDr. 3G1 in a parliament held at Amiens, at which the kings of Franco and England, and many of the nobles of both kingdoms, met, the king of England quitted claim for the duchy of Xormandy to the king of France for ever ; reserving only a perpetual yearly rent charge of three thousand livres of Paris, payable from tlie treasury of Rouen. He also received for his quit- claim Angoumois, the Limosin, Perigord, and Saintogne ; and this beinc: settled returned to England. John, archbishop of Canterbury, having summoned all the bishops under his jurisdiction, held his synod at Reading on the feast of St. James tlie apostle [2oth July]. Walter, arch- bishop of York, died, and was succeeded by master William de Wikewane, chancellor of that church.

At Northampton, a boy was crucified by the Jews on tho day of the Adoration of the Holy Cross [14th September], but was not quite killed ; notwithstanding, under this pre- text, numbers of the Jews in London were torn to pieces by horses and hung, immediately after Easter [2nd April].

http://archive.org/stream/chronicleofflore00flor/chronicleofflore00flor_djvu.txt

Full text of “Antient funeral monuments, of Great-Britain, Ireland, and the islands adjacent“

Weever

http://archive.org/stream/antientfuneralm00weevgoog/antientfuneralm00weevgoog_djvu.txt

In the feventh of E d w a r d I. the jews at Northampton crucified a, chriftian hoy upon Good-friday, but did not thoroughly kill him. For the which faft many jews at London after eafter, were drawn at horfes’ tails and hanged.

Edward 1 – 17 June 1239 – 7 July 1307

7^th year = 1246? Jews expelled from UK 1290.

Full text of “A History of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Northampton“

Rev. J. CHARLES COX, LL.D., F.S.A. AND Rev. R. M. SERJEANTSON, M.A.

http://archive.org/stream/ahistorychurchh00garrgoog/ahistorychurchh00garrgoog_djvu.txt

But this is another historical absurdity, for the Rode or Rood in the Wall of this town was an image of much repute, which had a fraternity, possessions, and a seal of its own ; with a chapel on the west side of Bridge Street. A wild and wicked surmise, as absolutely baseless as the story itself, has connected this crucifix with the alleged crucifixion of a christian boy by the Jews of Northampton, in this churchyard, on Good Friday, 1277. The idea that this figure of our Lord on the Cross could be a memorial of such an event, unfortunately still obtains credence in the town — but surely the least reflection, will show the preposterous nature of such a memorial of an a^wful crime. To make the idea a little more credible, some even assert that the figure is not that of the Saviour, but of the crucified boy. We have already alluded to the baseless suppositions, which connected the Round of this church of the Holy Sepulchre with a local Jewish Synagogue, and we confidently believe that the 1277 crucifixion is equally fictitious. It is apparently true, that the Jews of Northampton were charged with this awful offence, early in the reign of Edward I., and that many suffered death in conse- quence. The myth concerning the practice of ritual murder of young children by Jews, in derision of the Crucifixion, first arose in connection with the death or murder of the boy, William of Norwich, in 1144. It can be proved that this myth originated in the vile imagination of an apostate Jew of Cambridge. His lies were published, and obtained credence throughout Europe just at the time of the Second Crusade, when men’s religious passions were roused to fanatical fury. Ever since his time, whenever a little boy has been missing at the Passover-tide, near a Jewish quarter in Europe, the awful suspicion of ritual murder has gener- ally been raised by the ignorant or interested. At Gloucester, in 11 68, the disappearance of a boy Harold, was attributed to this cause. At Bury St. Edmunds, in 1181, a boy Robert was turned into a martyr through the same prejudice. In 1234, seven Jews were hung at Westminster for an alleged crime of this nature. At Lincoln, the well known case of ” Little 122 THE MONUMENTS IN THE CHURCHYARD. St. Hugh” occurred in 1255, when eighteen Jews were hung and over one hundred imprisoned. Northampton followed suit in 1277 or 1279. It will be recollected that only a few years ago certain Jews in Hungary were sub- jected to protracted trials and examinations under a like charge. For a complete and most logical disproval of the alleged crime in the case of ” Little St. Hugh of Lincoln,” an essay on this subject should be read in Jewish IdealSy a volume written by Mr. Joseph Jacobs, and published by David Nutt in 1896. When the time comes for a patient investigation of the Northampton case, we are convinced that the base- lessness of the charge will be as completely established as in the case of Lincoln. Meanwhile it may be noted, as everything that tends to stamp out hideous class lies of this description is desirable, that the usual assertions with regard to the Northampton crucifixion, are even more contradictory than usual. The general account, constantly reproduced in Northampton handbooks, is to the effect that the Jews of the town were charged with this offence in 1277, and that fifty of them were drawn at horses’ tails outside the walls of Northampton, and there hung. But a version given in the Northampton Mercury^ of September loth, 1 79 1, states that “in 1279, the jews at Northampton crucified a christian boy upon Good Friday, but did not thoroughly kill him ; for which fact many Jews at London, were, after Easter, drawn at the horses’ tails and hanged.” This last statement seems to have originated with an entry in Weever’s Funeral Monuments^ published in 1 63 1.

Posted in otdimjh | Tagged article, blood libel, coin clipping, florent de worcester, graetz, Northdmpton, otdimjh | 2 Comments

1 April 1794 Birth of George Joshua Bassevi, architect of Fitzwilliam Museum #otdimjh

Posted on April 1, 2015 by richardsh

Basevi, George Joshua, architect, followed the example of his brother-in-law Isaac Disraeli, in leaving the synagogue in 1817. But it must be stated that no writer expressly asserts that either of the two were received into the Church by baptism. This is known, that Basevi while inspecting the bell-tower of Ely Cathedral fell and was killed instantly, and then received Christian burial in the chapel at the east end of the Cathedral. [Bernstein 101]

From the Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History:

BASEVI, GEORGE (JOSHUA) (1 April 1794–16 October 1845), architect. London-born, he was a son of Naphtali *Basevi’s son Joshua (1771–1851), a Lloyd’s underwriter who followed Isaac *D’Israeli’s example in resigning from *Bevis Marks Synagogue and having his children baptised. Joshua chaired the Brighton magistrates, 1838–43, and was also a Deputy Lieutenant of Sussex.

George attended Dr Charles Burney’s school in Greenwich and studied architecture at the Royal Academy Schools. He subsequently travelled in Italy and Greece; his earliest work displayed the classical influence. His designs included a number of country houses, including Sunninghill in Berkshire, for Sampson Ricardo; churches; and residential developments in Belgravia and South Kensington. His most impressive work, reflecting the baroque style, was the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.

In 1843 he was elected FRS. His fall from the bell tower of Ely Cathedral while inspecting repairs proved fatal. His brother Nathaniel Basevi (1792–1869), also a convert to Christianity, was the first Jewish-born barrister to practice in England. [ODNB; EJ; JE; Hyamson, Sephardim; JC (14 Aug. 1874)]

Prayer and reflection. The Basevi family, like the Disraeli family, left their mark on British life, with their influence in the arts, politics, law, and here architecture. Their motives for ‘conversion’ are not clear, and do not appear to be based on the conviction that Yeshua is the Messiah, but rather for purposes of social advancement. How do we evaluate such motivations today? First we should recognize the nature of British and European society that would not give Jews a role to play. Then we should be aware of the attractions of assimilation to the Jewish community that had gone without emancipation, access to education and wider society, for hundreds of years. Finally, we should not judge the motives of others, Only God knows the heart, and we shall all stand before him one day. To him be the glory. In the name of Yeshua. Amen.

http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/gallery/hiddenhistories/biographies/bio/commemoration/basevi_biography.html

http://www.lcje.net/papers/2001/Meyer.pdf

Architect; born in London in 1794; died at Ely in 1845. He was the son of George Basevi, whose sister, Maria, had married Isaac Disraeli and was the mother of the earl of Beaconsfield. Educated at first by Dr. Burney at Greenwich in 1811, Basevi became a pupil of Sir John Soane, the architect and antiquary; made a tour in 1816 through Italy and Greece, and returned to England in 1819. In 1821 he was appointed surveyor to the Guardian Assurance Company, and for the next few years was engaged in the construction and superintendence of two churches, and of the houses in Belgrave square. He was almost the last and one of the best of the school that sought for inspiration in the architecture of imperial Rome, before the influence of Pugin turned the fashion in favor of Gothic. His best work was the Fitzwilliam Museum at Cambridge (see illustration on p. 572), and carried out in the best classical style (1837). He erected a prison at Wisbeach, and enlarged one at Ely. With Sydney Smith he was associated from 1843 to 1845 in the construction of the Conservative Club-House, London. In the latter year the same architects undertook the rebuilding of the Carlton Club premises. Basevi died from an accident Oct. 16, 1845, before he had started on the work. He was inspecting the bell-tower of Ely Cathedral when he fell and was killed instantly. He was buried in the chapel at the east end of the cathedral.

Bibliography:

of National Biography, s.v.;
Picciotto, Sketches of Anglo-Jew. History;
Dictionary of Architectural Publication Society, 1853.

T. Bolton, Architectural Education a Century Ago: Being the Account of the Office of Sir John Soane with Special Reference to the Career of George Basevi, 1926

Fitzwilliam Museum, The Triumph of the Classical – Cambridge Architecture, 1804-1834, 1977 (with a introduction by D. Watkins)

Jervis, A Note on the Entrance Hall, 1993

John, ‘George Basevi’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 2004-8

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Basevi

Posted in otdimjh | Tagged article, basevi, fitwilliam museum, otdimjh | 1 Comment

31 March 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella’s Edict of Expulsion – the Alhambra Decree #otdimjh

Posted on March 31, 2015 by richardsh

The year 1492 is most often associated with Columbus and his discovery of America. But another event of tragic proportions developed that year. It gave the world the Sephardic Jews (so called because Sepharadh was a region of Spain where many Jews had settled). [from Christianity.com]

By 1492, Spain, under Ferdinand and Isabella had just emerged as a defender of the Roman Catholic faith. The marriage of the two rulers eventually united Aragon and Castile, although while she lived, Isabella did not yield her authority to her husband. In Granada, the pair defeated the Islamic Moors, who had long controlled Spain. Spurred on by the cruel Grand Inquisitor Torquemada, Ferdinand and Isabella felt they must remove all heretics and non-Christians from their land in order to purge it of pagan influences and firmly establish the Christian faith.

The fires of the Inquisition had already roared in Spain for twelve long years. The Inquisition’s primary purpose was not to deal with Jews and Muslims. Any person who professed Christianity and then returned to his or her ancestral faith was tried and punished. In eight years, the tribunal of Seville alone put 700 persons to death and condemned 5,000 others to life in prison.

But what about those Jews who never adopted Christianity? Their majesties had a plan for them, too. On this day, March 31, 1492, in the city of Granada, Ferdinand and Isabella signed an edict banishing from the Kingdoms of Aragon and Castile all Jews unwilling to receive baptism.

“You know well or ought to know, that whereas we have been informed that in these our kingdoms there were some wicked Christians who Judaized and apostatized from our holy Catholic faith, the great cause of which was interaction between the Jews and these Christians…we ordered the separation of the said Jews in all the cities, towns and villages of our kingdoms and lordships and [commanded] that they be given Jewish quarters and separate places where they should live, hoping that by their separation the situation would remedy itself.”

Separation not having worked, the monarchs gave the Jews until July 31st to sell their goods and leave the country. They were forbidden to carry gold or silver out of the kingdom. Worse, although signed in March, the edict was not publicly announced until the end of April, so the Jews actually had only three months to convert their property to trade goods.

“Christians” took advantage of the situation and paid ridiculously low prices for Jewish possessions — a donkey bought a house; a piece of cloth or linen purchased an entire vineyard.

In July 1492, the exodus began. When Columbus left on his famous voyage in August, he could not use the port of Cadiz because of the large numbers of Jews waiting to board ships in the harbour. Many Jews of Castile went to Portugal, where they were forced to pay a ransom to remain. Others went to Italy or the northern coast of Africa. Wherever they went, they were robbed.

Spain’s economy paid for its mistreatment of the Jews: many had been skilled craftsmen. Sultan Bajazet of Turkey warmly welcomed those who escaped to his country. “How can you call Ferdinand of Aragon a wise king–the same Ferdinand who impoverished his own land and enriched ours?” he asked. He employed the Jew in making weapons to fight against Europe.

Prayer: Lord, how we lament the suffering of the Jewish people, the treatment of Jews and Jewish Christians by the Church and the Crown, and the expulsion of 1492. Yet we see your hand of Providence yet again scattering our people, sending them into the New World, and to places where they would be free to live, learn and let their lights shine. Only you know the times and seasons of our lives, both as individuals and as peoples. Lord, have mercy upon Israel and all nations. In Yeshua’s name, and for his glory, we pray. Amen.

http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1201-1500/ferdinand-and-isabellas-edict-against-jews-11629894.html

Adapted from an earlier Christian History Institute story by Diane Severance, Ph.D.
“Ferdinand V, King of Castile.” Encyclopedia Americana. Chicago: Americana Corp., 1956.
“Jewish History Sourcebook: The Expulsion from Spain, 1492 CE.” The Medieval Sourcebook.
“Spanish Expulsion, 1492.” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ jsource/Judaism/expulsion.html

Sepharad, or Sefarad, or Sfard, is a biblical place name of uncertain location. It is mentioned only once in the Bible, in the Book of Obadiah [Obadiah 1:20]. There are, however, Old Persian inscriptions that refer to two places called Saparda (alternative reading: Sparda): one area in Media and another in Asia Minor. It is speculated that Sepharad could have been Sardis, whose native Lydian name is Sfard.

Since the period of 2nd century Roman Antiquity, Spanish Jews gave the name “Sepharad” to the Iberian peninsula.[1] The descendants of Iberian Jews refer to themselves as Sephardi Jews (Hebrew, plural: Sephardim) and identify Spain as “Sepharad” in modern Hebrew.

The Alhambra Decree (also known as the Edict of Expulsion) was an edict issued on 31 March 1492 by the joint Catholic Monarchs of Spain (Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon) ordering the expulsion of Jews from the Kingdoms of Castile and Aragon and its territories and possessions by 31 July of that year.[1]

The edict was formally revoked on 16 December 1968,[2] following the Second Vatican Council.

In 2014, the government of Spain passed a law allowing dual citizenship to Jewish descendants who apply, in order to “compensate for shameful events in the country’s past.”[3] Thus, Sephardic Jews who are descendants of those Jews expelled from Spain due to the Alhambra Decree can “become Spaniards without leaving home or giving up their present nationality.”[4][5

Posted in otdimjh | Tagged 1492, alhambra decree, article, otdimjh | 7 Comments

30 March 2015 “Mission and Missionaries among the Jews in 19th Century Europe” – Conference – #otdimjh

Posted on March 30, 2015 by richardsh

I am attending this conference today, and will update posts at intervals

IJS/JHSE Symposium

in honour of

Professor David Ruderman,

scholar-in-residence of the Jewish Historical Society of England

9.55am Welcome by Piet van Boxel, President, Jewish Historical Society of England

Welcome given by Philip Alexander

Martin GIlbert

David Cesarani gave a hesped (eulogy) on the life and work of Martin Gilbert, historian of Churchill and the Holocaust, who died on February 3rd 2015

10.00am David Ruderman (University of Pennsylvania):

The Revival of the Jewish-Christian Debate in 19^thcentury Europe:

The Evangelical Missionary Alexander McCaul and his Jewish Interlocutors

This was a fascinating study of McCaul’s career, scholarship, motives and methods, and the response of his Jewish interlocutors, most of the Reform Jews who had a similar reservation about the authority of the Talmud that McCaul examined in The Old Paths

10.45am Nadia Valman (Queen Mary, University of London):

Women and the Evangelical Mission to the Jews in Victorian England

Nadia presented a compelling account of the use of ‘the Jewess’ to help construct Victorian Evangelical Feminist discourse. She analysed testimonies and biographies of missionaries to the Jews and Jewish ‘converts’ to show the discourse construction, showing how ‘the reader’s emotional involvement in narrative could be harnessed for serious moral purposes.’

11.30am Coffee

Now listening to Theodor – more to follow

12.00 Theodor Dunkelgrün (University of Cambridge):

Mission and Massorah: Christian David Ginsburg and Victorian Biblical Culture

12.45-2.00pm Lunch (not provided)

2.00pm Philip Alexander (University of Manchester):

Christian Restorationism in Ireland in the Early 19th Century: The Strange Case of Miss Marianne Nevill

2.45pm David Feldman (Birkbeck, University of London):

God’s Chosen People: Love, Power and Popery in 19^th century Britain

3.30pm Tea

4.00pm Joanna Weinberg (University of Oxford):

After mission: Alfred Edersheim’s reflections on Jews and Christians

4.45pm Michael Ledger-Lomas (University of Cambridge):

St Paul in the thought of Protestant missionaries to the Jews

5.30pm Conference ends

Venue: Gustave Tuck lecture theatre, University College London, Gower Street WC1E 6BT

Posted in otdimjh | Tagged article, cmj, jewish historical society of englond, mission and missionaries among the Jewish in 19th century Europe, otdimjh, UCL | 1 Comment

29 March 1887 Death of Mrs. Reynolds, CMJ volunteer #otdimjh

Posted on March 29, 2015 by richardsh

“Mrs. Reynolds continued her useful and voluntary work amongst the Jewesses in the East End, until her death on March 29th, 1888” (Gidney).

I have not been able to find a picture of Mrs. Reynolds, or even discover what her first name was. Like so many volunteers, she remains in the shadows, not wanting to take credit for her self-giving service. Yet she is mentioned frequently by Gidney, and also in the work of Samuel Wilkinson, as someone who served faithfully, was much respected, and significantly contributed to the sharing of the Good News of the Messiah.

Samuel Wilkinson’s Diary

We do know that she was the daughter of a distinguished surgeon, Sir David James Hamilton Dickson, M.D and married to the General Secretary of the London Soceity, Rev. James Reynolds. Reynolds published the Beehive, the children’s version of the CMJ magazine, several lectures, and a whimsical children book, “The Confessions of a Pencil-Case”.

Mrs. Reynolds, as we must call her, served as a ‘volunteer’ visiting Jewish women in London with her team of two assistants each week. This was in the East End of London, teaching, helping with welfare, and sharing the scriptures. Here are some excerpts from Gidney.

“The work amongst Jewesses was not neglected during this Period, for in 1870 Mrs. Reynolds was appointed as missionary to work in their midst The daughter of Sir David James Hamilton Dickson, M.D., R.N., she married, in 1859, the Rev. James Jubilee Reynolds, many years incumbent of Bedford Church, Exeter, and previously one of the secretaries of the Society. After his death she came to London, and offered her services to the Committee. She laboured very zealously for seventeen years amongst Jewesses and their children in the East of London, by paying personal visits, distributing the Holy Scriptures, and holding night classes for Jewish children in the Wentworth Street Ragged Schools. She was assisted by two helpers.”

And

“Mrs. Reynolds continued her useful and voluntary work amongst the Jewesses in the East End, until her death on March 29th, 1887, when she further shewed her devotion to the Society by bequeathing it a legacy of £1500.”

Prayer: Thank you, Lord, for Mrs. Reynolds, one of many volunteers who gave their time and resources to serve you and your people Israel. Thank you for their spirit of sacrificial love, their practical gifts, and their willingness to put your kingdom first. Help us to serve you with similar zeal and motivation, not for ourselves but for your sake. In Yeshua’s name we pray. Amen.

http://www.exetermemories.co.uk/em/_streets/streets/bedfordcircus2.jpg

http://www.exetermemories.co.uk/em/_streets/bedfordstreet.php

http://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/sites/all/lib/aerofilms-images/zoomify/england/EPW024104/TileGroup0/2-1-0.jpg

Reynolds, Mrs., missionary to Jewesses, 343, 426

David James Hamilton (Sir) Dickson

b.1780 d.2 January 1850

Kt FRCPE(1816) Ex LRCP(1822)

Sir David James Hamilton Dickson, M.D., was the youngest son of the Rev. George Dickson, minister of Bedrule, in Roxburghshire. He was educated as a surgeon; had a licence from the College of Surgeons of Edinburgh in 1798, and having entered the navy, served in that capacity in the expedition to Holland in 1799, and in that to Egypt in 1801. He was also present at the capture of the French and Dutch islands in the West Indies. Created doctor of medicine at Aberdeen 18th August, 1806, he was appointed, in 1806, physician and inspector of H.M. ships and hospitals at the Leeward islands. In 1813, he was appointed superintendent of the Russian fleet in the Medway, and for his services in that office received the order of St. Vladimir from the emperor Alexander. He was next appointed physician to the Mediterranean fleet, and in 1824 physician to the Royal Naval hospital at Plymouth. He had been admitted a fellow of the Edinburgh College of Physicians, 6th August, 1816, and he was admitted an Extra-Licentiate of the College of Physicians of London, 15th June, 1822. He received the honour of knighthood from William IV, 20th August, 1834; and in 1840 was promoted to the rank of inspector of hospitals and fleets. Sir David Dickson died at Stonehouse, co. Devon, 2nd January, 1850, in the seventieth year of his age.(1)

William Munk

[(1) Gent.Mag., March, 1850.]

The Confessions of a Pencil-Case Paperback – 1 Jan 1901

by James Jubilee Reynolds (Author)

1837 James Reynolds becomes general secretary of the London Society for Promoting Christianity amongst the Jews

1846 Reynolds retires from General Secretary role due to ill health.

1850 David James Hamilton Dickson dies aged 70

1851 Reynolds becomes vicar in Bedford Chapel, Exeter.

1859 Daughter marries Rev. James Jubilee Reynolds

1870 missionary

An old Secretary of the Society passed away in 1865, in the person of the Rev. James Jubilee Reynolds, who received his second Christian name from the fact that he was baptized in 1 8 10, the jubilee year of King George HI. He was appointed Secretary in 1837, holding that position till 1846, and residing in Palestine Place. In 1846, owing to poor health, he was obliged to resign his post, and to accept the association secretaryship of the northern district. He resided at York till 1850, when he was transferred to Birmingham, taking charge of the midland district. In 1851 he was appointed to the incum- 1874] DEATH OF DR. WOLFF 333 ‘ bency of Bedford Chapel, Exeter. He was the first editor of the children’s Jewish Advocate^ and author of Six Lectures on the JewSy a course of sermons which he preached in St. Saviour’s Church, York, in 1847. They are most excellent discourses, and have been of great help to many who wished to become acquainted with the Scriptural aspect of the question.

The work amongst Jewesses was not neglected during this Period, for in 1870 Mrs. Reynolds was appointed as mis- sionary to work in their midst The daughter of Sir David James Hamilton Dickson, M.D., R.N., she married, in 1859, the Rev. James Jubilee Reynolds, many years incumbent of Bedford Church, Exeter, and previously one of the secretaries of the Society. After his death she came to London, and offered her services to the Committee. She laboured very zealously for seventeen years amongst Jewesses and their children in the East of London, by paying personal visits, distributing the Holy Scriptures, and holding night classes for Jewish children in the Wentworth Street Ragged Schools. She was assisted by two helpers.

Posted in article, cmj, reynolds | 2 Comments

28 March 1985 Death of Marc Chagall, painter of Yeshua #otdimjh

Posted on March 28, 2015 by richardsh

Posted in otdimjh | Leave a comment

28 March 1985 Death of Marc Chagall, painter of Yeshua #otdimjh

Posted on March 28, 2015 by richardsh

Marc Zakharovich Chagall (6 July 1887 – 28 March 1985) was a Russian-French artist. Art critic Robert Hughes referred to Chagall as “the quintessential Jewish artist of the twentieth century” (though Chagall saw his work as “not the dream of one people but of all humanity”). An early modernist, he was associated with several major artistic styles and created works in virtually every artistic medium, including painting, book illustrations, stained glass, stage sets, ceramic, tapestries and fine art prints. We focus here on his paintings of Yeshua.

Rich Robinson writes:

Marc Chagall is perhaps best known to American Jews for his stained glass windows depicting the twelve tribes of Israel. For some, the name Chagall conjures up images of upside-down green horses or multi-hued, Picasso-like scenes of shtetl life. An overview of this master’s work must take into account the diversity of themes he had handled: his own town of Vitebsk, Russia; the sufferings of the Jewish people; and an assortment of biblical motifs. In this article, however, we will concentrate on those paintings which focus on Yeshua.

Chagall’s paintings of Jesus fall into two categories. First there are the scenes of the Crucifixion. It took much courage for Chagall to deal with this theme which, in the minds of so many Jews, is associated with persecution. In these canvases, we notice from the settings that Yeshua is being portrayed as an observant Jew. But more than that, the crucified Yeshua serves as a symbol of martyred Jews everywhere, and in particular those who were victims of the Holocaust. In these paintings, there is no hint of him being anything other than the symbol par excellence of Jewish suffering.

The White Crucifixion by Marc Chagall, 1938, Oil on canvas, Courtesy of the Art Institute of Chicago

Franz Meyer, the definitive biographer of Chagall, gives us a description of the painting White Crucifixion (see below). He calls this work “the first in a long series.” Meyer writes:

Although Christ is the central figure, this is by no means a Christian picture… Round his loins Christ wears a loin cloth with two black stripes resembling the Jewish tallith, and at his feet burns the seven-branched candlestick… But, most important of all, this Christ’s relation to the world differs entirely from that in all Christian representations of the Crucifixion. There… all suffering is concentrated in Christ, transferred to him in order that he may overcome it by his sacrifice. Here instead, though all the suffering of the world is mirrored in the Crucifixion, suffering remains man’s fasting fate and is not abolished by Christ’s death.1

This same type of Jewish yet non-Messianic Jesus is seen in Yellow Crucifixion. Here Chagall shows us “the crucified Christ, who is explicitly characterized as a Jew by the phylacteries on his head and the prayer straps on his arms…2

In a second category of “Jesus paintings,” Chagall does add a Messianic import. Sidney Alexander contrasts this with the martyrdom imagery of earlier works:

In works of the past quarter of a century…the Crucifixion can hardly be said to stand explicitly for the martyrdom of the Jews… That Chagall considers Jesus one of the great Jewish prophets (as he has declared on many occasions, and as his son David testified to me) is perfectly coherent with history and a certain kind of liberal Jewish faith. But when he places a Crucifixion in the background of his Jacob’s Ladder or Creation of Man, at Nice, he is inviting the spectator to read his iconography as Christian fulfillment of Jewish foreshadowing.3

Alexander goes on to say that Chagall only intended to “provide ‘universal’ symbols.”4

Indeed, as far as anyone knows, Marc Chagall was not a believer in Yeshua as the Messiah. However, as one schooled in Western religious art, it is to be expected that Chagall is keenly aware of the Christian understanding of Tenach themes as foreshadowing the life of Jesus. Indeed, he seems to be sympathetic to the continuity between what is commonly called the Old and the New Testaments. Such continuity is dramatically present in paintings such as The Sacrifice of Isaac, where Yeshua, carrying the Cross, is placed in the background of the Akedah. Moreover, the red color covering Abraham streams down from the Crucifixion scene in the top right hand corner of the picture, richly suggestive of blood. In both Old and New Testaments blood is God’s provision for atonement for sin. Thus not only is the Akedah joined together with the Crucifixion, but the suggestion of Jesus’ death being an atonement is present as well. When one considers that the Sacrifice painting is part of a series called Biblical Messages, it becomes apparent that Chagall understood the association of the images. And, as is true in works of great art, such paintings go beyond themselves. They raise the question of the meaning of this continuity between the Testaments for Jewish people today.

This same Isaac-Christ image is employed elsewhere. So writes Ziva Amishai-Maisels concerning the tapestry Exodus, which currently hangs in the Knesset in Jerusalem:

This combination was an acceptable one within a Christian context, in which Isaac was a prefiguration of Christ and the Sacrifice a prophecy of the Crucifixion. It was not a combination which would have been acceptable in the Knesset, and Chagall was counseled against it. But the artist’s personal belief in Christ as the perfect symbol of the suffering Jew could not easily be silenced…. Christ does not appear, but Isaac is placed on the altar with his arms spread wide in the shape of a cross…quite different from Isaac’s previous position in similar scenes.5

But again, in such paintings Jesus must be seen as more than merely a symbol of the suffering Jew. Chagall is aware of the connection which exists between Isaac and Christ in Christian thought.(See Akedah) Such connections are apparent in the tapestry Isaiah’s Prophecy in which Chagall portrays not the crucified Christ, but rather the baby Jesus:

In [certain] works he had juxtaposed the Old Testament themes, which formed his main subjects, to related episodes from the New Testament in an attempt to blend the two Testaments together by suggesting continuity between them. This had been the reason he had added Christ carrying the Cross to representations of the Sacrifice of Isaac, which in Christian’s theology prefigures the Crucifixion. This is also the reason he portrayed the Madonna and Child [in the Isaiah tapestry] in the corner of the prophecy Christians relate to the birth of Jesus.6

But far from a Madonna and Child being rendered in any traditional Protestant or Catholic way, above the figure “is a man suggestive of a mohel. The addition of such a figure tends to stress the Jewish nature of the child born to the woman…as Jesus had been circumcised.”7

Chagall’s work has not always produced positive responses. S.L. Shneiderman, writing in Midstream magazine in 1977, was especially upset that Chagall had accepted work for stained glass windows in several cathedrals in France, utilizing some of these very motifs:

Despite some misgivings, Jews came to accept even his Christ motifs symbolic of Jewish martyrdom through the ages… However, the Jesus motifs Chagall introduced into the cathedrals show no association at all with Jewish martyrology. They are mere illustrations, as it were, of the story told in the Gospels.8

Shneiderman quotes French writer Raissa Maritain that “with a sure instinct he showed in each of his Christ paintings the indestructible link between the Old Testament and the New. The Old Testament was the harbinger of the New, and the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old.” Disapprovingly, Shneiderman goes on to say that “Chagall never expressed disagreement with…Mme. Maritain’s interpretation; [it was] included two decades later in the catalogue of the largest retrospective exhibition of his work.”9

Shneiderman then gives an anecdote of a conversation which took place between the Yiddish poet Abraham Sutzkever and Chagall, which was published in the Tel Aviv Yiddish periodical Di Goldene Keit (No. 79-80, 1973):

Later I learned in Paris that Chagall had also asked the Chief Rabbi of France for advice [re: doing a work for a church in Venice]. The Chief Rabbi…had told Chagall, very simply: “It all depends on whether or not you believe in it.”10

Unfortunately, Shneiderman is not too pleased at the prospect that Chagall just might believe it after all. And whether in fact Chagall does or not is beyond our consideration at this time. But in the kaleidoscope of his large assortment of “Yeshua paintings,” his art raises the question for us, Do we believe it? And if not, why not? The traditional answer that “Jews just don’t believe in Jesus” cannot be offered so glibly–not after contemplating the work of Chagall, thought by many to be the greatest Jewish artist of the 20th century.

Prayer: Thank you, Lord, for the beauty and creative vision of Marc Chagall’s art, and his understanding of Jewish identity and its relation to Yeshua. His work speaks to us so powerfully of Yeshua’s life and solidarity with his people, his crucifixion as a means of reconciling Israel, the nations and all creation to Yourself. Help us to know and express this as Jewish disciples of Yeshua. In his name we pray. Amen.

Franz Meyer, Marc Chagall: Life and Word (N.Y.: Abrams). pp. 414-415. 2. Meyer, p. 446.
Meyer, p. 446.
Sidney Alexander, Marc Chagall: A Biography (N Y Putnam, 1978).
Alexander, ibid.
Ziva Amishai-Maisels, Tapestries and Mosaics of Marc Chagall at the Knesset (N.Y.: Tudor), p. 47.
Amishai-Maisels, p. 79.
Amishai-Maisels, p. 81.
L. Shneiderman, “Chagall — Torn?”. Midstream. June-July. 1977. p. 49.
Shneiderman, p. 53. 10.
Schneiderman, p. 62.

Melissa Moskowitz writes:

Marc Chagall’s extensive repertoire of artwork, in which Jesus and the crucifixion is the central subject, assuredly begs the question: “What’s a nice Jewish boy like you doing painting a nice Jewish boy like him?” The artist’s preoccupation with Jesus as a symbol of Jewish suffering and deliverance provides much fuel for discussion from both Jewish and Christian art critics. But can either side definitively claim Chagall as its “own”?

It’s important to remember that Chagall grew up in Europe in a bewildering, disturbing atmosphere of anti-Jewish sentiment and change. The Hasidic background of his youth provided a rich source for painting Jewish culture and tradition onto the “canvas” of a new and challenging political scene in which being Jewish was a crime. Chagall combined mystery, allegory and history with religious thought and symbols both Jewish and Christian. It is often difficult to know where each of these genres begins and another leaves off, so cleverly does the artist entwine them. Any attempt to unravel one entanglement only leads to another.

“For me, Christ has always symbolized the true type of the Jewish martyr. That is how I understood him in 1908 when I used this figure for the first time,” Chagall said. “It was under the influence of the pogroms. Then I painted and drew him in pictures about ghettos, surrounded by Jewish troubles, by Jewish mothers, running terrified with little children in their arms.” [ 11 ]

There, the artist has said it himself: Jesus is a type of Jewish martyr. Not the Jewish martyr, but just one. The crucifixion as a motif depicting suffering—not solely salvific—pre-dates Chagall and even pre-dates the Christian era. The Greeks were known to incorporate crucifixion as a symbol of punishment into their artwork. So which is it—punishment or salvation?

Perhaps the simplest answer is that in Chagall’s work, it is neither, and it is both. For him, the Jews were being punished simply for being Jews; Jesus was punished simply for being Jewish. And as a salvation motif, crucifixion in Chagall’s work can be understood as both a hope and a means of relating to the greater culture of Europe at that time. It could be a universal symbol for Jewish people to hang on to; knowing that the Christian savior claimed to have risen from the dead, perhaps the Jews’ fate will be to also rise from the ashes of European anti-Semitism.

Perhaps the best answer to the “punishment or salvation” question is not a comfortable one, for it is a mixed view, and is not definitive. After all, the artist’s world is imaginative, and to criticize, malign or even attempt to define why Chagall painted Jesus on the cross would beckon us to do the same with other artists such as Picasso, who depicted women as the angular planes of Les Demoiselles d’Avignon.[ 12 ] Picasso had his muse (sometimes muses); Jesus might have been Chagall’s source of inspiration that spoke to a continued Jewish presence in the world, an end to persecution, and comfort for endless suffering and persecution.

Was Jesus Chagall’s personal savior? On canvas, yes. Past that, we cannot be sure. But most likely, that is not what that artist wanted us to think about. He was too busy painting flying goats, flying harps and flying roosters for us to catch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Chagall

http://www.artnews.com/2013/09/10/chagall-crucifixions-at-jewish-museum/

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/havurah/v17-n02/marc-chagall-and-jesus

http://thejewishmuseum.org/exhibitions/chagall-love-war-and-exile

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/v04-n05/jesusinart

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/marc-chagalls-jesus-paintings-focus-of-jewish-museum-exhibit/2014/01/17/b56e3738-7fb7-11e3-97d3-b9925ce2c57b_story.html

Posted in otdimjh | Tagged article, chagall, moskowitz, otdimjh, robinson, white crucifixion | 3 Comments

27 March 1993 Beresford Case challenges boundaries of Jewish identity and Law of Return #0tdimjh

Posted on March 27, 2015 by richardsh

The Los Angeles Times reported:

MEVASSERET ZION, Israel — Shirley Beresford is cleaning her porcelain of the winter dust, vacuuming and re-vacuuming the last cookie crumbs from crevices in the sofas and washing the final traces of flour, macaroni and cake mix from her kitchen cupboards. Everything in her house, she declares, will be “absolutely, absolutely kosher for Passover.”

Shirley and Gary Beresford are Orthodox Jews, strict in their observance of the commandments of the Torah, ardent in their Zionism. They keep the Sabbath, follow Jewish dietary laws and fast on Yom Kippur. He wears a skullcap and prays regularly at the Mevasseret Zion synagogue. Several of her relatives perished in the Holocaust, while others helped found a kibbutz here.

All seems quite Jewish, traditionally so, with the Beresfords–except that they believe Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, the long-awaited redeemer promised the Jews.

“We are Jews,” Gary Beresford said. “We were born Jews, we were raised Jews, we were married as Jews, we live as Jews and we pray as Jews. But we believe, and with all our hearts, that Yeshua (Hebrew for Jesus) is the Messiah.”

In Israel, that belief, shared by the Beresfords with others who call themselves Messianic Jews, poses major legal, religious and, ultimately, political problems, both for them and the government, in another twist in the sensitive debate here over the issue of “Who is a Jew?”

After nearly six years of applications, petitions and hearings, Israel’s Supreme Court ruled that their beliefs make the Beresfords and two immigrant couples from the United States apostates and bar them from citizenship to which all Jews are entitled under the country’s 1950 Law of Return.

Now, anti-Christian groups are campaigning for the Beresfords’ deportation. They “have overstayed their welcome, and the last thing our country needs is more resident missionaries who preach Christianity while masquerading as Jews,” one group declared in a newspaper advertisement. Another ad appealed, “Cut this cancer out of our midst.”

Pressure is also building on Rabbi Arye Deri, the interior minister, and his Shas Party, from their constituency in Israel’s haredi community of strictly observant Orthodox Jews to take forceful action to discourage other Messianic Jews from moving here.

The Beresfords, who came from Zimbabwe, and the two American families have the promise of help from new legislation that would grant permanent residence on the basis of family reunion to parents or children of Israeli citizens or of Israeli residents who served in the military here. Two Beresford sons are Israeli citizens, as is Shirley Beresford’s mother, though she too is a Messianic Jew. Their visas have been extended until May 21 to allow passage of the law.

“We are not even getting into the question of their Jewishness, but of allowing them to remain with their families,” said Benny Temkin, a member of the Knesset, Israel’s Parliament, from the left-wing Meretz Party. “This is not only their problem, but a problem for other immigrants.”

Yet, in a country where religion defines nationality and underpins the political system, even such a small shift has consequences, moving Israel a bit further toward religious pluralism and, say critics, secularization.

“If Judaism is wide enough to accommodate the different ultra-Orthodox Hasidic sects, the anti-Zionists, both the Habad and Reform movements, the various false messiahs and Jews who are atheists, it should have no problem with us,” Gary Beresford said.

“The point is that we have not converted to Christianity, we have not been baptized as Christians, we have not joined any Christian church or denomination. We are Jews who believe that Yeshua was indeed the Messiah, and through this we have become better and more observant Jews. . . .”

The Beresfords see themselves and other Messianic Jews, said to number about 2,000 families in 35 congregations in Israel, as the start of a “Jewish Reformation” that will gradually bring Israelis and Jews worldwide to a spiritual renewal based on acceptance of Jesus.

Prayer: Thank you Lord for the courage and faith of Gary and Shirley Beresford. We pray that you will continue to strengthen them and all Jewish believers in Yeshua, especially in Israel. At this time of governmental change, increasing global anti-Semitism, and new opportunities for Messianic Jews to articulate clearly what it means to be Jewish and believe in Yeshua, give them and all of us wisdom to discern the times, and share your love with all. In Yeshua’s name we pray. Amen.

www.etd.ceu.hu/2012/pransky_tiffany.pdf

Haim Shapiro, “Messianic Jew Allowed to Remain in Country,” Jerusalem Post, 14 March 1989. Also, Haim Shapiro, “Would be Settlers Rejected,” The Jewish Chronicle, 31 March 1989, 4.

Click to access Perlman.pdf

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-03-27/news/mn-15806_1_messianic-jew

From http://www.etd.ceu.hu/2012/pransky_tiffany.pdf:

The Case

The legal proceedings of the Beresfords began in March 1987.160 Despite the fact that Gary and Shirley were both Jewish by descent, the Interior Minister argued that the Beresfords were not eligible to immigrate under the Law of Return since they were no longer Jews161 because of their religious beliefs. The Interior Ministry claimed they were “members of another religion” – Christianity, to be exact. As Torah-observant Messianic Jews, the Beresfords disagreed. Consequently, the case revolved around whether or not Messianic Jews were to be considered “members of another religion,” which disqualifies one from receiving citizenship [41] under the Law of Return.162 Once more, the legal ramifications of personal identification mismatching the nationally authorized immigration standards would prove to be significant, to say the least.

The Judgment

On Christmas Day, 1989, the three-judge panel ruled unanimously that Messianic Jews are not entitled to the right of return because they are “members of another religion.” Thus, the Beresfords’ petition was dismissed. In the ruling, two justices outlined what they saw as the main beliefs and practices of the Beresfords. The Beresfords, both born to two Jewish parents, observed the Sabbath and dietary laws, felt a strong connection to the Jewish people, and supported Israel. However, since they were to be considered “members of another religion,” these practices and feelings amounted to nothing in terms of their entitlement to immigrate to Israel as Jews. In fact, the Beresfords were doubly ineligible to immigrate under the Law of Return – neither as a Jew as defined in Section 4B, nor as the family member of a Jew under Section 4A (a), which disqualifies anyone “born a Jew” (born to a Jewish mother) who converts to another religion.

In his judgment, Justice Elon interpreted the expression, “member of another religion” in the Law of Return according to Judaism, Jewish history, and the intention of the legislators when adding this phrase.163 Justice Barak rejected Elon’s interpretation of the term “Jew” according to religion. He argued that despite the pseudo-halachic definition of “Jew” in the Law of Return, the law is a secular-national law and should rightfully be interpreted according to secular-liberal- dynamic criteria instead of religious law. [42] Justice Barak’s secular interpretation of “member of another religion” would then be in line with the views of the average person on the street.164 And he concluded that at this point, an “every day Jew” would see the Beresfords as a “member of another religion.” Justice Elon criticized him for this flexible, ever-changing criterion for deciding who is a Jew which is “forever open to interpretation.”165 In his view, the legislators’ intent when amending the Law of Return in 1970 was to change the subjective definition of a Jew to a normative-objective one based upon halacha.166

Justice Elon compared what he called the Beresfords’ “subjective feelings” about remaining Jews to the “facts of history” or “historic reality.” Quoting Professor Werblowski and other academics in the field of religious studies, Elon reiterated, “History has already made its judgment.” “Belief in Jesus…involves a departure from the historical entity of the Jewish People.”167 “Subjective feelings” cannot change two thousand years of history, he said, “whereby these sects were expelled from the world of the Jewish people.”168 “After two thousand years of opposition and total separation between members of this sect and the members of the Jewish nation,” he continued, “Messianic Jews are asking to turn back the wheels of history.”169 Barak also quoted Werblowski, stating that belief in Jesus “means a severance from the historical entity of the Jewish people.”170 This is reminiscent of opinions expressed in the Brother Daniel case.

In this way, both justices indicated any belief in Jesus equals a severance from the Jewish people and that Messianic Jews, or Jews who change their religion, have “departed from the [43] ways of the ways of the Jewish community.”171 Converts from Judaism, they concluded, do not wish to be part of the Jewish community and “actively cut himself off from them.”172 Justice Elon once again affords immense power and authority to the forces of “history,” stating that Jewish religion and history “determine who, from the viewpoint of Judaism, continue to be counted amongst its members, and who have removed themselves from the Jewish corpus.”173 This also means separation from the “fate” of Jews in Israel. Conversely, conversion to Judaism indicates a person throws in their lot with the fate of the Jewish people.174 This continued theme of separation and othering, the idea that Messianic Jews have separated from the Jewish people, was weaved throughout the judgment.

Justice Elon also quoted the Bible and rabbinic sources to speak about apostates. Apostates, though they are born a Jew, are no longer called Jews and are not entitled to legal- social rights granted to Jews, “such as those constituting the substance of the Law of Return.”175 Barak mentioned the Landau judgment in the Rufeisen case, stating that it was “not the intention of legislators that everyone who declares himself to be a Jew” actually is. Such claims have “far- reaching and indirect implications.”176 It determines whether one has the automatic right to citizenship in Israel, for example, but the Law of Return was designed to identify the person whom it “wishes to grant the greatest of rights – the right of immigration to Israel.”177 And when interpreting the Law of Return, one must understand the intended target group of the Law of Return along with the state’s secular-national aspirations for the ingathering of Jews, which is [44] “not for those not included.”178 Justice Elon also declared, “It is not right for the Petitioners to…distort what it says, in order to be counted – against the will of the initiators of the Law of Return and its legislators – amongst those who are entitled to benefit from its provisions.”179 Elon added that the right of return was extended to family members of Jews to help mixed- marriage families wishing to immigrate to Israel with the hopes that in time, non-Jews would convert to Judaism.180 It was not intended to facilitate the immigration of individuals like the Beresfords who were once Jews but had distanced themselves from the Jewish people through their faith. In reaching his decision, Barak also considered the intentions of the legislators and founders of the State of Israel. The piece of legislation, he wrote, was formulated to “secure national aspirations” via Jewish immigration to Israel,181 or quoting Justice Agranat in the Shalit case, to “achieve the central destiny of the state.”182 He drove home this point several times.

Posted in otdimjh | Tagged aliyah, article, beresford, law of return, otdimjh | 3 Comments

On This Day In Messianic Jewish History

4 April 1891 Death of Adolph Saphir, Hebrew Christian Writer and Preacher #otdimjh

Like this:

3 April 1821 Levi Parsons, American Pioneer, visits Jerusalem Synagogue #otdimjh

Like this:

2 April 1279 Blood Libel against the Jews of Northampton leads to murder of 300 Jews in London #otdimjh

Full text of “A History of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Northampton“

Like this:

1 April 1794 Birth of George Joshua Bassevi, architect of Fitzwilliam Museum #otdimjh

Like this:

31 March 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella’s Edict of Expulsion – the Alhambra Decree #otdimjh

Like this:

30 March 2015 “Mission and Missionaries among the Jews in 19th Century Europe” – Conference – #otdimjh

Like this:

29 March 1887 Death of Mrs. Reynolds, CMJ volunteer #otdimjh

Like this:

28 March 1985 Death of Marc Chagall, painter of Yeshua #otdimjh

Like this:

28 March 1985 Death of Marc Chagall, painter of Yeshua #otdimjh

Like this:

27 March 1993 Beresford Case challenges boundaries of Jewish identity and Law of Return #0tdimjh

Like this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Previous posts

Search for names, topics, dates, authors etc

Thank you for your response. ✨

On this day in Messianic Jewish History

Blog Stats

On this day in Messianic Jewish History

Blog Stats

Calendar

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Full text of “A History of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Northampton“

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Previous posts

Search for names, topics, dates, authors etc

Thank you for your response. ✨