Die zuverlässigen Schriften bei Josephus in Contra Apionem

The Reliable Sources of Josephus in Contra Apionem. At the beginning of Contra Apionem, Josephus argues for the authenticity and reliability of himself and Jewish historiography. The Scriptures play an important role in this argumentation. In our study, we list the warranty criteria that the author names for the 22 historically authentic books. And we are looking for an answer to the question of whether, on the basis of these criteria, only these 22 books can be truly considered an authentic source of Jewish historiography. Josephus saw himself as a translator and interpreter of historical sources. His sources consist of various writings, including the 22 books. The authenticity and reliability of his interpretation is guaranteed by his ancestry, his knowledge of the Jewish “philosophical” schools, his prophetic abilities, and the constant correction of his work by others. It can be said with a high degree of probability that the 22 books appear as a justification in his argumentation: if the Jews were able to write, preserve, and pass on such documents, then the same accuracy and reliability could be presumed from later generations – up to and including Josephus. Keywords: Josephus, Contra Apionem, the Scriptures, historiography, the Diadochi, reliability

Conversos, Moriscos, and the Eucharist in Early Modern Spain: Some Reflections on Jewish Exceptionalism

Sacrilegious attitudes toward the Eucharistic host are one of the most commonplace accusations leveled against Jews in premodern Europe. Usually treated in Jewish historiography as an expression of anti-Judaism or antisemitism, they are considered a hallmark of Jewish powerlessness and persecution. In medieval and early modern Spain, however, Jews and conversos (Jewish converts to Christianity and their descendants) were not the only proclaimed enemies of the Eucharist. Reports about avoidance, rejection, criticism, and even ridicule and profanation of the consecrated host were similarly leveled against Muslims and moriscos (Muslim converts to Christianity). This essay seeks to assess the parallels and connections between the two groups through a comparative examination of accusations of sacrilegious behavior towards the host. The first part of the essay analyzes religious art, legal compendia, and inquisitorial trials records from the tribunals of Toledo and Cuenca in order to show some evident homologies between the two groups. The second part of the essay focuses on the analysis of the works of Jaime Bleda and Pedro Aznar y Cardona, two apologists of the expulsion of the moriscos, and draws direct connections between Jewish and morisco sacrilege. By exploring the similarities and differences between accusations against conversos and moriscos, this essay aims to offer a broader reflection on Jewish exceptionalism.

Major Trends in the Historiography of European Ashkenazic Jews from the 1970s to the Present

This article focuses on shifts in Jewish historiography of Ashkenazic Jews in Europe of the pre-modern period. It describes the denouement of traditional historiography— which generally assumes that more often than not Jews and non-Jews lived separate from one another—and compares it to two trends that I denominate exchange and interaction historiography that have gained momentum from the last third of the twentieth century. In contrast to scholars working in the traditional vein, exchange and interaction historians view Jews and non-Jews as interconnected and entangled. Exchange historians deal primarily with Jewish and non-Jewish cultural interrelatedness, whereas interaction historians overwhelmingly focus on interpersonal contacts. I use the terms exchange and interaction historiography because they comprehensibly flag as well as qualify distinctions in post-traditional historiography’s conception of Jewish and non-Jewish relations. Methodologically, however, there is considerable overlap between these three historiographical approaches insofar as they all employ the concept of difference as a central analytical tool. The notion of difference prompts scholars to focus first and foremost on what distinguished Jews and non-Jews instead of what they shared, and consequently to depict their relations as dichotomous. In this article, I argue that the insistence on the Jewish/non-Jewish binary forestalls possible innovations that exchange and interaction historians might otherwise pioneer in their approaches. The proposed remedy for this predicament is to replace difference with similarity as an analytical instrument and to focus on intercultural commonalities rather than distinctions. Various scholars have already made efforts to transcend the Jewish/non-Jewish binary but have fallen short of achieving their goal by failing to base their work on a sufficiently rigorous conceptual framework, such as similarity.

Conversion, Identity, and Memory in Iranian-Jewish Historiography: The Jews of Mashhad

The paper discusses the narratives of Jews from Mashhad, who were forced to convert to Islam in 1839. The community narrative as well as academic research is dominated by a modern understanding of religious identity and religious boundaries that fail to account for the diversity of practices among the community of converts, including multiple forms of religious belonging, and the switching of identities according to time and place. Based on historical sources and interviews with descendants from the Mashhadi community, the paper traces how a particular narrative of the history of the Jews from Mashhad prevailed and which significance this narrative entails for Mashhadi community and identity until today. While the Jews from Mashhad are a rather unique case among Iranian Jews–due to the long period in which they lived as converts–their pattern of memory building reflects a general trend among Jews from the Muslim world to assimilate to modern ideas of being Jewish.

Introduction

This chapter describes Hasidism’s former reputation as a singular exception to the scarcity of scholarship on the religious dimension of Jewish life in eastern Europe. It cites the nineteenth-century liberal critique of the movement, which contributed to the disproportionate prominence of Hasidism in the scholarly literature about the religious life of east European Jews. It also explains liberal critique that originated in the militantly anti-Hasidic posture adopted by the early nineteenth-century maskilim, which left a deep imprint on the modern school of Jewish historiography. The chapter talks about the Jewish communities of eastern Europe that were divided into the opposing camps: Hasidic and anti-Hasidic. It analyzes the dichotomy that placed the movement at the very heart of an embattled arena and had the subsequent effect of harnessing Hasidism to a wide range of ideologically driven historiographical constructs.