Talk:History of European Jews in the Middle Ages

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sihanqu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rdelto105, Addy714.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

More information on the Enlightenment

Even though the page is about the Middle Ages and not the Early Modern Period, the current Enlightenment section merely outlines time periods and barely mentions its impact on Jews and their culture. I plan on adding a thorough summary of the era, including the European Enlightenment and how it contributed to the Jewish Enlightenment, Haskalah, Emancipation and its origins in the French Revolution and Napoleon's reign, and Jewish reactions to everything, while not going into too much detail. If you have any comments or ideas, please let me know on this page or my own Talk page.

Addy714 (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Unprofessional and Historically Questionable

Wikipedia’s article on “The History of Jews in the Middle Ages” addresses the history of the Jews of Christian Europe. The article begins with a disclaimer (which is never a good sign) that the article will only cover the history of Jews in Christian Europe. Medieval Jewish history, it explains, can be divided into two parts: that of Jews in Christian Europe and that of Jews in Muslim Arab lands. The latter category is covered in articles entitled “Islam and Jusaism” and “Golden Age of Jewish Culture in the Iberian Peninsula.” By definition, the title “History of the Jews of the Middle Ages” gives preference to North European Jewish history over that of Jews under Islam. There should instead be one broad article on medieval Jewish history and two more specific articles, one on Jews in Christendom and another on Jews under Islam, including the Golden Age of Spanish Jewry. The article begins its section on Jews “From the Fall of Rome to the Late Middle Ages (500-1500) by claiming that Jews gained prominence in Christian Europe by moneylending during the tenth century. The article explains that Catholic prohibitions against moneylending allowed Jews to lend money as non-Christians who were tolerated due to their “shared devotion to the same Abrahamic God [sic] that the Christians worshipped” and explaining that “[while] many Jews rose to prominence in these times, Judaism was mostly practiced in private to avoid persecution.” From this opening paragraph there are already four major issues, both factual and perspective, that I must challenge. The first is the author’s choice to begin in the tenth century. The second is that Jews rose to prominence as moneylenders at this time. The third is the assumption that Jews were tolerated because of the deity they shared with Christians, and the fourth is that Judaism was mostly practiced in private. I will now proceed to address each one of these misconceptions, why they are problematic, and how they should be fixed. The author begins the section that deals with Jews from the fall of the Roman empire through the end of the Middle Ages with a broad event in the tenth century, almost five hundred years after the fall of the Roman empire in the late fifth century. The article does not explain when and how Jews came to Christian Europe, but simply takes their presence for granted. The fact is that Jews came to Christian Europe as traders known as “Radanites” and settled in specific areas of Christian Europe at the behest of local rulers. Louis the Pious of France, for example, invited Jews to settle in his domain in the early ninth century. His motive was to use Jewish trade to stimulate the economy. This trend followed in other kingdoms of Europe, so that by times of Rabbeinu Gershom of Mayence around the turn of the millennium, there are well established networks of Jewish communities in cities throughout Europe. That brings us to the second point of contention: the claim that the Jews rose to prominence by lending money. Jews had already been important players in the economic scene in Christian Europe before they became moneylenders. Jews only became more involved in moneylending as the European economy shifted from an agrarian system to an urban commercial one. In an agrarian economy, there is not much need to lend money. People live off of their land and trade agricultural goods. Financing is not really an occupation within itself until people begin to invest, which requires capital to be acquired on loan. This is indeed when Jews become moneylenders, but only because they have access to large amounts of capital due to their success as traders and their ability to pool assets through their tightly-knit business and familial networks. While moneylending at high interest rates did strain Christian-Jewish relations during the eleventh century, before the eleventh century, there is virtually no record of anti-Jewish persecution. The Augustinian doctrine, laid down by Augustus of Hippo in the fourth century had led to peaceful coexistence between Christians and Jews in Christendom. That said, the third point—that Jews were tolerated since they shared the Christians’ belief in the Abrahamic god—is not so precise. Although Jews and Christians both claim to follow the god as Abraham, the reason for Jews’ toleration is Augustus’s doctrine, which granted Jews a special status. By the doctrine, Jews were considered witnesses to the truth of the Christian belief that they have replaced the Jews as the chosen nation. The Jews, who refused to accept Jesus as their leader and savior, would be doomed to wander the earth as an exiled and downtrodden people to bear witness to the superiority of Christianity and were thus protected by the Church. While some Christian leaders such as John Chrysostrom in the fourth century and Agobard of Lyon in the ninth objected to Jews’ prominence and special protected status, little was done in practice that would give Jews reason to practice their religion in secret, as the fourth dubious point claims. If the author is going to make such a statement, it needs to be documented, and there is no citation brought in the article. In fact, in general, the author cites few sources. Many claims that the article makes are unreferenced, as noted above. One of the two sources that the author cites is a historical sourcebook from 1905. Surely there are better places to look when trying to construct an accurate portrayal of medieval Jewish history than a work that is over a century old. While scholarship of the turn of the twentieth century may have had one understanding of medieval Jewish history, there have been great breakthroughs by more recent scholars regarding the history of the Jews in medieval Ashkenaz. The article goes on to present the status of the Jews under the Sicut Judaeis, or the constitution of the Jews. The article speaks of the Sicut Judaeis as an official bull issued by Pope Calixtus II in 1120. The term, however, was used since around the year 600 by Pope Gregory I in a letter to the Bishop of Naples, from which time the official papal position has allowed Jews to live securely among Christians so long as they do not overstep their bounds and remained subordinate to Christians. Although the bull was issued in 1120 by Calixtus II, the policy was already in effect for over six centuries. The article does not address this and makes Sicut Judaeis seem like a new initiative taken by Calixtus. The next part of the article deals with the Crusades. First of all, the entry treats the Crusades as a unit, which is unjustified in that they were separate events that spanned over two-hundred years from 1096 to 1320, and cannot be views as one series of events, chronologically, geographically, and contextually. The statements made are sweeping and generalize Christian attackers as “a wild unrestrained throng” that found an excuse to attack and “fell upon the Jews and sacrificed them to its fanaticism.” This statement is made of the stuff of medieval elegies, not historical scholarship. The picture it presents is one of hoards of Christians waiting to pounce upon “the Jews” and then attacking for two hundred years. The Jews do not react, they simply die. There is no mention of cause, motive, or Christian reaction; Christians simply attack and Jews simply get destroyed. The entry continues to discuss the many accusations against Jews from the twelfth and thirteenth century, including blood libels, claims of host desecration, poisoning wells to cause the black plague. These sections come from snippets of other articles and are short, overly simplistic, and very vague. The next section deals with expulsions. What begins with a laundry list of dates and expulsions, goes on to credit the expulsions to the flourishing of Jewish settlement and Torah study in Slavic countries. Here’s a quote from that section: Here they found a sure refuge under benevolent rulers and acquired a certain prosperity, in the enjoyment of which the study of the Talmud was followed with renewed vigor. Together with their faith, they took with them the German language and customs, which they have cultivated in a Slavic environment with unexampled faithfulness up to the present time. This is me reading this passage: “Yes, they sought refuge…yes, they prospered…yes, they studied Talmud….adopted German language and customs…aha…cultivated in a Slavic environment…unexampled faithfulness…yeah…up to the present time?!?! Are you kidding? Was this article written in 1905?” Then I looked at the citation at the bottom and realized that it very well may have been. A statement like this is unexcusable. In this article Jews are passive. They do very little, although much is done to them, mostly negative things. There is little to no mention of Jewish settlement, Jewish life, Jewish culture, Jewish academia, Jewish philosophy, or anything else substantial—the article simply focuses on who did what do the Jews, when, and where. This view of Jewish history is biased, simplistic, ignorant, and outdated. The writer clearly lacks a great deal of scholarly professionalism and should probably not be writing an extra credit paper like this one, let alone an encyclopedia entry on Jewish history for the whole world to see on Wikipedia. I suggest that those who care about the study of Jewish history see to it that Wikipedia articles like this one are rewritten so that they are thorough and historically accurate.

Toke-Dawg (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)TD

"The persecution of the Jews in Turkey ... in the middle of the seventeenth century came to the aid of the visionaries and dreamers." This is an excerpt from the main article. Could you please give me some references for these persecutions in Turkey in 17th century. thanks -feyz 21.57 19 May 2005 (UTC)

From Islam and Judaism: "...under Murad IV (1623-40) the Jews of Jerusalem were persecuted by an Arab who had purchased the governorship of that city from the governor of the province; and in the time of Ibrahim I. (1640-49) there was a massacre of Ashkenazic Jews who were expecting the Messiah in the year 1648, and who had probably provoked the Moslems by their demonstrations and meetings. The war with Venice in the first year of this sultan's reign interrupted commerce and caused many Jews to remove to Smyrna, where they could carry on their trade undisturbed. In 1660, under Mohammed IV. (1649-1687), Safed was destroyed and in the same year there was a fire in Constantinople in which the Jews suffered severe loss..." (this is from the same source as this article, the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1904. The persecutions were certainly not as bad as the massacres in Poland, but they were still pretty nasty, leading up to the Zevi debacle. --Goodoldpolonius2 20:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Goodoldpolonius2, thanks for the examples and references. Below are some info I found regarding the events you mentioned:

1. Regarding Jews moving to Symrna here is some info about the reasons from Sephardic Studies: " ...During his (Sultan Murad) reign the Jewish community with great timidity tried to get out of its shell. We see again doctors in palace service as Moiz Amaradji and Yakup Abbasoglu Musa. Some historians say that Rabbi Yehuda Kovo from Salonica came to Constantinople to pay taxes and that he was executed. The story of Rabbi Kovo is quite different: At that time, the fabric for uniforms of the army was manufactured by the weavers of Salonica who worked at home and sold to the army great quantities of fabric. The army refused the fabrics that were below standards. All of Salonica's Jews faced the danger of bankruptcy. That is how Rabbi Kovo was involved just to help the people and he was accused of delivering faulty material to the army. That caused his execution. Due to the crisis that broke, good many families from Salonica moved to Izmir which at that time had a small Jewish community." The source is a Turkish Sephardic organization. This seems to be the mentioned interrupted commerce during the war with Venice.

2. Regarding the fire in Constantinople: Most of the houses in the city were wooden and fire was a common problem at those times; I don't think it can be considered a persecution of Jews in Turkey.

3. In your quotation from Jewish Encyclopedia of 1904 you have missed the sentence which comes right after the mention of Istanbul fire and then Zevi: "It is characteristic of the Turkish attitude toward the Jews, and in striking contrast with the attitude of European powers, that no steps were taken to punish the Jews who took part in the agitation." This sentence is to explain how Jews were treated after upheavel by Zevi.

4. You also missed another part in your quotation. Jewish Encyclopedia of 1904 says that "Safed was destroyed by the Arabs" under Mohammed IV. (1649-1687) in 1660. But then it continues as "Under the same sultan Jews from Frankfort-on-the-Main settled in Constantinople" Also at the same time the emperor's ambassador to Sweden was Jewish: "During the reign of Sultan Mehmed IV, on the demand of King Charles August of Sweden a treaty is signed against Russia and Moses Beberi is appointed ambassador to Sweden, after his death in 1674 his son Yehuda is appointed ambassador. "

5. I have to still check this one "(1640-49) there was a massacre of Ashkenazic Jews who were expecting the Messiah in the year 1648". But in the case of Sabbathai Zevi, I know that Zevi declared he was called by God to visit Constantinople. He was expected to overthrow the Sultan and to conquer Palestine. To end the rumors among his many followers and to discredited him, sultan gave him the choice of either dying at stake or converting to Islam - he chose to convert, disillusioning many of his followers.

Also after the massacres of Poland, some Jews were given refuge by Ottoman Empire. From Sephardic Studiesabout the events in Poland between 1648-1658: "A petty aristocrat by the name of Bogdan Chmielnitzki kills the land owners, the priest and the Jews. 300 communities disappear 150,000 jews are killed, money is gathered all over Europe and a slave market starts in Crimea. Jews are exported like cattle. With the acceptance of Mehmet IV, Jews are settled on the banks of the Danube in Morea, Kavala, Istanbul and Salonica."

I am not sure if it is historically true to compare or equate the persecutions in Turkey and Poland in 17th century. In Poland and all over Europe Jews faced persecution due to anti-semitism and I am not sure if there is an equivalent to these events committed by Ottoman rule. I am aware of some incidents where Christian subjects of the Empire attacked the Jewish subjects due to anti-semitism (mostly in 19th century) but this was not encouraged by the Ottoman Rule. In fact Sultan Abdulmecid issues a firman (on November 6th, 1840) to protect the Jews against blood libels stating that Jews did not use blood in the ceremonies and his subjects should not claim opposite (from ISFSP).

Therefore, if there are no other persecutions you are aware of, I suggest modifying the sentence "The persecution of the Jews in Turkey and in Poland in the middle of the seventeenth century came to the aid of the visionaries and dreamers." to "The persecution of the Jews in Poland in the middle of the seventeenth century came to the aid of the visionaries and dreamers.". I think it gives quite a wrong impression: as if pogroms of Poland and East Europe were also present in Turkey at that time. Any suggestions? --feyz 7:47 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Feyz, well argued. I think your modification makes sense. Certainly the situation in Turkey proper was better than that in Poland, though I do wonder about the 1648 massacre that was referred to, as it does seem different than the Chmielnitzki attacks. While it sounds like things were worse in other areas of the Ottoman Empire than in Turkey itself, we don't have any good specifics, and it was probably still better than Europe at that time. Unless we can get more information about these particular persecutions (and I can't find any), go ahead and make the change. And again, great research job. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I did the modification. I will keep you updated when I find out about the 1648 massacre. By the way, I am really surprised to learn about the above mentioned two Arab attacks to Jews in 17th century. That might be something interesting to investigate. I had the notion that Arabs and Jews were relatively in good terms up till the recent times. Also, in the main article there is no mention of Arabs except for how they created a relatively safe haven for Jews in Pyrenean peninsula. Except for these two events and some 'medieval' law enforcement persecutions, Ottoman Empire seems to be relatively peaceful. But we should still mention that, according to Sephardic Studies, the Jewish community declined at 17th century with the decline of the Empire and there were less (sometimes none) Jews in the Palace compared to the previous centuries. Things seem to improve in 18th century. --feyz 21:15 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Inappopriate Narrative Tone

I read the article and I see a slightly editoralized, tone that I think is inappropriate. These reinforce an ethnocentric perspective and a moderately dramatized version of events. We should instead discuss what happened and leave projections out of the article. Examples include:

"Not until the beginning of the ninth century did the Church succeed in drawing all of humanity within its jurisdiction." - Chinese, Africans, Native Americans, East Indians, and a variety of others were not and never came under the influence of the Church. It seems the writer only considered those within Roman influence as a relevant part of humanity, while the rest of the world is not. That's inappropriate, so I changed it.

"which could not be bridged." - Tone is overly dramatic and slightly redundant.

"On the other hand, the Church found itself compelled to make the Jew a fellow citizen of the believer; for it enforced upon her own communities the Biblical prohibition against usury; and thus the only way to conduct financial operations was to seek loans at a legally determined rate of interest from the adherents of another faith. Through these peculiar conditions the Jews rapidly acquired influence. At the same time they were compelled to find their pleasures at home and in their own circles only. Their sole intellectual food came from their own literature, to which they devoted themselves with all the strength of their nature."

should be changed to

"On the other hand, the Church enforced upon her own communities the Biblical prohibition against usury; and the only way to conduct financial operations was to seek loans at a legally determined rate of interest from the adherents of another faith. Through these peculiar conditions the Jews rapidly acquired influence. At the same time they were compelled to find their pleasures at home and in their own circles only. Their sole intellectual food came from their own literature, to which they devoted themselves unwaveringly."

I am concerned with the undertones in the article. It sounds like the writer creates a dramatized picture of Jewish and Roman relations. As I have learned how important objectivity and NPOV is, I certainly would like to know how you all think of this? Another example:

"The Crusades. The trials which the Jews endured from time to time in the different kingdoms of the Christian West were only indications of the catastrophe which broke over them at the time of the Crusades. A wild, unrestrained throng, for which the crusade was only an excuse to indulge its rapacity, fell upon the peaceful Jews and sacrificed them to its fanaticism. In the First Crusade (1096) flourishing communities on the Rhine and the Danube were utterly destroyed; see German Crusade, 1096. In the Second Crusade (1147) the Jews in France suffered especially. Philip Augustus treated them with exceptional severity. In his days the Third Crusade took place (1188); and the preparations for it proved to be momentous for the English Jews. After unspeakable trials, Jews were banished from England in 1290; and 365 years passed before they were allowed to settle again in the British Isles (see History of the Jews in England). The Jews were also subjected to attacks by the Shepherds' Crusades of 1251 and 1320."

should be changed to

The Crusades. In the First Crusade (1096) flourishing communities on the Rhine and the Danube were utterly destroyed; see German Crusade, 1096. In the Second Crusade (1147) the Jews in France were (list actual events, not narrative interpretations) In his days the Third Crusade took place (1188); and the preparations for it proved to be momentous for the English Jews. After (such and such trials carried out by such and such people), Jews were banished from England in 1290 (by a decree from who and where); and 365 years passed before they were allowed to settle again in the British Isles (see History of the Jews in England). The Jews were also subjected to attacks by the Shepherds' Crusades of 1251 and 1320.

it seems that the writer is overly narrative of the events. I get a picture of emotional drama, but I really do not get an objective or clear understanding of what happened. We should refrain from drawing conclusions without objective information. It almost sounds like the writer is writing more chapters to an unpublished ancient scripture, like a sequel to the old testament. I honestly did not get a clear picture of what happened, but I got a good dramatic visual interpretation. Some of this obviously can be cross referenced in the other articles, but it's not characteristic of how the other articles are handled. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The text you are referring to is directly from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. Its tone was occasionally a bit florid or torrid or Victorian, though always interesting (and well-researched). Feel free to make changes to bring it inline with modern encyclopedic tone, I think your above changed make a lot of sense. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the op. Even now I'm still finding a lot of weasel words. I'll be adding the appropriate tag soon. RSimione 01:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear goodness, I didn't realize how bad the article was until I tried editing it! Though I am trying to edit the language, I'm not knowledgeable in the subject, and this article need sources very desperately. RSimione 02:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

History of antisemitism

The above article was until recently only a timeline and I am trying to make it more of a history. I have copied into it a chunk of material from Antisemitism (that appears to duplicate much of this article) and intend to edit it and shorten it drastically there. I have also put links from Antisemitism and History of antisemitism to this article, considered as a sub-article of each of those. Would be pleased to read any comments. Thanks.Itsmejudith 10:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The Cantebury Tales

consider mentioning this, especially the Priores' tale. Niyant (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

How exactly did jews make money?

This article says that jews were moneylenders during the middle ages in europe but does not give proof of jews actually making money from usury. Is there any evidence of jews actually loaning money to gentiles and those gentiles actually paying the principle back with interest? Was it common for gentiles to take loans from jews and never pay them back? From what I have read alot of the nobility of europe took loans from jews and never were able to pay them back. So how exactly did jewish people make money from moneylending?

Did jewish people actually make their money from the asian spice trade. Alot of evidence suggests that jewish people had links to the 'pre-age of discovery' spice trade? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.131.208 (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Saint Thomas Aquinas? (Tosaphist Period)

I've run into something that doesn't seem to make sense, but I don't know if it needs changing or deleting.

The 'Tosaphist Period' section has its third sentence as "Christian theologians began calling for the slavery of all Jews in Saint Thomas Aquinas." The link 'Saint Thomas Aquinas' goes to the biography of the man Thomas Aquinas, in which the only mention of the Jews I can see is that Thomas Aquinas believed they should be tolerated.

I'm wondering from the sentence structure if "Saint Thomas Aquinas" is referring to a document or book of that name (since the sentence uses the word 'in'), but the only such thing on Wikipedia I can find was written centuries later by GK Chesterton, so can't be it.

The nearest reference link to that sentence links to a website which doesn't mention Aquinas at all (so only seems to be the source for the later part of the paragraph about what Henry III did).

I have no knowledge of the subject (I came to the page looking to learn), so I wondered if someone with such knowledgeknows what the sentence should be referring to, or if it is simply wrong and needs deleting? Also I'm new to the comment pages, so I apologise if I'm not following any established format or ground rules.

Alangriffith (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

edits to Jewish-Christian Relations.

The section of Jewish-Christian relations has a very credible source but it needs one more to support it. I plan on adding this second source to the article as well as provide a third source that offers a different view of Jewish-Christian relations to make the article more comprehensive. If anyone has any questions, comments, or concerns please respond to me on this talk page or my own. Rdelto105 (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Jews in the Middle Ages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120105021303/http://middleeastinfo.org/library/chronology_start.htm to http://www.middleeastinfo.org/library/chronology_start.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Expulsions?

I find it biased at worst, insane at best, that there is a section with "expulsions" and just one of the more than 20 expulsions from European antions (not the largest, or first, or last) is mentioned. Since we are at it, there is also no mention to the law, contributions, or lifestyle in the different regions, and I am confussed about why there is a -fairly inexact-part regarding the Visigoths of Iberia but no interest in the Franks, Carolingeans or Ostrogoths.Shoudn´t all that be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cateyed (talk • contribs) 22:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This article needs a serious overhaul or removal

This is without a doubt the worst article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I can't even believe it exists. The section titled "Church laws in the middle ages" doesn't have a single citation! In addition to that, the language used throughout the article is heavily opinionated, and what few sources are cited to back up the most controversial points are generally from biased sources. Sources from a website built and maintained by the American-Israeli Co-operative Enterprise? Seriously? That site doesn't have any of its own citations that I could find, and there's no evidence that the authors of the site are experts in this subject who can be trusted as reliable.

We need primary sources on the History of Jews in the Middle Ages, and a complete overhaul of the language used to give the article a NPOV. Until then, I'm adding the NPOV tag.

The page for "The History of Jews in England" is a much better example of what is an acceptable article for this website. The difference is staggering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.196.172.242 (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I want to disclose I am the user who made this post, as I have since created this account. Lordbedo (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead

Historically, Jews are believed to have originated from the Israelite tribes of the Land of Israel. Their first migration to Europe began when large numbers of them moved to Italy, France, and Germany in the early 4th century. Afterwards, due to various pogroms that took place during the early Middle Ages, they fled mostly to Poland and Lithuania, and from there spread over the rest of Eastern Europe. These European Jews later came to be known as Ashkenazi Jews.

Before restoring some of this material any reverter should examine each source to see if it qualifies as RS.

Prima facie most if not all would be. However, any editor to the article should take care not to expunge critical information from the lede (or elsewhere) - for instance the pogroms in Western/Central Europe that drove the Jews eastwards. Removal of such core content would be a good cause of a revert. Icewhiz (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Read below. What you call core content was rotten at the core, and your revert suggests you can't spot the most elementary errors in Jewish historical articles. See below

• 'Historically, Jews are believed to have originated from the Israelite tribes of the Land of Israel.'

This is a falsification by simplification, contradicting many genetic sources which (a) remark on founding effects from Middle Eastern populations (not Israelites);(b) Wikipedia does not record as a fact rephrased as a belief what the sentence claims; the sources are clipped without examination from the other Ashkenazi Jews/Jews and Genetic pages and plopped here, to validate a simplistic meme; (c) sourcing of each page must not resolve itself of planting contested blobs from one page onto another. One reconstructs an article by looking for source bearing on the topic (History of European Jews) that contain this kind of remark, and given the proliferation of academic sources, that is where you look.

• 'Their first migration to Europe began when large numbers of them moved to Italy, France, and Germany in the early 4th century.'

This is outrageously stupid in its contrafactual absurdity. Even the other mediocre articles in this ignored and sadly neglected area show familiarity with the fact that Jews were in Europe long before the 4th century C.E. They all mention diaspora movements in nthe Ist and 2nd centuries. That therefore, Icewhiz, is obvious at a glance, and in reverting, it is clear that you didn't examine the content nof what you were reverting.Nishidani (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Afterwards, due to various pogroms that took place during the early Middle Ages, they fled mostly to Poland and Lithuania

That's it, is it. I.e. the whole of the page dedicated to pogroms, leaving out the vast and successful cultural, religious and commercial life enjoyed, in the face of antagonism and periodic pogroms, of European Jews. Are you familiar with works like Arief Toaff's Il Vino e La Carne, which celebrate, to take one example, in minute detail the Umbrian communities of late medieval Italy. Toaff takes a hammer at what he regards as the deplorable tendency to represent all of Jewish European history as one last pogrom?Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Notes 5-7 failed verification for the content cited, necessarily since they say nothing about a 4th century migration into Europe. The first is a poor source that can be bettered by actually reading scholarly reports on the Cologne excavations. The second says nothing about this. The third is a dead link. You didn't read any of them in reverting.
• In a poorly worked article begging for improvement, just entering on the coat-tails of a content building editor whose work you repeatedly revert, without then doing work to fix it in whatever way you like, is just lazy edit warriorship. I was asked to look at the page, and did so. I.e. I did some simple improvements. Do you know anything about thbis topic? If so, do something constructive.Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  (ec) The Israelite origin (at least from the male side) is actually quite well grounded, however it really doesn't matter for this article (prior time period). As for the 4th century - the previous lede was referring to Europe proper (e.g. Gaul, and Germania) as opposed to Italy and the Mediterranean rim (where this was indeed earlier) - it did have a mistake in placing Italy in the list. What prompted my revert, was the omission of the pogroms/expulsions/etc. that drove the Jews East - which is the predominant factor in Jewish medieval history in Europe. Unfortunately, the blood libel by the church and other European elements were a significant element in most of Europe. Certainly, Jews accomplished much and developed Jewish culture where they manage to settle down for some period of time between pogrom and pogrom (each of which lead to Jewish prayers on the day of atonement to greater lengths.... Avinu Malkeinu in some Ashkenazi khilot recording the various myriad ways Jews died in Europe).Icewhiz (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Where on this page is any mention of the crucial factor in German-Jewish relations of the replacement of the Germanic law by Roman law, or that the suspension of the traditional Jewish right to bear arms (1103), a badge of social status, has been adduced by Guido Kisch as a precipitating factor in the decline of Jewish social status and their exposure to increased religious persecution because the lost right signified their acquired ignominy in the German realm? There are dozens of sociological factors like that which require mention. No. That's too complex?Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The Israelite theory is not well-grounded. Jewish medieval history in Europe covers 500-1400, not 1100-1400. If you can only imagine history as a succession of pogroms and blood libels, you are pushing a thesis. These articles are pamphlets for resentment or a weeping sense of grievance for the European past, and, as an outsider, I can tell you, it's not effective advocacy, because page after page, the readership gets bored rather than horrified. You get horrified if, together with the indispensable record of pogroms et al., you are presented with interleavning details to show the beauty, success and cultural achievements of the people then massacred, and no editor does this for these dozens of important articles.Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Pogroms/expulsions are significant for Jewish history in Western Europe during this period - unlike Eastern Europe (greater Polania) and the Muslim world (including, notably, Muslim Spain) - this is not a thesis - but rather coverage as it appears in sources covering Ashekazic Jews.Icewhiz (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

That pogroms/expulsions are significant is like affirming the sun rises. Obvious. What is denied the reader of most Jewish history articles is attention to their respective achievements and cultures. Anyone can google death. Hardly anyone cares to actually absorb the overall history and write it up. Articles that just describe Jewish history in tragic terms have a well-known political subtext - you, brethren, are not safe in the diaspora. An objective historian knows otherwise - we are witnessing one of the greatest periods of uncontroversial diasporic success.Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Our goal is to cover what the sources cover - and in this area/time, this is what they cover. During the same time period - Muslim Spain was a great success for the Jews.Icewhiz (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Our goal is to cover what sources say. It is not to harvest only those sources that tell one story, and neglect everything else. There are a substantial number of articles and books on Jews in the European medieval period which no editor has thought of using. What is clear from the page I found is that it was a quick google for snippets/pogrom stories/DNA articles copied and pasted from other wiki articles without even being read. If you are interested in the article, I suggest you read up on the wider topic. One can't read a 1,000 year history of the Jews as a succession of pogroms without admitting your curiosity is morbidly exclusionist. There were periods when pogroms were intense: there were long periods without any notable pogroms in any one country, where the Jews, though subject to Christian enmity, carved out productive lives and expanded successfully. Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Some sources to add:

David Malkiel, Reconstructing Ashkenaz: The Human Face of Franco-German Jewry, 1000–1250, Stanford University Press, 2008.

David Malkiel, Destruction or Conversion: Intention and Reaction, Crusaders and Jews, in 1096, Jewish History, Vol. 15, No. 3 (2001), pp. 257-280 Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

"Jews in the Middle Ages" vs "European Jews in the Middle Ages"

It would be useful to come to a consensus about the goal of this article before we work to overhaul it into something both NPOV and valuable to the reader.

Article Scope: User:Icewhiz has changed the title of the article, which I understand as that would remove concern that this article doesn't have a global viewpoint. But I personally don't believe that's the best we could do. I would prefer to leave the title as "Jews in the Middle Ages", and expand the article to include the history of medieval Jews from around the world, including the near east and far east. For instance, we could add information about the Kaifeng Jews in China during this time period.

Article Scale: This article currently heavily comprises of the pogroms and expulsions inflicted on medieval Jews, with nearly no mention of how they ordinarily lived in their various communities during the period, such as their occupations, the judicial and social structures of their communities, notable cultural rituals, etc. There are many reliable sources on this that should be easy to compile if a few of us work together and it would certainly make a better article of greater substance.

Please debate these points here if you disagree. Lordbedo (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

As for scope - Middle Ages/Medieval is a distinctly European concept - that had little parallel elsewhere at the same time. If we are slicing history according to the middle ages (as opposed to different start/end dates) - we are implicitly dealing with Europe which is what the article does anyway. As for weight on pogroms - since pogroms and expulsions were a periodic occurrence (when Jews were allowed to live at all in a particular region) in Western/Central Europe during this time period - historical coverage of the period concentrates a great deal on pogroms and expulsions. Certainly we could, given sources, expand other aspects as well - however pogroms/expulsions will remain an important part of this article as they were highly significant.Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I see your point on the semantics of "Middle Ages". I was thinking more of the global time period, but it makes sense. It will make it easier to create a good article, anyhow.

And to be candid I agree re: keeping info on pogroms/expulsions. The issue to me is how the info was written, not that it was written. Much of the language is POV-pushing and will need to be changed to a simple, objective explanation of what happened. The terrible nature of these events will be shown even if explained objectively, without adding more weight on how bad it was. I will then find sources on the lifestyle/customs of medieval Jews and start thinking about how best to present the info. Lordbedo (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

While the article is not great (citations and writing style) - it is not horrible. I do not see the "POV pushing" concern you are raising - if you were specific about a section, perhaps we could discuss it specifically. The language in the article is actually quite tame in relation to some of the sources on this subject matter - which discuss forced baptisms and mass drownings / burnings / killings in great detail.Icewhiz (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem (if I may) with any topic like this is that it is vast, and therefore requires a lot of expertise or research to get a reasonable picture; or else some very good summaries of the topic that can be drawn on. Keeping the scope relatively narrow makes sense to me for that reason. I would suggest that a good start would be to compile a list of useful sources either on the page or here, so that there is a way forward for anyone who is willing to tackle the actual content. The other question would be whether the related pages are also OK or substandard (that is the pages for individual European countries). For instance History of the Jews in England (1066–1290) and History of the Jews in England are OK but not great.Jim Killock (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz is basically right re Middle Ages, in that the term was defined by the content which focused exclusively on Europe. The disagreement is not about retaining pogroms etc., but on writing the history of European Jews over a 1,000 year period in which pogroms took on a vicious momentum in certain areas in the latter period, associated with the Crusades and developments within law and Christianity. The present version is a known spin of that history, which re-emerged after 1967 (after decades where many other aspects of Jewish history were brought to light, no only the exclusively 'lacrimose' version), and reworked the narrative exclusively as one of homicidal exclusison to the neglect of the overall history, and that is why it is POV pushing. Icewhiz is insisting we go back to a historiography condemned by Simon Schama, for example, who undertook his multi-volume History of the Jews by remarking in the foreword that:-

silence is not a historian's option. I believed that by writing a post-medieval history for a general readership, one that gave full weight to shared experience, not all of which was invariably a story of persecution and massacre . .persuading readers (and makers of history syllabuses, that no history, whatever and whenever its principle focus of study, was complete without the Jewish story, and that there was a lot more to it than pogroms and rabbinics, a chronicle people by ancient victims and modern conquerors. The Story of the Jews: Finding the Words (1000 BCE – 1492),Random House 2013

sketches of Jewish-Christian relations in Euerope from 840 (after the Carolingians) to 1090 tend to present litanies of persecution, which combine to give the impression of "clouds on the horizons," portents of the devastating storm. In "Adumbrations" (Chapter 2) I study these events, which are mainly eleventh century incidents, to show that the portents thesis does not hold water. This issue resonates deeply today, as Jews wrestle with a similar problem vis-à-vis the Holocaust. However, the historiographical importance of this revision is that it establishes a less fraught, more normal image of Jewish-Christian relations in place of one that recognizes only alienation and confrontation.' Malkiel,Reconstructing Ashkenaz: The Human Face of Franco-German Jewry, 1000–1250, p.xii

They are not mutually exclusive, moreover. The history of the representation of Jews in Christian iconography from esp. the 13th century onwards, adds important background for why stereotypes of Jews predisposed people to violent anti-Semitism (suckling on the teats of sows or eating excrement; stabbing stolen hosts meant for communion, to enjoy Christ's blood) - all of that hallucinating shit, including the lost rabbinic battle in Germany to ban Jewish use of images to tell their story etc; or the way the creation of Monti di Pietà coincided with a notable strengthening of restriction sgainst Jews in Italy,- it was to strengthen the Christian lending market in part, against Jewish pawnbroking (the latter an important theme, since denial of property rights and use drove Jews to specialize in liquid capital, less subject to seizures and expropriation, and allowing by the increasing importance of a class of community leaders, known later as Hofjuden who lent to princes, a certain protection to the 'flock' at large ; or the reciprocal bans on sexual relations between Jews and Christians: in Italy for example, they were frequent, and a Jew caught out was fined. The Jewish community was equally concerned, fearing, given the diffuse nature of the practice, the extinction of the community (Ariel Toaff, Il vino e la carne: Una comunità ebraica nel medioevo, il Mulino 1989 pp. pp.15-51, p.21) etc.etc.etc. History has its mechanisms, and unless you draw the larger picture, all you get is a auccession of tragic events coming out of nowhere, and just 'explained' as anti-Semitism, while the anti-Semitism itself becomes an ontological category detached from historical processes. So, I suggest anyone interested in the article get a copy of Schama's first volume, and use its exposition to sketch out the broad picture.Nishidani (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Also Malkiel book is indispensable for many reasons. He argues, for example, that the rigorous halakhic fidelity attributed to the Franco-German Ashkenazi community (which arises from the rabbinic texts on the Kiddush ha-Shem mass suicides in the period of the First crusades) is contradicted by widespread evidence of repeated and casual deviance from, or violations of Talmudic and rabbinic law by both men and women. I don't think they lapsed into garnishing kippers with a bit of bacon, as rumour suggests our Simon does on occasion, but they lived human lives not conditioned by obsessive concerns with religious orthodoxy (like Christians or any other community). Nishidani (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a number of good sources and information over at Ashkenazi Jews. I'm going to look at replacing much of the uncited nonsense in the "early middle ages" section with info and sources from the Ashkenazi history section. That being said, the more I find good info on other pages the more I question the need for this page at all...Lordbedo (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

+1 At a glance that page covers a chunk of what might be here, likewise History of the Jews in Europe#Middle Ages covers similar ground to this page. Looking at those two pages, and the questionable content here, how much overlap is there? Is the reason this page is currently neglected because editors have chosen to put the work into those pages instead? I agree there may be a case to remove this page and put the better content in one place. Jim Killock (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

That section is much better than this article, and appropriately covers pogroms/expulsions (which seems to be the main content of concern with this article). It also includes the difference between the Franco-German and Spanish Jews, which I was planning to add (sourcing Malkiel). Through this discussion, the only improvements I can see to make would be to expand on the human aspect of medieval Jewish life, which I'd rather do on the page you linked. If we have a consensus that "middle ages" refers to European Jews from the fall of Rome to the Crusades, then we certainly have a redundant article. I'll keep brainstorming while I wait a few days for other editors to chime in before I post to AfD for content forking.Lordbedo (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It's good practice to study what other wiki pages of related content remark, but bad practice to copy and paste that material elsewhere. Since verification is a fundamental pillar one should start from scratch to ensure that what you are adding has been scrutinized and verified, since wiki is not a reliable source. I.e. what the Ashkenazi page says about literacy ('high rates of literacy, near universal male education') is unsourced and must be followed up independently. There is a fine essay by Stefan Reif on this, but gender differences exist (and the need for picture books attests to the fact that even those with an elementary grounding required, as European middle and lower class people also), supplementary material to assist them. Look at for the moment Judith R. Baskin 's 'Some Parallels in the Education of Medieval Jewish and Christian Women,' Jewish History, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), pp. 41-51 pp.41-42. That's it. Duty calls.Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding pogroms (etc.), it's probably best to provide an overview and then point the reader at medieval antisemitism, like you would in any long article with a broad scope. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Just made the first edit to cover the fall of Rome - please change the new text rather than a full revert, if you feel so inclined. I'm learning the best approach is finding sources for the unsourced claims in the "church law" section, adding more balanced information, and then consolidating the information by region/era (instead of by theme). Would like to see a section for each main region - Spain, France, Italy, Germany, England - with sourced info from the 5th century up to the crusades. Back to the sandbox. Lordbedo (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Pushed a section from the sandbox to the article to serve as a "foundation", of sorts, for German Jews. Hoping to take the haphazardly placed facts, like in the "immigration to germany" section, and separate them into sections pertaining to each part of Europe: Germany, France, Italy, Spain, England, etc. Lordbedo (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Umm no - Europe, and European Jews, were not organized along modern state lines. In particular, there was no Germany until the modern period - hundreds of years after the middle ages. Icewhiz (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course they weren't, but in what way is that implied? The beginning of my addition is taken directly from History of the Jews in Germany, and "Germany" is, by any standard, a valid way to reference what occurred in the area the Romans called Germania, and what medieval contemporaries called the Holy Roman Empire (which is also mentioned in my edit). The same logic applies to referring to Francia as France, Hispania/the Iberian peninsula as Spain, and so on. If you want it to be added to the "immigration to Germany" section, then much of the material in that section needs to be placed in other sections, or removed from the article outright per WP:RS. Lordbedo (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Samuel K. Cohn, Jr., 'The Black Death and the Burning of Jews,' Past & Present, No. 196 (Aug., 2007), pp. 3-36

A very good overall sketch of the masses vs elites role, among other things, in the persecution of Jews. Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Life's getting in the way a bit, but I am still working on this cleanup. Lordbedo (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Life comes first. Any serious contributions here take moneths, 'the rags of time' if they are to stick. Take it slow and easy.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Enlightenment section bad/oversimplified historiography

The Enlightenment appeared at the end of the Early Modern Era, and was characterized by a set of values and ideas that completely opposed the previous Medieval age. It stressed logic and the importance of thinking for oneself, instead of blindly following tradition or prejudice — a huge boon for the Jews.

This is not cited. Most modern historians would not characterise the values of the Enlightenment as "completely opposed" to the Middle Ages, nor would they assert that the Middle Ages (or Renaissance!) lacked logic(! a massive obsession for medieval scholars) and advocated blind obedience. I think the development of liberalism + pluralism has to be stated in a much more nuanced way. This section needs a rewrite and more sources to consult. Maskettaman (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)