Christian elements in early Frankist doctrine PDF

Preview

Summary

Offprint from GAL-ED On the History and Culture of Polish Jewry Volume 20 Editor: David Engel; Associate Editors: David Assaf and Elchanan Reiner The Institute for the History of Polish Jewry and Israel-Poland Relations The Goldstein-Goren Diaspora Research Center Tel Aviv University 2006 ARTICLES P...

Description

Offprint from

GAL-ED On the History and Culture of Polish Jewry Volume 20 Editor: David Engel; Associate Editors: David Assaf and Elchanan Reiner

The Institute for the History of Polish Jewry and Israel-Poland Relations The Goldstein-Goren Diaspora Research Center Tel Aviv University 2006

ARTICLES

Paweł Maciejko

Christian Elements in Early Frankist Doctrine While the mature form of the Frankist doctrine expounded in The Book of the Words of the Lord has elicited much scholarly attention, early Frankist sources remain largely unanalyzed. The majority of these early sources were composed during the public disputations in Kamieniec Podolski in 1757 and in Lwo´w in 1759.1 Because these documents were composed for the use of the Christian public, part of the material has a clearly rhetorical, momentary character; it was meant to persuade an audience, not to express a theological doctrine. Some of the theses put forward during the disputations were promptly dropped as soon as the debates ended and were never really professed by the Frankists. Moreover, it is not clear whether and to what extent the manifestos and petitions presented in the name of the Frankists were really composed by the people who signed them. All of the manifestos were written in Latin or in Polish, and they exhibit traces of the knowledge of Christian theology, which would not normally have been expected from Jews. Some scholars have claimed that the ostensibly Frankist theses advanced during the disputations were not Frankist at all but were composed entirely by Catholic theologians and rephrased only slightly so that they would resemble Jewish documents. Majer Bałaban, for example, assumed that the points for the debate had been formulated by Polish priests and then given to the Frankists, who filled in the gaps with quotations from Jewish sources.2 * 1 2

Research at the Moravian Archives in Herrnhut was made possible thanks to the generous support of the Simon Dubnow Institute in Leipzig. On the disputations see Majer Bałaban, LeToledot haTenu’ah haFrankit, Tel Aviv 1935, pp. 137y50, 209y66. Majer Bałaban, ‘Studien und Quellen zur Geschichte der frankistischen Bewegung in Polen,’ in Livre d’hommage a` la me´moire du Dr. Samuel Poznan´ski, Warsaw 1927, p. 210.

13

Paweł Maciejko

Aleksander Kraushar went even further, claiming that Catholic theologians who knew Hebrew and could work with Talmudic sources orchestrated the entire debate in advance.3 However, there are several significant discrepancies between the points raised in the disputations and official Catholic doctrine. Observers also noted that the Frankists were less than explicit about their acceptance of some articles of Christian belief.4 For instance, although the Frankists stated that they believed the Messiah had already come, none of the theses concerning the Messiah mentioned the name of Jesus. As Bernard Weinryb has pointed out, ‘had the theses really been formulated by the Lwo´w clergymen, there would have been no reason for them to avoid mentioning Christ or Jesus.’ 5 In the analysis that follows, I shall argue that the manifestos and theses do contain elements of the original Frankist doctrine and that at least some of the points were formulated on the basis of Jewish tradition, both orthodox and heterodox. However, as some tenets explicitly professed by the Frankists were indubitably Christian, the status of the Christian elements deserves more detailed attention.

Polemics and Beliefs On the most obvious level, Christian ideas were used by the Frankists for polemical purposes. The overt aim of the disputations was to demonstrate the conformity of the position of the Contra-Talmudists with major tenets of Christianity. The tactics employed for this purpose were threefold. First, the Frankists mocked rabbinic Judaism, attempting to show that the Talmud is full of obvious incongruities and irrationalities. Second, they challenged 3

4

5

14

Aleksander Kraushar, Frank i frankis´ci polscy, 1726y1816: Monografia historyczna osnuta na z´ro´dłach archiwalnych i re‚kopis´miennych, Krako´w 1895, 1:150y51. An English translation of Kraushar’s book entitled Jacob Frank: The End of the Sabbataian Heresy, translated and annotated by Herbert Levy, appeared in 2001. The translation is untrustworthy, and Levy’s introduction is preposterous. According to Stanisław Zała‚ski, Jezuici w Polsce, Krako´w 1908, 3:674, the Frankists were supplied with theological arguments against the Talmudists by Father Konstanty Awedyk and other Jesuits in Lwo´w. The role of the Jesuits was often debated; see for instance Zygmunt Lucjan Sulima [Walery Przyborowski], Historya Franka i Frankisto´w, Krako´w 1893, pp. 113, 145. Jonathan Eibeschu¨tz was also reportedly supported by the Jesuits in Prague. See for example the reports of the Papal Nuncio in Warsaw: Bishop Serra to Cardinal Torrigiani, 30 January 1760, Archivio Segreto Vaticano, the Vatican [hereafter: ASV], Arch. Nunz. Di Varsavia, 94, Relazione della Causa e Processo di Frenk, fos. 155v. B. D. Weinryb, The Jews of Poland: A Social and Economic History of the Jewish Community in Poland from 1100 to Recent Times, Philadelphia 1973, p. 378, n. 32.

Christian Elements in Early Frankist Doctrine

the morality of the Jewish religion. Third, they wanted to demonstrate the Talmud’s anti-Christian character. In all three respects, the manifestos and the live debate drew heavily upon standard tools of Christian anti-Jewish polemics. As Jacob Katz has observed, a typical technique of Christian apologetics was ‘to take various dicta of the Talmud at their face value and assert that all that is said in them about Gentiles applies, without qualification, to Christians.’ 6 In Kamieniec, the Frankists utilized the very same technique. Good examples of this procedure are found in their reading of Sanhedrin 58b — ‘R. Hanina said: “If a heathen smites a Jew, he is worthy of death”’ — as a statement proving that the Jews undermine the authority of Christian rulers, and of Sanhedrin 59a — ‘R. Johanan said: “A heathen who studies the Torah deserves death”’ — as an attack upon Christian theologians.7 Along the same lines, the Frankists argued that the Hebrew term akum (an acronym for idolater, heathen) in rabbinic writings refers to Christians. Hence they claimed, for instance, that the Talmud forbids Jews to save Christians in danger or to take care of Christian sick. In the event, the term akum was sometimes used synonymously with ‘Gentile,’ and the Shulhan Aruch does list categories of people who are not to be assisted in danger, including among them also the akum, ‘idol worshippers’;8 however, the very same passage of the Shulhan Aruch was commonly used by halachists to define the Christians as a specific group of Gentiles, to whom the Talmudic statements against idolaters did not apply.9 It is clear that in these cases the 6 7

8 9

Jacob Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance: Studies in Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times, Oxford 1961, p. 107. See Franciszek Kazimierz Kleyn, Coram judicio recolendae memoriae Nicolai de stemmate Jelitarum a Dembowa Go´ra Dembowski... Pars III: De decisoriis Processus inter infideles Judeas Dioecesis camenecensis, in materia judaicae eorum perfidiae, aliorumque muto obiectorum A. D. 1757 expedita ac in executis pendens, Lwo´w 1758, sig. O2yP3. The existing foliation is unreliable; I provide instead the numbers of the signatures. Part I, De Praeparatoriis Processus, and Part II, De Instructoriis Processus, were never published. For the Jewish response to this procedure, see letter of Abraham haKohen of Zamos´c´, 3 Tevet 5517 [= 26 December 1756], reproduced in Jacob Emden, Sefer Shimush, Amsterdam (Altona?) 1759, fo. 1v. Shulkhan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat 425, 5. The locus classicus is a gloss from Be’er haGolah, Rabbi Moses Rivkes’s commentary to the Shulhan Aruch: ‘The rabbis said this in relation to the pagans of their own times only, who worshipped stars and the constellations and did not believe in the Exodus or in creatio ex nihilo. But the people in whose shade we, the people of Israel, are exiled and amongst whom we are dispersed do in fact believe in creatio ex nihilo and in the Exodus and in the main principles of religion, and their whole aim and intent is to the Maker of heaven and earth, as the codifiers have written (...) So far, then, from our not

15

Paweł Maciejko

Frankists deliberately misrepresented Judaism for the purpose of polemics and that this kind of argument was simply part of the rhetorical layer of the debate. The debate also had a deeper layer, however, for the Frankist manifestos reveal a substantial knowledge of Christian theological literature and employ a very specific theological terminology. Here are some examples from the Kamieniec disputation. Thesis two reads: ‘The books of Moses and the other books of the Old Testament can be compared to a richly dressed Maiden, whose face is covered and whose beauty cannot be seen. These books are full of the hidden wisdom of God, they speak of things mysterious and of the future, and therefore, they cannot be comprehended by human reason without the assistance of Divine Grace.’ The thesis uses the technical notion of ‘łaska Boska osobliwa’ (the standard Polish rendering of gratia efficax, efficacious grace) and alludes to the Epistle to the Romans. Similarly, thesis four (‘On the basis of the Holy Bible of the Old Testament, we believe that there is One God, without beginning or end, maker of Heaven and Earth and all things known and unknown’) is a loose paraphrase of the Nicene Creed. Further, thesis nine introduces the notion of Original Sin, while thesis six enunciates not only the Incarnation, but also the sinlessness of the incarnated God.10 All these are unquestionably Christian concepts, and it is unlikely that the Jews would have been able to phrase them in such technical language on their own accord. The question remains, however, whether these elements and terms served only as a convenient linguistic costume adopted for the purpose of the disputations, or whether some Christian tenets were genuinely incorporated into the Frankist system of belief. Oddly enough, the very same scholars who maintained that the theses for the disputations were composed by Christian priests tended to prefer the first option and argued that many of the tenets expressed during the debates were in fact Jewish heretical notions. Heinrich Graetz stated, for example, that the Frankist ‘manifesto was sufficiently vague being forbidden to save them, we are on the contrary obliged to pray for their welfare.’ Moses Rivkes, commentary on Shulhan Aruch, Hoshen Mishpat 425, quoted in Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance, p. 165 (Katz’s reference to section 525 is a misprint). Early halachists in fact held Christianity to be a form of idolatry. Only in the thirteenth century did Rabbi Menahem Meiri create a new halachic category standing between Jews and idolaters, ‘nations governed by religion.’ See Louis Jacobs, A Tree of Life: Diversity, Flexibility, and Creativity in Jewish Law, Oxford 1984, p. 72. 10 See Kraushar, Frank i frankis´ci polscy, 1:78y79.

16

Christian Elements in Early Frankist Doctrine

in its explanation of the Sabbatean and kabbalistic doctrines to lead the bishop to suppose that it was written in consonance with the Catholic Faith,’ 11 while Bałaban argued that the majority of the theses for the Kamieniec disputation were based on the ideas of the Do¨nmeh.12 Were Christian elements only a useful weapon against rabbinic Judaism? Or did the Frankists really take over some Christian notions into their own creed? In order to answer these questions I shall turn now to the notion of the Trinity.

Trinitarian Notions in Frankism Some form of the concept of the Trinity appears in almost all documents from the early period of Frankism, and I believe that the emphasis put on this notion by far exceeded the purely rhetorical needs of selling Frankism to the Christians. The Kamieniec disputation opened with the reading of a proclamation signed by Yehudah Leyb Krysa and Salomon Schorr on behalf of the rest of the Frankists. The proclamation begins with the doxology to the Trinity and mentions the unity of the three persons of God in a few other places.13 The denunciation of Frank to the Christian authorities in Warsaw begins with the invocation of the Trinity 14 and quotes Frank’s followers as stating, ‘Following the teaching of the Zohar we reached some understanding of the mystery of the Holy Trinity, but we doubted for a long time, and concealed our understanding from the Talmudists and even from each other, because the Talmudists persecuted those who believe in the Holy Trinity.’ 15 In the same denunciation Frank’s early activity is presented as ‘going from town to town and teaching kabbalah, which is [the teaching] that there is one God in three persons.’ 16 According to the protocol of the investigation before the ecclesiastical court in Warsaw, Frank was initiated into the mystery of the Trinity by a rabbi in Smyrna.17 Reportedly, Frank advised his followers 11 Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews, trans. Bella Loewy, London 1901, 5:297; cf. also

12 13

14 15 16 17

idem, Frank und die Frankisten; eine Sekten-Geschichte aus letzten Ha¨lfte des vorigen Jahrhunderts, Breslau 1868, p. 23. Bałaban, LeToledot haTenu’ah haFrankit, 1:155; idem, ‘Studien und Quellen’, p. 29. See Gaudenty Pikulski, Złos´c´ z˙ydowska przeciwko Bogu i bliz´niemu, prawdzie i sumieniu, na objas´nienie talmudysto´w, na dowo´d ich zas´lepienia i religii dalekiej od Prawa Boskiego przez Mojz˙esza danego, Lwo´w 1760, p. 172. Ibid., p. 327. Ibid., p. 339; see Kraushar, Frank i frankis´ci, 1:177, 189. Ibid., p. 329. ASV, Nunz. Varsavia, 94, Relazione della Causa e Processo di Frenk, fo. 148r.

17

Paweł Maciejko

imprisoned in 1755 to present their beliefs in terms of two main points: the acceptance of the Trinity and the rejection of the Talmud.18 Indeed, the belief in the Trinity was considered the most important, constitutive element of Frankism: an ecclesiastical privilege given to the Frankists in 1757 defined the group as the ‘Israelites believing in the Trinity.’ 19 The importance of the notion is attested also by the reactions of the Frankists’ opponents: when the sectarians arrived in Lanckorona, a Jewish mob chased them throwing stones and yelling ‘shilush, shilush!’ (the Trinity, the Trinity!).20 Characteristically, the point concerning the Trinity was the only one the rabbis refused even to discuss during the Lwo´w disputation. This refusal was not the result only of the potentially contentious nature of the issue: the rabbis took up equally controversial topics of the Incarnation and the coming of the Messiah. In Frankist sources, the thesis concerning the Trinity has several different articulations, which reflect interesting discrepancies. The first formulation appears in the Latin manifesto submitted to the Kamieniec consistory on 2 August 1756. The relevant point reads as follows: ‘Deus est trinus in personis, quae personae secundum divinitatem sunt individuae’ (God is in three persons inseparable as to their divinity).21 The contemporary Polish translation of this point, supplied by Franciszek Kazimierz Kleyn in Coram Judicio, is phrased in a slightly different manner: ‘Bo´g [iest] w trzech Osobach natura‚ nierozdzielny’ (God [is] in three persons inseparable in one nature).22 The thesis put forward during the hearing at the Kamieniec consistory in September 1756 was an expanded version of this formulation: ‘Wierzemy, z˙e Bo´g ieden iest bez pocza‚tku y kon´ca, we trzech Osobach sobie ro´wnych, y nierozdzielnych, y zgodnych’ (We believe that there is one God, without beginning and end, in three persons, equal to each other, inseparable, and [acting] in accord).23 Despite the discrepancies, these three formulations reflect the same understanding, are based on Christian 18 Konstanty Awedyk, Opisanie wszystkich dworniejszych okolicznos´ci nawro´cenia do

19 20 21

22 23

18

wiary s. Contra-Talmudysto´w albo historia kro´tka ich pocze‚tki i dalsze sposoby przyste‚powania do wiary s. wyraz˙aja‚ca, Lwo´w 1760, p. 16. Graetz, Frank und die Frankisten, p. 42; see also idem, Geschichte der Juden von den a¨ltesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart, Leipzig 1897, 10:392y93. See Kraushar, Frank i frankis´ci, 1:72. Biblioteka Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, MS 85, Manifestacja z˙ydo´w kontratalmudysto´w w dniu 2 VIII 1756 w sa‚dzie biskupim w Kamien´cu Podolskim złoz˙ona, fos. 247ry250v; see also Kleyn, Coram judicio, sig. M3. Kleyn, Coram judicio, sig. N2. Ibid., sig. P4yP5.

Christian Elements in Early Frankist Doctrine

theological literature, and were most likely prepared by a Christian. However, the thesis presented during the actual disputation in June 1757 was phrased in a completely different manner. The Polish version reads: ‘Wierzemy, z˙e sa‚ trzy oblicza w Bogu, i nie ma w Niem z˙adnego podziału’ (We believe that there are three faces within God, without him being divided).24 This is paralleled by the Hebrew and Aramaic: ‘Anachnu ma’aminim she yesh El echad biTelat partsufin sheShavin da leDa beli shum perud’ (We believe that there is one God in three countenances [partsufin], equal to each other, and inseparable one from another).25 In order to appreciate the novelty of this formulation one has to look at the way the notion of the Trinity was defined in earlier theological literature and during the earlier Jewish-Christian debates in Poland. Polish theological works routinely render the word persona as osoba; to the best of my knowledge the Frankist thesis is the only document that talks about three ‘faces’ (oblicza) of God. During medieval disputations, the hypostases of the Trinity were — following the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition — treated as the modi of divine substance. Only fourteen years before the Frankist debates, during the public disputation in Brody in 1743, the point concerning the Trinity was posited by Bishop Kobielski within the framework of the dialectic of substance and attribute, and the Jews rejected it by pointing to the Aristotelian argument that the understanding of the hypostases as attributes would lead to divisions within the Godhead, which in turn could not have been reconciled with God’s perfection: ‘Deus caret distinctione propter excessum perfectionis; sin secus, non esset perfectus.’ 26 It might be assumed that if the point had indeed been formulated by a Christian priest, he would have relied on the existing Christian sources — just as the priests relied on the existing Polish and Latin theological literature when describing other elements of the Frankist doctrine. The explanation for the highly unusual formulation of the point in Polish can be found in the Hebrew version of the thesis for the disputation. While the 24 Ibid., sig. T3. 25 Emden, Sefer Shimush, fo. 38r. 26 See ‘List Jasnie W[ielmoz˙nego] Xie‚dza Biskupa Łuckiego i Brzeskiego do Starszych

uczonych Całej Synagogi Brodzkiey’ in Franciszek Antoni Kobielski, S´wiatło na os´wiecenie narodu niewiernego, to iest Kazania w Synagogach Z˙ydowskich miane, Lwo´w 1746, pp. 3y4; N. M. Gelber, ‘Die Taufenbewegung unter den polnischen Juden in XVIII Jahrhundert,’ Monatsschrift fu¨r die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 68 (1924):233.

19

Paweł Maciejko

word oblicze is unprecedented in the earlier Polish literature on the Trinity, it can be seen as a literal translation of the term Hebrew partsuf. The term is of kabbalistic provenance and is usually rendered as ‘face’ or ‘countenance.’ Doing away with the rationalistic tradition of earlier debates that took place in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Frankists framed the discussion in kabbalistic terms and phrased their thesis as a collection of zoharic passages. Here is a section of the Frankist argument:27 We belie...