Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T20:18:52.933Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Friar Paul to Friar Raymond: The Development of Innovative Missionizing Argumentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Robert Chazan
Robert Chazan
Affiliation:
Queens College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the middle decades of the thirteenth century, the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church committed itself to a program of extensive missionizing. While converting the infidels had always been a professed ideal of the Church, rarely were significant resources allocated for a serious effort in that direction. Now, with western Christendom increasingly disillusioned with the prospect of military subjugation of Islam and increasingly confident over the rationality of its cause, ideological victory over its enemies seemed both preferable and achievable. Just as it had once called forth armies for the military crusade, now western Christendom organized its institutional and intellectual forces for a new confrontation. The Dominican and Franciscan orders became the shock troops in this battle: schools for training missionaries were organized; handbooks of argumentation were composed. The total effort was broad and impressive.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 76 , Issue 3 , July 1983 , pp. 289 - 306
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 There is a substantial literature on this thirteenth-century missionizing. See, inter alia, Burns, Robert I., “Christian-Islamic Confrontation in the West: The Thirteenth-Century Dream of Conversion,” AHR 76 (1971) 1386–434Google Scholar; Altaner, Berthold, Die Dominikanermissionen des 13. Jahrhunderts (Breslauer Studien zur historischen Theologie; Habelschwerdt, 1924)Google Scholar; Franch, Ramon Sugranyes de, Raymond Lulle, docteur des missions (Nouvelle Revue de Science Missionaire: Supplementa; Schöneck-Beckenried, 1954).Google Scholar

2 See Browe, Peter, Die Judenmission im Mittelalter und die Päpste (Miscellanea Historiae Pontificae; Rome, 1942)Google Scholar; Baron, Salo W., A Social and Religious History of the Jews (2d ed.; 17 vols.; New York: Columbia University, 1952–1980) 9. 71–94Google Scholar; Cohen, Jeremy, The Friars and the Jews (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1982).Google Scholar

3 On Friar Paul, see Baer, Yitzhak, A History of the Jews in Christian Spain (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1961–1966) 1. 152–59Google Scholar; Chazan, Robert, Medieval Jewry in Northern France (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1973) 149–53; Cohen, Friars and Jews, 108–28.Google Scholar

4 On this confrontation, see Chazan, Robert, “The Barcelona ‘Disputation’ of 1263: Christian Missionizing and Jewish Response,” Speculum 52 (1977) 824–42, and the literature cited there in n. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 On Friar Raymond, see Berthier, André, “Un maître orientaliste du XIIIe siècle: Raymond Martin, O.P.” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 6 (1936) 267–311.Google Scholar There is an important literature on the relationship between Friar Raymond and Thomas Aquinas. See the summary statement of Murphy, Thomas, “The Date and Purpose of the Contra Gentiles,” HeyJ 10 (1969) 405–15Google Scholar, and the literature cited there. On Friar Raymond and the Jews, see Bonfils, Reuven, “The Image of Judaism in Raymond Martini's Pugio fideí” Tarbiẓ 40 (1971) 360–75 (in Hebrew) and Cohen, Friars and Jews, 129–69. Both Bonfils and Cohen are concerned with Friar Raymond's basic view of Judaism; this paper focuses on his missionizing tactics. On the controversy over Friar Raymond's alleged forgeries, see below, nn. 25 and 60.Google Scholar

6 The Pugio fidei was clearly not intended to be read by the Jews themselves. Its style indicates that it was to serve as a manual for Christian preachers who would use its texts and method in their proselytizing among the Jews.

There is a methodological problem underlying this study. While we possess Martini's own formulation of his arguments in the Pugio. fidei, we do not have Friar Paul's own writings. Instead we are dependent upon a skimpy Latin précis of the Barcelona confrontation and the more extensive Hebrew tract written by Friar Paul's adversary. For this reason, there may be some injustice done to the views of Friar Paul. Nonetheless the broad sense of Friar Raymond's building upon the earlier foundations laid by his predecessor seems incontrovertible.

Yitzhak Baer also posited a relationship between 1263 and 1278, although somewhat different in nature. “We mentioned earlier the Pugio fidei of Raymond Martini. The book is clearly the result of the failure of the formal disputation held in Barcelona in 1263. After the author learned from experience that the talmudic sayings, in their original form, cannot be adduced in support of Christian dogma, he went to the trouble of creating—on the basis of authentic midrash and by means of abridgments, combinations, and additions of all sorts—a collection of forgeries of obvious christological content, thereby to mislead the susceptible” (Baer, History, 1. 185). My sense of the indeterminate results of 1263 has led me to a somewhat different view of Friar Raymond's relation to Friar Paul. On Baer's case for the forgeries of Friar Raymond, see again below, nn. 25 and 60.

7 Saul Liebermann, Shkiin (2d ed.; Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1970) 45–52. For disagreement, see Baron, Social and Religious History, 9. 298 n. 9.

8 The Latin version of the Barcelona confrontation will be cited from Baer, Yitzhak, “The Disputations of R. Yechiel of Paris and of Nachmanides,” Tarbiẓ 2 (1931) 185–87 (in Hebrew). The agenda is found there, 185.Google Scholar

9 The Hebrew version of the Barcelona confrontation will be cited from the reprint of Steinschneider's edition found in Chaim Chavel, Kitvei Rabbenu Moshe ben Naḥman (rev. ed.; 2 vols.; Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1971). These views of Nachmanides can be found there, 1. 308.Google Scholar

10 Quotations from the Pugio fidei will be cited according to the Leipzig edition of 1687. These statements can be found there, p. 3.

11 Ibid.

12 Chavel, Kitvei, 1. 304. According to Nachmanides's account, Friar Paul was careful to use the terms (= power) and (= authority), while Rabbi Moses insisted on using the term (= kingship).

13 Ibid. Note the emphasis on

14 Ibid.

15 T.B., Sanhedrin, 5a.

16 Chavel, Kitvei, 1. 304.

17 Ibid., 305.

18 Ibid.

19 This ploy on the part of Nachmanides was generally opposed by his Barcelona adversaries. As we shall see, Friar Raymond was sensitive to this line of Jewish argumentation.

20 Pugio fidei, 312–13. In effect Friar Raymond is rebutting the contention of R. Moses that the verse must be understood as relating to formal kingship.

21 Ps 78:67.

22 Ps 87:2.

23 l Chr 2:55.

24 Deut 17:10.

25 Pugio fidei, 313. While Friar Raymond indicates that this midrash can be found in Bereshit Rabbah, it does not appear in extant versions of this collection. This raises the issue of fabricated materials in the Pugio fidei, which has been the subject of lengthy controversy. For a list of the major works in this dispute, see Baron, Social and Religious History, 9. 299, n. 10; for Baron's own view see 107.

26 The second and briefer quote adds nothing of substance.

28 Pugio fidei, 314, citing T.B., Sanhedrin, 41a, and Avodah Zarah, 8b. The biblical verse is Deut 17:8.

29 Recall the second objection of Nachmanides to the argument of Friar Paul, an objection obviated by the more sophisticated reasoning of Friar Raymond.

30 Pugio fidei, 316, citing T.B., Sanhedrin 5a.

31 Pugio fidei, 316.

32 Deut 17:15.

33 Pugio fidei, 318, citing T.B., Baba Batra, 3b.

34 Chavel, Kitvei, 1. 306, citing T.P., Berachot, 17a–b.

35 Chavel, Kitvei, 1. 306.

36 Chazan, “Barcelona ‘Disputation,’” 831–32.

37 Chavel, Kitvei, 1. 306.

38 Ibid., 307, citing T. B., Sanhedrin, 98a.

39 Chavel, Kitvei, 1. 307.

40 See above.

41 Isa 10:34.

42 Pugio fidei, 348, citing T.P., Berachot, 17a–b. The biblical quotation is Isa 11:1.

43 Isa 66:7.

44 Pugio fidei, 349. This passage, cited from Bereshit Rabbah, is not found in extant versions of this work. See above, n. 25, and below, n. 60.

45 Pugio fidei, 350. Again extant versions of Bereshit Rabbah do not include this story.

46 Pugio fidei, 353, citing Ruth Rabbah, 10a. The biblical quotation is from Mal 3:16.

47 Pugio fidei, 352.

48 Ibid., 349–50.

49 Ibid., 352.

50 Ibid. This argument is actually the same as that levelled by Rabbi Moses in 1263.

51 It is a bit difficult to understand how these arguments rebut the fourth and fifth of the rabbinic texts cited—the story of R. Joshua b. Levi, Elijah, and the messiah and the homily on Mal 3:16. Neither of these two arguments would seem to apply to these texts. It is interesting to note that Abner of Burgos, well grounded in rabbinic literature and committed to its use for missionizing purposes, had no hesitation in using the homily on Mal 3:16; he did not seem to share Friar Raymond's concerns. See Rosenthal, Judah, “The Third letter of Abner of Burgos,” Studies in Jewish Bibliography and Booklore 5 (1961) Heb. section, 43 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

52 Pugio fidei, 394, citing T.B., Sanhedrin, 97a–b.

53 Pugio fidei, 394, citing T.B., Avodah Zarah, 9a. This is a most problematic citation, since extant versions of Avodah Zarah, 9a, read exactly as that in Sanhedrin.

54 Pugio fidei, 395, citing T.B., Sanhedrin, 98a.

55 Pugio.fidei, 396, citing T.B., Sanhedrin, 98b.

56 Pugio fidei, 397, citing T.B., Yoma, 10a.

57 Pugio fidei, 396, citing T.B., Avodah Zarah, 8b.

58 Pugio fidei, 397. Once more the supposed source, Bereshit Rabbah, does not offer this quotation in its extant versions.

59 Zech 2:82.

60 Pugio fidei, 398. Again the extant versions of Bereshit Rabbah do not include this citation.

While the question of Friar Raymond's forgeries lies far beyond the scope of this paper, two brief comments may be made concerning the six instances of quotations not now extant or significantly different from their source (see nn. 25, 44, 45, 53, 58, 60): (1) Two of these quotations involve rabbinic statements which Martini goes to great pains to reject—he would hardly forge texts of which he disapproved. (2) In the remaining four cases, there is really no overt christological content to the statement quoted. In each instance, Martini makes use of the statement for his purposes; the texts themselves, however, are hardly christological in overt content.