Dagobert Runes, ‘The War Against The Jew’.

This dictionary-style volume is a collection of entries – including many quotations – illustrating expressions of anti-Semitism over the centuries.

While not for a moment denying the many lamentable instances of anti-Semitism perpetrated by Christian church, I find that this book fails to make a positive contribution to the discussion.  There are several serious flaws.

First, it is a rant.  This is particularly so in the preface, which begins as follows:

‘There are many chronicles of war; of war lasting four days and of war lasting thirty years, even one hundred years, but then the war was over and peace followed.

‘My book is of a different war, a war forever, a war seemingly indissolubly attached to the creed of a billion people, a war that has become a dogma with the aggressor, a holy war with the most unholy consequences, a war deeply imbedded in the hearts of the bellicose, a war that never had an ending—even the rare armistices were not kept—a war so full of hate and cruelty for so long that history lacks any parallel, a war in which neither children nor invalids, the unarmed or ill, women or the aged, not even the newborn—who, our sages say, sleep in the wings of angels—were spared:

‘The War of the Christian Churches against the Jews!’

According to Runes, the history of Christian attitudes towards Jews is one of unmitigated hatred and aggression.

But this book is also a rant in the unbalanced nature of the quotations, and its lack of consideration of historical context, rhetorical device, or acknowledgement of any balancing statements from those being quoted.

Augustine, for example, is dismissed with the following quotation:

‘The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jew can never understand the Scriptures and forever will bear the guilt for the death of Jesus.’

Augustine’s teaching on this subject was, actually, quite complex; but you would not know it from this book.  Augustine also wrote:

‘It is a familiar theme in the conversation and heart of the faithful, that in the last days before the judgment the Jews shall believe in the true Christ, that is, our Christ, by means of this great and admirable prophet Elias who shall expound the law to them. . . . When, therefore, he is come, he shall give a spiritual explanation of the law which the Jews at present understand carnally, and shall thus “turn the heart of the father to the son,” that is, the heart of the fathers to the children.’  (The City of God)

And again:

‘Not all the Jews were blind; some of them recognized Christ. But the fullness of the Gentiles comes in among those who have been called according to the plan, and there arises a truer Israel of God … the elect from both the Jews and the Gentiles’. (Quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture)

No references are given in Runes’ book, making the task of checking for accuracy and context difficult.

Second, Runes completely ignores philo-Semitic thought and action.  We hear nothing about the longing for large numbers of Jewish people to turn to Christ among the Reformers (including John Calvin, Martin Bucer, Peter Martyr and Theodore Beza)  the Puritans (John Owen, Richard Sibbes, William Perkins, Elnathan Parr, Jonathan Edwards, and many others) or their successors (Matthew Henry, John and Charles Wesley, Simeon, Haldane, Hodge, McCheyne, Ryle, Spurgeon, or Lloyd-Jones, to name but a few).

It is time for the history of the relationship between Jews and Christians to be revised in the light of this ancient ‘love affair’.

Third, Runes makes some highly inaccurate and misleading statements.   For instance: the author complains, in his preface, of ‘reports’ ‘from Protestant England’ that:

‘Academic dictionaries of the English language, such as those of the Oxford University Press, have still not ceased defining Jew in the old church manner of Reverend Prynne as “cheats, usurers, unscrupulous bargainers.”’

This complaint is easy enough to check.

The Oxford English Dictionary offers, as its first definition of the noun ‘Jew’ the following:

‘A member of a people whose traditional religion is Judaism and who trace their origins through the ancient Hebrew people of Israel to Abraham; a follower or adherent of Judaism.’

So far, so uncontroversial.

The OED gives, as its second definition:

‘offensive. A hostile or contemptuous term for: a Jewish person, esp. one regarded stereotypically as scheming or excessively concerned with making or saving money; (also) a non-Jewish person regarded in this way.’

Far from supporting this defintion, the Dictionary clearly marks it as ‘offensive’.  What could be clearer?

The Dictionary adds the following note, showing that this second meaning is to be regarded not only as ‘offensive’ but also mainly of historical significance.:

‘This and related senses reflect the widespread antisemitism and oppression experienced by Jewish people in predominantly Christian and Muslim societies before emancipation movements of the late 18th to 20th centuries. In medieval Europe Jewish people were commonly subject to legal restrictions including being barred from all occupations except peddling and moneylending (a practice historically forbidden to Christians and Muslims), leading to prejudice and stereotyping.’

I conclude that Runes has completely misrepresented the OED at this point.

Fourth, Runes has demonstrated his own lack of judgment by characterising the New Testament as deeply and repeatedly anti-Semitic:

‘When the New Testament was finally put together, it was laced with anti-Semitic statements

This, he urges is especially so of the Fourth Gospel [which, he seems to think, reached its final form some 400 years after Christ]:

‘The Gospel of St. John, the teaching Gospel of the Christian churches, contains thirty-two references to the Jews. Every one is meant to debase and degrade the Jew and make him hateful to the core. (“The Jew is the son of the Devil.” John 8:44)Rip out these sentences from your Gospels, for if your Gospels have to stand or fall by these few anti-Semitic lines, they certainly do not deserve to live on.
These sentences were put there by hate-maddened, primitive theologians of fifteen hundred years ago, and kept there by the power-seeking Bishops of Rome.’

‘The Gospel of St. John, the teaching Gospel of the Christian churches, contains thirty-two references to the Jews. Every one is meant to debase and degrade the Jew and make him hateful to the core. (“The Jew is the son of the Devil.” John 8:44).’

[It] is the most anti-Semitic Gospel of the four…No wonder that among unbiased Christian historians, as well as Jewish scholars, the Evangelist John is known as “the father of anti-Semitism.”…Not once—but not once—does the word “Jew” appear in the Gospel of St. John except in derisive manner. The Gospel has without question served as a foundation of Jew hatred and contempt throughout the Middle Ages right up to the days of Streicher, who never tired of quoting from “his Bible.”’

I will not attempt an explanation of the Fourth Gospel’s supposed antisemitism here.  It is a common enough criticism, and has been dealt with ably by good scholars.

For the present time, I will just point out another statement of Runes which is factually misleading.

He writes that:

‘Not once—but not once—does the word “Jew” appear in the Gospel of St. John except in derisive manner.’

So what about John 4:22, where our Lord declares –

“Salvation is of the Jews”?

I conclude that this book has a destructive, rather than a constructive, effect on Jewish/Christian mutual understanding.