It would definitely be interesting if Columbus was Jewish, but I'm not sure I buy the argument. First, Columbus grew up in Genoa and lived there until he started sailing a ton as a teenager. He also went to school in Genoa and learned Latin. And you're telling me he didn't speak Italian? Well, true, there wasn't actually an "Italian" language in the 15th century, but I'm pretty sure he must have known the Ligurian dialect, having lived there his entire young life! He also read the writings of Marco Polo and Paolo Toscanelli, maybe in Latin but maybe in Italian.
The other evidence in the article is also somewhat questionable: many, many Christians left money in their wills for the poor and for dowries. He may have decreed money be given to many people, not just an old Jew in Lisbon--remember, Columbus was stripped of his honors and imprisoned near the end of his life, so maybe he identified with the outcasts. The strongest evidence is probably the Hebrew "code"--but many people who fancied themselves intellectuals like Columbus were using Hebrew for all sorts of hermeticism and natural magic. Oh, and Christians were also rather fond of trying to reclaim Jerusalem. Plus, Columbus didn't think he was finding a new magical land for the Jews to escape Europe, since he went to his death denying that he'd discovered a new land at all.
And Columbus's writings (including his personal log book) are filled with mentions of Jesus and God and the cross, and he even talks about showing the cross to the natives he met on his first voyage, and believed they understood its significance--of course, this would be a good cover for a converso, but this case still seems flimsy to me. My guess is that most Columbus scholars won't be swayed by this argument.
Or maybe he was a willing Jewish convert...you know, like me.
Does it change the importance of what he accomplished, no. Does it mean anything less or more to American history, no. But discovering America is an amazing feat all on its own, even more so if he was a Jewish man who managed to garner the support of staunch Catholic and antisemetic royals.
Best story about Jews being saved by their own country is what Denmark did to save its Jews.
Absolutely. Denmark's story is remarkable and shows what a fallacy it was for so many other countries to basically say There's nothing we could do, not our fault. Argentina also accepted Jews (of course, they took Nazis, too). My grandfather's family that were able to make it out of Poland in time went to Argentina.
I think 2V was Jewish and converted to Catholism. I'm not sure if she was born Jewish however.
That being said, given the climate, I'm not sure one could be a willing convert.
Yes, was born Jewish, raised Jewish, converted to Catholicism in my early 30's.
I'll admit that I can't prove it but I'm willing to bet that there were a number of people who converted willingly. There have always been Jews who convert willingly...some of which go on to be canonized saints. One that comes to mind is Edith Stein...who was killed in the Holocaust.
That said, I'm not convinced he was Jewish anyway. I was just suggesting a possible reason for some of the things mentioned.
That being said, given the climate, I'm not sure one could be a willing convert.
That's a good point, because clearly Jews were not treated well in any part of Europe during the period. There were also major potential benefits to conversion, clearly, and several conversos became bishops, royal treasurers, and advisers to the kings of Aragon and Castile. And many who didn't convert were expelled or killed.
But back to Columbus, his dad was a weaver and merchant (and apparently had a cheese stand!), and was part of the woolworkers guild in Genoa (as was Columbus), so it would be interesting to know if there were religious restrictions on guild membership. If Columbus was a converso, you'd need to look at his history in Italy before his time in Spain.
And whether or not Columbus was Jewish, at least this article is bringing attention to the condition of Jews during the period--there's actually a ton of historical research on medieval Spain right now (it's one of those "hot" fields) and much of it focuses on efforts to create a religiously unified state. There were so many crazy restrictions on the Jewish and Muslim populations, including that they weren't allowed to shop at Christian fruit stands (for fear of contamination) and had to wear distinguishing clothes so that Christian men wouldn't accidentally sleep with Jewish or Muslim women.
Not at all suggesting that France was a jewish-friendly state. I'm just saying that the Catholic church + world power = recipe for disaster.
True.
Im sorry, but I have to take (a very small) issue with this. The Catholic Church WAS a world power. It wasn't employed by a world power. You cant shift the blame for Catholic atrocities onto the government, when the government was either run by, or directly part of the Catholic Church.
The power of the church was slowly removed from government over centuries, so I guess it matters what century we are talking about. WW2? You cant really blame catholics for Hitlers jewish thing. But the further back you go, the less that works.
I have that Steve Berry book on my kindle, too! It was just released a week or two ago, I think. I had pre-ordered it, b/c I really enjoy his books, but haven't gotten a chance to start it yet.
I am sure there were a lot of willing converts who wanted to be safe from persecution and avoid the taxes on Jews. <p>
Exactly.
I'm not saying Jewish people can't willing convert to Catholism or any other religion. I'm saying that in the context of the times when the Bible was not available for the average man to study for himself, I'm hard pressed to believe Jews were having internal philosophical debates and chosing their religion accordingly.
I am sure there were a lot of willing converts who wanted to be safe from persecution and avoid the taxes on Jews. <p>
Exactly.
I'm not saying Jewish people can't willing convert to Catholism or any other religion. I'm saying that in the context of the times when the Bible was not available for the average man to study for himself, I'm hard pressed to believe Jews were having internal philosophical debates and chosing their religion accordingly.
::chestbumps habs::
But all of this is moot because Judaism and anti-Semitism are irrelevant to American history.
I'm not saying Jewish people can't willing convert to Catholism or any other religion. I'm saying that in the context of the times when the Bible was not available for the average man to study for himself, I'm hard pressed to believe Jews were having internal philosophical debates and chosing their religion accordingly.
::chestbumps habs::
But all of this is moot because Judaism and anti-Semitism are irrelevant to American history.
Yes, because that's exactly what I said in this thread.
And HAB, the lack of one's own personal Bible wasn't a problem for many willing converts throughout history, so that's not really a good argument here.
Neither are your statements. So I guess we're even.
Oh please. I made productive comments before you decided to poo poo them.
You don't need the Bible to convert willingly...plenty of converts have done this over time (including when the Bible wasn't even an official canon yet). So your "no personal Bible" argument doesn't work. Rather than a :headdesk: maybe you can find a better argument.
Please, you seem to have missed the overall point. Just because you converted of your own free will doesn't negate the effects of the times, the power and pull of the church, the disadvantaged to being Jewish, vs being in the church and the fact that we are talking about prereformation before it even occured to most people to question the will of the church.
And who is pooh poohing what since you've wholesale decided I'm making a shitty argument?
Because the only thing shittier than my argument is your insistance that just because you converted, Shlomo ben Israeli circa 1942 would have done so similarly.
Please, you seem to have missed the overall point. Just because you converted of your own free will doesn't negate the effects of the times, the power and pull of the church, the disadvantaged to being Jewish, vs being in the church and the fact that we are talking about prereformation before it even occured to most people to question the will of the church.
And who is pooh poohing what since you've wholesale decided I'm making a shitty argument?
Because the only thing shittier than my argument is your insistance that just because you converted, Shlomo ben Israeli circa 1942 would have done so similarly.
I never once said that they converted like I converted...just that CC may have converted willingly and this might also explain some of the things mentioned in the OP. I also never said that there were people who didn't convert unwillingly.
What I *did* say was that many people over time have converted without having a Bible....and did so willingly. Therefore your argument (still) doesn't work.
Regardless, I think this is all moot. I'm not convinced that CC was any sort of convert, but he did convert a lot of other folks.
I'm saying that in the context of the times when the Bible was not available for the average man to study for himself, I'm hard pressed to believe Jews were having internal philosophical debates and chosing their religion accordingly.
Perhaps you need to do a better job of explaining the "crux" of your argument.
You realize there was more to the context of the times than just not having access to any portion of the Bible, yes? And that my previous and follow up comments address those various points?
Yeah, because there is and they do.
But I get the feeling you think every historical conversion story is a geniune, heartfelt conversion so perhaps this is where we are at odds.
You realize there was more to the context of the times than just not having access to any portion of the Bible, yes? And that my previous and follow up comments address those various points?
Yeah, because there is and they do.
But I get the feeling you think every historical conversion story is a geniune, heartfelt conversion so perhaps this is where we are at odds.
No, I don't feel that way. You clearly haven't read my posts.
And as for my replies to the above post, I was specifically responding to *that* post....not every other thing you wrote.
One could argue given the tenuous state of life/death struggle of all Jews during the inquisition period, no Jew could make a true conversion.
Meaning, if conversion would save your ass, could your conversion ever be anything other than a save your hide move? If even 1% of your conversion was a CYA move, is your hand unforced? But that's strictly a philosophical question, I suppose.
Exactly.
Or if conversion could open the doors to what you wanted to do in life, give you access to better education, freer travel, not being randomly expelled from your home on a royal whim.
You realize there was more to the context of the times than just not having access to any portion of the Bible, yes? And that my previous and follow up comments address those various points?
Yeah, because there is and they do.
But I get the feeling you think every historical conversion story is a geniune, heartfelt conversion so perhaps this is where we are at odds.
No, I don't feel that way. You clearly haven't read my posts.
And as for my replies to the above post, I was specifically responding to *that* post....not every other thing you wrote.
Anyway, this is ridiculous.
Why on earth would you take the body of one statement and not the others made in the same thread? That's crazy talk and makes about as much sense as only taking the word of one verse in a chapter.
No, I don't feel that way. You clearly haven't read my posts.
And as for my replies to the above post, I was specifically responding to *that* post....not every other thing you wrote.
Anyway, this is ridiculous.
Why on earth would you take the body of one statement and not the others made in the same thread? That's crazy talk and makes about as much sense as only taking the word of one verse in a chapter.
So you (and no one else on this board) has responded to *a* post before. Everyone has *always* summarized every other post a certain poster has made in a thread and *then* responded?
But all of this is moot because Judaism and anti-Semitism are irrelevant to American history.
Yes, because that's exactly what I said in this thread.
That is not a reference to you. THat is a reference to another poster in this thread who said exactly that. I'll wait for you apology for being snappish with me. As usual.
But all of this is moot because Judaism and anti-Semitism are irrelevant to American history.
Yes, because that's exactly what I said in this thread.
Actually, you didn't say it. It was a reference to something that happened earlier in the thread. Just because people are talking doesn't mean that they are talking about you.
Of course, if there was no religion, no jews would have been persecuted by no christians, and columbus would have just been an awesome dude, and this thread would be about history.