Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Co-Hosts Avinoam Patt and Lila Corwin Berman discover the stories and scholars to help make sense of antisemitism today. They start with a theory: the answer to understanding (and perhaps fighting) antisemitism is only as good as the questions one asks. And then they search far and wide for the best questions and the people who can ask and answer them. And spoiler: Avi, Lila, and their guests don’t always agree. In fact, that’s the plot, or at least part of it. How scholars and other people can passionately disagree while remaining curious about one another and the world, one question at a time.
Avi: We are two historians trying
to understand antisemitism,
one question at a time.
I'm your co-host, Avi Patt with Lila
Berman, and our plan is to discover
the stories and scholars to help
make sense of antisemitism, today.
Lila: We start with a theory that
the answer to understanding and maybe
fighting antisemitism, is only as
good as the questions that one asks.
Avi: And then we search far and wide
for the best questions and the best
people who can ask and answer them.
Spoiler, the two of us and
our guests don't always agree.
Lila: In fact, that's more of the plot,
or at least part of it: how scholars and
other people can passionately disagree
while remaining curious about one another
and the world, one question at a time.
Avi: Thank you for joining us for
this episode of the Jewish Question.
Okay, We're very excited
to welcome our guest today.
Our guest today is Magda Teter,
who is Professor of History and
the Schidler Chair of Judaic
Studies at Fordham University.
She's the author of Jews and Heretics in
Catholic Poland, published by Cambridge
in 2006, Centers on Trial, published in
2011, which was a finalist for the Jordan
Schnitzer Prize Blood Libel on the Trail
of an Antisemitic Myth, published in 2020,
and Christian Supremacy Reckoning with the
Roots of Antisemitism and Racism published
in 2023, as well as dozens of articles
in English, Hebrew, Italian, and Polish.
Her essays have also appeared in the New
York Review of Books, Public Seminar,
the JTA and others Blood Libel won the
2020 National Jewish Book Award as well
as the George Al Mossy Prize from the
American Historical Association and the
Beton Prize from the 16th Century Society.
Teter is the recipient of prestigious
fellowships, including from the John
Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation,
the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation,
the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced
Studies at Harvard University, the Coleman
Center for Scholars and Writers at the
New York Public Library and the NEH.
Teter has curated or co-curated numerous
exhibits from contemporary Jewish art to
topics such as censorship, antisemitism,
and racism, citizenship and belonging.
She has served as the co-editor of the
Association for Jewish Studies Review,
and as Vice President for Publications
of the Association for Jewish Studies.
Teter is currently the president of the
American Academy for Jewish Research.
Welcome Magda Teter.
Magda: Thank you for having me.
Lila: I have no idea how
you have time to be here.
I feel like you should be being the
president of something or getting a
fellowship as we speak, and I bet you are.
So we're excited to talk to you in part
because you're such a luminary in the
field of Jewish history and without a
doubt you're going to be able to enlighten
us on all sorts of different topics
related to what we're interested in.
But very specifically, when Avi and I
were talking about some of the driving
questions we have about understanding
antisemitism now and what scholars and
scholarship can help us understand,
it's clear that there's something about
kind of the medieval world and medieval
times that is both a usable past and
also very, very different from today.
And your work seems to have had
this ability to think about the
medieval past and think about how
to link it to forces that continue
to be really important today.
And really, I think as we drill
down, we're gonna be very, very
interested in how you think
about the role of Christianity.
What continuities you see that that
the Church has had in terms of how
we think about antisemitism and what
vast differences there might be.
so all of that is why you're here and
we're gonna try to get to all those
different pieces, but really very
specifically thinking about the role
of Christianity in antisemitism and
how Christianity kind of opens up
to thinking about broader forms of
entangled hatreds with antisemitism.
But we wanted you to start us with a story
because otherwise there's just too much
in too many languages and we wouldn't know
how to kind of get a handle on all that
you've done to really research the history
of antisemitism, and very, very important
book you wrote, recently, although not
your most recent was about blood libel.
and we're wondering if you can really
tell us and tell our listeners about
an incident, an instance of a blood
libel, and what that means, how it
spread and why it became such an
important kind of piece of thinking
about the history of antisemitism.
Magda: So, first of all, not everybody
may know what a blood libel is.
I find that certainly with my students,
that they don't know what it means,
and it's the, false accusation,
a lie that, just grew into, into
trials and persecution of Jews and
myths and conspiracies that emerged
in the medieval period and, that
Jews killed Christian children.
It emerges, first as a murder libel.
And I prefer that better than
the ritual murder phrase, and we
can talk about it if we want to.
And then there was this blood,
element that Jews do it in order
to take blood and consume the
blood of these, of these children.
And it became this very powerful lie.
There were a lot of lies about Jews, a
lot of spurious accusations that emerged
in the medieval period, such as the
poisoning of wells, which also kind of
percolated up, um, during the pandemic.
So there are certain things that
come, come up again and again.
But this one sort of persisted.
Persisted and, it's currently with us both
as a motif motivating white supremacists
who are attacking synagogues as, was
the case in Poway [California], as well
as in anti-Israeli iconography and, and
tropes that emerge from the anti-Israeli,
discourse and opposition to, to Israel.
So, so these motifs, emerged,
but the, libel emerges in a very
specific, everything emerges
in a very specific moment.
And I actually, even though my scholarship
really spans millennia, I also am
resistant to this idea of this longest
hatred that it always has been like that.
So this, this accusation emerges in the
medieval period out of internal disputes
and, and concerns with Christianity.
Liturgy changes focus on Jesus's,
crucifixion, and then it just grows.
And one of the story that really
encompasses that, that really moment
from legends and ideas and thoughts
and, and, and tales to when it
becomes really a powerful story is
the trial of Jews in, in Trento, which
is now in Northern Italy in 1472.
And that is when a 26 month old boy
is found dead or first disappears
and this is Easter/Passover coinciding.
And, Jews are initially actually not
accused at all, but then are accused
that they are the murderers of this boy.
And what happens in that moment is
that 1492 is a moment where we have
new media that is the printing press.
So these other tales from the medieval
period, which were very local, which
were just one line accusations, becomes
weaponized by the bishop, local bishop
to accuse Jews to spread the call
because he wants people to come to
Trenta to promote the town, the little
martyr and uses the visual culture.
Poems, songs, tales.
So it, really helps disseminate the story
and for the first time puts an image,
visualization to these tales where people
may have said, oh, I heard you just killed
a child in Norwich or somewhere else.
Suddenly there's a whole
narrative there and it developed
narrative with visual culture.
Avi: If I can jump in there, Magda,
I'm just curious, I want you to,
to explain this a little bit more,
that what you're saying is that this
image, this idea that the Jews used,
the blood of Christian children for
the rituals had existed beforehand.
That there were cases in England, for
example, in the, in the 1100s, I believe,
a case in, in Norwich, for example, but
that it, it didn't necessarily spread
far beyond sort of these local examples,
but something happens in the late 15th
century that gives this idea of, in Trent
in in Italy, greater, greater resonance.
So just tell us sort of how is it that
this idea spread so far and wide at that
moment in time in the late 15th century?
What's the, the key
Magda: So correction, the
Norwich, the 1144 is a tale.
There was a dead, tween, 12-year-old
boy, but Jews are actually not tried.
Not that the, the legend emerges,
years later after a monk comes in
and starts spreading the story.
So there's actually nothing directly
connecting Jews to that story.
That is a later story.
And it's just a murder story.
The, blood libel emerges in 13th century
out of transubstantiation connection.
I can go into that because that
connects my two books, actually, about
Host desecration and, and the ritual.
But what happens in the, in the, 15th
century or in that case in Trento,
that you have a convergence of
political and media and other personal
aspects, that not every child who
died in March or April around Easter,
or Passover led to a trial of Jews.
That's, I think, something really
important to remember because we,
when we think about that, it seems
like every time Jews are accused.
And that's not necessarily true, that's
the kind of memory that came with that.
But here, and that, I think this is
something for us to remember, that these
kinds of, in incidents, these kinds of
ruptures happen in specific context.
When there are individuals
that are driving it.
And in this particular case, there
is a bishop who has an agenda and
he is using this moment to drive
his political agenda against Pope.
He's in conflict with the Pope,
to rise the, the town's profile
during a jubilee year when pilgrims
are going to Rome, he wants them
to stop there and not go through
another route from Northern Europe.
He wants to rise his own, own profile.
and he commits resources.
He funds propaganda, really, that we see.
And, and he funds it and he does it
at a time when he can spread it widely
with this new technology of print.
Lila: So, so it sounds like you're
telling us like a few pieces that
we need to understand this, right?
So one is that there was this
personal motivation, this
political motivation, right?
And that at other moments when you
might have had similar events happen
and even perhaps, you know, some sense
of suspicion without that like personal
motive, without that political goal,
it wouldn't have necessarily become
something that, spread in this way.
But the second piece is the
technology of spreading it, right?
So the instruments, the printing press,
the greater connectivity, the imagery
that you talked about to spread it.
And I guess I'm curious, was there
anything from the side of the
Jewish community and their response
that either mitigated some of
this or amplified some of this?
Like was there a role that,
that they were playing.
Magda: So the Jewish community in
the town of, of, of Trento was tiny.
30, maybe at most 30
people, three households.
They were just living their lives.
They were, um, Trent is on the border
between German speaking and Italian
speaking communities, so the town was
kind of divided, so the Jewish community,
we actually don't have anything.
We have one poem commemorating
the Jewish martyrs.
So what we have is we have,
evidence that is collected by
the bishop who has the agenda.
And that is something for
us as historians as well.
To think very deeply about where
our historical sources are and what
stories we're telling, how they are
created, and why they are created.
So, this, what we really literally have
is what the Bishop wanted us to have.
and there are, the other
evidence has, disappeared.
the other sources have disappeared.
There's actually a mystery about this
one set of trial records that were
sealed, that no longer, that were not
edited, that were, are no longer with us.
so, So that that is something that is, for
us, very, important, to, to think about.
There is the personal and there is the,
but it, it grafts onto something, right?
So you have, that's why you have a,
a, this cultural or knowledge that
be, that allowed him to graft on
something that was floating around,
to make his agenda and his, you know,
his actions, credible and believable.
Otherwise, people would say like,
what, what are you talking about?
Jews never do such things.
And the whole, the whole libel, whether
initially the murder libel or later
on the blood libel, Is able to spread
because it begins to fit into the story
of crucifixion and the troops of Jews that
emerged from the New Testament and from
the vignettes in the, in the, Christian,
Bible of, of Jews responsible for, for
killing Jesus of Jews, being enemies
of Jesus and therefore of Christians.
so, so that, that begins
to, to, to graft onto it.
And one thing that, that is important
to, to know these stories as they emerge
in the medieval period sounds very
familiar, but because they are told
through that lens of the crucifixion
of the story, it's not that they
invent this language, is that they
graft onto the existing language.
Of liturgy within, within Christianity.
And then they develop into something
tangible in, in the, in this moment.
And what is very powerful about
this, this story is, you know, the,
the accusations that Jews stole, the
Communion waiver, who believes in it now?
Nobody would believe in it now.
That goes away.
This one is so powerful.
Everybody can imagine their child being
attacked or, of, of some sort of, so, so
that really helps, sort of crystallized
that image of Jews as killers that was
already there through the Christian story
of, of Jesus and his, his crucifixion.
Avi: Yeah.
And you know, one of the things that you
mentioned before is the ways in which this
motif of the Jews as being blood thirsty
murderers who use the blood of Christian
children, it, it crops up at different
places in different moments in time.
Right.
So you can talk about, this case in 1475,
but one of the things, and I'll just a
plug for something that I think is amazing
that you do with this project is you have
this website that's called On the Trail
of the Blood lipor of Blood Libel Trail,
which maps the ways in which this motif
and this imagery crops up at different
places and different moments in time.
So it's quite fascinating to map
it in this way and to see that.
It spreads, and as you suggest, it spreads
through the use of new technologies.
But it also has a, a quality that is so
powerful because of the imagery that's
associated with it, that we see it not
just in the 15th and the 16th and the
17th, the 18th centuries, but, but up
until, you know, in, Julius Streicher
uses it in Der Stürmer these famous covers
of Der Stürmer images of Jews using the
blood of Christian children and up to the
21st century in, in the United States.
Right.
We see it.
So what do you think accounts for that
powerful resonance in the fact that
it, this, this is one of these tropes
that does sort of transcend time and
place and continues to emerge around,
around the world, up to the present day?
Magda: I think, I'm glad you
brought up the maps because the
maps were, actually an afterthought.
When I was sending the book to press,
I needed to create a map, and I hated
the map because it showed the dots as
if all my stories were facts were Jews
were all, you know, accused and, and.
Convicted and maybe killed.
And I didn't like the map.
And one of the thing is that the maps
on the website show where, where these
stories are fictitious, where they
are actually, we have no evidence.
They, they, they become facts in
the way they are told, whether
either by antisemites or in certain
chronicles that like Norwich, you
know, Jews were not killed in Norwich.
There's no accusation.
It's a legend that comes in decades later.
Many of them are just one line
sentences in some chronicles.
We have no other evidence.
We don't know that if anything happened
at all or if this is just, just a, a
lie and a rumor that becomes accurate.
So Non-Jews don't always
accept the stories.
And this is something that is often
forgotten when we talk about these
anti-Jewish accusations because we see
on how this story, actually is spreads.
And this is important to remember and
it leads to the deaths on of many Jews.
But it is also important to remember that
not everywhere where such accusation or
even rumor emerges this goes anywhere.
So that is the kind of unpacking
of historical evidence of, to, to
understand how these rumors become.
And I think this is very powerful for
our times because, things people believe
spread online were the ones that were
in fact, these rumors, these tales that
were carried by word of mouth, from place
to place that had no necessary basis of
that, except that it spread much more
slowly than what we see, see today.
But they nonetheless become facts.
And the, the, the, the story of Trento
is different because it, it becomes a, a
kind of embodiment of all these stories.
And then it gets put into all
these learned books and chronicles
and, develops the imagery.
Right.
Just a iconographic vocabulary.
You mentioned the, chronicle from 1475.
This is an interesting,
another cautionary tale.
It's a powerful image showing Jews
killing, Simon, the, the boy from Trenta.
This image was forgotten.
It only emerged in one book in the early,
20th century, I think 1911 on the sort
of representations of Jews in print.
And then it really enters the
mainstream, when a facsimile copy
is of this chronicle in, the German
edition is published in Leipzig 1933.
After Hitler comes to power, and then
the Nazis begin to include it in their
application, in their propaganda.
So it enters then Der
Stürmer in May, 1934.
And then other Nazi propaganda, thing.
So this is another one of those.
It doesn't, there's no indirect
through line and we have to be
very careful to make those claims
about an indirect through line.
because what it, it did these, this
story and these stories, do, they
create a reservoir of, of material
that is then used and abused in
very specific moments of time.
Lila: So it's, it's interesting
because one of your preliminary remarks
was that you are very resistant to
the idea of describing antisemitism
as the eternal or longest hatred.
and I see your real sort of
prudence and, and the care with
which you take to talk about the
sources and this mapping project.
our listeners absolutely
should check out these maps.
You know, it's really an extraordinary
resource to use to, to look at
empirically speaking how these
different blood, blood libels worked.
What kinds of sources, were
they legal, were they literary?
All of these questions.
So you're, you're being so, so careful
about that, and yet there's a little piece
of what you're doing that also is sort
of pushing back against that because.
All of this, you talk about this case
with, with Simon and the bishop who has
this political motivation, but it's also
couched in the rise of the Christian
Church and we know at least from theories
that are promulgated by folks like David
Nirenberg and other scholars that part of
the basis of Christianity is superseding
Judaism and creating this kind of figure
of the Jew as obderate as that which
needs to be supplanted or overcome.
and these blood libels
are not unrelated to that.
So that would sort of suggest that
there is some kind of through line.
So I'm really curious
about that kind of tension.
Magda: Yes, there is a, there's
definitely a through line, right?
And, and, and historians.
And scholars of antisemitism have
been debating that whole question.
How do we, distinguish is, what,
what, what the church fathers say
in the second century of the Common
Era antisemitism, same as what the
Nazis are doing in 1930s, 1940s.
And of course, it's a very, it's a
very difficult, difficult question.
And people have approached it
from theological, perspective,
from, psychological perspective.
There were all these kinds of
explanations, trying to historicize it.
And, and I think we need to
historicize it, but we also need
to think about these continuities
and understand how they function,
socially and, and, and in that way.
And I, and I really want, Urge
people to get away from the, from
the idea of the longest hatred
from the emo history of emotion.
Obviously there are emotions
in this process, but what we're
seeing is not always hatred.
And I'm not talking here about the
blood libel because that's a, a,
a, a different, aspect, of that.
But what we are seeing is the
development of power dynamics of,
if there is an emotion, it's an
emotion of contempt initially, in
that kind of displacement of Jews.
From there and the superiority of
Christianity and the assignment
of the inferior position within
Judaism, then within legal structures.
this is implemented of putting
Jews legally and socially on a
lower position and stigmatizing
them as figures in society, right?
Not just in terms of ideas and
emotions and, so we have to sort of
think about what this does and how it
functions rather than explain things
in terms of, in terms of emotions.
Because although there is a history
of emotion, it's very difficult
to kind of historicize hatred.
you can historicize.
The transmission of knowledge,
the transmission of ideas, right?
You can, map it like Nirenberg does
it in his book of anti-Judaism, or
as I do with the blood libel, where
I really unpack it and I explain that
this is not a medieval phenomenon.
It emerges in the medieval period,
but it really takes off in this, after
the trial of Jews of Trent in 1475,
in the 16th century and beyond, right?
the largest number of anti-Jewish
persecution around the topic of
accusations that they killed Christian
children is actually, second half of the
16th century and until the 19th century.
It's not in the medieval period, right?
This is something that people
may not realize, but when you
look at that evidence, and that's
the impact of this one story.
that's where we, we have to be kind of
careful, to not necessarily make that
connection from Norwich to Der Stürmer.
try to understand.
and the reason why it becomes such
a, such a embedded idea about Jews is
because it enters this reservoir of
knowledge and of authorized knowledge
of really high brow chronicles of high
brow histories, that are authoritative.
as one of my, 17th century or 18th
century writers said, who do you trust?
The Rabbis?
Obviously Jews were trying
to mobilize defenses.
Do you trust the Fathers of
the Church and it, enters these
authorized, authoritative books?
And of course.
When you're reading them, you are going
to believe those who are believing it.
Who are, who you consider authoritative.
Avi: Yeah.
One of the things that I find fascinating
about this is thinking about, sort of
your, your approach as someone who studies
not just medieval history, but these
longer stretches of history and how that
informs sort of what we, we may have
preconceived notions about what happens
in the, in the Modern Era, and that
there's this sort of constant movement
towards progress and enlightenment and
greater integration and acceptance.
But I think what you might be suggesting
is that there are certain modes of thought
about the Jew, and here I'm saying in
quotation marks the Jew or what the Jew
is imagined to be and the place of the
Jew in society that might condition,
sort of the way in which the Jew is
imagined, or the way in which the image
of the Jew is utilized by other forces,
be it the church or other forces that
then influence, you know, the possibility
of the Jews to either successfully
integrate or to even respond to different
forms of anti-Jewish hate that, you
know, not that Jews would be completely
powerless to respond, but it might limit
the ability of, of the Jew to respond.
But that also sort of looking at these
longer periods of history, it allows
you to sort of see how these structures
of thought influence the place of
the Jew in, in different ways that we
might not appreciate if we just focus
on a very specific moment in time.
Magda: That's right.
And one of the things I think
that we haven't yet talked
about, but as why Jews, right.
and one of the reasons it's not, of
course when you look at the, you know,
ancient literature, including some
biblical look at the Book of Esther,
obviously there is evidence of anti-Jewish
persecution or persecution of Israelites.
before that.
What is, and, and scholars like
Peter Schäfer have shown it, you
know, in antiquity, in Egypt, in
in, in Elephantine and other places.
But what is, what is interesting with
Christianity, and I think this is the
very key moment why Jews, is that the
early Christianity embeds this idea of
the Jew as a contrast figure for its own
identity for its own kind of debates.
When Paul is writing, he's not
necessarily addressing Jews.
I mean he's Jewish himself.
All these other Christian writers then
draw on Paul's writing and his idea of
Jews and Judaism, how he conceptualize it.
So Jews become these kind of hermeneutical
tools, to create and define and finesse
the Christian identity of what they are.
There are communities all over
the Roman Empire, obviously and
beyond, but they're really small.
So what happens is that as Christianity
expands and becomes the universal
religion, it takes with itself these
texts in which Jews are so embedded.
So it universalizes its own problem
with Jews on a larger level.
So Christians who might begin
to be believing Christians are
suddenly hearing about Jews.
They may not have encountered
Jews in their entire lives,
but they know of Jews, right?
So then when real Jews show up and
where, when they encounter real
Jews, they might have a certain,
oh, you are the ones who are.
You know, materialistic and carnal and
concerned only with money and Jesus
is done and you are dangerous and you
are enemies of us in that kind of way.
So the, the, the, the hermeneutical
idea of the Jew then has an effect on
real Jews, and then this theological
idea that Jews are this lesser than,
and Christians are the ones who have
replaced them, gets embedded in law,
which affects real Jews as well.
Right?
So, the idea that Jews, the elder shall
serve the younger, a biblical text from
the Torah, from the book of Genesis, from
Jewish Scriptures, gets reinterpreted
in Christian writings to the fa, the
point where in the Roman Empire and says,
oh yeah, they should be serving, they.
We shouldn't allow them to
own Christian slaves, right?
They shouldn't be under Jewish authority.
And that begins to emerge into real legal,
social structures that, that, that then
reflect that, that theological thinking.
Lila: So, I mean, this is
like you just offered a really
wonderful encapsulation of.
The book Christian Supremacy
that you published in 20, is
it 23 that you published it?
which is such a bold book, but also
a book that in a sense only you could
write because it's talking about that
bridge between the kind of hermeneutical
Jew and the reality of experience,
but it's doing something else as well,
which is saying it's, it's not just
the Jew that is the hermeneutic, it's,
it becomes this idea of supremacy tied
to ideas of the invention of race.
and in that book you really show this
kind of entanglement of, antisemitism and
anti-Black racism and how the kind of.
Premise of Christian supremacy is at
the heart of both of these, right?
And so in a way that, that kind of returns
us to this big question we have about
the role of Christianity in all of this.
Right.
And I guess like one thing I'm kind
of curious about is, in addition to
being a bold book is a bold title,
and I am curious, and maybe it
wasn't as much of the reality when
you were thinking of the title.
Like, I am curious if you got
pushback, if people were upset about
a book titled Christian Supremacy.
and kind of what, what
you were saying with it.
Magda: So, none of my books for the
record have appeared under the titles
that I have submitted to press,
so, it's usually the, the marketing
department, people who intervene in that.
I usually have some, wordier, titles.
Usually I usually like to use the
word, the, the words from the primary
sources to, to kind of make the
statement, but they never like the
that, so they always, change the title.
So I'm like, okay, I write books.
You sell books, let's we have a deal.
it is a, a a a, a provocative title and
but it does, sum up something and I make,
make it very clear that I use the word
supremacy in a very technical sense.
I don't use it in that sort
of, general vague sense that
is often used in, in, today's,
The discourse.
And what I mean by it is the, the
power of the state, the supremacy
as the, as, as authority and power.
And what I am trying to do, is I, I
wrote this book for a number of reasons,
but one of them in emerge from my utter
dissatisfaction with this, scholarship
on antisemitism, I have not found an
explanation about the longevity of it.
And hatred was not just doing it for me.
so, I wanted to understand this, this
longevity, and I wanted to understand
how, how people kind of, are absorbing.
These ideas about Jews and their position.
And what, what helped me, was
actually engaging with and reading
about, Black, history in America.
and I noticed that as I was reading,
I kept like jotting, I'm like,
this is, this is the same language
that was used earlier about Jews.
And I started noticing things.
And that's what made me think about that.
We, we have to move away from the
question of emotion and we need to
understand the dynamics of power.
And of course this is power and Jews
is one of the sort of things that
people don't want to engage because
it's such an antisemitic trope.
but I had sort of been, I mean,
I've been interested in law.
As, Avi and I were talking
earlier already, my dissertation,
that's law was, was of interest.
but I realized that then in the, all
these histories of antisemitism we've
been talking about, as I said, theology,
psychology, sociology, all these things,
but no one really looked deeply at the
role of the law and legal structures.
And the, the, the conversations and
the scholarship on structural racism
made me really, see is much more
clearly that there is much more going
on than just the discourse about Jews.
That there are actual legal
structures that embody this, this
discourse and, and, in, in real life.
and that then leads to a rejection of
Jews from equality in the modern period.
And the rise of political antisemitism
that is really emerges as a reaction
to Jewish equality or Jewish equal
citizenship, and the rejection of
that premise that Jews could be equal.
So I began to see these, these
similarities, these sort of parallels.
and, and it needed an explanation.
I didn't want, just like a trite thing,
oh, there are these similarities.
I, I, I had a feeling that there's
something going deeper going
on, and this was the dynamics of
power and the legal frameworks.
And in fact, many of the anti-Black laws
are echoing the Roman laws against Jews
that are, that were promulgated in the
fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries about
witnesses, about, intermarriage, about,
prohibition from, of public, holding
public office and all kinds of things.
like that.
And it's from that subjugation of Jews
from that idea that they are in inferior,
but because they are theologically
punished, emerges this idea of Jewish
power whenever Jews having more than
Christians think that they deserve.
so it's that kind of interaction
between law and culture that I think
helps us explain better, this, this,
longevity of those of those ideas.
And also, white Jews.
Avi: So if, if, if I'm understanding
this, this argument, correct me and
correct me if I'm wrong, but it's that
it's not just that when you put the
two side by side sort of understanding
antisemitism and, anti-Black racism,
that there is sort of a, a form of
hatred or even, racial thinking, that
that exists, that unites the two.
But there's actually this usage of
sort of creating an image of the
Jew or an image of the black as an
other, as a, as a proverbial other.
That helps to then structure sort of
these hierarchies of, in this case.
White supremacy or Christian supremacy
so that it's, it's not just about sort
of the invented racial categories that
Jews or blacks inhabit, but it's about
using those invented categories to justify
the supremacy of one group over another.
Is that accurate?
Magda: And it's not that they are just
other, but they are explicitly and
inferior as other, and that I think is
really important to, to do with Jews.
They're in inferior because
they are punished theologically
for their sins, right?
This is the, this is sort
of the eternal punishment.
That's where it's coming.
And they should be subjugated, in
perpetuity or un until they convert to
Christianity and accept the truth with so
that inferiorities and impose inferiority,
for, but, but what it did, and, and I'll
switch to the anti-Black racism in a
moment, but what it did, it created that
identity of superiority among Christians.
And then as Christianity, really embedded
itself on the European continent, right?
Christianity emerges in the
Middle East, but becomes, sort of
embedded in the European identity.
when Europe expands to colonial,
new starts colonizing the world and
starts engaging with other continents,
that tr transforms into a racialized
up European Christian superiority.
But that Christian identity never
ceases to, to which, which is why, that,
you know, when I heard this, oh, it's
white supremacy, white supremacy here,
I kept saying like, no, no, no, you
are forgetting the Christian aspect.
That was never gone.
You know, some Jews might identify with
some of the white supremacist id, ideas,
but without maybe perhaps understanding
or taking seriously that there is also
this Christian, Christian, element.
but, so with the enlightenment era,
you see this kind of racialization
of both Jews and Black people.
But the, again, the, the, the way
it emerges is Jewish inferiority
emerges out of the theology, and
the idea of black inferiority
emerges out of the need to justify
the enslavement of, Black Africans.
so it's, it's a different motivation,
which is, which is why Jews, Jews
intellect is never questioned.
It's their position
that's always questioned.
they are to be punished and
subjugated because they deserve it.
They don't deserve to be equal.
They don't deserve to be in position of
authority, and that's legally, grounded.
Whereas, Black Africans were
racialized as inferior, as deserving
to be enslaved because they're
in, intellectually inferior.
And these tropes of inferiority and
rejection of both as equal deserving
to be in places, a social places
where they are is, is at play,
but it plays itself differently.
right.
That's why Jews are the sort of,
cunning, trying to get, get, control.
They're smart, right?
They're smart.
They are.
They're trying to get out of those,
those structures of inferiority
that have been imposed on them.
Whereas Black people are just not able,
so then Jews come to the aid and you have
that trope of, George Soros, bringing
immigrants or doing, this or promoting
racial justice and things like that.
You have that sort of melange of these
two groups that are marginalized deemed as
inferior who are trying to break through,
through these structures of, of power.
Lila: So, I mean, that, that extends
the point that you were making earlier
about the kind of hermeneutics of this.
It, it's not about the reality of
Jews being superior or smart, or
Africans being inferior or not smart.
Right?
It's, it's a hermeneutical tool about.
Pushing forward a kind of worldview
of power and trying to protect power.
Right.
If, if I'm hearing correctly.
So, I mean, it's interesting because I
know you talk about George Fredrickson's
scholarship in, in Christian supremacy,
and he, he makes this point, in one of
his books that's always stuck with me,
which is that as you get the rise of
these kinds of liberal and enlightened
governments that are at least in theory
not meant to be, faithful to Christianity,
but are sort of secularized, there has to
be this sort of creation or the invention
of these special reasons for exclusion.
And this is the sort of like
engulfment or, or transposition
of these theological ideas into
law, into the power of the state.
And so my, my question to you as
we're sort of starting to, to think
about, where this conversation leaves
us and, and what we learn from it.
It's probably an unfair question,
because we're all historians,
but we have to do this anyway.
we're living in a moment when there
seems to be indication that Christianity
is gaining new public prominence,
that it's not just sort of engulfed
by those secular structures of the
state or denuded in certain ways,
but it is sort of loud and proud.
Right.
And I'm curious, given the history that
you have studied and your expertise,
how, how you respond to that moment
when it appears as if more elected
officials, more people in the public
realm are not interested even in
the pretense of that separation.
should that change anything in terms of
how we're thinking about what the future
might be when it comes to anti-Black
racism, when it comes to anti-Semitism?
Or is it just sort of saying out
loud what has always been the case?
Magda: You know, it's, it's
interesting because I finished the
book, Christian Supremacy on the
inauguration day of Joe Biden in 2021.
And, it took a while for it to go through
the press for, all kinds of reasons.
But, but then I was like, okay,
whatever, it's gone, came out in 2023
and suddenly I think my argument kind of.
Holds that these, dynamics continue
and, in, in ways that they've never,
they, they haven't disappeared.
That, that, resistance to,
to, to change and to liberals.
And liberals was really pushing
back against that, right?
This was a radical idea
that people were equal.
We know it was, it took time
before this was implemented in law.
But when you have literally millennia
in case of Jews and hundreds of
years in terms of, in case of, Black
Americans, being not just thought
about as inferior, but actually living
within legal structures of inferiority,
it's very radical to now claim that
they, they belong to the equal.
to be equals and that
backlash, continued, right?
And, and, and I think that the sort
of the rise of liberal democracies
was like, okay, well we're done.
Our job is done, but these forces of
backlash never kind of stopped working
against those, what we might consider,
and I'm unapologetic about, liberal
democracy, even if it may not be a
perfect, system in that, in, in that way.
so, so I think where we now are is
that these, these, fissures and those
groups who are ideologically aligned,
who had been ideologically aligned,
are coming again to the, to the fore.
I don't know whether it's just
one of those waves as they
weave in and weave back, out.
I don't know.
What the book Blood Libel actually taught
me, and that left me very depressed.
but I think it also helps explain these,
these proponents of, of liberal democracy
versus proponents of that supremacy,
right, of that particular supremacy.
I mean, we can talk about
different supremacies.
I think it's actually good, analytical
tool to think about power and supremacy
as an an analytical category will allow
you to be much more, I think, historical.
and it can translate to other things.
but, but that in Blood Libel, I, I
conclude that people essentially are
reading, they live in these epistemic
communities where they're reading,
what they agree with and they reject
what they disagree with, which kind
of resonates with our echo chamber
world of media and social media that
we are not listening to other views.
and, and therefore they're kind of
perpetuating or creating and perpetuating
these co these epistemic communities.
And at some level you see it in, in
the, in the Christian Supremacy book
because they are these two voices,
those proponent liberal democracy, and
they are also living in their own kind
of epistemic communities and promoting
and, arguing for, for equality and
human rights, equal rights, and so on.
but also the, the, the forces that are
protecting that supremacy and they live
in their own sort of epistemic world.
They write, they create, they, they
continue and that's where we are, right?
The legal history in the United States,
you read those cases and there are
these voices that are side by side,
and they resonate today to us because.
These ideas still continue to work
there because we haven't worked
out some of these questions.
I think on the deeper level,
which is why I end, we need to
talk about this, the, the, this
history has to be dealt with, so.
Avi: Yeah, no, I think, I think you
raise, I mean the, the, there are all
these fascinating points that you raised
through in this through line, through the
different, through the different projects,
but you also point to the value of.
Taking this sort of longer perspective
on history and understanding that
while we might be operating under
the illusion that sort of we're in
2025 and that, we're in this specific
moment in time, that we're, we're part
of a much longer stretch of sort of
structures of thought, modes of thought.
And that if you do zoom out and look
over the course of millennia, you can
see how difficult it can be to change.
Not that it's impossible, but that
there are these powerful forces
that make it difficult to change
these structures and these, and
these modes, these modes of thought.
and I, and I'll say one of the other
things that's really so fascinating
that you point to is that, both in
Blood Libel where you, where you look
at sort of how new technologies can be
used, not just to spread information,
but to spread misinformation.
And when you're pointing to this
present moment where again, we have
this illusion of, oh, new technology,
it's gonna be an information age.
And yet maybe we shouldn't be surprised
that it's a disinformation age.
Right.
And that you point out like that's
not necessarily a new thing.
so, but it's important to
take that longer perspective.
Lila: So when we end these podcasts,
we sort of throw back our motif at
the guests that we've invited on.
So Avi and I sort of sit around
thinking like, what are our big
questions about this sort of crazy
topic now of antisemitism and how to
understand it and who can help us.
and you certainly has have helped us think
about the role of Christianity in creating
these kinds of hermeneutics and as you
say, these sort of epistemic communities.
but we're curious what your big,
sort of Jewish question is right now.
Like what, what is propelling you either
as a scholar or a professor, or a human
being, to, to kind of think about some
of these big questions about Jewishness,
in, in your work, in your world?
Magda: one of the things that
I've been really thinking
about since October 7th, was.
I wrote a short piece about
it, for the public seminar.
And that then, came longer and
more, revised in the JTA was that
about our role as historians of
antisemitism that we actually failed.
And I say that we failed, is that for
about a hundred years now, when you
look back at maybe, at, the earnest
1930s, historians of antisemitism have
focused on the antisemites and trying
to study, analyze, explain, dissect anti
antisemites, their thought, they, their
ideas and what has been really missing.
And I think to me, it came very
clear after October 7th and the
kind of automatic, lack of empathy.
for those who suffered violence
on that day, the various Kibbutzim
in Israel, that it was always
explained, it's, in this case it was
explained because they deserved it,
because Israel of Israel's actions.
And it made me think about why there's
this automatic reaction about that Jews
deserve to be in a certain position.
and one of the thing that is missing,
and again, this sort of thinking and
writing and teaching about, anti-Black
racism made me realize that we as
scholars of antisemitism, focus on
antisemites, scholars of racism, never
lose sight of the victims of racism,
of how racism impacts what we have
not done as scholars of antisemitism.
Is focused on Jews as people on
the receiving end of these ideas.
And what happens in that way?
So the earlier, the book on law
kind of gestures to it because law
has legal, has social implications.
but my book that just came out a couple
of months ago, on also Blood Libels
and Hostile Archives is trying to
retrieve the experience of Jews in these
moments, the lives of Jews, rather than
the narratives of the blood libels.
And I think we need to, as scholars of
antisemitism, I think we need to do a
little bit more of that, of integrating
and of not separating Jewish experience
to Jewish history and antisemitism.
To a different thing, but these two
have to be integrated into that story.
I think it's quite effective.
I've tried it in the classroom.
And the other thing is that I've been
thinking about, obviously what we're
thinking about in terms of the, the
situation anti-Zionism and the connection
with anti-Zionism, antisemitism.
But I take a longer lens and
I'm, I'm thinking about the role,
theology, the question of the
Jewish exile as punishment, plays in
this sort of special, reaction to,
Israeli policies that maybe other
countries are not getting as much, as
much flack, emotional flack as this.
So I'm thinking about those things, about
the kind of the theological discourse.
Again, that's millennia long and
and I think it has an impact on,
people, even people who seem to
be really, removed from theology.
when I have students who know nothing
about when I have them, what comes
to mind when you think about days?
And they say law and rules, even though
they know, don't know anything else,
but when they think about Christianity,
it's faith, it's love, right?
These are deeply embedded ideas
that are not just bookish ideas that
are kind of cultural constructions.
So I am sort of thinking
and trying to work.
through, in my future research.
Avi: Well, I think you've just pointed out
two topics for us for future conversation.
one is on sort of the Jewish responses
and the impact that, persecution and
hate can have on Jews and how Jews
respond to it, which really resonates
with me in terms of the type of work
that I do in the field of Holocaust
studies, which is very much focused on
how Jews respond to persecution, but
also thinking on the longer term impact.
And this other project that you've just
mentioned, which is to think about sort
of the idea of Jewish exile and notions
of Jewish exile and how and Jews living
in dispersion and diaspora and how
that might affect thinking about Israel
and the place of the Jew in the world.
Anyway, two really interesting
questions and projects for us.
I think Lila, a future episode,
which will be, this conversation
continued with Magda, but this has
really been fascinating, so thank you.
Magda: Thank you so much for having me.
Avi: Thanks for tuning in.
This was a production of the NYU
Center for the Study of Antisemitism.
Your presenters were Avinoam Patt
Lila: and Lila Berman.
Your producers were William
Pimlott and Caitlyn Madara,
Avi: and production provided
by Bivins Brothers Creative.