Christianity has many theologians to thank for its dogma; St. Augustine and St. Paul are two notable examples. But there is one man in particular that influenced Christianity like no other: St. Thomas Aquinas. His famous work Summa Theologiae was so highly regarded by the clergy it sat on the altar next to the bible at the Council of Trent (Hood, ix). His philosophic beliefs are widely known but few authors have explored Aquinas’ feelings toward the Jews. In the book Aquinas and the Jews, author John Hood sets out on an intellectual exploration to find what Aquinas had to say about the religion of Judaism and its people.
Hood proposes three main questions as topics for the book’s discussion and in a Thomistic manor he sets out to answer them through proofs. These questions are: What was Aquinas’ attitude toward the Jews and Judaism? What were its social and theological sources? And lastly: What role did his teaching play in the persecution of European Jews? These questions give the book its structure.
The author gives adequate proof for every claim that Thomas made about the Jews. At the end of the book there are approximately 20 pages of notes and three pages of bibliographic information. Aquinas is a man of reason and much like him Hood sees that the only way to fully support his argument is through an observation-proof methodology. Hood comments on proof claiming “scholars not only had to show that the Bible was internally consistent; they also had to “prove” that it supported the teachings of patristic writers and the medieval church” (Hood, 3). An example of this kind of proof is in his discussion on a Jewish sect called the Pharisee. Pharisee members emphasized strict interpretation and observance of the Mosaic Law in both its oral and written form. Hood shows that Aquinas had empathy for the Pharisees. And while Aquinas condemns them for accusing Jesus of being a Samaritan, Hood selects a quote from Aquinas that shows the logic he injects into every argument.
“The Jews said this about Christ for two reasons. One, because the Jews hated the Samaritans, since when the ten tribes went into captivity, the Samaritans took their land…And because Christ was arguing with the Jews, they thought he was a Samaritan and an enemy, etc. Another reason is that the Samaritans observe some Jewish rites, but not others. Hence, when the Jews saw that Jesus observed the Law in some matters, while in others he mitigated its rigor, as in the case of the Sabbath, they called him a Samaritan” (Hood, 67).
Hood expands Aquinas’ view of the Jews by claiming that “Abraham is as much the father of Christians as of Jews” (Hood, 39). There is a lot of support for what the author says about Aquinas. But there is almost as much text dedicated to other people and topics as there is for Aquinas himself. This is distracting at times. Hood devotes much of the book to talking about Mosaic Law in my opinion. While Judaism and Christianity are very close in nature, he is justified to a certain extent for his detail in the theological and historical contexts of the book. Commenting on the diversity of Aquinas Hood finds, “The relation of Judaism to Christianity was only one of many issues Aquinas dealt with in pursuit of this synthesis, but the myriad links between the two religions made it a topic he returned to again and again” (Hood, 3). I believe the author has fully supported his interpretation (reasoning) of what Aquinas’ views were of the Jews. I will next determine whether Hood has sufficiently supported his second question with facts. Specifically, what were the social and theological sources of Aquinas’ opinion?
Thomas Aquinas was not completely unbiased. The writings of St. Augustine were a major source of Aquinas’ beliefs. Augustine’s writings were not important in themselves but as a carrier of information to the Middle Ages, they were important. This transmission of ideas was part of the reason thought on Jews remained essentially unchanged from AD 1200 to about AD 1400. Largely, Hood points out,
“Religious and economic factors combined to create the stereotypical Jew of popular belief. Because Christians, were convinced that Jews were usurers whose stock in trade was dealing with tainted lucre, they thought of them as dishonest, scheming, and unclean. These vices dovetailed nicely with the demonic qualities Christians attributed to Jews because of their role in the execution of Jesus.” (Hood, 25)
Hood also points out that Aquinas thought an elite group of Jews had explicit faith in Christ. They were called the Perfecti and were part of his threefold sociological scheme. Summarily, Hood tries his hardest to explain what Aquinas’ feelings are but there is a certain tension. It is somewhat distracting reading the Jews as being loved by God and at the same time reading them to be sinners and heretics. This involves Hood’s last topical question.
Hood’s final question is: What role did his teaching play in the persecution of European Jews? In my opinion, sections of the book pertaining to this question provoke interesting thought. In The Catholic Historical Review author Edward Synan presents his opinion on the book.
“In the tradition of Aristotle, Brother Thomas produced reasoned condemnations of usury (one thinks of the intolerable ’servicing’ of national debts in our time). Hood suggests a parallel with prostitution, an evil tolerable to avoid greater evils, as a way that Aquinas might have eased this ban. In the name of natural law Thomas explicitly defended the rights of Jewish parents over the upbringing of their children” (Synan, 550).
Synan’s observation is valid and satisfactory in my opinion. Stated from the book, “…toleration of the Jews certainly did not flow logically from the theological vision embodied in canon law, which saw them as wicked…” (Hood, 110). Aquinas thought that all killing was immoral and should be punished. The author presents both sides of Aquinas’ frequent duality. In general the chapter stated that Aquinas’ thoughts on the Jews may have contributed to a cultural and theological element. I can give positive affirmation that the author’s confusion on this duality shared. I was baffled at times whether or not Thomas felt apathetic in his reasoning or if he truly felt the Jews are malicious heretics.
Aquinas and the Jews is a good book when evaluated as a whole. It opens up new ideas and opinions to who Jews are and why Christians have had a stereotypical view of them. If poor, uninformed ideas are spread by influential people, many of the uneducated may follow suit. This is evident in the pogrom against the Jews. St. Thomas Aquinas was a man of logical thought. But his beliefs were definitely influenced by the church and by the works of Aristotle and St. Augustine. Hood does not seem biased in any way. In the beginning of the book he explained that there have been no books written prior to this solely dedicated to the Jews and Aquinas’ opinion of them. So it stands to reason that the author is on his own—and the conclusions formulated are truly original.
I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in Thomas Aquinas. Personally, I find his philosophical theories to be quite interesting. His five arguments for the existence of God is one of my favorite essays. The way he combines religion and logic in such complimentary ways is astounding. Having built up my opinion of him as a philosopher, I was rather disappointed in him regarding his opinion of the Jews. He seemed inconsistent and vague at times. Although, he is still one of my favorite philosophers, no single person can debate every issue flawlessly. Aquinas and the Jews is part of a Middle Age series of books put out by the University of Pennsylvania. I briefly examined other books in this series and found them to be just as interesting. Hood is a good writer and presents otherwise deep, hard to read topics in a fluid and logical sense. Hood summed up this book best himself concluding:
Hood summed up this book best himself concluding:
“…the stereotypes theologians such as Aquinas had helped develop and perpetuate–the image of Jews as dangerous infidels, as usurers, as Christ-killers–…the more tolerant tradition that Thomas Aquinas represented was simply irrelevant” (Hood, 111).
Beliefs that might be benign to one person may do harm to another. But whether you are Christian or Jew this book still lays a base of how theologians and society during the Middle Ages were affected by the workings of Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Write a Comment