46 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291
society.93 Similarly, Jewish anti-Christian polemic began to circulate more widely,
reaching a crescendo in many parts of Europe in the late twelfth and thirteenth
centuries with writers such as Joseph Kimi, Jacob ben reuben, Meir ben Simeon
of Narbonne, Joseph ben Nathan official, who composed the Sefer Joseph
Hamekane (the Book of Joseph the Zealot), and his father Nathan official, Moses of
Salerno, Mordecai of Avignon, Nachmanides, Yacov of Venice, Abraham Abulafia,
and the anonymous author of the Sefer Nisahon Yashan.94
All these authors make concerted efforts to present a coherent case against Chris-
tianity and it is in this context that they refer to the papacy. There are undoubted
difficulties about using polemical literature to understand what Jews thought about
popes and the papacy, not least because it is often difficult to distinguish between the
writer’s personal views and his use of a standard polemical rhetoric and argumenta-
tion to win a particular debate.95 Yet, despite the obviously anti-Christian rhetoric of
Jewish polemic, the popes themselves, as we shall see, are quite frequently portrayed
in a positive light—in contrast to the way secular powers—in particular King Louis
ix of France (1226–1270)—are often represented as mistreating Jews. in this respect
there is a remarkable correlation among the polemicists and the views expressed by
some of the chroniclers we have examined.
The Milhemet Misvah of Meir ben Simeon of Narbonne is a good example of a
polemical text which contains scattered references to popes and frequently refers to
papal claims to spiritual power and authority.96 in one part of the work, ‘The
Letter i would have liked to send to King Louis’ (Louis ix), the author describes
the pope as ‘the Vicar of Christ’ who ‘does not forbid us to lend at interest, for
that would be to forbid us our religion, which permits us to lend to non-Jews’.97
He contrasts the pope very favourably with the king, since the latter arbitrarily
annulled oaths and covenants, whereas the former upheld them. Certainly Meir
ben Simeon recognized the papacy as a force which could be harnessed to help the
Jews, although he also viewed it as not powerful enough, or even at times secure
enough, to ensure reliability.98 His awareness of the limits of papal protection
meant that he was always cautious in his appraisal, never over-enthusiastic.99
93 Funkenstein, Perceptions of Jewish History, pp.172–89, especially p.172.
94 Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages, p.16.
95 Chazan, Fashioning Jewish Identity in Medieval Western Christendom, pp.339–59.
96 Kenneth Stow discusses this work in detail in Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty,
p.3; pp.24–6; p.34; the pope was ‘Vicarius Christi’, see Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal
Sovereignty, p.22, footnote 72, and footnote 96; see also Chazan, Fashioning Jewish Identity in Medieval
Western Christendom, pp.105–14.
97 Milhemet Misvah, MS parma 2749, fol. 71r and see also fols 65r, 68r, 70v, and 226v; see Stow,
The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty, p.25.
98 Meir Ben Simeon of Narbonne, Milhemet Misvah, MS parma, 2749, fols 42v and 125r and v,
and see also fol. 228v; Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty, p.26. For Meir ben Simeon
of Narbonne see, for example, Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, Vol. 9, p.104; Jeremy
Cohen, The Friars and the Jews: The Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism (ithaca, 1982), p.108; p.109,
footnote 14; p.127; robert Chazan, Daggers of Faith: Thirteenth-Century Christian Missionizing and
Jewish Response (Berkeley, 1989), p.49; p.50; robert Chazan, Barcelona and Beyond: The Disputation of
1263 and its Aftermath (Berkeley, Los Angeles, 1992), p.189.
99 For detailed discussion of the Milhemet Misvah see, for example, Chazan, Daggers of Faith,
pp.39–44; pp.49–51; pp.52–66; p.69; p.52; Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, p.82. For discussion of