Tell me more ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 1 down vote favorite

Some suggested that Martin Luther hated the Jews because the Jews didn't believe him. Yet, some Christians think that Martin Luther is a libertarian and state that he didn't think beliefs should be coerced. Libertarians don't hate people for their beliefs.

What was his real reason?

share|improve this question

3 Answers

up vote 11 down vote accepted

I can go into further details if requested, but "TL;DR" answer is:

After Luther agitated that "Jews didn't convert to Christianity because Catholics treated them badly, and would convert if you treat them better", Jews still didn't show any great willingness to convert.

Here's one supporting quote (context was Luther's refusal to intercede on Jews's behalf to stop their expulsion from Saxony etc... by Elector of Saxony John Frederick, Luther's prince):

": "... I would willingly do my best for your people but I will not contribute to your [Jewish] obstinacy by my own kind actions. You must find another intermediary with my good lord." (source: Luther’s 1536 letter to Rabbi Josel as cited by Gordon Rupp, Martin Luther and the Jews (London: The Council of Christians and Jews, 1972), 14.)

Just to clarify, since your question leads me to believe you didn't quite understand his views: Luther didn't believe in freedom of conscience in the modern libertarian sense. His opposition to the idea of involuntary conversion of the Jews was based on impracticality, NOT on a notion that trying to convert Jews was something evil because Jews have the right to be Jews.

A further influence in his thinking about Jews is listed in Wiki, so I'll just quote verbatim:

It is believed that Luther was influenced by Anton Margaritha's book Der gantze Jüdisch Glaub (The Whole Jewish Belief). Margaritha, a convert to Christianity who had become a Lutheran, published his antisemitic book in 1530 which was read by Luther in 1539. Margaritha's book was decisively discredited by Josel of Rosheim in a public debate in 1530 before Charles V and his court, resulting in Margaritha's expulsion from the Empire.

share|improve this answer
+1. Comprehensive. Hell, +2 if I can. Anton Margaritha is another. Jews didn't change their believe even after they are defeated in battles and even to the point of death. They are as stubborn as any faithful people in the world. So it's natural that they don't convert. The same with christians and most religions. – Jim Thio Dec 17 '11 at 4:23
1  
@JimThio - in Judaism, there is an absolute rule: everything is secondary to preserving a life (e.g. you can break any religious law to avoid death). For example, very strict dietary laws are waved if the alternative is literal starvation. You can do work/drive on Shabbat - generally a big nono - if you are a paramedic, with full rabbinical OK. There are only TWO exceptions to the above rule. Excepton #1: You can not murder. E.g. you're not permitted to kill an innocent person even if you're threatened with death for refusing. Exception #2: You can not renounce your God. 'nuff said – DVK Dec 17 '11 at 18:18
1  
@DVK, Exception #3, A Jew must allow themselves to be killed rather than transgress the laws against sexual immorality – HodofHod Oct 3 '12 at 7:27
@Jim Thio a fact is that Jews were DEFINED as people who confess Judaism and do not convert in the Middle Ages. Thus it was impossible for Jews to convert by definition: if someone converted he would not be considered a Jew any more, and the rest of the Jews would be even more strong in their belief by natural selection. No matter how many Jews converted to Christianity, there still be those who did not. This created an impression that Jews were some super-stubborn people even if the majority in fact converted at any given epoch. – Anixx Dec 29 '12 at 15:12
Yea I see. Well, all religious people are pretty stubborn, so can't blame the jews. – Jim Thio Dec 30 '12 at 14:06
show 2 more comments
up vote 3 down vote

Luther, like most self styled prophets of their times, found their ideas so compelling that they were surprised, saddened and then angry that the peoples rejected their ideas. Earlier examples would be Mohammed , Jesus and Moses.

share|improve this answer
Sort of good but too banal. +1 – Jim Thio Dec 17 '11 at 4:22
up vote 0 down vote

Ant-semetism and racism were much more common and acceptable in the olden days than now. It was much more common and acceptable to hate Jews, Blacks, Muslims, French (if you weren't French), Spanish (if you weren't Spanish), English (if you weren't Eenglish), etc.

So maybe he hated Jews, just because everyone else hated jews at the same time?

share|improve this answer
Stop quoting PC propaganda lines, will you? Racism wasn't even a phenomenon in Europe before full-on slave trade started. If you want to look for real racism, look at Arab states of the time (read through 1001 Nights carefully one day for a very interesting picture of how Africans were viewed/treated). Muslims weren't primarily hated for being Muslim - they were hated for being an expansionist empire that geopolitically threatened Christian states, and took over "Holy Land". And if you bothered reading about Luther, you'd see that it was a very non-trivial question. – DVK Dec 17 '11 at 19:02
Of course there was racism in Europe for ages. The Romans called the non-Romans 'barbarians'. – Rory Dec 18 '11 at 14:32
1  
Yeah, and those barbarians were the same race as them. That's the point - Romans didn't have issues with Africans for their color - just for not being Romans. They didn't distinguish one barbarian from another for their color. There's a difference between racism (real racism, not PC caricature that you like) and nationalism/xenophobia (especially culture based one). The easiest litmus test is how they treat a member of the "other" - whatever that is - who was adopted and grew up among the culture. To romans, a roman was a roman. – DVK Dec 18 '11 at 15:32
1  
Shame this answer hit a nerve with some people. It happens to be mostly the right answer. If you don't think there was a lot of anti-semitisim in Europe before the Renaisance you really haven't looked real hard. Luther just happened to become famous coincidentally with the printing press, so we have more of his less savory opinions recorded verbatim. – T.E.D.♦ Apr 11 '12 at 21:44
> those barbarians were the same race as them Whether 2 people are the same race is a complex question, the answer changes often. Now-a-days, in the USA, an Irish-American and a WASP are seen as the same race (white), but that wasn't always the case. You might think a Roman and a Celt in Scotland are the same race, but back then they didn't think that. Likewise, now-a-days and Irish person and English person might be seen, in the UK, as both 'white', there was a lot of racism against them in the past. – Rory Apr 13 '12 at 10:40

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.