Talk:Blood libel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The religion jump[edit]

Looking at [1] it seems that blood libel is now spread about Muslims as well. It's hardly surprising as many antisemitic myths are recirculated that way. The problem is where to fit it into the article. Any advice? // Liftarn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 2 January 2014

Precursors[edit]

There is interesting material in Bill Ellis. Aliens, Ghosts, and Cults. Univ. Press of Mississippi. p. 53 ff. ISBN 9781617030017.. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC).


Eurocentric Views[edit]

The page itself with few exceptions, and especially the introduction treats the blood libels as a purely European phenomenon. While it may have started in Europe, there are certainly a plethora of cases that occurred in the Arab world. While the Damascus Affair is mentioned, I suggest the wording of the 1st paragraph is changed and a record of incedents of Blood Libel from the Arab world be added as a section. Eframgoldberg (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

for nearly 1000 years it was in europe it only entered the muslim world in the last couple hundred years and the damascus blood libel was partly incited by the french consul.עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


I noticed the History section says that "The earliest versions of the accusation involved Jews crucifying Christian children..." then under the first subheading we find accounts of allegations made before the Christian era, that paragraph needs to edited or deleted to line up with facts presented in the "Possible precursors" subheading. There is, in general, more focus on dismissing the allegations then presenting history to examine how this started and spread. This emphasis encourages modern-day proponents of blood libel to lean towards conspiracy theories, imagine if in 50 years time it was reported that allegations of clerical abuse were brushed aside as anti-Catholic propaganda, focusing on Europe allows us to point to Hitler and hinders historical rather then apologetic coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czarnibog (talk • contribs) 07:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

"Jews accusing Jews" for drinking blood.[edit]

I found a series of articles in the French "anti-masonic" paper "La Bastille" (1913-14) with the title "Les Juifs Frankistes accusent et convainquent les Juifs Talmudistes de se servir rituallement de sang chretien". It starts from the Dec. 20, 1913 issue [2] (p. 4) and continues in issues Dec. 27, 2013, Jan 10 and 17, 2014, with the Talmudist's reply on Jan 31, 2014. If i got it right, the article is a transcript of a discussion between these two Jewish sects in 1759. "Frankists" was a Jewish sect formed by a Polish Jew in early 18th c. The artice cites some bibliography and claims to be a translation from a rare Polish or Russian book. If anybody is interested, can read those articles and inform us if the are of any encyclopaedic merit. At least I see some linguistically interesting points there.--Skylax30 (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

See Frankists here in WP Zezen (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blood libel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Eucharist connection[edit]

Anthropologically speaking the origin of the eucharist itself and the belief in transubstantiation in some way ties into Solomonic apocryphal texts that talk about using literal blood in a proto-eucharist. See "cakes of light" in thelema and the apocryphal text "sefer haraziem". Efforts need to be made to in some way create a nuanced presentation that is fair to the Jewish people and not accusatory, but at the same time explores these connections which scholars in western esoteric philosophy think are self-evident. There is no mention of magic, magical texts, or Solomon on this page. That need to happen but it has to be presented in a way that it will not be misinterpreted or taken out of context. True context need to be given to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.185.169 (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Democritus[edit]

The Democritus who wrote Maxims was the 5th Century Pre-Socratic atomist philosopher. Only fragments survive. Josephus's Contra Apion makes no mention of Democritus. He's probably has nothing to do with it, and "Maxims" also has nothing to do with it; it is a false identification by inaccuracy of David Patterson who quote Joshua Trachtenberg's book, The Devil and the Jews: The Medieval Conception of the Jew and Its Relation to Modern Antisemitism, p. 126, who take as reference the work of Theodore Reinach: Textes d'auteurs grecs et romains relatifs au judaïsme. The Jewish Encyclopedia has this to say:Similar in import is the following statement of a certain Democritus, which the Greek lexicographer Suidas (tenth century) has preserved: "Every seven years the Jews catch a stranger, whom they offer as a sacrifice, killing him by tearing his flesh into shreds" (0151τι κατὰ έπταετίαν ξένων άγρεόοντες προσέφερον καί κατὰ λεπτὰ τὰς σάρκας διέξαινον καί οὓτως ἀνῄρουν). Nothing further is known of Democritus. Perhaps he drew his information from Apion's book.--Gustavo Rubén (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC) My edition was reversed, however I want to specify: David Patterson's book is inaccurate also his source Trachtenberg. They attributed the quote to Democritus, the pre-Socratic philosopher of the 5th Century, and his lost book Maxims. This is incorrect. The quote is actually some later character also named Democritus, in a lost book called "On the Jews." We only know about this attribution because the 10th century Suda refers to it. The same story of human sacrifice appears in Josephus, Contra Apion, Book Two, but that book makes no reference to either of the Democrituses. Josephus is apparently quoting Apion, who may be quoting Democritus "the historian," but if so, it isn't cited by Apion or Josephus. So, no "blood libel" was known to exist to pre-Socratic Greek philosophers. The "blood libel" legend can be definitively traced only to the First Century CE via Apion and Josephus, who may be drawing on a slightly earlier Greek writer named Democritus. The Jewish Encyclopaedia points out: "In the polemic of Josephus against the Alexandrian grammarian Apion ... the latter is charged with having accused the Jews of annually fattening a Greek in the Temple, killing him, offering his body as a sacrifice, eating of his internal organs, and swearing an oath of enmity against all Greeks... Similar in import is the following statement of a certain Democritus, which the Greek lexicographer Suidas (tenth century) has preserved: "Every seven years the Jews catch a stranger, whom they offer as a sacrifice, killing him by tearing his flesh into shreds" (0151τι κατὰ έπταετίαν ξένων άγρεόοντες προσέφερον καί κατὰ λεπτὰ τὰς σάρκας διέξαινον καί οὓτως ἀνῄρουν). Nothing further is known of Democritus. Perhaps he drew his information from Apion's book."--Gustavo Rubén (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Gustavo Rubén raises a good point. Patterson describes Democritus as "the first anti-Semite to invoke a blood libel", but he is contradicted by Richard Gottheil, Hermann L. Strack, and Joseph Jacobs, who wrote that it was a different Democritus, whose work is lost and is only known because it was cited by tenth-century lexicographer Suidas. They suggest Democritus may have drawn on Apion. While we can't be expected to judge who Democritus was, we should at a minimum note that the sources disagree on this point. Unless somebody knows whether scholarship has resolved this question. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No scholar, as far as I know except Reinach, has dealt with the subject of which Democritus it is. However, the text in question does not appear in any of the works preserved by the philosopher of Abdera. Parterson quotes the book Maxims from Democritus, edited by Barnes, but in this book the text "every seven years ... etc." never appears. Paterson also gives as reference the book of Joshua Trachtenberg, "The Devil and the Jews" with the same unprovable source. On the other hand, the text quoted in the article does appear in Suda : τι κατὰ έπταετίαν ξένων άγρεόοντες προσέφερον καί κατὰ λεπτὰ τὰς σάρκας διέξαινον καί οὓτως ἀνῄρουν (Damocritus) (Damocrite in Reinach). It is evident that the Jewish Encyclopedia is right and Paterson is wrong.

I apologize for doing research, but both scholars did not do their homework.--Gustavo Rubén (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Good work! Shame on these scholars. Zezen (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the proper form of this name is Damocritus (Damokritos, transliterated without Latinization). This is the form found in Suda. I am not sure where some of these people are getting Democritus; presumably through confusion with the philosopher (who is unrelated to this libel, as has been pointed out). It seems the misspelling in the Jewish Encyclopedia (look up Damocritus on Google Books if you want confirmation that that is indeed the correct spelling) is fueling the proliferation of this misspelling, given its easy online availability. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Missing link[edit]

I am missing a See Also link to faiths that really drank human blood during their practices.

Here is a sample Christian one from 1930s in Poland

https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muraszkowcy#

See the photos here: http://retropress.pl/tajny-detektyw/nowy-rasputin/

-》 What is an EN WP article about such real cases of ritual cannibalism?

E.g. List of incidents of cannibalism is not the one have on mind here . Zezen (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

I was reading about this and noticed that nowhere in the article are there any sources or evidence saying that blood libel is a myth? For example in the article of "Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln", nowhere is there a source or any evidence that suggests that jews would have been falsely accused.

On the other hand we have a substansial mouantian of written and verbal sources, from different countries and time periods, who indipendentlly tells the same story, would not that talk in favor of blood libel actually having merit and is not a myth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.66.72 (talk • contribs)

On the unlikely chance that you're not trolling, have you read all 111 references? Acroterion (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

He is, Acroterion, bordering on griefing. Do not feed the troll :). Zezen (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Is human flesh kosher?[edit]

The page states that "Furthermore, the consumption of human flesh would violate kashrut." I can find several sources saying that Rabbis actually disagree over whether or not human flesh is technically kosher, easy to find if you google "is human flesh kosher". The kashrut is just a set of dietary laws: It is important to note that the consumption of human flesh can be forbidden for other reasons than violating the kashrut. This is an important distinction because the significance and the possible ritual remedies for eating pork and eating human flesh might not be the same.

Futhermore, the article in makes multiple scriptual citations concerning animals with the implication that humans are also to be considered animals. This is completely incorrect. Scholars in all Abrahamic religions agree that the word used in scripture does not refer to humans but only to non-human animals, "beasts". Statements like "blood from sacrificed animals may only be placed on the altar of the Great Temple in Jerusalem" are irrelevant since humans are not considered animals in this context, and human sacrifice is explicitly forbidden either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.35.178.66 (talk • contribs)

Do you have any reliable sources on whether or human sources are kosher? Jayjg (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blood_libel&oldid=926759377"