The Crucifixion at Inmestar (5th-Century) and Its Role in Antisemitic Propaganda

Editor’s note: For more on Streicher, see Emmanuel Bloch and Zvi Ron, “Purimfest 1946: The Nuremberg Trials and the Ten Sons of Haman,” TheTorah (2022).

Julius Streicher, “Zusammenstellung der jüdischen Ritualmorde aus der Zeit vor Christus bis 1932,” Der Stürmer, Mai 1934, p. 9 (https://archive[dot]org/details/DerStuermerRitualmord Nummer).

Die in der Zeit vor Christus bis heute schriftlich überlieferten Ritualmorde sind:

169 v. Chr. König Antiochus Epiphanes von Surien findet bei der Blüderung des Tempels zu Jerusalem in einem verborgernen Gemach einem Greichen auf einem Bette, der ihn um Rettung anfleht. Er sei in den Tempel gelodt und nicht mehr herausglaffen worden. Auf dringendes Bitten hätten ihm die Aufwärter gesagt, ein geheimes Gesetz gebiete den Juden, jührlich zu einer gewissen Zeit einen Menschen zu opfern. Sie suchten daher einem Fremden in ihre Gewalt zu bekommen. Sie mästeten diesen, führten ihn dann in einen Wald, opferten ihn, aszen etwas von seinem Fleische, tränken von seinem Blut und würfen den übrigen Körper in eine Grube. (Josephus, jüdischer Geschictsschreiber, contra Apionem.)

A number of variations for the toponym appear. Socrates’ report names the town Immonmestar. It is commonly rendered as Inmestar. The spelling Imnestar also appears in Heinrich Graetz’s discussion of the incident; see Geschichte der Juden, vol. 4, vom Untergang des jüdischen Staates bis zum Abschluss des Talmud (Leipzig, 1900; orig. pub. 1853]), 392–393. For an English translation, see Graetz, History of the Jews, vol. 2, trans. Bella Löwy (Philadelphia, 1891), 621.

The German text reads:

418 n. Chr. Baronius meldet die Kreuzigung eines Knaben durch Juden in Imm, zwischen Aleppo und Antiochia.

419 n. Chr. In dem surischen Orte Imnestar zwischen Chalcis und Antiochia heften die Juden an einem Festtage einem christlichen Knaben ans Kreuz und geiszeln ihn zu Tode. (Socrat.)

425 n. Baronius meldet die Kreuzigung eines Knaben.

In other words, even Streicher’s first report of a crucifixion in 418 at “‘Imm between Aleppo and Antioch” misrepresents Baronio’s dating of Socrates’s report about Inmestar (clearly identified as lying between Chalcis and Antioch) to 415 (in Annales Ecclesiastici [Venice, 1708; orig. pub. 1601], vol. 5, 320–321), and though the third crucifixion in 425 at an unknown location is credited to Barionio, it does not appear in Baronio’s history.

See my “Crucifictions and Pizza Parlors: Fragments of Polemic from Socrates of Constantinople’s Ecclesiastical History,” Acta Classica Supplementum XI (2021): 285–303 (at 299).

See my more extensive study of the relationship between Socrates’s account at Inmestar and later collections of blood libel accusations in “Crucifictions and Pizza Parlors.” Blood libel has received much attention. While some of these studies have noted the inclusion of Socrates of Constantinople’s account of events at Inmestar/Immonmestar, they have been interested in how Socrates’s account fits into blood libel literature and not how it functions within its original literary context. Early treatments include Daniel Chwolson (Khvol’son), Die Blutanklage und sonstige mittelalterliche Beschuldigungen der Juden: Eine historische Untersuchung nach den Quellen (Frankfurt am Mein: J. Kauffmann Verlag, 1901); Herman Strack, The Jew and Human Sacrifice (Human Blood and Jewish Ritual), trans. Henry Blanchamp (London: Cope and Fenwick, 1909); and Cecil Roth, ed., The Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew: The Report by Cardinal Lorenzo Ganganelli (Pope Clement XIV) (London: Woburn, 1934). More recently, see R. Po-Chia Hsia, The Myth of Ritual Murder: Jews and Magic in Reformation Germany (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988); Gavin I. Langmuir, Toward a Definition of Antisemitism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 263–298; Elliott Horowitz, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006); Hannah R. Johnson, Blood Libel: The Ritual Murder Accusation at the Limit of Jewish History (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2012); Krystyna Stebnicka, “The Incident at Inmestar: Jews at the Beginning of the Fifth Century,” Scripta Judaica Cracoviensa 12 (2014): 47–57; and Magda Teter, Blood Libel: On the Trail of an Antisemitic Myth (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2020).

Hellmut Schramm, “Ritual Murder in Kiev,” in Der Jüdische Ritualmord: Eine historische Untersuchung (Berlin: Theodor Fritsch Verlag, 1943), 14 (as archived at archive[dot]org/details/Schramm-Hellmut-Der-Juedische-Ritualmord-Eine-Historische-Untersuchung). Schramm’s article also includes selections from Johann Andreas Eisenmenger’s enumeration of alleged murders committed by Jews (Das entdeckte Judenthum [Berlin: 1711]).

A search with the misspelled version of the toponym readily yields results.

A narrower date of 439–440 may be likely; see discussion in Peter Van Nuffelen Un héritage de pax et de piété: Étude our les histoires ecclésiastiques de Socrate et de Sozomène (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 10–14.

This uneven rhythm becomes particularly apparent in the surviving manuscripts—which are re-presented in print editions—through the visual fragmentation of the text into chapters with titles and subtitles. To be sure, this is certainly not a feature unique to Socrates. We see the same process play out in many Greek texts as they are copied into the Byzantine period.

My approach here depends on considering the literary aspects of late antique historiography and how the events, documents, biographies, and ethnographic information chosen for inclusion and woven together within these productions form an intentional narrative. In that context, the inclusion of a short notice, particularly one alleging such “strange acts,” must be more than the report of an historical incident (something impossible to confirm in this case) and must support some narrative agenda.

See Socrates, Eccl. Hist. 7.15.7 and 7.17.1. The incident is most often dated to 415, but occasionally the dates of 418 and 419 are offered. The various dates cited in the histories may have contributed to the duplication of the incident by Streicher and in other similar catalogues.

Ὀλίγον δὲ μετὰ τόνδε τὸν χρόνον Ἰουδαῖοι πάλιν ἄτοπα κατὰ Χριστιανῶν πράξαντες δίκην δεδώκασιν. Ἐν Ἰμμονμεστάρ, οὕτω καλουμένῳ τόπῳ, ὃς κεῖται μεταξὺ Χαλκίδος καὶ Ἀντιοχείας τῆς ἐν Συρίᾳ, Ἰουδαῖοι συνήθως ἑαυτοῖς παίγνια ἐπετέλουν τινά. My work relies on Günther Christian Hansen’s critical edition, Sokrates Kirchengeschichte, GSC n.f. 1 (Berlin: DeGruyter, 1995). Translations are from Rebecca Stephens Falcasantos, Jeremy Schott, and David Maldonado Rivera, trans., A New Translation of Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History (forthcoming from University of California Press).

Καὶ πολλὰ ἐν τῷ παίζειν ἄλογα ποιοῦντες, ὑπὸ μέθης ἐξαχθέντες Χριστιανούς τε καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν Χριστὸν ἐν τοῖς παιγνίοις διέσυρον· γελῶντές τε τὸν σταυρὸν καὶ τοὺς ἐπηλπικότας ἐπὶ τῷ ἐσταυρωμένῳ καὶ τοιοῦτόν τι ἐπενόησαν. Παιδίον Χριστιανὸν συλλαβόμενοι, σταυρῷ προσδήσαντες ἀπεκρέμασαν, καὶ πρῶτον μὲν καταγελῶντες καὶ χλευάζοντες διετέλουν, μετ’ οὐ πολὺ δὲ καὶ τῶν φρενῶν ἐκστάντες τὸ παιδίον ᾐκίσαντο, ὥστε καὶ ἀνελεῖν.

First, the most proximate date Socrates provides is the murder of the woman Neoplatonist philosopher Hypatia by Christians in Alexandria during the pre-Easter fast (that is, Lent) in March, 415 C.E. If the events at Immonmestar occurred “a short time later,” Socrates would seem to point to Purim. The first to make this connection was Jacques Basnage, L’histoire et la religion des Juifs depuis Jésus-Christ jusqu’à present (The Hague, 1716), 6.16.1 (discussed further, below). A similar argument is followed by the Jewish exegete and historian Heinrich Graetz (Geschichte der Juden, 392–393). For a survey of scholarship connecting the incident to Purim, see Horowitz, Reckless Rites, 215–217; and Stebnicka, “The Incident at Inmestar,” 48.

Editor’s note: See A. J. Berkovitz, “Was Haman Hanged, Impaled or Crucified?” TheTorah (2021).

Simon Dubnow, History of the Jews: From the Roman Empire to the Early Medieval Period, vol. 2, trans. Moshe Spiegel from the Russian 4^th rev. ed. (South Brunswick, NJ: Thomas Yoseloff, 1968), 191. Whether Socrates himself was even aware of the Purim festival and its contemporary observances cannot be determined. For more on Christian awareness of Purim in the fourth and fifth centuries, see Stebnicka, “The Incident at Inmestar,” 52–53.

Ἐπὶ τούτῳ χαλεπὴ μὲν συμπληγὰς μεταξὺ αὐτῶν τε καὶ Χριστιανῶν ἐγίνετο· γνώριμον δὲ τοῦτο τοῖς κρατοῦσιν καταστάν, ἐπεστάλη τοῖς κατὰ τὴν ἐπαρχίαν ἄρχουσιν ἀναζητῆσαι τοὺς αἰτίους <τοῦ ἔργου> καὶ τιμωρήσασθαι. Καὶ οὕτως οἱ ἐκεῖ Ἰουδαῖοι δίκην ἔδοσαν ὧν παίζοντες ἐκακούργησαν.

Cassiodorus, Tripartite History 11.13; Theodorus Lector, Epitome 312; and Michael the Syrian, Chronicle 8.2.

While Socrates’ account of the Alexandrian riots of 415 (7.13–15) depicts the city’s pugnacious bishop, Cyril, as a tyrant who has a heavy hand in instigating the conflict with Alexandria’s Jews, he does not lay all the blame at Cyril’s feet. The Jews are presented as an unruly bunch who are always ready for an excuse to attack Christians (7.14.5, 8).

It is unclear how the scam was to have worked. Perhaps it involved the fact that the community purchased a white garment for the baptizand, since pure white was an expense fabric to produce?

In an earlier excursus on the variety of Christian customs, including regarding the date of Pascha (5.21–22), Socrates contrasts having an appropriate respect for local custom with inappropriate insistence on asserting that such customs are law. Those who do the latter, Socrates claims, Judaize (5.22.3), and they are subject to the same curse as the Jews because they follow Jewish ritual observances (5.22.79–80). That threat is realized in the punishments experienced by Jews and Christians in Book 7.

See, for example, Susanna Drake, Slandering the Jews: Sexuality and Difference in Early Christian Texts (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013). Even the term paganus (Latin for “country-dweller”—functionally akin to “redneck” or “hick” in U.S. English) is the result of negative stereotyping of those who worshipped the traditional Mediterranean gods in antiquity. See Doulgas Boin, “Hellenistc ‘Judaism’ and the Social Origins of the ‘Pagan-Christian’ Debate,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 22, no. 2 (Summer 2014): 167–196.

Robert Estienne, ed., Ekklēsiastikēs historias (Paris, 1544; rev. Geneva, 1612).

It is first cited by Baronio (1601), followed by Johannes Wagenseil (1693), Sigismund Hosmann (1699), Jacques Basnage (1706–1707), Johann Andreas Eisenmenger (1711), and Johan Schudt (1714). For a survey with references, see Horowitz, Reckless Rites, 216–217.

The history was translated into English in 1708. The definitive edition is Jacques Basnage, Histoire et la religion des Juifs depuis Jésus-Christ jusqu’à présent (The Hague, 1716). Basnage’s discussion of Inmestar appears at 8.1–2 (v. 8, pp.192–196). See also the English translation: The History of the Jews from Jesus Christ to the Present Time, trans. Thomas Taylor (London, 1708), at 6.15.1–2 (pp. 550–551). For a discussion of Basnage’s presentation of Jewish History, see David H. Price, “‘The Sincerity of their Historians’”: Jacques Basnage and the Reception of Jewish History,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 110, no. 2 (Spring 2020): 290–312.

“Réprimer ces Excès, & de nourrir la Tranquillité publique en punissant un Zêle cruel.” See Basnage, Histoire et la religion des Juifs 8.3 (v. 8, p. 194); trans. Taylor, 6.15.3 (p. 551), with modifications.

Eisenmenger, Das entdekte Judenthum, 220.

The text was eventually published in 1741. On the suppression, see Mitchell B. Merback, “Cleansing the Temple: The Munich Gruftkirche as Converted Synagogue” in Beyond the Yellow Badge: Anti-Judaism and Antisemitism in Medieval and Early Modern Visual Culture, ed. Mitchell B. Merback (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 341–342.

‘Father Thomas,’ Times (London), May 9, 1840.

See Horowitz, Reckless Rites, 218–221.

Richard Burton, The Jew, the Gypsy, and El Islam, ed. W. H. Wilkins (Chicago: Herbert S. Stone & Company, 1898), 117, 120–129. The essay was published posthumously.