Over the last several posts, we have considered two principles questions or themes. The first was whether an individual can be Hispanic and Jewish. The second and third posts took us on a detour of sorts considering the matter of Jewish identity at least perhaps in its strictest form. We considered how Halakhah, i.e., Jewish law defines Jewish identity. I asserted that there are problems with using this definition at least on its own.  This is in part because it raises many issues. Which movement or which Judaism determines the criteria for “true” Jewish identity? How many degrees of removal from the source of Jewishness can one be from for Jewishness to remain valid of intact? Most people nowadays think they know what the criteria is. But it is not so simple and the problem that people have is often based on their ignorance of history.  As I often tell friends, we often cannot even agree on which kosher symbol is acceptable.

I now begin to orient our discussion towards once facet of Jewish identity. One of the most prolific publishers of Jewish books in the last thirty years came out with a book about a Spanish prince who was a “Marrano”. Perhaps the publisher should be applauded. After all, to write about such a topic for an audience that is likely detached from this aspect of Jewish history might be considered admirable. The problem is that the choice of words exposes the very disconnect with the term and experience of Sephardic Jewry.

The term Marrano has often been used to describe Conversos who adopted Christianity under duress yet continued, in some form, to maintain Jewish practices. The precise origins of the term, however, remain disputed. What is clear today is that the word carries a deeply pejorative connotation. Despite this, it continues to appear in Jewish discourse, often without any evident justification. I find the persistence of this usage troubling, particularly when it is employed by Jewish religious scholars and rabbis who might be expected to be attentive to the historical and moral implications of the language they choose. When the term is used and the descendants of these individuals are often questioned as to the authenticity of their past is there really any surprise? Words mean things and labeling someone with an offensive name has real consequences. The very fact that academics do not use this term and that Jewish sources from the period do not use the term Marrano should be telling.

The seventeenth-century Spanish lexicon of Sebastián de Covarrubias, published in 1611, defines the term Marrano as “the recent convert to Christianity, of whom we have a despicable opinion for having feigned his conversion.”  Who is the “we” in this context? Its is Old Christians, i.e., those individuals who were not descended from Jews or Muslims. That should be a critical clue in who was using the term.  A similarly derogatory understanding appears in the work of Diego Velázquez, who wrote that “we Spaniards customarily call marranos those who descend from Jews and, though baptized, are fictitious Christians.” Both statements reflect the suspicion directed toward Jewish converts and their descendants in early modern Spain. In the present day, the Royal Spanish Academy notes in its Diccionario de la Lengua Española that the term Marrano may derive from the Arabic word muḥarram, meaning “forbidden” or “anathematized.” Whatever the origin, the Jewish community was not using this term and its continued existence in certain circles is offensive and problematic. Those who use this term are in essence adopting the derogatory classification of Old Christians

In recent years, scholars have generally preferred the terms Conversos/Conversas and New Christians for broad historical reference, while reserving Crypto-Jews for those Conversos who continued to maintain loyalty to Judaism in secret.  I generally choose to employ the term Converso as a general rule, as I believe it most accurately reflects the historical evidence and avoids the problematic connotations associated with other terminology. But I also use the Hebrew term bnei anusim, i.e., descendants or children of forced converts, to discuss individuals in our era who are the descendants of forced converts.  Again, words mean things and the best way to address the question of Jewish identity is to abandon the offensive language of those who had no love for Jews.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)