Jewish Writings and Censorship

Censorship is described as the deliberate limitation or suppression of information transmission in speech or public communication, particularly when authority objects or when it is deemed damaging or sensitive. Censorship is derived from the Latin word “”censere,“” which meaning “”to inspect, check, or evaluate.“ Censors were frequently chosen as authorities in the Roman empire to adjudicate on morals in public situations. In addition, they appraised the property to estimate its worth. Censorship, therefore, originated in that era though no print media existed at the time. Instead, censorship was exercised in the form of restrictions on the utterances made in public. An example of a law promoting censorship in the Roman empire was the ”Law of the Twelve Tables“ which prescribed execution for its violation by committing the offense of libel. While Greek had some freedom in expression and philosophy, censorship was gradually introduced. The century-old practice is exemplified in the case of Socrates who in the refusal of censorship upon his philosophies was sentenced to death by being compelled to drink poison. (Wilke, 2013)

Censorship often succeeds where there is an imposition of political, moral, religious or other values on people. (ACLU, n.d.) Censorship may, therefore, be propagated by governments, private groups or other authorities. Forms of communication that may be restricted in such fashion include books, speech, music, print media, broadcast media, films and other forms of expressive art.

Over the ages, any discussion on censorship is often accompanied by an equally engaging debate on the freedom of expression and in recent history the freedom of the press. The freedom of speech gained much advocacy following incidents and developments that shaped the period during and around the time of the World War II. Upon the end of the war, the United Nations recognized the major role played by propaganda machinery in Nazi Germany that facilitated the commission of atrocities by its leader Adolf Hitler. During the war, Hitler had exploited censorship and managed to manipulate the opinion of the public mainly through the dissemination of falsified information to support his inhumane causes.

In full realization of the possible effects of unregulated censorship, the post-war United Nations sought to remedy the situation. The ”United Nations Charter“ of the day was amended to sufficiently deal with the revealed deficiencies. Following the initiative, the ”Universal Declaration of Human Rights“ came into existence. The declaration provided in articles 18 and 19 for the freedom of thought as well as the right to receive ideas and information via any media without undue restriction. (Radzikowski, 2011)

Under that declaration and the expansion of the space for freedom of speech, the press has since gained prominence in the relay of information in the society. The media is viewed as the means by which members of the public can receive information regarding government affairs and other public matters objectively. The press’s perceived objectivity is therefore relied upon as it is tasked with not only communicating the available information but also in breaking down news that may have some complexity thereby enabling the ordinary citizenry to comprehend. Following receipt of such information, members of the public are then able to make informed decisions with little or no bias. (Radzikowski, 2011) Given the critical role of the press in the society, censorship whenever introduced often arouses conflict with discussions centered around the possible erosion of gains made in the struggle for the freedom of the media.

Self-censorship

Censorship can further be viewed in two perspectives; as either self-censorship or external censorship. To begin with, Self-censorship is whereby the creator or producer of specific information, for example, a book, or publication, hold back from sharing or releasing it. However, it is important to note that in self-censorship the originator of the information withholds it out of his volition without pressure or undue influence from some authority. He may withhold such information for various reasons such as considerations of the sensitivity of the information and its likely negative impact on others. The practice of self-censorship is therefore encouraged where it is done for a greater good. (Radzikowski, 2011) An example of where self-censorship would be appropriate is in the most recent case of the WikiLeaks cable releases.

Following the emergence of Wikileaks, a website that publishes cables containing secret information and data regarding governments, their secrets, and activities, the debate about freedom of press and self-censorship took center stage. In publishing and releasing the information, Edward Snowden, the founder of Wikileaks alongside his co-workers claimed to advocate for and promote honesty in the government.

In the beginning, several high-profile and reputable media outlets worked with Wikileaks in an arrangement where they released and published information from the cables. However, they were cautious to do so selectively, aiming to avoid unnecessary and careless disclosure of information and data that could endanger lives of innocent people. They were also considerate not to reveal national secrets or information that could compromise national security and wellbeing.

With time, however, the situation changed following WikiLeaks’ actions that were seen to exceed the boundaries within which the freedom of the press and speech as a whole ought to operate. To begin with, they indiscriminately released cables through the internet without any form of self-censorship or restriction. (Radzikowski, 2011)As a result, they possibly put many of the subjects lives in danger, many of whom had no significant roles in government affairs yet their mention in the cables could have motivated their being harmed depending on where they hailed from in addition to the irreparable damage to their careers and reputation.

Secondly, the manner in which WikiLeaks acted violated principles and ethics of journalism. The violation was particularly in regard to the code of ethics by the ”Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA)” the third code which requires the attribution of information to the source from whom it was obtained and if requested provision of anonymity upon confirmation of the intentions of the source. Besides the lack of the establishment of an understanding between the originators of the cables and the ones who released them, the subjects in the cables were also not given a chance to have their statements regarding the matter considered. (Radzikowski, 2011)Since the cables had been recorded in secret and were meant for consumption in diplomatic circles only, there ought to have been some self-censorship for damage control.

Following Wikileaks’ indiscriminate actions and violations of statutes of media and journalism, many of the media houses that had earlier collaborated with them decided to distance themselves from WikiLeaks. Consequently, the site suffered a major setback as it lost credibility. The action further compounded the difficulty of forging new partnerships due to their perceived recklessness and reputation for lack of self-censorship. (Radzikowski, 2011)

In line with lessons drawn from the WikiLeaks case study, it is worth noting that custodians of sensitive information ought to carefully consider the possible impact and ramifications of its release. If they determine that conveying such information could significantly compromise relevant and crucial aspects such security and stability, they should consider self-censorship until such a time when it is conducive, or the damage is manageable.

External censorship

On the other hand, external censorship is a practice whereby another authority besides the producers of the information imposes a limitation on the dissemination of information or blocks it. The organizations that exercise this form of censorship may include mainly the government and some pressure groups. The rationale often given for such restriction includes issues such as security and stability of the country, the need to avoid damage to reputations of innocent citizens and morality. An illustrative case of necessary external censorship is the post-world war II restriction by the state of the publication of George Orwell’s book, ”Animal Farm.” (Radzikowski, 2011)

George Orwell wrote his book after the World War II. The book’s themes reflected events that shaped the Stalin era, the Soviet Union leader of whom Orwell was critical. His criticism of the Stalinism was well known especially wing to his previous bad experience with the Soviet Union authorities. Orwell, who was a vocal supporter of the freedom of speech as well as the freedom of the press. Informed by his experiences in the civil war in Spain, he had criticized the Soviet Union’s ideologies and practices of communism terming then counter-revolutionary. He faulted the communists for unwarranted arrests of people and censorship of information besides intimidation by the police. As a result, he was viewed as being hostile to the Stalin-led administration. (Radzikowski, 2011)With that fact in mind alongside the knowledge of the existing geopolitical environment, some of the publishers that Orwell approached to publish his book were cautious to seek advice from the ministry of information before publishing his book.

As such, the leadership in England advised against the publishing of Orwell’s book in a bid to avoid further damage to the already fragile relationship with the Soviet Union considering the precarious position that Europe was in after the war. The administration, therefore, exercised external censorship by exerting its influence on the publishers, to have the publishing of the book stopped or delayed until such a time when the frosty relations with the Soviet Union had improved.

The step by the government irked Orwell alongside other proponents of the freedom of speech and the press. It raised concern about the violation of Orwell’s right to air his opinion in a free manner within the democratic space available. However, the government’s interference was justifiable considering the prevailing conditions. Allowing Orwell to exercise his right by having his contentious book published would have caused unnecessary tensions at a time when the rebuilding of Europe post-war was even more crucial. For it to be successful, the region needed to minimize friction and forge alliances that would strengthen the war-weakened region. (Radzikowski, 2011) The government, therefore, acted according to Utilitarian principles that encourage actions that promote the overall good of the majority of people. (Yasuo, 2008) External censorship is thus seen to be necessary and important at times depending on the circumstance and situation at hand.

History and Background

The begin of censorship is often traced back to religious leadership since the first materials in print were mostly religious. The restriction was therefore adopted as the leaders sought to ensure that there was consistency in the doctrines presented in the published works. In addition to the doctrinal concerns however, censorship was also informed by educational and moral considerations that the church aimed to ensure were aligned to its teachings and guidelines. Any violation of the censorship rules and guidelines would, therefore, result in severe religious penalties. (Wilke, 2013)

One of the most common sentences meted upon those who printed or circulated censored material was excommunication. The punishment entailed discontinuation of the culpable individual’s membership from the religion and at times complete banishment from the community. One of the offenses that resulted in excommunication was printing of material that had been proscribed. Proscription is a term and practice that was derived from the Hebrew tradition of “Herem.” Herem was a practice whereby the community was required to sever all connections with an offender, thereby ceasing to conduct any business with them or interacting in social circles. The term would later evolve to mean excommunication. Various specific offenses would result in the punishment, heresy being chief among them. (Ratzabi, n.d.) The Christian church adopted the practice and often excommunicated members whom it found guilty of heresy though the charge was commonly used to cover all forms of disobedience to the church. Excommunication was, therefore, a central enabler of censorship in that period.

The development of censorship as we know it today evolved through three stages. First was the sole supervisory role of the church on printing as outlined above which was followed by the adoption of the practice by secular authorities and leadership. Eventually, though, censorship was chiefly propagated by the secular institutions as secular rule spread across the world. (Wilke, 2013) The period in history that is recognized as the transition period from religious to secular censorship was the first half of the sixteenth century, during Emperor Charles the Fifth’s reign. The period witnessed pronounced practices of censorship mainly due to the emergence of the reformation movement which had resulted in the printing and publishing of vast amounts of material most of which was critical of the Catholic church then. The secular authorities often stepped in to suppress the publication of such pamphlets and texts primarily due influence from the Roman Catholic church which still wielded immense political power at the time. Besides that, the authorities often got concerned due to the tension that publication and readership of the pro-reformation material generated.

Besides the secular authorities advancing policies with significant religious influence, the church continued to institute its measures of censorship. The church’s increased censorship practice was mainly a counter-reformation measure as it reached its peak during the Reformation period with the church even decentralizing its censorship policy enabling local leaders of the church to decide and enforce censorship of objectionable material within their localities. Censorship of the Jewish writings and other forms of literature as well emerged in this era.

The beginning of the censorship of the Jewish writings, which was propagated by the Catholic church is often traced to the church’s campaign against rabbinic teachings. The campaign was characterized by burnings of the Talmud in the mid-16th century as well as prohibiting the consumption of any other literary works based on the publication. The campaign would later evolve into church policy with the institutionalization of censorship which mainly targeted Jewish literature. Coming at the height of the rise of printing and the church’s counter-reformation struggle, the policy, was heralded by the publication of the ”Indices Librorum Prohibitorum.“ The publication contained a list of books and other works that the church had declared unacceptable and banned completely. In addition to that, the banning was accompanied by the practice of expunging sections of existing books in order to make them acceptable as well as regulation on the printing of new literary material. The restriction of the Hebrew writings is seen to have taken the cue from the church’s greater desire to restrict the existence of the Jews and their exclusion from the larger society of Christians as communicated by the church through Pope Paul the fourth’s ”Bull Cum Nimis Absurdim“ of 1555. (Krakotzkin, 2005) This paper, therefore, analyzes the practice of censorship by evaluating the suppression of Jewish literature as a case study.

The Talmud, a record of discussions and deliberations between Jewish wise men and scholars from the areas around Baghdad, developed to become a prized possession of the Jewish people. They often took it with them wherever they went and relied upon it for guidance on a wide variety of issues including legal and religious matters. The Talmud itself had developed after the destruction of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, following which leaders resulted in discussions of laws and principles governing the Jewish religion since the central system of practices built around the temple was no longer possible. (Freedman, 2014) The Talmud, therefore, served to preserve the religion and culture of the Jewish people through the oral law which was later recorded constituting the Talmud document.

Since the Talmud was a crucial piece of the Jewish literature, cultural and religious practice, its destruction signified a significant step in the effort to limit and suppress the entire Jewish literature. The Talmud was thus burned in public in 1553 in Rome following a decree. The reasons given for its burning are sometimes varied, but there is one that has been widely presented over the years. Historians argue that the order followed an inquisition on a dispute between two publishers of the document who fell out. They reportedly engaged apostates to plead their cases during the interrogation, but the apostates exceeded their mandates and launched attacks on the Talmud, claiming it contained blasphemies against the Christian faith. The inquisition, therefore, issued the decree for its destruction which would represent the destruction of the blasphemies included in it. The order was enforced later following the issuance of the bull by Julius III to ensure its enforcement. Following the public destruction of the capital, other cities followed suit and began confiscating and burning the document. (Stow, 1972) The act, therefore, marked the beginning of the censorship of Jewish writings and other literature.

While the Catholic church propagated the censorship of the Talmud and other similar writings under the claim of the writings errors, it was not entirely sincere was demonstrated by subsequent developments. Following the surge of the reform movement, the reformists agitated for the Lutheran principle of using the Bible only as the basis of religious arguments and practices. The principle referred to as ”sola scriptura” contradicted the church’s position which relied on church tradition. There was therefore protracted disagreement especially regarding the authority of the fathers in the church as well as the patristic tradition which the church leadership emphasized. While facing this opposition, the church had campaigned against the Talmud, arguing that it lacked scriptural backing. (Krakotzkin, 2005)

The church, therefore, had a hard time promoting the prohibition of the Talmud on the one hand while on the other hand facing sharp criticism from the reformers using the same argument. As a result, the church leadership softened its stand regarding the Hebrew writings in the realization that continued wholesome condemnation of the literature would cause the significant church difficulties in warding off criticism from the reformers. Therefore, it is evident that in this case the censorship of Jewish literature by the Catholic church was adjusted to suit its historical context and problems at the time. (Krakotzkin, 2005) The same phenomenon is often witnessed even in the current world’s censorship practices where authorities though claiming the greater good as the basis for censoring material, are usually willing to relent to protect self-interests.

Analysis: Effects of censorship on Jewish writings.

Censorship had a vast effect on Jewish writing and readership. The negative impact can be demonstrated by the effecting of a ban on Jewish writings in modern Modena. The ban was instituted following the adoption of Clement the eighth’s Index of Prohibited Books in which many Jewish writings were included dealing a great blow to their authorship and circulation contrary to their prior relatively gradual expansion. (Francensconi, 2012)

Modena, the Duchy of Este’s large and powerful city, had many Jews among the several other groups of people. The Jews were particularly prosperous and influential in the city as they thrived in commerce through activities such as banking, weaving, and trade. As a result, they had also established alliances with the ruling class in the city. The community thrived in their communal lives and culture including expanding creation and consumption of their writings, mostly on religious matters.

However, the Catholic church considered Modena chief among the heretical centers mainly due to its freely circulating reading material, which was mostly heterodox. There was considerable passion in the city for reading and discussing material that was considered dangerous and heretic with the town being a major center for the reformation movement in the late sixteenth century. (Francensconi, 2012) There was free interaction with the discussion of forbidden topics that contravened the church’s positions and declarations. In the same manner, the Jews freely read and promoted material such as the Talmud, written by controversial Jewish scholars and Rabbis.

The city was however targeted by the church’s counter-reformation policies which aimed to punish and eliminate heresy. As a result, besides the banning of the Talmud, the Jews’ property ownership rights and economic ventures were limited. The ruling Este family was also significantly weakened, and the Jews consequently lost their influence, and many of them ended up in the ghettos created by Papal decree. (Francensconi, 2012)

The decline of the Jews’ previously privileged position in Modena saw the significant concurrent limitation of Jewish writings and reading. The decline in the Hebrew writings was therefore largely attributed to the ban which the church propagated as a way of shielding itself from what its leaders considered blasphemies from the Jews which they claimed were a contamination to the Christian faith. Censorship was therefore initiated on upon that rational, and the Jewish Talmud alongside other writings were prohibited. Sections of other writings were also expunged, further limiting and altering the originality of the writings and compromising their authenticity. (Francensconi, 2012)

Besides the negative effect on the Jewish literature and culture, censorship of the writings also ultimately elicited some positive effect. The control of printing and publication of Jewish literature provided a basis for the acceptance and adoption of various Hebrew writings into the larger collection of Christian writings. With time the interest of Christian scholars in Jewish literature and culture grew tremendously. The scholars explored Hebrew writings since they recognized their essence as they sought to understand scripture and subsequently get confirmation of the Christian faith. The efforts resulted in Hebraism which was further strengthened by the establishment in of Hebraist studies in the Universities. As Hebraism spread across Christianity, the church’s censorship helped to control the process as it aimed to alleviate the infiltration of heresy into the church but at the same time it gave space for the spread of the influence of Jewish writings and promoted their reading. Hebraism, therefore, eventually facilitated the establishment of a cultural space in which both Christians and Jews coexisted in accommodation of each other based on the shared cultural and religious principles and practices. (Krakotzkin, 2005) Censorship therefore positively impacted the Jewish practices to a significant degree.

Besides the acceptance of the writings, some practices of the Jews were also incorporated into the church, becoming part of Christian tradition. The authorized recognition of Jewish literary works albeit after some modifications also gave legitimacy to the culture and way of life of the Jewish community. (Krakotzkin, 2005) It is therefore evident that censorship played a role in the transformation and controlled the expansion of the Jewish culture.

Following the integration of various Jewish writings into Christian literature, further censorship of the literature amounted to self-censorship for the Catholic church. The Hebraists’ study and adoption of Jewish literature were closely monitored and restricted. The driving factor for the restriction and cautious allowance of reading of Jewish works was the fear of penetration of the Christian world by Judaism. Initially, the church had forbidden the monks from copying the Hebrew works, especially the Talmud even if they intended to do so to convert Jews to Christianity. The church feared since although the Jewish teachings were considered to have some bearing on Christianity, they were perceived to have satanic influence. The church was therefore keen to ensure that their exploitation was done with caution.

Emerging issues.

An emerging issue in the recent past has been the concern over internet censorship. Following the advent of the information technology, the world has significantly been interconnected with a relatively free flow of information across the geopolitical boundaries. However, some authorities have instituted measures to limit that freedom of information flow, sparking debate over modern forms of censorship. Examples of countries that have been accused of internet censorship include Russia, which has in the past blocked access to blogs and Wikipedia, in Vietnam also, the government introduced a law called ”Decree 72“ which prohibits online distribution of information that may be critical of the state. (Schmidt & Cohen, 2014) It is therefore essential to consider not only the traditional aspects of censorship but also the evolving forms of it as the society’s forms of communication change.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is evident that the practice of censorship has been in existence for centuries with its prominence occurring after the advent of print media. While it originally began with religious leadership, it has since evolved to be primarily practiced by secular leaders following the separation of religious and political powers over the years. However, it is not only practices by the government but also by other private authorities over their spheres of influence. While the practice is mostly criticized, it elicits some merits at times, depending on prevailing circumstances though many authorities tend to abuse their powers regarding the issue to conceal their deficiencies or advance their selfish interests

The evaluation of the censorship of the Jewish literature demonstrates many of the principles and practices of censorship that have been in place for generations and still operate in the current world. The censorship of those writings, propagated by the Catholic church affected Hebrew writings in various ways, both positively and negatively. It caused a decline in the writing and readership of the Jewish writings at the time besides impacting negatively on the Jews’ cultural practices and beliefs. However, it also facilitated the incorporation of Hebrew literature into Christian literature besides giving authenticity to the Jewish literature following the approval of various writings after censorship. The external suppression of the writings also eventually led to self-censorship as the material was adopted by the church becoming part of its literature whose printing and dissemination it controlled.

Therefore, it is essential to consider the pros and cons of censorship, both external and self. The leadership in the 21st century also ought to bear in mind and observe prudence in internet censorship to avoid eroding the great communication benefits that have arisen from the information technology revolution. Any censorship should, therefore, be practiced following the policies and guidelines that permit it if at all. Authorities should, thus, be cautious not to limit the freedom of expression and that of the press under the pretext of censorship since those rights and freedoms are fundamental to the existence of a free society and the full enjoyment of the benefits of democracy.

References

ACLU. (n.d.). American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved October 16, 2017, from https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship

Francesconi, F. (2012). How Jews and Christians censored Hebrew texts in early modern Modena. Jewish History, 26(1-2), 139-160. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10835-012-9147-5

Freedman, H. (2014). The Talmud; Biography-Banned censored and Burned. The book they couldn’t suppress. Bloomsbury Publishing plc. Retrieved October 16, 2017, from https://books.google.co.il/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=HktuAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=censorship+talmud&ots=8fEECMllno&sig=PxlZ2gJdbsWDphFseCoYICdbxrc&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=censorship%20talmud&f=false

Krakotzkin, R. (2005). The Censor,theEditor, and the Text: The Catholic Church and the Shaping of the Jewish Canon in the Sixteenth Century. Israel: Magnes Press. Retrieved October 16, 2017, from https://books.google.co.il/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=SgvLkMS81q4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=censorship+talmud&ots=zcFuH-ik08&sig=GwYOzDRHuNaHBD-Qf9c1Ybpp5LA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=censorship%20talmud&f=false

Radzikowski, S. (2011, October 15). Self vs. External Censorship: Freedom of the Press. Retrieved October 16, 2017, from https://drshem.com/2011/10/15/self-vs-external-censorship-freedom-of-the-press/

Ratzabi, H. (n.d.). Beliefs and Practices. Retrieved October 16, 2017, from My Jewish Learning: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/herem/

Schmidt, E., & Cohen, J. (2014, March 11). The Future of Internet Freedom. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/12/opinion/the-future-of-internet-freedom.html

Stow, R. (1972). THE BURNING OF THE TALMUD IN 1553, IN THE LIGHT OF SIXTEENTH CENTURY CATHOLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD THE TALMUD. Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, 34(3), 435-459. Retrieved October 16, 2017, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/20674961?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Wilke, J. (2013, May 8). Retrieved October 16, 2017, from European History Online (EGO): http://ieg-ego.eu/en/threads/european-media/censorship-and-freedom-of-the-press

Yasuo, H. (2008, September). Utilitarianism and Freedom of Speech. The University of Tokyo Law Review, 3. Retrieved from http://www.sllr.j.u-tokyo.ac.jp/03/papers/v03part16.pdf