JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

ER (Heb. רע; ַ “watcher, watchful”), the name of two biblical
figures. (1) The eldest son of Judah and the daughter of Shua,
a Canaanite (Gen. 38:2–3). He married *Tamar but died childless
because of his wickedness (Gen. 38:6–7; 46:12; Num. 26:19;
I Chron. 2:3). The nature of his offense is not specified. (2) The
son of Shelah, the grandson of Judah, and the father of Lecah
(I Chron. 4:21).
Bibliography: W.F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan
(1968), 69–70, 233p.
°ERASMUS OF ROTTERDAM (Desiderius Erasmus
Roterodamus; 1469–1536), European humanist, theologian,
and writer. Netherlands-born Erasmus lived and worked in all
major countries of Europe and wrote only in Latin.
Erasmus’ view of Judaism as a religion was fully determined
by traditions of the New Testament (especially by the
epistles ascribed to Paul) and of the Early Church (in the first
place, Jerome, to a lesser extent, Augustine). An original aspect
of this position is that he regularly used the words Judaismus,
Judaeus, etc., to stigmatize bad Christians, “for whom religion
consists of rituals and observations of corporeal things” (a
letter of December 1504). In another writing, he says, “Judaism
I call not Jewish impiety, but prescriptions about external
things, such as food, fasting, clothes, which to a certain degree
resemble the rituals of the Jews” (Declarationes ad censuras
Lutetiae, 1532). In fact, the majority of Erasmus’ anti-Mosaic
attacks are directed against this “new Judaism.”
As far as the Jewish Bible (the Old Testament) is concerned,
it is only natural that a Christian humanist professing
“the philosophy of Christ” placed the New Testament higher
than the Old. But on many occasions he insisted on the importance
for Christians of the Old Testament in its entirety
and, even more significantly, on the complete inadmissibility
of contrasting the two Testaments.
As a humanist (in the strict and specific sense of the
word) Erasmus highly appreciated Hebrew and demanded
thorough knowledge of the original language of the Bible.
“Who does not master all three holy tongues [i.e., Hebrew,
Greek, and Latin], is not a theologian, but a violator of the
holy Theology” (Adagiae, 1515). But Erasmus’ own knowledge
of Hebrew was rudimentary and he was completely dependent
on other scholars’ commentaries and upon their direct,
personal help (in his New Testament commentaries and paraphrases
of Psalms). Hence numerous mistakes, “anti-philological”
interpretations (discrediting Erasmus’ general method),
and even a kind of irritation against “ambiguities” of Hebrew
can be found in his writings.
Erasmus’ attitude toward Jewry of his day should be evaluated
against a background of the universal hatred of Jews,
intolerance, and missionary zeal in the 15th and 16th centuries,
especially in Germany. This sinister background is often apparent,
much more in private correspondence than in writings
intended for print. In some of the latter we find remarks
that are comparatively moderate and reasonable. Thus, Erasmus
thinks that the number of Jews, their force, and influence
erech
are insignificant, and, consequently, they are of no danger to
Christianity; that forced conversion of Jews is absolutely inadmissible,
and even that Christian missionary activity among
Jews is perhaps useless; that the expulsion of Jews from Spain
should be condemned, and that the Marranos should be
treated mercifully, etc. Such remarks spring organically from
the deepest principles of Erasmus’ understanding of the world
and must be considered as really “erasmian.” But the “erasmian
spirit,” expressing itself in a well-known line from a letter
(January 30, 1523 (4)), “I have a temperament such that I could
love even a Jew, if only he were well-mannered and friendly,
and did not mouth blasphemy on Christ in my presence,” was
far from always being uppermost. In fact, he never met a real
Jew all his life, never sought out such a meeting, and never
wrote anything especially devoted to Jews or Judaism. He was,
in fact, indifferent to the living “remnant of Israel”; the fleshand-blood
Jew was simply not within his field of vision. This
indifference, in a time of catastrophic sharpening of religious
and national fanaticism, could have been an initial step toward
true tolerance. Erasmus’ position could be qualified as asemitism;
suggesting that he was an antisemite seems to be as unhistorical
as claiming he was sympathetic toward Jews.
Bibliography: G. Kisch, Erasmus’ Stellung zu Juden and
Judentum (1969)[Kisch considers Erasmus a rabid antisemite, equal
to Luther]; S. Markish, Erasmus and the Jews, with an Afterword by
Arthur A. Cohen (1986); G.B. Winkler, “Erasmus und die Juden,” in:
Festschrift Franz Loidl zum 65 Geburstag (1970), 381–392; C. Augustijn,
“Erasmus und die Juden,” in: Nederlands Archief voor Kerkengeschiedenis,
60:1 (1980), 22–38.
[Shimon Markish]
°ERATOSTHENES OF CYRENE (c. 275–194 B.C.E.), polymath,
author of Geographica, a first-rate geography much used
by *Strabo, who cites his description of Arabia (16:4, 2), commenting
upon the occupations of the inhabitants (including
the Judeans), soil, flora, water supply, and distances. Strabo
elsewhere (16:2, 44) cites Eratosthenes’ theory that the region
around Edom was once a lake and that the land came into existence
as a result of volcanic eruptions.
ERECH (Sum. Unug; Akk. Uruk; modern Warka in Iraq),
city mentioned as one of the mainstays of the kingdom of
*Nimrod (Gen. 10:10), and perhaps referred to in Ezra 4:9.
In ancient times Uruk lay on the bank of the Euphrates, approximately
40 mi. (65 km.) N.W. of Ur; the river has now
shifted far to the west, leaving the city in the desert. The site
was occupied in the fifth millennium B.C.E., and experienced
its first peak of prosperity in about 3300–3100 B.C.E., when it
was probably the largest religious center of Sumer, with large
temples and the earliest written documents so far known. The
legendary hero Gilgamesh was probably an historical king of
Uruk in about 2700 B.C.E. Uruk played a part in the rise of
the Neo-Sumerian kings of Ur, and was the seat of a dynasty
of West Semitic rulers shortly before the time of Hammurapi.
Thereafter, it was politically unimportant, but remained a seat
of learning until Seleucid times. It was the cult center of Anu,
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6 477