Norman Roth, “Moneylending,” in Norman Roth, ed., Medieval Jewish Civilization: An Encyclopedia (New York and London: Routledge, 2003), 453-462 (original) (raw)

Usury and Interest Laws: Their Roots in Christianity

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2022

The forbiddance of interest on loans in Christian legal thought can be found as far back as the legal commands in the Old Testament. 1 While less legalistic, the Gospel contains condemnations against usury and profiting from lending as well. 2 This trend continues through the Church Fathers, and once Christianity took a foothold in the Roman Empire and Christian leaders began determining policy based on the words of Christ, interest rates were either lowered or banned altogether. Usury was widely viewed as the taking of any interest at all among the early Church until around the Middle Ages, when the rise of central banking began, and the world gradually became more interconnected. Even after these first reconsiderations of what is admissible in lending, those who were guilty of usury were considered to have committed a grave sin, worthy of a worse level of punishment in the afterlife than those who commit murder, and among those who commit violent acts, according to Dante' portrayal of hell. 3 Dante describes the damned usurers as almost animal-like, with flies surrounding and nagging them, and purses hung around their necks. 4 One negative portrayal of moneylenders that is perhaps most well-known is that of Shylock in William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, who extorts via his lending practices, seeking a pound of flesh as the payment owed by the character Antonio. 5 The status of usury was retained by Protestant leaders, such as John Calvin and Martin Luther, however their prescriptions in practice marked a distinction from how the leadership of

Judah Galinsky Lending to non Jews with Interest

Judaim and the Economy a Sourcebook edited by Michael Satlow, 2019

Can Jews lend money with interest to non-Jews? The author Isaac b. Moses of Vienna, who hailed from Bohemia but studied in the great centers of Talmudic scholarship in northern France and the Rhineland, summarizes the various rationales given by French and German scholars

Biblical Ethics and Lending to the Poor

The Ecumenical Review, 1986

If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be to him as a creditor. and you shall not exact interest from him (Ex. 22:25). "All things are lawful", but not all things are helpful. "A11 things arc lawful". but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neiphbour.. . So. whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:23-24. 31).

Usury as Deviance in Medieval Europe

A Companion to Crime and Deviance in the Middle Ages, ed. Hannah Skoda, (Arc Humanities Press), 2023

EuropEan JEws wErE first collectively labelled, then criminalized as "usurers" between the twelfth and sixteenth centuries. Even when involved in financial loans, Jews were only engaged in the same economic activities as Christian "merchants" who were valued as contributing to the public good. In fact, large numbers of Jews were too poor to have actively traded or loaned. Ironically, this new category of Jewish deviance originated out of a social movement to reform Christian usury. The labelling of Jews as usurers is the end result of a campaign against Christian usurers and Christian usury. In the mid-twelfth century, church councils decreed new legislation against usury aimed at lay Christians-not Jews. But by the sixteenth century, large numbers of Jewish communities had been expelled from western Europe under the charge of usury, and those that remained in the more politically fragmented Holy Roman Empire and Italian peninsula were being expelled from city centres and enclosed in suburban ghettos. Late medieval Christian economic thought resulted in a new dualism: "Christian merchants" versus "Jewish usurers" immortalized in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice. The merchant was an upright member of the civic commune and Christian community, whose business increased the wealth of the community by circulating wealth. The moneylender was an enemy of Christ, his church, and the Christian community, whose lending drained the wealth of the commune and hoarded it for private ends. 1 Sociological theories of deviance offer a useful way to analyse the social construction and criminalization of Jews as usurers. 2 The social status of the individual in a society tends to determine whether their rule-breaking is considered deviant or not; stigmatization both propels, and results from, the labelling. This paradigm fits well late medieval Italy where Jewish merchant-bankers were labelled "faithless usurers" hoarding wealth, because they were Jews, and Italian merchant-bankers were labelled "Christian merchants" increasing the wealth of all, because they were Christian citizens. However, this was a process of dynamic historical change. The very categories of "usury" and "usurer" shifted over several hundred years. To further complicate matters, the category of "the Jew," considered religiously deviant since late antiquity, was applied 1 Parts of this article overlap with my "Jews and Money: The Medieval Origins of a Modern Stereotype," in Cambridge Companion to Antisemitism, ed. Steven Katz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022). But this article takes a broader perspective, examining both Christian and Jewish usury in relation to social deviance. Both articles build on my Myth of the Medieval Jewish Moneylender, 2 vols.

Jesus on Lending, Debt, and Interest

The Journal of Biblical Integration in Business, 2014

Jesus and the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament provide much instruction for how believers should regard and practice lending, indebtedness, and interest accrual. Studies to date have focused on the Old Testament, believing that Jesus has little to say about the issues. This paper shows that Jesus provides much instruction on the matters, applying both to believers and to the wider world. This paper reviews seven sayings by Jesus with implications for lending, debt, and interest. They are found to disfavor lending in the expectation of return and to favor releasing borrowers from debt and thereby eliminating interest that might apply to a loan. These teachings extend the Old Testament position on these issues. A final section considers whether a modern economy could function on the basis of Jesus’ teachings.

Jews and Money: The Medieval Origins of a Modern Stereotype

Cambridge Companion to Antisemitism, ed. by Steven Katz, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022

The trope of the Jewish moneylender has taken different forms over the centuries: the Jewish "usurers" of medieval England and France, the "Shylocks" of Renaissance Italy, "Jud Süss" and the Court Jews of Central Europe, and the "Rothschilds" of 19th-century international banking. There is little empirical evidence for Jewish preeminence in moneylending. 1 Yet the association of Jews with money has been pervasive, figuring in anti-Jewish accusations from medieval expulsions to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, from the Holocaust to Le Happy Merchant memes. This essay will trace the emergence of the stereotype in medieval Europe. The trope of the Jewish moneylender also has its philosemitic versions. For well over a century, liberal historians, sociologists, and political economists have described medieval Jews as modernizers fulfilling a special economic function: Jews provided creditthe ingredient necessary for economic developmentat a time when Christians could not or would not. Jews, in consequence, suffered a tragic antisemitic backlash. The liberal-economic narrative counters antisemitic economic stereotypes by inverting them, making the "Jewish predilection for moneymaking" a contribution to the nation. Antisemitic or philosemitic, the assumption of an association between Jews and money remains a dangerous trope, a stereotype disconnected from economic realities. Jews were neither medieval Europe's chief moneylenders nor the credit engine for emergent commercial capitalism. Jews did loan money, but the majority of professional moneylenders, money changers,

Is Interest Usury? Views from Islam, Christianity, and Judaism

The question of whether interest is the same as usury is not just theoretical. It has significant effects on financial practices, ethical standards, and religious beliefs in various cultures. For instance, if interest is deemed usury, financial institutions might need to alter their lending models, potentially limiting access to credit or increasing the cost of borrowing. On the other hand, if interest is not viewed as usury, it may facilitate more flexible and accessible lending options. This issue is particularly important to me because it connects religion, economics, and ethics, offering a complex and interesting area to explore. The debate about interest and usury is key to understanding how financial systems around the world have developed. In the past, banning usury influenced medieval economies and helped form today's banking rules. Now, with the rise of ethical banking and finance, like Islamic finance, these old rules are being looked at again in a modern context. For Islamic finance, understanding if there is a difference between interest and usury is very important as the Islamic finance aims to align economic activities with Islamic ethical teachings, and knowing these differences helps in creating financial products that are both profitable and follow Shariah law. By looking at how Islam, Christianity, and Judaism view interest and usury, we can learn about the common and different ethical ideas that influence financial systems worldwide. That is why the aim of this essay is to analyze the concepts of interest and usury, distinguish between them, and explore the views of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism on these issues. This will involve looking at scriptural sources, historical interpretations, and modern applications to give a thorough understanding of how these religions impact today's financial practices.