I recall some time back seeing a book on how Luther was influenced by a Jew (such as a Marrano) prior to his posting of his theses on the door of Wittenburg Chapel.  However, I can't remember the title and can't find any book on that subject.  If anyone here can point me in the right direction, it would be much appreciated.  

I recall some time back seeing a book on how Luther was influenced by a Jєω (such as a Marrano) prior to his posting of his theses on the door of Wittenburg Chapel.  However, I can't remember the title and can't find any book on that subject.  If anyone here can point me in the right direction, it would be much appreciated. 

I have the book somewhere but cannot remember the name of the author. I do however remember the name of the cabalist marrano you are thinking of-- it is Gabriel Biel( Beil?) who is described as the " master & teacher" of Luther....

I have the book somewhere but cannot remember the name of the author. I do however remember the name of the cabalist marrano you are thinking of-- it is Gabriel Biel( Beil?) who is described as the " master & teacher" of Luther....

Fr. Gabriel Biel died around 1492... whomever I'm thinking of, I believe, would have been more of a contemporary of Luther... at least around circa 1515 or so. 

I recall some time back seeing a book on how Luther was influenced by a Jєω (such as a Marrano) prior to his posting of his theses on the door of Wittenburg Chapel.  However, I can't remember the title and can't find any book on that subject.  If anyone here can point me in the right direction, it would be much appreciated. 

Fr. Gabriel Biel died around 1492... whomever I'm thinking of, I believe, would have been more of a contemporary of Luther... at least around circa 1515 or so.

Maybe Jodocus Trutfetter?

Interesting claims about Luther's confessor, Fr. Staupitz OSA:


22 februari 2021 Trouw Katholiek

Luther was a Rosicrucian, a gnostic, an archenemy of the Church

Translated from Johannes Rothkranz. Die Zertrümmerung des Christlichen Abendlandes, Durach, Verlag Anton Schmid, 1977

Martin Luther belonged to the German congregation of the Augustinian hermits. From 1503, when he took over a professorship in Wittenberg, Johann von Staupitz, “Luther’s patron and backer” (Dietrich Emme, Martin Luther. Seine Jugend und Studentenzeit 1483-1505, Regensburg 1986, p. 178), was Vicar General of this Order. The LThK (Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche) (“Staupitz, Johann von”) tells about him among others:
‘In Wittenberg he entered into close association with Luther from 1508 to 1509 and in 1512, whom he especially helped in his fears of predestination. In 1512 he handed over his professorship to him and from then on lived mostly in southern Germany. He happily greeted Luther’s appearance in the Indulgence quarrel. However, from 1519 he became more alarmed, and in 1520 he laid down his office of Vicar General, especially so as not to have to act against Luther. He moved to Cardinal M. Lang in Salzburg, where he converted to the Benedictine order in 1522 with papal dispensation and became abbot of St. Peter. This led to an estrangement from Luther. Staupitz did not share his non-Catholic teachings, spoke out in 1523 for the condemnation of the Lutherans as non-believers and did not hold back in his last letter to Luther in 1524 (the year of his death).
So this is the official Staupitz picture of church history, and it resembles the official Reuchlin picture in a nutshell. Reuchlin and Staupitz initially stand by Luther and his Reformation, which they also, each in his own way, strongly challenged. Then, just in time, they withdraw, remain loyal to the church and die as her pious sons! It must of course be left open as to what they actually died as, because one can still convert on the deathbed. In a nutshell: Staupitz did not only belong to a Rosicrucian lodge, he was even its leader. That could also be the reason why he was mostly in southern Germany from 1512 onwards, as the seat of this lodge was Nuremberg.
‘Luther was a slave to the leader of the Nuremberg lodge,’ Norbert Homuth correctly observes, and presents the following passage from Luther’s letter of October 3, 1511 to von Staupitz as one of many evidences for this: – You leave me too much, because of you I felt like a weaned child about his mother. I dreamed of you last night, I felt as if you were parting from me, I cried bitterly. Then you waved your hand, I may be calm, you would come back.’ (Homuth, Die Verschwörung des Antichristus, p. 77 (with reference to Ludwig Keller, Die Reformation, Leipzig 1885, p 326)
Homuth further explains: The Freemasonic Lodge in Nuremberg, which worked in the spirit of humanism, and because of the leadership role of Mr. Staupitz was also called “Sodalitas Staupitana”, was the main engine of the early Reformation and the young Luther. Why that? According to Luther’s own words it was Staupitz and his lodge brothers in Nuremberg who had incited him against the Pope. A source attests to these own words of Luther Homuth unfortunately does not name. But one can find one in the Luther researcher Dietrich Emme, who only mentions the extraordinarily important passage in passing:
‘In a speech at the table recorded by Anton Lauterbach
Luther wrote on July 16, 1539 about the last hours before entering the monastery: “Later I regretted taking the vow, and many advised me against it. But I insisted… I was dead to the world until God found it time and squire Tetzel and Doctor Staupitz drove (sic!) me against the Pope.”
It seems strange that this instructive testimony has always been overlooked by official Church historiography[1]; let us hope that this is solely due to the admittedly enormous abundance of literature left by Luther directly (works, letters) or indirectly (speeches at the table).
It is equally strange that none of the Catholic church historians seem to have ever ‘stumbled’ upon von Staupitz’ Nuremberg lodge activity. Fernand Mourret noticed at least his ‘lack of firmness’(?): ‘One will see him alternately support Luther and let him fall, bow to Tetzel, and secretly laugh at him, correspond with Cajetan on friendly terms and fight him.’[2]
Mourret actually attributes Luther’s apostasy from the papacy to the influence of von Staupitz ‘(!) but considers his corresponding taunts against the highest ecclesiastical Magisterium to be merely sad ‘stupidities’.
When in Augsburg, in October 1518 the papal legate Cardinal Cajetan threatened to arrest both the recalcitrant Martin Luther and von Staupitz, who was still supporting him, Staupitz advised Luther to flee and ultimately helped him to flee himself![3]
While the LThK (see above) vaguely claims that Von Staupitz did not hold back with ‘his displeasure against the Lutheran movement in his last letter to Luther,’ one reads it not only in more detail with the Jєωιѕн Luther biographer Richard Friedenthal, but also quite different: ‘The abbot replies to his dear Martin and assures him that he still loves him most constantly … Staupitz cites another example from Scripture, the parable of the prodigal son. Luther led the people from the empty pods of the grains, which the prodigal son ate in his poverty with the pigs, back to the realms of life. One owed him a lot. But he warns: Luther should not disturb the hearts of ordinary people! He asks him, my beloved friend, to think of the little ones and not to worry their consciences. He prays for the neutrals, who persist in honest belief – Luther should not condemn them! How many abuse the gospel for the sake of the freedom of the flesh. Perhaps, so he thinks resignedly, his mind is too hesitant or timid, and that is why Luther must understand when he [Staupitz] bows down in silence. This friendship ends in silence, without a break; shortly afterwards, Staupitz died.’[4]

c) The Nuremberg Rosicrucian Lodge
For profane and ecclesiastical (‘Court’) historiography, it seems – like Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in general!! –  not to have existed at all. Yet it is anything but a phantom. Because Norbert Homuth, incidentally at home in Nuremberg himself, got his knowledge of this humanistic lodge and its decisive influence on Martin Luther and the Reformation from a book published in 1885 in Leipzig:  The Reformation of a certain Dr. Ludwig Keller.[5] What Homuth probably did not know, at least not mentioned: his informant is apparently identical to that secret archivist Br.’.  Dr. Ludwig Keller in Charlottenburg-Berlin, whom the high-level freemason Karl Heise quoted in 1920 as the author of various books on the history of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ published between 1903 and 1911, although we are less interested in these later works by Keller than in his status of a ‘German assigned grand master’, as attested by his lodge brother Heise.[6] As the grand master of the ‘noble’ bricklayer’s guild, Keller should have been just as well informed about what the Nuremberg Lodge, which was already flourishing in around 1500, was all about, as were those masonic brothers who on a first-day cover in Monaco in 1971 on behalf of the ‘Masonic Philately F.D.C.’ (‘Philatélie maçonique F.D.C.’)!  – published Albrecht Dürer, born 500 years ago, with the typical ‘look’ signal of the ‘initiated’[7] as ‘Member of the R.’. (Royal?)(Rosicrucian?) Nuremberg Operative Lodge’ (‘Membre de la R.’. Loge Operative de Nuremberg’) (cf. the picture from page 77 of Homuth’s o.cit.).

The members of the Nuremberg cabbalistic inspired Rosicrucian lodge, which, as already mentioned, was chaired by Johann von Staupitz, were according to Homuth/Keller: Lazarus Spengler, Albrecht Dürer, C. Celtis, Holzschuher, Georg Beheim, Anton, Andreas and Martin Tucher, and Kaspar Nützel, Jakob Welser, Chr. Scheurl, W. Pirckheimer, Hieronimus Ebner, et al.[8] At least the four loge members I have highlighted in bold have stood out as active supporters of the Lutheran reformation (Celtis died too early to still be able to cooperate). The common church historiography has by no means escaped the fact that Nuremberg was the real hotspot of the religious split, but it does not know the actual, the real reason for this: the concentrated (and not somewhat random) rooting work of a Jєωιѕн-Kabbalist ruled Rosicrucian lodge (and not just some isolated or loosely befriended humanists.

The article Nürnberg of the LThK (loc. cit.) states in a meaningful way: ‘Luther’s teaching found sympathy from the beginning in the Augustinian monastery, which was intricately connected with von Staupitz, which respected councilors and citizens frequented; it was preached by W. Link and the eloquent A. Osiander, … advocated by Laz. Spengler in the city council. This mood also influenced the Nuremberg Diets in 1522/23 and 1524. … The victory of Lutheranism in Nuremberg was already decided before the religious discussion led by Scheurl (March 1525). Nuremberg’s attitude became of the highest importance for Protestantism as a whole’ I have again emphasized in bold the names of the Rosicrucian Lodge Brothers who determined ‘Nuremberg’s’ attitude! There will be something said below about Wenceslaus Link, who was also highlighted.
The completely unspiritual Ulrich von Hutten understood almost nothing of Luther’s theological concerns; strangely enough, however, he knew exactly who to turn to when, in 1520, he had to vent his irrepressible joy at the new spiritual freedom supposedly brought about by Luther: ‘Hutten cheered hopefully and carelessly in a famous letter to the Nuremberg patrician Willibald Pirckheimer, the friend of Albrecht Dürer and the head of the Nuremberg Humanist Circle: “O century! O sciences! What a joy to live now and not, my Willibald, to retire! Studies flourish, spirits stir! But you, Barbarism, may you take the rope and go into exile …”’[9]
Let us hear as the third unsuspecting witness Joseph Lortz, who has no idea about the Nuremberg Rosicrucian Lodge, and yet lists its most important exponents one after the other: ‘We have followed closely how the atmosphere for the innovation was prepared in Nuremberg by various circles, and how that is exploited by the city council (and by the Diets of 1522/23 and 1524). In 1521, the humanist Pirkheimer waged war against the bringer of the papal bull in ‘Der Gehobelte Eck’; since 1522 the humanist Osiander preaches about the Antichrist in Rome; the Augustinian monastery opens itself to the new teaching; Spengler, a city clerk, writes already in 1521 a defensive pamphlet for Luther and influences in the same way the city council, where one reads Luther’s books despite the prohibitions (like everywhere); Dürer is waiting for the Christian rebirth that Luther is supposed to bring … It has been established that the official passage of the city, that is, of the city council, from Catholicism to Lutheranism was unusually well prepared: the fate of the first failures is revealed. The city council is now expanding its late medieval sovereignty over the church (partly through direct negotiations with Rome) so far that, after the religious talks of 1525, led by Scheurl, it is in control of the situation.

All the relevant Rosicrucian Brothers are listed here again (von Staupitz himself was behind the Augustinian monastery). Finally, let us take a brief look at what the LTHK (loc. cit.) – precisely because of its ignorance – has to say about these ‘initiated’ actors of the Jєωιѕн-Kabbalistic revolution:
Art. ‘Dürer, Albrecht’: ‘In the first excitement, he welcomed Luther as a fighter against abuses. In view of the further development, especially the iconoclasm, he withdrew from the movement, in agreement with his friend Willibald Pirkheimer; but, like him, he maintained a good relationship with Melanchthon, who was valued as a mediator – as will be shown later, a brother mason!
Art. ‘Pir(c)kheimer, a Nuremberg patrician family … Willibald’: ‘He defended Reuchlin and attacked Luther’s most powerful opponent in the to him, not to the Strasbourg Nik. Gerbel attributable … Eccius dedolatus [Der gehobelte Eck, Glib Eck] …. and in a second, unprinted comedy … with bitter satire. However, although at first ‘good Lutheran’, he did not want a break with the Church. In 1521 he asked therefore for the absolution from the ban that had struck him as a follower of Luther … Pirckheimer was only a friend of the alleged reformer Luther; to the false teacher he was a ‘decided enemy’, so decided that he continued to maintain ‘a good relationship’ with the false teacher Melanchthon (see above!)!’
Art. ‘Scheurl, Christophs’: ‘Initially enthusiastic about Luther and still leader of the Nuremberg Religious Discussion in 1525, he, Eck’s friend, was not satisfied with the development of the Reformation and, at least since 1530 [?], stood on the ground of the old Church’, possibly just to cover up traces, like his other lodge brothers.
Art. ‘Spengler, Lazarus’: ‘Friend of W. Pirckheimer, songwriter, advocated Luther’s teaching with several writings … and contributed a great deal to their victory in Nuremberg. At Eck’s instigation, he was banned from the Church’, from which he, like Pirckheimer, was later released, but presumably in the same spirit as this friend of Melanchthon!

Martin Luther
Luther’s superior and fatherly friend von Staupitz brought him into close contact with the Nuremberg Rosicrucian Lodge, which he ran. ‘Already in 1516, that is, 1 year before Luther’s theses were posted,[10] Luther had his family coat of arms made for him, of course in Nuremberg, namely a rose cross, the symbol of the Rosicrucians… With this crest Luther openly confessed his sympathy for the ideas of the Nuremberg Lodge, that he visited more often than once, for instance on October 23, 1518, on the return journey from Augsburg and in October 1510 [sic]. Lazarus Spengler took care of the production of the rose cross and then asked Luther ‘whether he liked it’’.[11] And further:
‘Staupitz became more and more a spiritual leader, who introduced Luther ever deeper into … the illuminated knowledge of the secret brotherhoods, which at that time all had one thing in common: they were waiting for the consolation of Israel, for a man who would liberate the Church from its ‘Babylonian captivity’. Accordingly, Luther, whom had already been offered the leadership of the Nuremberg Lodge, saw himself pushed into the role of liberator, which he gladly accepted. He now nicknamed himself Eleutheros (Liberator). Numerous letters from Luther signed Eleutheros have survived. He also changed his original name from Martin Luder to Martin Lutherus, alluding to Eleutheros, and his campaign pamphlet From the Babylonian Captivity of the Church has its background in this [in the original text: his] self-confidence.[12]
Luther’s friend[13] Wenzel (Wenzeslaus) Lin(c)k, who followed his heresy, was at the same time Staupitz’ confidant, then his successor as Vicar General’[14]; ‘as confidant of his superior and at the same time chairman of the lodge von Staupitz, he too could be ‘initiated’ into the secrets of the Rosicrucians.’ Together with von Staupitz he fled in October 1518 from the papal legate Cardinal Cajetan from Augsburg. The LThK writes about his connection with von Staupitz and influence on Luther (op. cit., art. Link (Linck [h]), Wenzeslaus), that he became dean of the theological faculty in Wittenberg ‘as early as 1512 (with Luther’s doctorate). Was at the same time prior of the Augustinian monastery there for a time, accompanied his patron Staupitz on visitation trips to southern Germany, the Rhine and the Netherlands … 1517 -19 preacher in Nuremberg, 1520 Staupitz’ successor as Vicar General of the German Order Province. Was a trusted friend of Luther, whose position now also came into play in the resolutions of the Wittenberg chapter of the order (January 1522) and found more and more supporters in the order.’

In view of the fact that Dietrich Emme[15] ‘proved through a profound study of sources that Martin Luther did not simply join the Augustinian order’, but sought refuge there in two respects (from secular justice, but also because of his distress of conscience) after he had in Erfurt stabbed a comitian in a duel, it must be considered likely that his Rosicrucian order superiors von Staupitz and Link used Luther’s distress of conscience (about which Staupitz, who had been Luther’s regular confessor and soul guide[16] since 1508 was informed in the best possible way!) and that had in no way to be remedied, skillfully for the subversive goals of themselves and of those who commissioned them. Luther personally, when setting up his Reformation heresy, was primarily concerned with the subjective theological overcoming of his tormenting scruples. This is supported by his remarkable about-face, which Homuth aptly describes and evaluates as follows:
‘Even if Luther broke with the lodge system in 1525 because he correctly recognized the Jєωιѕн / Kabbalistic background as the emancipation movement of Judaism (see his hate speeches against the Jєωs), this no longer had any influence on the further course of events; it was too late then; because the work of division of the church was successfully completed.’[17]

---

[1] Compare, for example, the blue-eyed judgment by Loriz, op. cit., p. 236: ‘Staupitz, Luther’s superior, was linked in a special way to Luther’s fate. He had given the struggling young monk some pastoral care. He had brought him to the Bible professorship in Wittenberg. He had an understanding of Luther’s opposition to scholasticism and to much externalization in the church. But he was Catholic. He had to suffer from the development.’
[2] Mourret, op. cit., p. 290. 34 Ibid. P. 293. As an example, Mourret describes the following incident: ‘Luther one day finds the works of Johannes Hus in the library of the Erfurt Convention. As he reads, he cannot help feeling deep sympathy for this courageous spirit. Of course, Rome condemned him! This thought preoccupies him. But one day Staupitz showed him a portrait of one of his predecessors in the gallery of superiors of the Order of St. Augustine, Zacharias, and says to him: ‘Do you see this monk: he must be in hell if he has not repented; for he is one of those who had John Hus condemned at the Council of Constance by forging the Bible. Similar slogans helped to lower the reputation in Luther’s eyes, which until then had enjoyed the authority of a council that condemned a heretic.’

[3] See ibid. p 311f. According to Richard Friedenthal, Luther. Sein Leben und seine Zeit, 8th edition Munich – Zurich 1982, p. 223f, von Staupitz would have left the city of Augsburg before Luther to avoid the threatened arrest.
[4] 36 Friedenthal ibid. p. 401.
[5] Cf. Homuth, Die Verschwörung des Antichristus, op. cit., p. 77 and 81
[6] Cf. Karl Heue, Entente-Freimaurerei und WWII, 2nd edition (reprint of the 3rd edition, 1920) Struckum 1991, p. 59 or p. 119 note 1.
[7] See Johannes Rothkranz, Freimaurersignale in der Presse. Wie man sie erkennt und was sie bedeuten. Durach (Verlag Anton A Schmid) 1997
[8] Homuth, Die Verschwörung des Antichristus, p. 77 (Keller, Die Reformation, op. cit. p. 326), emphasis added.
[9] Friedenthal loc. cit. p. 278f, emphasis added.
[10] Which, according to the irrefutable research results of Erwin Iserloh, never took place, but is a pure legend.
[11] Homuth, Die Verschwörung des Antichristus, op. cit. p. 78 (referring to Junghans loc. cit.).
[12] Ibid. p. 79. According to Mourret loc. cit. p. 281 note 5 ‘Luther signed with the name of his father Luder until 1517 [!], at which time he gave up this name, which means ‘carrion’, in favor of ‘Luther’ which – he said – comes from Lothar or Lauter.’
[13] So consistently Friedenthal loc. cit. p. 216 and Mourret loc. cit. p.. 308
[14] Lortz loc. cit. p. 356f.

[15] Emme loc. cit. passim.
[16] Cf. Mourret op. cit. p. 290 note 2.
[17] Homuth, Die Verschwörung des Antichristus, op.cit. p. 80.

The only book I’m familiar with is “The Facts about Luther” by Msgr. Patrick F. O’Hare, LL.D.  I had the book, read some of it, and then got rid of it.  He was pretty awful.

The Occult Philosophy In The Reformation, Johannes Reuchlin

Last Updated on Sun, 26 Mar 2023 | Inspired Melancholy
 
Johannes Reuchlin1 (1455—1522), also known by his humanist name of Capnion, was one of the greatest scholars of the German Renaissance, equally proficient in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew learning. As a young man he travelled in Italy. He tells Pope Leo X in the dedication of the De arte cabalistica how he had met Pico della Mirandola and his circle of learned men who were bringing ancient truth to light. It was certainly Pico's work which inspired Reuchlin, and he came to Italy to learn Hebrew and to profit from the wealth of Hebrew literature now circulating in Italy. Reuchlin's first Cabalist work, the De verbo mirifico, was published in Germany in 1494, two years after the Expulsion.
The work is in the form of a conversation between a Greek, Sidonius; a Jew, Baruchias; and a Christian, Capnion, or Reuchlin himself. The Jew is characterised as of a sad countenance and placed under the sign of Saturn,2 an allusion to Saturn as the star of the Jєωιѕн religion, and to melancholy as the Saturnian humour. He praises Cabala as a divine science which has come down by tradition among the Jews; and he praises the Hebrew language, in which God speaks to the angels, and in which the true name, or names, of God and of the angels are expressed. There are frequent mentions of Jerome. Jerome was the Hebrew expert among the Christian fathers and knew arguments associating the name of Jesus with the Tetragrammaton which were afterwards used by the Christian Cabalists.3 He was a kind of patron saint of Cabalists and often appears, as here, in the literature of Christian Cabala.
Reuchlin quotes Pico's Cabalist Conclusions. He repeats the names of the Sephiroth in Hebrew, and shows great interest in the Hebrew names of angels, and how to summon them. In the third book, Capnion, the Christian, speaks and gives the Cabalist proof that Jesus is the name of the Messiah, being the Tetra-grammaton with an S inserted (Plate 2).4 Though the argument had been given by Pico, Reuchlin's little book on the WonderWorking Word was a potent force in the spread of Christian Cabala.
In a recent article, Charles Zika emphasises that Reuchlin in his De verbo mirifico is deeply concerned with the 'wonderworking' power of Hebrew language as studied in Cabala, and wishes to increase the power of Renaissance philosophy through emphasis on its magical core, and particularly through emphasis on Cabala. Reuchlin belongs to the world of pre-Reform, the time immediately before the outbreak of the Reformation. In that time, scholastic philosophy seemed, to many serious persons, dead, barren, outworn, and irrelevant. The humanist cultural programme which Erasmians were putting in its place seemed insufficient to Reuchlin. For him, culture was not enough. He needed in place of scholasticism another philosophy, a philosophy which would not be empty but would have power. He found this in Neoplatonism with its core of operative magic. But he knew that many people feared operative magic as possibly diabolical. For him, Cabalist magic did away with this fear for it was concerned with holy forces, with angels, with the sacred names of God. The demonic powers of ancient magic were cleansed of evil, made safe through the angels who cast out demons. Hence (suggests Zika) the concentration on angel-summoning in Reuchlin's system.
This is an important observation, though it should be added that Pico in his Magical Conclusions had also emphasised that Magia must always be associated with Cabala in order to be both powerful and safe.5 And Pico had argued that Christian Cabala, the corner-stone of which was that Cabala proved the divinity of Christ, had sanctified the system and made it possible for Christians to immerse themselves in Hermetic-Cabalist Neoplatonism as a religious philosophy.
In 1517, twenty-three years after the De verbo mirifico of 1494, Reuchlin published his second major Cabalistic work, the De arte cabalistica. In the interval between the two works many more Cabalistic texts than those known to Pico and to the early Reuch-lin had become available, and new schools of Christian Cabala had grown up, particularly in Italy. François Secret points out that Reuchlin in the De arte cabalistica shows knowledge of numerous Cabalist works of which he had only known by hearsay, or not at all, in the De verbo mirifico.6
The De arte cabafistica is the first full treatise on Cabala by a non-Jew. It is written in Latin, though with many Hebrew quotations. It was the fullest exposition hitherto available to European scholars, outside the actual Jєωιѕн tradition, of Cabalist theory and practice, with examination of Hebrew letter-manipulations and other main Cabalist theories and techniques. Reuchlin devotes much attention to the Names, and particularly to the Name of Jesus as that of the Messiah. The De arte cabalistica was to become the bible of the Christian Cabalists.
Like the De verbo mirifico, the De arte cabalistica is in the form of a conversation between three speakers. The representative of Greek thought is now Philolaus, a Pythagorean. At an inn in Frankfurt he meets Marranus, a Moslem; and Simon ben Eliezer, a Cabalist. The presence of the Pythagorean as a speaker is significant for it brings out the importance of number. Pico in his Mathematical Conclusions had stated that 'By number a way may be had for the investigation and understanding of everything possible to be known.'7 In his mind the Mathematical Conclusions supported the Cabalist Conclusions. The letters of the Hebrew alphabet have numerical values; the names of God and the names of angels can be expressed numerically. In its way, Cabala encouraged a numerological approach to the world (for the Hebrew alphabet was believed to contain the world being the creative word by which the world was made). Abraham Abulafia would translate into numbers his meditations on the combinations of Hebrew letters.8 Cabala could transform into a kind of mystical mathematics. Hence the representative of Pythagoras has an important place in the dialogue De arte cabalistica, and Reuchlin was sometimes called 'Pythagoras Reborn'.9
Some years before the publication of the De arte cabalistica a fierce movement of antisemitism, instigated by a converted Jew called Johann Pfefferkorn, had broken out around Reuchlin. It was the usual kind of virulent attack on Jєωιѕн religion and character, directed particularly against the books of the Jews which it was proposed to confiscate and burn. The attack was not, ostensibly, primarily against Cabalist books, but against Hebrew prayer-books and тαℓмυdic treatises.
Pfefferkorn's antisemitism is chiefly remembered because of the brilliant satire on monkish ignorance, intolerance, and immorality which it aroused. This was the famous collection of Epistolae obscurorum virorum10 which appeared anonymously around 1516—17. The letters of the 'obscure men' violently attack Reuchlin and the Jews, but the imaginary authors, supposedly monks and scholastics, betray their vulgarity and ignorance in every line. Hence the attack was turned against the attackers, and this extremely clever satire covered the reactionaries with ridicule, protected Reuchlin, and helped to prevent the confiscation of the books of the Jews.
The Letters of the Obscure Men were written by German humanists. They showed that public opinion had now been educated to a point which made a reactionary antisemitic movement such as that initiated by Pfefferkorn appear ridiculous. And they have tremendous historical importance because they herald Luther. For it was in 1517 that Luther nailed his theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg and the German Reformation began.
In the De arte cabalistica, published when the attack on him was at its height, Reuchlin refers to his enemies. It is reasonable to suppose that Reuchlin's Christian Cabala and the importance which he attached to Cabalist literature of the Jews had no small share in arousing the wave of antisemitism led by Pfefferkorn. Moreover, some of the satire in the Letters of the Obscure Men makes it clear that Reuchlin's 'Gabala' was an object of the attack on him.
One of the obscure men enquires what 'Gabala' may mean.11 He has heard that Johannes Reuchlin has written a book called 'Gabala' but he cannot find this word in any dictionary. The obscure man has discussed the theology of the book with some divines at a carouse at which they all drank deep (this is normal satire on the obscure men who are usually represented as fuddled as well as ignorant). The book, moreover, adds the obscure man, contains sayings of Pythagoras who was a necromancer, and necromancy is an unlawful art.
Here at the very beginning of the spread of Christian Cabala one can already detect the ominous sound of a nascent witch-hunt against it.
Reuchlin's controversy with Pfefferkorn became famous all over Europe.12 Reuchlin was hailed as a hero of the New Learning, victimised by reactionaries. The importance of Cabala in
Pico della Mirandola's synthesis, the fame of which spread with Neoplatonism, showed that Christian Cabala was a most necessary element at the heart of the New Learning; and that the new Hebrew studies were as vital for the Renaissance scholar as the new Greek studies. Erasmus, hero of the Greek revival, is as much an object of fear to the obscure men in their profound ignorance — one of them asks what that book called 'New Testament' can be — as is Reuchlin and his 'Gabala'.
Reuchlin was famed both as a Greek scholar and as a Hebrew scholar; he represented the New Learning as it had spread in Germany. The attack on him was a reactionary attack on the New Learning. The reply to it was the satire of the Letters of the Obscure Men which foreshadowed Luther's attack on the reactionaries, which opened the Reformation.
Thus the Reuchlin case is involved with the beginnings of the Reformation, yet Reuchlin's stand is different from that of Luther. Reuchlin is a scholar, seeking, like Pico, a mystical synthesis of the religious problem. Luther is the blunt reformer, carrying an evangelical message to the people. Yet there was, as we have seen, a reform programme of a kind inherent in Christian Cabala for it aimed at substituting a more 'powerful' Christian philosophy for scholasticism. This was a difficult aim and difficult to define. It is still difficult to define. Perhaps that accounts for the neglect, until recent years, of the study of Christian Cabala as an important force behind Renaissance and Reformation.


Continue reading here: The Cabalist Friar Of Venice Francesco Giorgi

https://www.spellsandmagic.org/inspired-melancholy/the-occult-philosophy-in-the-reformation-johannes-reuchlin.html