Claude Montefiore, Lily Montagu and the Origins of the Jewish Religious Union

<plain_text><page sequence="1">Claude Montefiore, Lily Montagu and the Origins of the Jewish Religious Union* STEVEN BAYME Numerous religious difficulties afflicted Anglo Jewry at the turn of the century. Fewer and fewer individuals were attending services regularly. Intel? lectuals openly doubted God's existence. The chal? lenges of Higher Criticism of the Bible seemingly undermined the authenticity and originality of Judaism as a religious system. These problems were by no means unique to Judaism, for Christianity, too, witnessed a serious decline in the number of worshippers and in the degree of commitment, and Higher Criticism posed as grave a threat to the integrity of the New Testament as it did to the Old Testament. In this setting a number of Jewish intellectuals and communal leaders resolved to stem the tide of growing religious apathy. Generally upper-class British Jews, they agonized over the future of Judaism among the Anglo-Jewish gentry. Convinced that only drastic measures could save their cause, they prepared themselves for a torrent of criticism and abuse. On 18 October 1902, Claude Montefiore, Lily Montagu, and others with similar concerns, con? vened the first services of the Jewish Religious Union. To many, the services represented the contrary of the preservation of Judaism. Yet, to its founders, the Union represented an effort to estab? lish a religious Jewish identity and prevent further attrition of the religious community.1 To compre? hend this new phenomenon and the schism it subsequently engendered within the community, we ought to glance at the general religious situation in Britain at the turn of the century. Contemporary observers commented widely on the decline of religious faith among Englishmen of all denomina? tions. The number of churchgoers declined mar? kedly, while fewer and fewer openly proclaimed acceptance of revealed religion.2 Among Jewry this problem assumed wider parameters. A religious census conducted by the Daily News revealed that only 25% attended synagogue even on a day as religiously significant as the first day of Passover. In the East End of London 50% attended services. Yet, * Paper delivered to the Society on 4 July 1979. in West London, where the wealthier and native Jews tended to reside, the percentage of worshippers sharply dropped. In pronounced contrast, on an ordinary Sunday, 20% of Christians attended church.3 Solomon Schechter, among others, denounced the religious laxity and shallowness of Anglo-Jewry.4 In addition to poor attendance at services, this decline in religious practice extended to flagrant disregard for the sabbath and festivals, for the dietary laws, and for the principle of marrying within the faith. Some had gone so far as to abandon Judaism for organizations that espoused universal ethics, as Felix Adler had done in America.5 Certain efforts to halt this decline in religiosity antedated the formation of the Jewish Religious Union. Many urged abbreviating the liturgy, the length of which served to bore rather than edify the worshippers. Others complained of the prevalence of Hebrew, a language few understood and which prevented most from participating in the service.6 The most noteworthy of such early efforts at religious modernization was, of course, the Reform movement. Originating in the 1840s as a schism, partly within the Bevis Marks Congregation and partly within the community as a whole over the question of the struggle for emancipation, the movement had by now expanded to other centres, notably Manchester, Liverpool and Bradford. Its leading congregation remained the original West London Synagogue, which in 1870 had been replaced by the Berkeley Street Synagogue.7 Yet by 1900 Reform had ceased to provide a legitimate alternative to British Orthodoxy. Never truly a radical reform as on the continent or in America, British Reform had been outspoken solely on the question of the authority of the Oral Law, leading to the abolition of the second day of festivals. Otherwise, Reform from its inception had retained the use of Hebrew, prayers for the resto? ration to Palestine, and separate pews.8 Only recently had petitions for the restoration of sacri? fices been deleted from the prayer book. The 6i</page><page sequence="2">62 Steven Bayme incumbent minister at Berkeley Street, the Rever? end Morris Joseph, although banned by the Chief Rabbi, Dr Hermann Adler, from the Orthodox ministry in 1890 for challenging the desirability of the restoration of sacrifices, in many ways echoed the feelings of his Orthodox colleagues. Joseph did urge retention of the dietary laws to preserve Jewish separatism and approved of prayers for the political restoration of Palestine. He stressed that Reform and Orthodoxy shared common goals and laboured for cooperation and harmony between the two movements.9 By 1900 the schism appeared to have been largely healed. The eher em of Rabbi N. M. Adler had expired quietly, the Reform synagogue had attained representation at the Board of Depu? ties, and in 1892 the principal Orthodox congrega? tions sent delegates to celebrate the jubilee of the West London Synagogue.10 Yet despite the appearance of external harmony the potential for further schism had actually in? creased. Continued religious laxity served as an argument against the status quo. Moreover, new social and intellectual currents, notably the prob? lems of Jewish vice and the arrival of radical Biblical criticism from Germany, challenged the religious establishment to make social and religious re? sponses. Modern Biblical scholarship originated largely in Germany in the 19th century. Julius Wellhausen constructed the 'Documentary Hypothesis' to explain the seemingly various sources and strands within the Pentateuch and subsequent Biblical works. The critical methodo? logy and the frequently negative conclusions regarding the historicity and moral value of the Bible threatened to undermine traditional faith and replace it with a rather lower estimate of the Bible as suited solely to a long-gone epoch.11 Among Anglo Jewry, Bible criticism also attained a certain re? spectability in the late 19th century. Some of the orthodox dismissed it by pointing to inconsistencies among the critics themselves.12 Chief Rabbi Her? mann Adler and his successor Dr J. H. Hertz, as representatives of a more moderate brand of Ortho? doxy, sought to refute the essential challenge of modern criticism while accepting certain of its detailed findings, which in turn might be useful in comprehending Scripture. In this sense, the Ortho? dox attempted to respond to Biblical criticism by limiting it to a purely scholarly role and excluding it from popular education, such as the pulpit and the Hebrew schools.13 Significantly, Morris Joseph here agreed entirely with Adler's approach.14 Others advocated wider utilization of the new methods. Israel Abrahams, for instance, viewed historical learning as a tool for religious reform, arguing that prayer without a head-covering or separate seating for the sexes could be perfectly legitimized by critical study of the past.15 Of those who embraced the new scholarship, few did so more zealously than Claude Montefiore, who introduced Anglo-Jewry to the critical study of the Old Testament and chided the Orthodox for their rejection of modern scholarship. To the Christian world Montefiore demonstrated the necessity for a similarly critical study of the New Testament.16 Only with respect to the estimate of Jewish law did Montefiore diverge significantly from Wellhausen. Heavily influenced by his tutor in rabbinics, Solo? mon Schechter, Montefiore dismissed Wellhausen's estimate of the law as a totally uncritical accept? ance of Paul's Epistles, and instead portrayed it sympathetically as a joy and an uplift for those who observed it.17 More so than others, Montefiore absorbed and pondered the theological implications of Biblical criticism, arguing that if certain rituals had originated in superstition or were now out? dated, they ought not to merit observance. More? over, if modern scholarship demonstrated the inac? curacy of certain historical sections of Scripture, the modern Jew need not accept such occurrences as factual incidents. Miracles in particular could no longer function as stimuli to faith.18 Yet Montefiore understood Biblical scholarship as undermining only certain details of Judaism, rather than its essence. For him, the authorship of the Pentateuch, its historical accuracy, or the binding nature of certain rituals, constituted at most marginal ques? tions of religious detail. True faith in the Deity and Divine morality did not depend upon the literal accuracy of Scripture. Long before he established the Jewish Religious Union, Montefiore sought a religious movement that would allow him to retain both theism and a critical understanding of Scrip? ture.19 If the growth of Biblical science was an intellec? tual stimulus to forming the Jewish Religious Union, certain social issues constituted a moral stimulus. Two questions of particular concern to</page><page sequence="3">Origins of the Jewish Religious Union 63 women, the suffragette movement and white sla? very, aroused frequent discussion within theologi? cal circles. As women attained higher levels of education they naturally demanded greater communal responsibilities, including functions within the synagogue.20 The United Synagogue had not been oblivious to the demands of the suffragette movement. Certain ministers had endorsed it, and even wished to extend it to United Synagogue elections.21 For others, equality in status between men and women within Judaism was totally unconscionable. Montefiore, however, castigated the Talmud for its conception of women as inferior. Others noted that while women formed the bulwark of the Anglican Church, Jewish women found little room for their talents within the synagogue.22 The Westminster Review, a journal especially concerned with women's movements, became a quasi-forum for the discussion of the role of women within Judaism. Some attempted to dignify the conception of women in traditional Judaism while conceding the essential domesticity of their role.23 Others called for extensive changes within the synagogue. Jewish suffragettes expected the Reform synagogues to abolish women's second class status and introduce equality in synagogal affairs. Some went so far as to consider the syna? gogue a testing-ground for their social pro? gramme.24 Far more tragic than inequality, the problem of white slavery among Jews demanded Herculean efforts of reform. As we shall see, the very same elements involved in the formation of the jru dominated the Jewish Association for the Protection of Girls and Women. Claude Montefiore in particular devoted great personal efforts to the Association's Gentleman's Committee and, in 1902, was the second largest single contributor to the Association's treasury.25 He explained his activities as motivated by prophetic concepts of social justice. Unlike those who joined universal ethical societies, Montefiore understood moral acti? vity as 'distinctively religious'.26 This combination of increased religious indiffer? ence and the emergence of new issues that war? ranted religious responses formed the background to the establishment of the jru in October 1902. The initial membership hoped to unite all believing Jews, since it incorporated a number of diverse elements representing different sectors of the com munity including intellectuals, notably Claude Montefiore and Israel Abrahams; social workers, notably Basil Henriques, Lily Montagu and Harry Lewis; lay officers of the United Synagogue, particu? larly Isidore Spielmann and Henry Lucas; the Reform minister Morris Joseph; and leading Ortho? dox ministers, most notably A. A. Green and Simeon Singer. Prominently absent, of course, were representatives of East London and the provinces, emphasizing that the movement was primarily directed towards native Jewry.27 The diverse nature of the initial membership indicated that the con? cerns of Montefiore and Montagu were widely shared. Simeon Singer, a staunchly Orthodox minister, delivered one of the earliest sermons and conceded the ineffectiveness of traditionally Ortho? dox methods.28 Harry Lewis, a Zionist, noted his agreement with Montefiore's concerns regarding Biblical criticism and the necessity for a primarily English liturgy.29 Oswald Simon, a communal worker, shared the religio-ethical vision of Monte? fiore and Montagu.30 Morris Joseph noted that the most pressing need was the maintenance of Jewish identity while individual forms might remain a matter of personal choice and conscience.31 Perhaps most interesting among the initial members was A. A. Green, the Orthodox minister of the Hampstead Synagogue. One of the com? munity's most outstanding ministers, responsible for one of its most prestigious congregations, the community's unofficial ambassador to the Chris? tian world, and a regular contributor to the Jewish Chronicle under the pseudonym 'Tatler', Green had previously demonstrated his independence from Chief Rabbi Adler over the question of Zionism, which Adler had bitterly opposed. On many intel? lectual questions Green agreed with Montefiore's position, deliberately utilizing the findings of Bibli? cal criticism in his sermons and boldly proclaiming sacrifices as obsolete. Moreover, like Montefiore, he sought to claim Jesus as a Jewish teacher.32 Although Green resigned from the Union quite early, he continued to campaign for some of his favourite causes. Under his pseudonym he advo? cated basic reform of the position of women in the synagogue, including their inclusion in the quorum (minyan), abrogation of the prayer 'That you have not made me a woman', mixed pews and the presence of women in the pulpit, albeit not as</page><page sequence="4">64 Steven Bayme readers or cantors. Publicly, he wholeheartedly endorsed the suffragette movement on religious principle and noted that in time synagogal disabili? ties would have to disappear as well.33 Despite these early efforts at religious diversity, there remained at the core of the movement Bible criticism with its consequent radical theology and universal moral ethics. Zionists, such as Harry Lewis, remained anomalies within the movement while the Ortho? dox and Reform elements before long dropped out entirely. In this sense the movement continued to centre around Montefiore, Montagu and Abra? hams. Claude Montefiore, nephew of Sir Moses, shared his uncle's mixture of piety and worldliness if not his degree of observance. Montefiore studied at Balliol in the 1870s, as one of the first Jews to matriculate at Oxford after it became permitted for them to do so in 1866. Consequently, Montefiore viewed himself as part of a generation of emanci? pated Jews, who might benefit greatly from the influence of the Christian world. He studied under Benjamin Jowett, a liberal theologian, but one who regarded Judaism as 'in an intellectual ghetto'. Subsequently, Jowett encouraged Montefiore to examine Judaism, and in particular the Old Testa? ment, from a modern and critical perspective.34 After Oxford, Montefiore went to Berlin where he engaged Solomon Schechter as tutor in rabbinics and invited the latter to return with him to Britain. In his famous Hibbert Lectures he acknowledged his debt to Schechter: 'To Mr. Schechter I owe more than I can adquately express here. My whole conception of the Law and of its place in Jewish religion and life is largely the fruit of his teaching and inspiration.' Significantly, Montefiore impli? citly criticized Schechter in later years for an unwillingness to apply the findings of critical scholarship to a fundamental revision of the Law and in that sense praised his own Liberal Judaism as far more consistent than American Conservative Judaism. Yet he continually acknowledged his debt to Schechter, much to the latter's regret.35 Despite a personal fear of public speaking, Monte? fiore consented to deliver the 1892 Hibbert Lectures in honour of his mentor, Jowett. Although he devoted the bulk of the lectures to an historical exposition of Judaism, he took the opportunity to define the future direction of Judaism, and set forth what came to be the Liberal programme of the breakdown of the Law in light of Pentateuchal criticism, theistic monotheism and willingness to accept certain ideas of Christianity. Through these principles Montefiore articulated the substance of his theology. Later writings embellished but did not substantively change the programme of the Hibbert Lectures, with the notable exception of the sub? sequent emphasis on social ethics.36 Montefiore's conception of revelation comprised the core of his programme. Unlike the Orthodox, Montefiore did not regard revelation as consisting of historical events. Rather, revelation consisted of Divine teach? ings to be found in both the Old and New Testa? ments.37 Historical events possessed theological significance in so far as they pointed in the general direction of spiritual progress. Herein lay the true meaning of the messianic doctrine, namely the culmination of historical progress.38 For Monte? fiore, present-day man perceived more of Divine Spirit than his forebears, in that he is the heir to the legacy of the ancient prophets in addition to his own inspiration. To this extent the history of revelation itself is progressive. Obviously, Monte? fiore here arrogated to his contemporaries the freedom to make extensive religious changes.39 In these ideas Montefiore did not diverge noticea? bly from Geiger and other Reform theologians. Rather, Montefiore's originality lay in his mysticism and his approach to Christianity. He criticized his fellow reformers for their excessive rationalism and intellectualism, which emphasized ethics at the expense of religious experience.40 Mysticism, for him, when devoid of superstition, constituted a true religious experience in so far as it evoked a God of nearness to man and immanence in human society rather than the remotely transcendent God of the philosophers.41 Perhaps for this reason Montefiore undertook to translate Schechter's essay 'The Chas sidim' from German into English as it represented the first sympathetic estimate of the mystic move? ment by a man of enlightened rationality.42 If Montefiore's mysticism diverged from the more standard paths of Reform, his approach to Chris? tianity clearly identified him as a radical within the Reform camp. Harry Wolfson once commented that the jru intended to halt the drift of upper-class Jews into Christianity. Indeed, the people who formed the jru had been devoting great efforts to counter</page><page sequence="5">Origins of the Jewish Religious Union 65 British conversionists at the turn of the century.43 Yet Montefiore's concern for Christianity had far deeper roots. He admired its mysticism and faith and felt that Judaism in its desire to distance itself from Christianity had unjustly neglected these positive features of the daughter religion.44 Monte fiore boldly proclaimed a new era of reconciliation between the faiths in which Judaism could incor? porate certain features of Christianity and thereby attain the 'complete truth'.45 In particular, Montefiore insisted that the Jew confront the New Testament both theologically and critically. Critical scholarship again became the sine qua non for theological appreciation for Jew and Christian alike, enabling the Jew to differentiate between truth and falsehood in the New Testament as in the Old. Moral truth in particular might be gleaned from the Gospels. For the future, Monte? fiore anticipated inclusion of portions of the New Testament into Jewish Scripture.46 Montefiore's portrait of Jesus pointed to a man 'of noble charac? ter' who sought to universalize the ethic of Judaism. In other words, Montefiore, as did his contemporary Joseph Klausner, but from a totally different per? spective, sought to reclaim Jesus as a Jewish teacher. To the believing Christian, Montefiore seemingly failed to confront the essential question of the divinity of Jesus, although privately Monte? fiore went so far as to concede the possible truth or partial truth of the doctrine of the Trinity.47 If Judaism then should imitate the path of Jesus and universalize its ethics, an insular Jewish ethic represented a regression. Indeed, Montefiore remained outspokenly anti-Zionist to the end of his days, even through the onset of the Hitler years. He even failed to discern any reason for rejuvenating the Hebrew language.48 While Montefiore urged a universalist Jewish ethic, and more generally a rapprochement of Jew and Christian, he continued to value specifically Jewish rituals such as the sabbath and the festivals for their value as a means of maintaining links with the past, and perhaps more surprisingly as a means of maintaining the cohe siveness of world Jewry.49 Certainly he cautioned against excessive legalism, yet he fully endorsed whatever would bind people together. Along these lines he advocated maintenance of at least the Pentateuchal requirements of the sabbath and dietary laws, and outspokenly condemned inter marriage as spelling the end of Jewry, despite the protests of Benjamin Jowett.50 Other personalities followed Montefiore's lead and further developed his ideas. Israel Abrahams lent academic stature to the movement by his position as an authority on medieval Jewish social history. So great had been Abrahams' academic standing in the Reform camp that he had even been considered for the presidency of Hebrew Union College shortly after Schechter accepted the Chan? cellorship of the Jewish Theological Seminary.51 Abrahams insisted on the primacy of belief and dogma over questions of ethics or the technicalities of Biblical Criticism. He refrained from attacks on Orthodoxy in his sermons and privately lamented Orthodoxy's failure to succeed in Britain. He aimed primarily at restoring religious feeling to a society in which religious indifference had become the rule. Finally, he followed Montefiore in sympathetically explaining rabbinic Judaism to Christian intellec? tual audiences.52 Similarly, Lily Montagu, the devoted communal worker, contributed a slightly different dimension to the movement. The daughter of the staunchly Orthodox Lord Swaythling, she quarrelled bitterly with her father over the ability of Orthodoxy to stem the drift towards religious indifference. In particu? lar, she worried over the effects of conversionist agencies and envisioned Liberal Judaism as a counter-conversionist movement.53 Yet Montagu's uniqueness lay in her rejection of traditional sex roles within Judaism. As a young woman she had rebelled against women's inability to participate in the service and traditional conceptions of men? struation. As early as 1905, she urged granting women the right to lead the services and preach from the pulpit. Yet even within the Liberal camp these ideas did not reach fruition until after the First World War. Outside, traditional conceptions regarding women continued to prevail. Montagu herself benefited from the traditional value-system in the sense that she never suffered the invective that opponents of the jru hurled against Monte? fiore.54 Yet Montagu herself abstained from the militant feminism of her day. In her autobiography she spoke of traditional conceptions of women's place in communal social welfare institutions rather than in communal politics. Within the jru she consistently deferred to Montefiore's superior</page><page sequence="6">66 Steven Bayme intellect and sought to assist him primarily with the practical work of the jru. Within the general suffragette movement she possessed virtually no influence.55 The presence of such prominent personalities, and the innovative ideas they advocated, did have some effect on the wider Anglo-Jewish community. The existing Reform movement, for example, greeted Montefiore's services with mixed feelings. At least one member of the West London Syna? gogue publicly called for Montefiore's resignation from the synagogue's Board of Directors. Lily Montagu, in fact, did resign her position as director of the children's services.56 Montefiore conceded the relative agreement of his views with those of Morris Joseph, yet he chided Joseph for accepting the findings of Biblical scholarship solely with respect to externals and not with respect to more fundamental questions of Pentateuchal authorship and historicity. Joseph responded with a defence of Orthodoxy, arguing that the latter did not demand total literalism, and equated Montefiore's argument for utilizing Biblical criticism as justification for major changes as 'licence' rather than Reform. In light of these differences between the two move? ments the jru rejected an offer to use the West London Synagogue for services lest it compromise its independence from the older and more estab? lished Reform group.57 Yet in response to the growing radicalism of the jru, British Reform did make certain changes in a 'leftward' direction. Isidore Harris, the prominent editor of the Jewish Yearbook and a graduate of Jews' College, urged the West London Synagogue to moderate its controversy with the jru, and empha? sized the need for a liberal interpretation of the halacha.58 In the meantime, attendance at the West London Synagogue remained very meagre. Conse? quently, by 19io, growing pressure for further changes arose which led to the introduction of English and the shortening of services by half an hour. More radical reforms, such as mixed pews, did not gain approval. The proponents of these reforms hoped to halt any drift into the jru. In 1912, the Reform synagogue extended the use of English to festival as well as sabbath prayers. Although the Orthodox condemned these changes, some sus? pected that they secretly desired similar changes.59 There, the jru evoked a mixed response, although condemnations clearly dominated. The Chief Rabbi denounced the movement as 'revolt' rather than 'reform' and mocked the services as 'unjewish irreligious disunion' in a classic example of Adler's tart tongue.60 In particular, he condemned the Union's drift towards Unitarianism, as well as some practices of the jru such as Sunday services.61 Hermann Gollancz, the only minister in Britain besides Adler to have been rabbinically ordained, attacked the movement on intellectual grounds, noting in particular the intense interest in the New Testament and radical Biblical criticism.62 Significantly, the opposition did not coalesce immediately with the formation of the jru. Only towards the end of the decade, with the opening of the Liberal Jewish Synagogue, did the uproar ensue. At first the movement, as noted above, did include prominent Orthodox ministers, who subse? quently withdrew. And so long as the movement remained a private service, it did not institutionally challenge Anglo-Judaism, although it undoubtedly constituted an intellectual and theological chal? lenge. But, by establishing its own synagogue, the movement broke ranks with the established institu? tional arrangements and evoked much more in? tense opposition. Ideological considerations alone could scarcely have provoked the attack. More importantly, Liberal Judaism struck a re? sponsive chord within the Orthodox camp, for the intellectual and philanthropic prestige of Monte? fiore himself drew continued respect and deference from Orthodox leaders.63 Moreover, within Ortho? doxy there arose some clamour for changes similar to those instituted by the jru. Thus, Hermann Gollancz advocated revision in the sabbath liturgy to relate it to the needs of those who could not follow a Hebrew service. He called for new prayers and a general shortening of the service, and even justified such actions on the Biblical principle of 'At a time of necessity for preserving the Law, thy Torah be annulled'.64 Rev. J. F. Stern of East London went so far as to introduce mixed choirs, and claimed to have saved Orthodoxy in Stepney.65 Others clamoured for the use of the organ in the synagogue, greater use of English, mixed pews, Sunday services and freedom of speech in the pulpit, in many ways a replica of the programme of the jru.66 In other ways the jru acted as a catalyst within Orthodox institutions. Lord Swaythling</page><page sequence="7">Origins of the Jewish Religious Union 67 acknowledged the philanthropic work of the Union in East London and offered to pay the salaries of three additional workers if other sources provided matching funds for three others. Also, the growth of the Union provided a powerful argument for an increase in the financial support given by the United Synagogue lest 'we shall be playing into the hands of Radical Reform'.67 In this sense the growth of the jru forced Orthodoxy to reconsider its own institu? tions. In contrast to the Orthodox, the Zionists unequi? vocally condemned Montefiore and the jru. Although the Union itself made few pronounce? ments on the Zionist question, Montefiore's own attitude represented the overwhelmingly predomi? nant opinion.68 The Union did invite the avowedly Zionist Stephen Wise to address it in 1910, yet Wise tactfully skirted the issue of Zionism, limiting himself to a plea for Jewish unity.69 Montefiore himself subsequently refused to debate with Wise on the issue of Zionism out of personal affection for Wise and sorrow at the latter's politics.70 Although Montefiore held Weizmann himself in high esteem, his comments on Zionism at times grew vitriolic: T cannot tell you the anxiety the Zionists cause me. Sometimes I get so sick. .. that I feel tempted to chuck all Jewish work and retire ... and live exclu? sively as an ordinary Englishman among my English neighbors - my own people as I call them . . . [the triumph of Zionism would be the] ruin of ludaism and the Jews. I mind the latter much less for they will have brought it upon themselves.'71 Little wonder that even the triumph of Hitler failed to sway Montefiore towards a more positive estimate of Zionism. Naturally the Zionists counter-attacked. The Jewish Review, a Zionist organ edited by Norman Bentwich and Joseph Hockman, proclaimed that Jewish religious law and nationality constituted an 'organic union' that the jru sought to divide.72 Ahad Ha-am, the Zionist intellectual resident in London, personally responded to Montefiore's theo? logy, his sole intervention in Anglo-Jewish public life. Specifically, he warned that Montefiore's ac? ceptance of the New Testament would bring about the merging of Judaism with the rest of humanity and the ultimate obliteration of Judaism. Rather, Judaism must continue to remain aloof from the world in order to survive within it. Ahad Ha-am conceded the necessity for a Jewish stance on the New Testament, but not Montefiore's panegyric. He urged Jews to note the innate differences separating Judaism from Christianity, such as Jewish nation? hood and the denial of Christian love. Obviously, Ahad Ha-am preferred the works of his Zionist disciple Joseph Klausner on early Christianity to Montefiore's scholarship and the Liberal Judaism it created.73 In the Christian world the jru failed to elicit significant interest. Some compared it to the moder? nist currents within the Protestant Church, while others cautioned Jews to remain separate from Christianity and speak less about Jesus.74 In general, although Montefiore continued to address Christian audiences, his movement failed to attract attention beyond the Jewish community. What estimate can one then make of the forma? tion of the jru? Certainly the movement owed more to the intellectual leadership of a single man than did its counterparts in Europe and America, and Claude Montefiore uniquely synthesized radical Biblical criticism, genuine mysticism, serious in? spection of Christian teachings, and universalist social ethics. In doing so, he gave Liberal Judaism in Britain particular forms not found in any other Reform movement. Yet the origins of Liberal Judaism perhaps indicate even more about the Anglo-Jewish community than about the history of Reform. Anglo-Jewry had developed a complex arrangement for the community, each institution zealously guarding its own prerogatives and func? tions. So long as Liberal Judaism remained an ideological movement it incited neither public schism nor communal concern. Yet by entering the communal sphere and challenging the prerogatives of communal organizations and institutions such as the Chief Rabbinate, the Board of Deputies and numerous bodies responsible for Jewish education, Liberal Judaism sparked off a controversy that would affect the subsequent history of the entire Jewish community of Britain. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to thank all those who assisted the formation of this paper, in particular Judge Israel Fines tein, who arranged for its presentation at a meeting of the Society, Professor Todd Endelman, who read an earlier draft, and Ms Fannie Zeller, who facilitated the author's</page><page sequence="8">68 Steven Bayme research at the American Jewish Archives in Cincinnati, Ohio. Thanks are also due to Yeshiva University, which graciously awarded a travel grant to assist in covering my expenses in London. NOTES 1 Jewish Religious Union, Jewish Addresses (London 1904), collection of sermons delivered during first year of the Union's existence, vol. 1. See also Lily Montagu, The Jewish Religious Union and Its Beginnings (London 1927) p.i, and Claude Montefiore, Liberal Judaism (London 1903) p.212. 2 A. J. P. Taylor, English History 1914-1945 (New York 1965) p. 168. See also editorials in Jewish Chronicle, 14 Aug. 1908, p.6, and 20 Oct. 1911, p.8. 3 Figures cited in Jewish Chronicle, 13 Apr. 1906, p.23. 4 Solomon Schechter, 'Four Epistles to the Jews in England', Studies in Judaism, 2nd series (Phila. 1908) pp. 192-3. On the widespread religious indifference in Anglo-Judaism, Jewish Chroni? cle, 1 Dec. 1905, p. 16, and 25 March 1910, p. 17, citing Weekend. See also Lion Feuchtwanger, 'Reflections on Anglo-Jewish His? tory', Historia Judaica IX (1947) pp. 133-4. 5 Jewish Chronicle, 24 July 1908, p.25, and Montagu op. cit. p. 10. Stephen Sharot has blamed poor synagogal attendence on the high price of seats and the importance of class within the synagogue, 'The Social Determinants in the Religious Practices and Organization of English Jewry with Special Reference to the United Synagogue', unpublished Ph.D. thesis (Oxford 1968) pp. 146-7. 6 Jewish Chronicle, 5 Jan. 1900, p.8, and 12 Jan. 1900, p. 18, editorial, 10 May 1901, pp.18-19. Even Nathan Adler agreed to abolish the mi sheberech and to introduce an English sermon in response to the demands of Manchester reformers. See, Bill Williams, The Making of Manchester Jewry (Manchester 1976) pp. 248-9. 7 On the origins and progress of Reform, Chaim Bermant, Troubled Eden (London 1969) pp.17, 231, and David Philipson, The Reform Movement in Judaism (reprint, New York 1967) p. 106. Perhaps the first scholar to detect the link with the battle for emancipation was Jacob Petuchowski, 'Karaite Tendencies in an early Reform Haggadah', Hebrew Union College Annual XXXI (i960) p.226, a suggestion pursued in Robert Liberles, 'The Origins of the Jewish Reform Movement in England', AJS Review I (1976) pp.121-50. 8 On the moderation of early Reform in England, Petuchowski op. cit. pp. 2 24-5. See also the dedication sermon of the West London Synagogue by the Rev. David Marks, in Gunther Plaut (ed.) The Rise of Reform Judaism (New York 1963) p.48, and Cecil Roth, History of the Great Synagogue (London 1950) p.258. 9 On Joseph and his views regarding sacrifices, Philipson op. cit. pp.403, 490; Bermant op. cit. pp. 185-6, and Albert Hyamson, History of the Jews in England (London 1928) p.289. On the approximation of Joseph to Orthodoxy, see especially Joseph, Judaism as Creed and Life (London 1903) pp. 169-72, 182-3, 186; Jewish Chronicle, 31 Dec. 1909, p.9; 5 Dec. 1913, p. 16, and editorial 3 Oct. 1913, pp.11-12. 10 Albert Hyamson, The Sephardim of England (London 1951) p.295, and Williams op. cit. pp.258-60. Williams argues that Reform, at least in Manchester, emanated more from currents of German thought than the battle for emancipation as suggested earlier by Liberles, see above n.7. 11 For the impact of historical criticism in Britain, see the Nation, 30 Nov. 1907, pp.295-6. 12 Such for instance was the reaction of Lily Montagu's father, Samuel Montagu, see Lily Montagu, Samuel Montagu, First Lord Swaythling (pamphlet, private circulation, 1913, p. 19, British Library). 13 On Adler's attitude towards higher criticism, see Jewish Chronicle, 10 Nov. 1905, p. 16, and 21 July 1911, pp.21-2. On Hertz, see the preface to vol. 3 of his Sermons, Addresses, Studies (London 1938) and his commentary on the Pentateuch. The Jewish Chronicle agreed with these stalwarts of Orthodoxy that such teachings be kept from children, see Jewish Chronicle, 4 Sept. 1908, pp.5, 15. The Rev. A. A. Green echoed this attitude under his pseudonym 'Tatler', ibid., p.9. For the identification of Tatler with A. A. Green, Cecil Roth et al, The Jewish Chronicle: One Hundred Years of Newspaper History (London 1949) p. 136. 14 JQR XVIII (O.S. 1906) pp. 292-3, symposium on Biblical criticism and the pulpit. See also Raymond Apple, The Hampstead Synagogue (London 1967) p.36. 15 Israel Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages (reprint, New York 1969) pp.280-1. 16 JQR IX (1897) p.245, and XIV (1902) pp.151-2. See also Montefiore, Liberal Judaism, pp.98-9. 17 Claude Montefiore, 'Jewish Scholarship and Christian Silence', Hibbert Journal I (1902-1903) pp.335-46. See also idem, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as Illustrated by the Religion of the Ancient Hebrews (London and Edinburgh 1893) pp.503-7, 542 (hereafter referred to as Hibbert Lectures). See also Joshua Stein, Claude Montefiore on the Ancient Rabbis (Montana 1977) P-I3- For Schechter's attitude, 'The Law and Recent Criticism', JQR III (O.S. 1891) pp. 754~66. For Christian scholarly evaluations of the Jewish law, G. F. Moore, 'Christian Writers on Judaism', Harvard Theological Review XIV (1921) p.240. 18 Montefiore, Liberal Judaism, pp.20, 124. Idem, Hibbert Lectures, pp.508-9, 531. 19 Idem, 'Effect of Biblical Criticism upon the Jewish Religion', JQR IV (O.S. 1892) pp.298, 304. Idem, Liberal Judaism, pp.165-6, 290-1. See also Lucy Cohen, Some Recollections of Claude Monte? fiore (London 1939) p.57. 20 See Jewish Chronicle, editorials, 20 Oct. 1899, p. 18; 3 May 1901, pp. 18-19; 15 Nov. 1901, p. 17. The Sephardim had as early as 1892 permitted women to serve as Yehidim (communal officials) provided they were married, Neville Laski, Laws and Charities of the Spanish and Portuguese Jewish Congregation of London (London 1952) pp.45-6. Lily Montagu drew a direct connection between changing conceptions of women and her reformist tendencies, The Faith of a Jewish Woman (London 1943) pi 3- On the suffragette movement in Britain generally, George Dangerfield, The Strange Death of Liberal England (New York 1935) passim. 21 Adler tacitly supported the suffragette movement in British politics in a eulogy he delivered for Queen Victoria; in Anglo-Jewish Memories (London 1909) pp. 121-2. His brother, Elkan Adler, was known to be interested in extending the franchise to United Synagogue elections, see letter to Elkan Adler, 24 Feb. 1914, Elkan Adler Collection, Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Simi? larly, Herman Gollancz felt constrained to respond to feminist critiques, see Gollancz, Sermons and Addresses (New York 1909) p. 108. Most interestingly Isidore Spielmann, writing in the religiously conservative Jewish Review, admitted the inferior position of Jewish women and advocated their greater partici? pation in synagogal affairs, Jewish Review IV (1913) pp.24-6, 35-6 22 Montefiore, 'Dr. Wiener on the Dietary Laws', JQR VIII (O.S. 1896) p.394. Idem, A Rabbinic Anthology (Phila. 1936) p.xviii. Benjamin Lewis contrasted the prominence of English women in the Church to the indifference of Jewish women towards the synagogue in 'The Passing of the English Jew', Nineteenth Century LXXII (July 1912) p.502. The Jewish Chronicle reported that the Rev. Joseph Hockman, an editor of the Jewish Review and one of the brightest young and rising figures in the Anglo-Jewish ministry, resigned from his pulpit over the inability of the rabbinate to adjust to the conditions of modernity, e.g., the place of women in the synagogue, see Jewish Chronicle, 20 Aug. 1915, p. 12.</page><page sequence="9">Origins of the Jewish Religious Union 69 23 'Anyone who has a knowledge of Jewish History will know that the position accorded to woman among the Jews was lofty and dignified .. . woman was considered an equal to man, certainly as far as mental capacity was concerned.' Thus Joseph Strauss, 'Women's Position in Ancient and Modern Jewry', Westminster Review 174 (1910) p.620, see also p.628. Similarly, Percy Cohen pronounced a fundamental antithesis between Judaism and suffragettism, see Cohen, 'Judaism and Feminism', ibid., 180 (1913) pp.453, 458-60. 24 Elizabeth de Bruin, 'Judaism and Womanhood', ibid., pp.124, 130-2. Certainly, Lily Montagu's role in the jru was an attempt to divorce Judaism from traditional conceptions of women, see Philipson op. cit. pp.407-8, and Montagu, The J.R.U. and Its Beginnings, pp.38-9. The Jewish League for Woman Suffrage enjoyed widespread support among the Anglo-Jewish community, including the Orthodox ministers Daiches, Green and Stern, the Reform Joseph and Lewis, the Liberal Montagu and the Zionist Bentwich. See Jewish Chronicle, 8 Nov. 1912, p. 19, and extensive objections from Jewish anti-feminists, ibid., 15 Nov. 1912, p.19. 25 In 1902, Montefiore donated ?55 to the Association, making him the second largest single contributor on the basis of the figures in the Jewish Association for the Protection of Girls and Women, Annual Report, 1902, pp. 11, 100, 103, 119. The Orthodox Simeon Singer, subsequently an early supporter of the jru functioned alongside Montefiore on the Gentleman's Com? mittee, ibid., p. 3 8. In 1910 Oswald Simon, also an early member of the jru, blamed the White Slavery problem on the Orthodox practice of hastily arranged marriages between young Jews. Simon noted this with due apologies to 'Orthodox co-religionists', International Jewish Conference on Suppression of the White Slave Traffic (London 191 o) p. 18 7. 26 Ibid., p.211. Montefiore specifically noted that his ethics in this case were those of the prophets rather than the New Testament, see Montefiore, 'Modern Judaism and the Messianic Hope', Hibbert Journal XI (1912-1913) pp.375-6. 27 Special services were held in the East End, but were dissolved in 1906. One year later it was specified that three members of the jru's Executive Committee had to be residents of the East End, see Montagu, The J.R. U. and Its Beginnings, pp. 17-18. Montefiore in particular feared that the children of East End residents could not accept their parents' Judaism and therefore required a Liberal movement, see Jewish Chronicle, 4 Dec. 1908, p.26. Subsequently, he lamented the failure of Liberal Judaism to win an audience among the working classes, see Montefiore, Liberal Judaism, pp. 243-4. 28 Jewish Religious Union, Jewish Addresses, p. 16. 29 Ibid., pp.27, 37-8. 30 Montague, The JRU and Its Beginnings, p.23. 31 Jewish Religious Union, Jewish Addresses, pp. 116-7. Joseph subsequently resigned as he could not be party to a schism, see Montagu, The JRU and Its Beginnings, pp.20-1. 32 A. A. Green, Sermons (London 1935) pp. 128-31. See also Jewish Chronicle, 16 Feb. 1906, pp.2 8-9. On Green's prominence within the Anglo-Jewish ministry, see Steven Bayme, 'Jewish Leadership and Anti-Semitism in Britain, 1898-1918' (unpub? lished Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University 1977) pp.40-1. 33 See 'Tatler' in the Jewish Chronicle, 10 July 1908, p. 9; 31 July 1908, p.7; 5 Feb. 1909, p.9, and 19 Feb. 1909, p.7. Green resigned as Tatler shortly after the publication of these highly controversial columns. For the public Green, see ibid., 10 Oct. 1913, p.29. On Green's resignation from the jru, see Philipson op. cit. p.409, and Montagu, The JRU and Its Beginnings, p. 14. 34 Leonard Montefiore to Mrs Sheldon Blank, 3 May 195 5, ms. American Jewish Archives, box 625, Cincinnati, Ohio. See also Jowett to Claude Montefiore, 12 Aug. 1899, cited in Lucy Cohen op. cit. pp. 52-3, for Jowett's encouragement to Montefiore to examine Judaism critically. See also Norman Bentwich, 'Claude Montefiore and His Tutor in Rabbinics', Montefiore Memorial Lecture, no. 6 (1966) p. 11. 35 Cited in Victor Reichert, 'The Contribution of Claude Montefiore to the Advancement of Judaism on the Commemo? ration of His Seventieth Birthday', CCAR Journal XXXVIII (1928) pp.504-5. On Montefiore's engaging of Schechter, see Alexander Marx, Essays in Jewish Biography (Phila. 1947) p.232. For Montefiore's critique of historical Judaism, see Montefiore, Outlines of Liberal Judaism (London 1923) p.285. 36 Montefiore, Hibbert Lectures, pp. 5 50-2. See also idem, Truth in Religion (London 1906) pp. 15-42, which embellishes these themes, and Montefiore and Basil Henriques, The English Jew and His Religion (Keighley 1918) pp. 10-19, which stresses the centrality of social ethics. See also Montefiore's sermon of 11 April 1903 to the jru, in jru, Jewish Addresses, pp. 142-53. For the personal fear of public speaking, see Montefiore to Max Heller, 17 Jan. 1910, American Jewish Archives, box 528. 37 Montefiore, Outlines of Liberal Judaism, p. 78. Idem, Liberal Judaism, pp.169-73. 38 Idem, Outlines of Liberal Judaism, pp. 148-9, 156. 39 Ibid., p. 183. 40 Ibid., p. 165. See also Idem, 'The Mystic Element in Religion', Free Synagogue Pulpit II (June 1910) pp. 110-15, and idem, 'Modern Judaism and the Messianic Hope', p. 36 7 for his critique of the rationalism of American Reform. See also idem, A Laudation of Judaism (London 1910) p.i 1. Perhaps the sole Reform thinker on the Continent to approximate Montefiore's mysticism was the German theologian Ludwig Steinheim, see selections from his works in Gunther Plaut (ed.) The Rise of Reform Judaism (New York 1965) pp.128-32. 41 See Montefiore, Liberal Judaism, pp.9, 17, 84, 85. Idem, Outlines of Liberal Judaism, pp.5 7-60. See also idem, Laudation of Judaism, p. 10. 42 Reprinted in Studies in Judaism, (New York 1970) pp. 150-89. For Montefiore as translator, see Marx op. cit. pp.233-4. 43 Thus Wolfson characterized English Reform as more re? ligious than the pragmatist American and intellectualist German varieties, Wolfson, 'Jewish Studies in English Universities', Menorah Journal I (1915) pp.2 7-8. In an interesting example of how missionaries could act as catalysts for the Jewish community, Gaster wrote to Montefiore that to fail to oppose the activities of the missionaries was to play directly into their hands, see Gaster to Montefiore, 8 Aug. 1900, ms Gaster Papers, 1900-1901 file, items 220-1, Mocatta Library, University of London. For the concern about the conversionists among the early members of the jru, see Jewish Chronicle, 10 May 1901, p. 14; 2 May 1902, p. 11 (reprint of Montefiore's letter to The Times), and 10 Nov. 1905, pp.28-9. See also Montefiore, Liberal Judaism, p.83, and N. S. Joseph, 'Why I am not a Christian: A Reply to the Conversionists', Papers for the Jewish People III (1908) p. 1. An interesting example of the relative indifference of upper-class Jews towards Judaism and Christianity may be seen in the correspondence of Lady Louise Cohen to her nephew Walter, 17 Feb. 1899: 'Pour mon compte, tant que les Juifs auront une cause a defendre, je me rangerai avec eux - c'est un sentiment et non une idee, tu peux m'en croire. Si le sentiment me quitte (ce qui est possible) ce sera peut-etre une decheance.' Cited in Hannah Cohen, Changing Faces (London 1937) pp.229-30. 44 Montefiore, 'The Mystic Element in Religion', pp. 112-3. See also idem, Laudation of Judaism, pp. 5-6. 45 Idem, Outlines of Liberal Judaism, pp.320,169. See also idem, 'Judaism and Christianity in Their Relation to Each Other', JQR IX (O.S. 1897) pp. 240-1, and idem, 'Modern Judaism', Hibbert Journal XVII (1918-1919) pp.648-50. 46 Idem, The Synoptic Gospels (London 1909) pp.cxxviii, xxi. See</page><page sequence="10">70 Steven Bayme also Plaut, The Growth of Reform Judaism (New York 1965) p. 185. Publicly, Montefiore maintained that Judaism cannot at present incorporate the New Testament into Scripture, but would be able to do so once Jewish monotheism had triumphed and Judaism could then abandon its distinctiveness without loss, see idem, Outlines of Liberal Judaism, pp. 3 3 5-8. See also W. R. Matthews, 'Claude Montefiore: The Man and His Thought', Montefiore Memorial Lecture I (1956) pp.21-2. 47 For Klausner's treatment of Jesus, see his Jesus of Nazareth (Boston 1925) passim. For Montefiore, see Montefiore, 'The Significance of Jesus for His Own Age', Hibbert Journal X (1911-1912) pp.769-73, and idem, Outlines of Liberal Judaism, PP-330-3- Matthews noted that Montefiore refused to confront the essential question of the divinity of Jesus, opting instead to concentrate on the ethic of the Gospels rather than the theology of John, see Matthews op. cit. pp. 14-15. Privately, at least, Monte? fiore was willing to entertain the possibility of the doctrine of the Trinity possessing partial truth, but not complete truth, see Montefiore to Israel Mattuck n.d. (American Jewish Archives, box 2738): I call it a beautiful sermon, and in such excellent taste. And so much that is true in it. I like it very much. My only doubt is about the single sentence at the end which runs: 'claiming truth for ... other beliefs'. If e.g. Christianity is 'true' in that part of it which agrees with Judaism, then the remark is obvious. But if it means that there is 'truth' in those teachings of Christianity which are distinctive of it, and which are not held by Judaism then the sentence needs qualification. If put too broadly I could not accept it. I got into great hot water with the cr. for something like your sentence, but I was more guarded. The Trinity is a distinctive teaching of Christianity. What I said was that there might be some truth even in a distinctively Christian doctrine - e.g. the Trinity - though as a whole the doctrine is not true. The Trinity emphasizes (it may be) an aspect of truth though, as a whole, or taken without qualification, it is untrue. If your sentence means that, I agree with it. But it is dangerous teaching, for it needs careful guarded qualification. Perhaps you meant something however, which I have failed to grasp. With the exception ofthat one brief sentence of 15 words, it is tip top: lucid, brave and in such perfect taste. 48 See Montefiore, The Old Testament and After (London 1923) PP-553-4, and idem, 'Dr. Wiener on the Dietary Laws', pp.408-9. For the death sentence for Hebrew, see idem, Liberal Judaism, pp. 144-6. See further Montefiore's letters to Lucy Cohen in Cohen op. cit. pp.212, 226-7, and Montefiore, 'Nation or Religious Community', Trans. JHSE (1899) reprinted in Michael Selzer (ed.) Zionism Reconsidered (London 1970) pp.49-64. See also Bayme op. cit. pp.308-9. A contrary view of Montefiore is taken by John Rayner who maintains that had Montefiore lived to witness the horrors of Hitlerism, he would have altered his views on Zionism; see Rayner, 'Claude Montefiore: His Religious Teachings', Synago? gue Review 32 (June 1958) pp.252-60. This view, while based on an argument from silence and, perhaps, a touch of wishful thinking, ignores the reality that Montefiore did live until 1938 and witnessed the dawn of racial legislation. 49 See Montefiore, Outlines of Liberal Judaism, pp. 178-80, 242, 256, 262-7. Idem, The Jewish Religious Union: Its Principles and Its Future (London 1909) pp. 16-19. 50 Ibid., p. 19. Idem, Outlines of Liberal Judaism., pp.220-4, 252, 298. Idem, Liberal Judaism, pp. 130-1, 204-7. For Jowett's exhor? tations regarding Jewish-Christian intermarriage, see Jowett to Montefiore, 14 Sept. 1884: I think it quite right that the wall of distinction between Jew and Christian be broken down ... lewish society in England is too narrow to allow of Jews only marrying within limits of their own community and that they would be placed at great disadvantage if such a rule were enforced. All good persons have much more in common than they have of what is different. For these reasons I am not opposed to mixed marriages ... Cited in Lucy Cohen op. cit. pp. 35-6. 51 Schechter was encouraged by an American colleague to urge Abrahams to consider the huc post, see Maurice Harris to Schechter, 9 Jan. 1902, ms Schechter Papers, jtsa. Schechter's reply is indicative of his attitude towards Abrahams and the Liberal camp: Abrahams considers himself an advance post of radical reform in America and has [expectations] for the great cause which he hopes will pay him one day ... He is quite worthy of the cause he represents. Schechter to Harris, March 1902, ibid. Michael Meyer noted that Abrahams was considered for the presidency of jir in the 1920s, but seemingly was unaware of the earlier consideration for the post at huc, see Meyer,4A Centennial History', in Samuel KarfT(ed.) H.U.C.-J.l.R. at 100 Years (Cincinnati 1976) p.148. 52 jru, Jewish Addresses, pp.47-8, 256. Abrahams too was concerned over the problem of Christian missionaries, see Plaut, Growth of Reform Judaism, p.289. Abrahams' efforts to explain rabbinic Judaism to Christian scholars met at least one receptive ear in Father Tyrrell, see Tyrrell to Abrahams, 22 Jan. 1909, noting that Abrahams' portrayal of rabbinic Judaism 'represented a very high stage of religious evolution', in M.D. Pettre (ed.) Father Tyrrell's Letters (London 1920) pp. 152-3. For Abrahams' private lament over the failure of Orthodoxy, see Abrahams to David Philipson, 1 March 1903, American Jewish Archives, box 2329. 53 Montagu, 'The Relation of Faith to Conduct', Papers for the Jewish People II (1907) pp.11-12. See also Jewish Chronicle, 30 Sept. 1904, and 25 May 1906, p.42. A. A. Green responded that religious services, no matter how desirable, would never meet the threat of the conversionists, see ibid., 7 July 1904, p. 17. On Montagu's conflict with her father, see ibid., 8 April 1910, p.22, and Ellen Umansky, 'The Origin of the Liberal Jewish Movement in England', paper delivered at 10th Annual Association for Jewish Studies Conference, Boston 1978, p.4. 54 Montagu, Faith of a Jewish Woman, pp. 9-10, 22-3, 37. See also idem, The J.R.U. and Its Beginnings, p.27. 55 Montagu, My Club and I (London 1954) passim. See also idem. Faith of a Jewish Woman, p.28, and Umansky op. cit. p. 7. 56 Jewish Chronicle, 22 Oct. 1909, pp. 21-3. 57 Philipson op. cit. p.413. Jewish Chronicle, 4 March 1910, p. 15. See also the interchange between Montefiore and Joseph in the JQR XVIII (O.S. 1906), especially 299, 311, 315. 58 Jewish Chronicle, 3 Dec. 1909, pp. 20-1. 59 The changes in Berkeley Street were covered in The Times; see the issues for 28 Jan. 1910, p.4; 31 Jan. 1910, p.3; 15 Feb. 1910, p.12; 30 Jan. 1911, p.4; 20 Feb. 1911, p.3; 9 Jan. 1912, p.4. See also the negative editorial in the Jewish Chronicle, 28 Jan. 1910, p.6, and 10 Jan. 1914, p. 15. On the sparse figures of attendance, see Sharot op. cit. pp.241-4. 60 Jewish Chronicle, 8 Oct. 1909, p. 16; 28 May 1909, p. 16. 61 Ibid., 5 Nov. 1909, p. 18, and condemned editorially for the blanket denunciation, ibid., 8 Oct. 1909, pp.5-6. The Conference of Jewish Ministers of the United Kingdom supported Adler in the schism wholeheartedly, see The Times, 27 Dec. 1909, p.6. 62 Jewish Chronicle, 18 March 1910, p. 14. 63 Efforts to remove Montefiore from Orthodox institutions, spearheaded by Swaythling (Samuel Montagu), failed because of Montefiore's prestige, see Jewish Chronicle, 15 May, 1908, p. 12; 15 Apr. 1910, pp.23, 27, and 6 May 1910, p.16. 64 See Gollancz's sermon of 2 May 1908 in Gollancz op. cit. pp.206-8, and editorial support in Jewish Chronicle, 15 May 1908, PP. 5-6. 65 Ibid., 19 June 1908, p. 16. 66 Ibid., 4 March 1910, pp.5-6. See also Aronides (pseudo? nym), 'The Problem Before Anglo-Jewry', Contemporary Review (July 1912) pp.59-6o. 67 Historicus, 'Ministers in the Making', Jewish Review III (1912) p.26. See also The Times, 3 Nov. 1909, p.14.</page><page sequence="11">Origins of the Jewish Religious Union 71 68 Montefiore, The /.R.?., pp. 16-17. See also n.48 above. 69 The Times, 5 March 1910, p.8; 7 March, 1910, p.4. See also Jewish Chronicle, 14 Jan. 1910, p.20; 8 Apr. 1910, p. 15. 70 Montefiore to Henry Hurvitz (ed.) Menorah Journal (2 Feb. 1915) American Jewish Archives, box 2738. 71 Montefiore to Dr J (n.d.), American Jewish Archives, box 625. On Montefiore's esteem for Weizmann, see Montefiore to Israel Mattuck (n.d.), American Jewish Archives, box 2738. Montefiore's total denationalization of Judaism evoked opposition even among those who were 'at the other gates of Christianity', cited in Lucy Cohen op. cit. p. 2 80. 72 Editorial, Jewish Review I no. I (April 1910) pp.3-7. 73 Ahad Ha-am, 'Judaism and the Gospels', Jewish Review I (1910) pp.206-8. See also Idem, Al Parashat Derachim [Hebrew] (Berlin 1921) IV pp.40-5, 5 5-6. See also Leon Simon, Ahad Ha-am (Phila. i960) pp.239-41, and Isaiah Friedman, The Question of Palestine (New York 1973) pp.32, 34on. 74 The Jewish Chronicle cited approvingly M. Paul Sebstier: 'I know a good many Jews. The Jews nowadays have one great fault. They speak too much about Jesus.' Jewish Chronicle, 24 June 191 o, p.29, and the column 'Culled', 22 Jan. 1909, p. 17; 25 Feb. 1910, p. 17, for further similar Gentile reaction.</page></plain_text>