The Truth about the Jewish Ritual Murder at Imnestar: A Reply to Rebecca Stephens Falcasantos

Recently ‘Mosaic Magazine’ published a puff piece pushing an article written by a Amherst College academic named Rebecca Stephens Falcasantos for ‘TheTorah.com’ which it claims showed that the jewish ritual murder at Imnestar near the city of Antioch in circa 415/416 A.D. in the Byzantine Empire is a ‘highly dubious tale’. (1)

Now since I am rather familiar with this case having written my article about it and also showing why it is almost certainly genuine, (2) I thought I’d address Stephens Falcasantos’ argument here upon which ‘Mosaic Magazine’ makes its claim.

Indeed, Stephens Falcasantos references my article in hers when she writes that:

‘In my most recent search on March 15, 2025, the top result that presents Socrates’ account as proof of Jewish crimes was posted on Substack on January 31, 2025.’ (3)

My article ‘Jewish Ritual Murder: The Imnestar Case (415/416 A.D.)’ is that which Stephens Falcasantos is referring to as having been published on 31^st January 2025 but typically she doesn’t directly cite it and implies that I merely ‘presented Socrates’ account as proof’ which is simply dishonest as while we only know the Imnestar Case because of Socrates Scholasticus’ account – having only a single source for events is not uncommon in the classics/early medieval era and is normally not a reason to dismiss something as ‘untrue’ – I also provided several contextual points as to why Socrates’ account is almost certainly true.

Stephens Falcasantos doesn’t even bother to reply to my argument (4) that this is not – in essence – a ‘misunderstanding’ or ‘made up nonsense’ or Langmuir’s point that there is no actual basis for stating it did not occur. (5)

Instead, she immediately tries to attack Socrates’ credibility as a source writing that:

‘Socrates of Constantinople (ca. 380–ca. 450), about whom we know little, compiled his seven-volume Ecclesiastical History sometime between 439 and 445 C.E. The history covers the period from Constantine’s accession as the emperor of Rome (306) into the reign of emperor Theodosius II (through 439).

He pulled from a variety of sources: imperial letters, theological treatises, earlier histories, hagiographies, ecclesiastical canons, ascetic literature, probably imperial or civic archives, and even, by his own report, eye-witness accounts. His resulting narrative progresses in a syncopated fashion, presenting an uneven string of events, documents, and commentary that has contributed to a tendency to approach his History, incorrectly, as an archive of individual events rather than as a coherent larger narrative with an agenda.’ (6)

Now what Stephens Falcasantos doesn’t tell her readers is that just because a source ‘has an agenda’ or is in some way partisan – which is not in itself unusual (which again Stephens Falcasantos doesn’t explain to her readers) – it doesn’t make their account incorrect/wrong but rather means we have to be careful and look for contextual evidence that might support or detract from the credibility of their claim.

This predictably Stephens Falcasantos does not do and instead devolves into – in effect – calling Socrates a ‘Christian anti-Semite’ and implies he isn’t to be trusted when she writes:

‘Socrates’s report about the crucifixion that allegedly happened at Immonmestar is but one thread entangled within a larger tapestry of polemic, where the persistence of Jewish festivals ensnare the weak-minded and lurk underneath the errors of heretics. While the reported crucifixion—like other episodes involving Jews in Socrates’ History—implicates Jews, the history is not ultimately about Jews, but rather about being the right type of Christian.

This is fairly common rhetorical move in early Christian literature (and is also used by other groups): The in-group is created by pitting it against negative representations of a targeted out-groups. For early Christians, the out-group is often Jews, but also Manichaeans and “pagans.”’ (7)

This means little in the context of whether the jewish ritual murder case at Imnestar is true or not but rather is a bombastic way to try and get out of having to actually argue the point with evidence using rhetoric that sounds like you are addressing something when you really aren’t.

For example, we don’t doubt Matthew Paris’ medieval chronicle that documents jews engaging in coin clipping despite Paris’ obvious and virulent dislike of jews: now do we?

The only ‘evidence’ that Stephens Falcasantos brings forward to claim that Socrates’ account is incorrect and the jewish ritual murder at Imnestar did not occur is jewish Zionist historian Simon Dubnow’s claim in his ‘History of the Jews’.

She writes:

‘While Socrates does not identify the occasion the Jews are celebrating, since the early 18th century, scholars have pointed to narratological, linguistic, and legal evidence that the incident occurred during Purim. Thus, Socrates could be describing an enactment of hanging Haman in effigy, and as Simon Dubnow (1860–1941) proposed, the Christians of Immonmestar misinterpreted (or misrepresented) what they had witnessed.’ (8)

Now what Dubnow actually states – and predictably Stephens Falcasantos doesn’t quote him for reasons that will become obvious – is:

‘It was only natural that this hostile attitude towards the Jews on the part of the temporal and spiritual power, as well as the Christian masses, should also arouse similar feelings in the persecuted. In various localities, the Jews defended themselves energetically against the assaults of the church fanatics; there were also instances when they wage an offensive war. As a reply to the mockery of the Christians, the Jews occasionally availed themselves of opportunities to demonstrate against church symbols. Already in 408, the provincial authorities were instructed by the emperors Honorius and Theodosius II, to watch the behaviour of the local Jews on the day of “their solemn Haman festival” (festivitatis sual solemnis Aman), when, “out of contempt for the Christian religion” they burn an image, similar to the holy cross.” Judging by the forms which this people’s tradition had later adopted, it was customary on the festive day of Purim to set fire to a wooden figure of the biblical anti-Semitic Haman, which perhaps resembled a cross in some localities.

In 415, such a Purim jest in Antiochia had tragic consequences. In the neighbouring town of Imnestar, the Jews arranged, on the Purim festival, Haman’s gallows in the form of a cross. They hung upon it a figure, probably a wooden block, on which they rained blows. A rumour spread among the people that the Jews had crucified a Christian child on that cross. The incident almost led to a bloody clash between the Christian and Jewish inhabitants in Antiochia and Imnestar; but Emperor Theodosius soothed the raging passions by ordering the participants in the Purim demonstration severely punished.’ (9)

Further it is worth quoting Dubnow’s footnote to this passage:

‘Socrates, the church historian, records the event (Hist. Ecclesiae VII, 16); he is naturally convinced of the fact of the crucifixion. But, whoever is familiar with Jewish history in ascribing this “fact” – the first instance of the trumped-up charge of ritual murder – to the category of various other charges in later generations.’ (10)

Stephens Falcasantos predictably doesn’t quote Dubnow’s summation because it clearly shows that - contrary to her narrative – even so ardently a jewish historian of Dubnow suggests that the jews were at least somewhat complicit in causing the ‘fake accusation’, but we can see that Dubnow’s narrative is extremely weak not least because when you factor in his footnote. It clearly indicates that Dubnow has no actual evidence Socrates was wrong, but rather simply refuses to believe that he is right – probably because Dubnow himself was both jewish and an ardent Zionist nationalist at a time of rapidly increasing anti-Semitism - because as the ‘first ritual murder’ – which is not actually true as that is the one mentioned by Josephus in ‘Against Apion’ – in Dubnow’s opinion it would thus suggest that jews cannot commit ritual murder and thus open up all the dozens if not hundreds of other cases of this kind to historical scrutiny rather than just trite dismissal.

Further Dubnow’s argument here is based almost entirely on the prohibitions of the Byzantine Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II (11) which he doesn’t dispute but instead tries to make the ‘Christian child’ of Socrates simply a ‘wooden effigy’ of Haman, which Stephens Falcasantos repeats as if it is somehow authoritative.

The problem you see is that Socrates’ narrative - while certainly referring to a Purim ritual that involved a Haman effigy - does not follow the pattern of Theodosius II’s prohibition at all.

Theodosius II’s prohibition of 408 A.D. states:

‘Prohibit the Jews from setting fire to Aman in memory of his past punishment, in a certain ceremony of their festival, and from burning sacrilegious intent a form made to resemble the saint cross in contempt of the Christian faith.’ (12)

What Socrates records happened is that:

‘In this way they indulged in many absurdities, and at length impelled by drunkenness they were guilty of scoffing at Christians and even Christ himself; and in derision of the cross and those who put their trust in the Crucified One, they seized a Christian boy, and having brought him to a cross, began to laugh and sneer at him. But in a little while becoming so transported with fury, they scourged the child until he died under their hands.’ (13)

Note that Theodosius II states they ‘set fire to Haman’ while Socrates states they didn’t burn the Christian child at all but rather ‘scourged him until he died’. Now while you could argue the jews are merely following Theodosius II’s prohibition of 408 A.D.; this doesn’t work because you are assuming – without evidence – that the reason Socrates doesn’t mention the ‘burning of the effigy’ is because of the Theodosian prohibition, but also that the reason that it isn’t a ‘Christian child’ is because of that same thing.

In other words: you are trying to have the reason you don’t believe Socrates’ account and the reason Socrates account appears to get the Purim Haman ritual wrong as the Theodosian prohibition of 408 A.D., which is an unfalsifiable argument (as well as circular logic) because any counterargument always fails because of the Theodosian prohibition that is immediately dragged out to claim the obverse.

This then is a fine example of poorly reasoned (and highly partisan) argument from both Dubnow and Stephens Falcasantos because both try to use an unfalsifiable position when in truth, they need to actually provide evidence that it was not a Christian child but rather a ‘wooden Haman effigy’ not just assume that it is!

Further the fact that both Dubnow and Stephens Falcasantos simply ignore the historic context - Stephens Falcasantos is particularly guilty of this given she cites Horowitz’s work that explicitly gives this historical context – (14) of the extreme and fairly common jewish anti-Christian – and more broadly anti-gentile – violence before and after the jewish ritual murder case at Imnestar with the Gallus revolt (350-353 A.D) a few decades before occurring in the same general area, the Samaritan revolts (484-572 A.D) occurring a few decades after in the same general area and similarly vicious anti-Christian/anti-gentile massacres being committed by jews for overtly religious reasons at Najran in 524 A.D (15) and also at Mamilla Pool outside of Jerusalem approximately ninety years later in 614 A.D. (16)

Therefore informs us that both Dubnow and Stephens Falcasantos are the ones engaging in partisan scholarship to try and downplay Socrates’ account and make it simply a matter of local Christian’s ‘misunderstanding’ an ‘innocent jewish custom’ which is complete and utter nonsense as we can see above by actually looking at the detail of the claim and adding in the historical context.

So yes; the incident at Imnestar in 415/416 A.D. indeed concerned an actual Christian child who was ritually murdered by jews in that year’s Purim ritual.

References

(1) https://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/history-ideas/2025/04/an-anti-semitic-libels-journey-from-5th-century-church-history-to-substack/

(2) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/jewish-ritual-murder-the-imnestar

(3) https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-crucifixion-at-inmestar-5th-century-and-its-role-in-antisemitic-propaganda

(4) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/jewish-ritual-murder-the-imnestar

(5) Gavin Langmuir, 1984, ‘Thomas of Monmouth: Detector of Ritual Murder’, p. 10 in Alan Dundes (Ed.), 1991, ‘The Blood Libel Legend: A Casebook in Anti-Semitic Folklore’, 1st Edition, University of Wisconsin Press: Madison

(6) https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-crucifixion-at-inmestar-5th-century-and-its-role-in-antisemitic-propaganda

(7) Ibid.

(8) Ibid.

(9) Simon Dubnow, 1967, ‘History of the Jews’, Vol. 2, 1^st Edition, Thomas Yoseloff: New York, pp. 191-192

(10) Ibid., p. 191, n. 15

(11) For example, see: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=613&letter=P

(12) Quoted in Elliot Horowitz, 2007, ‘Reckless Rites: Purim and the History of Jewish Violence’, 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton, p. 17

(13) Socrates Scholasticus, Ecc. Hist., 7:16

(14) Horowitz, Op. Cit., pp. 149-185

(15) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-jewish-ritual-massacre-of-the

(16) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-massacre-of-christians-at-mamilla