Figure 8.2a Reconstruction drawing of the Sardis synagogue
The land of Israel, and particularly Jerusalem, were of special importance to Judaism in Graeco-Roman antiquity, not least because it was only in the temple at Jerusalem that acceptable sacrifices could be offered. Nevertheless, for many centuries before Late Antiquity, historical circumstances had resulted in the transplanting of Jewish communities all over the Mediterranean world – the so-called Diaspora; hence the broad geographical spread of the material included in this chapter, the focus of which is Jews in their relations with pagans and Christians.
Judaism occupied a unique position vis-à-vis both pagans and Christians. Despite Jewish refusal to acknowledge any god other than their own, and their disdain for cult images, the Roman authorities of the late first century BC and early first century AD had generally been prepared to allow Jewish religious practices to continue unhindered and even conceded special privileges, at least partly out of respect for the antiquity of Jewish traditions (cf. Feldman 1993: ch. 6). The Jewish revolts of the mid-first and early second centuries resulted in the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem – a cataclysmic blow, given its centrality in Jewish ritual – and the curtailment of privileges, but Judaism per se was not outlawed, while the geographical distance that separated Diaspora Jews from Jerusalem meant the temple’s destruction was less significant for many; at the same time, the hereditary office of patriarch, established with Roman approval in the second century, was instrumental in maintaining links between Palestine and Diasporan communities. As for the Christians, they of course traced their roots back to Judaism, though the need to establish an independent identity necessarily created an ambivalent attitude towards their Jewish heritage – an ambivalence which became even more pronounced in Late Antiquity.
The first two items that follow illustrate the social prominence and broad acceptance of Jews in the wider community, both in terms of the holding of public office (8.1) and the ‘visibility’ of synagogues (8.2). Moreover, at those times in the mid-third and early fourth centuries when the imperial authorities were requiring the inhabitants of the empire to demonstrate reverence for the traditional deities (cf. 2.11–12, 3.3–5), it is apparent that the Jews received special exemption (8.3). In the mid-fourth century, the emperor Julian emphasised the common ground between pagan and Jewish religious practices (8.4) and went so far as to initiate the (ultimately unsuccessful) rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem (8.5).
Meanwhile, church authorities were becoming increasingly eager to emphasise the differences between Christianity and Judaism, and prevent too close a level of interaction between adherents, as shown by canons from a church council in the early fourth century (8.6) and the sermons of a leading clergyman of Antioch towards the end of the century (8.7). That Judaism continued to win converts in Late Antiquity is also illustrated by epigraphic evidence (8.8), and the church’s ongoing concern was reflected at councils of the fifth and sixth centuries (8.9). Such attitudes sometimes found expression in violence against Jews and their property, most notoriously at Callinicum in 388 (8.10). At this stage the emperors, though Christian, nevertheless tried to protect the rights of Jewish communities (8.11), but a shift towards less sympathetic measures becomes evident during the early fifth century (8.12). A fascinating account of the conversion of the Jews on the island of Minorca provides illuminating insights into the changes afoot (8.13), for which there is also a little corroborative epigraphic evidence (8.14). The legal position of Jews did not deteriorate further in significant ways during the sixth century, unlike that of the related Samaritans – with disastrous consequences for Palestine (8.15) – but individual acts of overt discrimination against Jews continued (8.16).
For general discussions of Judaism in Late Antiquity, see Simon 1986, Millar 1992; de Lange 2005; Sanzo and Boustan 2015; for collections of source material in translation, see Stern 1974–84 (literary sources), Linder 1987, 1997 (legal sources), Noy 1993–5 (inscriptions from Italy, Spain and Gaul, nearly all of which are late Roman); Williams 1998 includes late Roman material down to the 420s.
8.1 Jews on the town council: BE 81 (1968) 478 (p. 517) and Robert NIS 14 (p. 55)
These inscriptions – the first dating from the late third century, the second from the second half of the fourth century or later – are two examples of a number testifying to the holding of public office by members of the Jewish community in the important city of Sardis in western Asia Minor. It was only at the beginning of the third century that Jews were granted permission to do so (Digest 50.2.3.3) and although not an unmixed blessing in so far as such civic responsibilities entailed increasingly heavy financial burdens, these texts also imply a sense of civic pride. Certainly the appearance of Jews in this role is an important indication of the social standing and acceptance some of them could enjoy. The inscriptions themselves record gifts by the individuals in question to their local synagogue (the first is explicit about the gift, the second relates to marble wall revetments; for the synagogue itself, see 8.2). Besides corroborative inscriptions from elsewhere (Williams 1998: 108–11, 147), it is interesting to compare the prominence of the Jewish community at Smyrna in the Martyrdom of Pionius (2.12) and the example of Theodorus in fifth-century Minorca (8.13).
Further reading: Trebilco 1991: 37–54; White 1997: 321–3.
(a) BE 81 (1968) 478 (p. 517)
Aurelius Alexander, also known as Anatolius, a citizen of Sardis and a town councillor (bouleutēs), had the third bay [of the synagogue] adorned with mosaics.
(b) Robert NIS 14 (p. 55)
Aurelius Hermogenes, a citizen of Sardis, a town councillor (bouleutes), and a goldsmith: I have fulfilled my vow.
8.2 A late Roman synagogue: the synagogue at Sardis
Synagogues were community centres and places for public prayer and the reading and teaching of the Law of Moses, and served as the focal point of Jewish community life throughout the Roman world. Archaeological remains of many have been found (see Kraabel 1979 for a survey), and those at Sardis are among the most impressive (Figures 8.2a and b). Indeed, the synagogue at Sardis is by far the largest one discovered to date, capable of holding about a thousand people. This, together with the absence of some features found in other examples (e.g., benches along the side of the assembly hall) make it atypical in some respects. On the other hand, its overall layout is similar to other cases and it certainly had a repository for the scrolls of the Law on the wall nearest Jerusalem. Moreover, ‘the distinctiveness of the Sardis Synagogue should not be taken as proof that its builders departed from some canonical standard of design. It is, rather, part of the growing evidence that there was no clear-cut universal canon for synagogue architecture in the ancient world’ (Seager and Kraabel 1983: 177). Finally, the size and prominent location of the synagogue at Sardis is an important indication of the high social profile of the Jewish community there in Late Antiquity. It appears to have remained in use until its destruction by Persian invaders in 616.
Figure 8.2a Reconstruction drawing of the Sardis synagogue
Source: © Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University
Figure 8.2b The court of the synagogue at Sardis
Source: Quintucket/Wikimedia Commons
Further reading on the Sardis synagogue: Seager 1972; Seager and Kraabel 1983; Bonz 1990; Trebilco 1991: 40–43; White 1997: 310–21. Further reading on synagogues in Late Antiquity generally: Kraabel 1981; Levine 1987; Fine 1996, 1997.
8.3 Diocletian exempts Jews from sacrificing: Palestinian Talmud, Abodah Zarah 5.4
The Palestinian Talmud is a collection of sayings in Hebrew attributed to rabbis (religious teachers) and stories involving them over a period of several centuries, put together and edited in Palestine in the fifth century. The following excerpt is part of a discussion about Jewish relations with Samaritans, in the course of which incidental reference is made to imperial policy towards the Jews during the Diocletianic persecution (see further Smallwood 1976: 540). A similar exemption from sacrificing seems to have applied during the Decian persecution, judging by the evidence concerning Jews in the Martyrdom of Pionius (2.12) (Lane Fox 1986: 754 n. 16).
And there are those who wish to explain the reason [that the wine of the Samaritans was prohibited] as follows: When Diocletian the king came up here, he issued a decree, saying, ‘Every nation must offer a libation, except for the Jews’. So the Samaritans made a libation. [That is why the] sages prohibited their wine.
(tr. J. Neusner)
8.4 Common ground between pagans and Jews: Julian Against the Galilaeans fr. 72 (306B)
It is clear from elsewhere in his writings that the emperor Julian regarded Judaism as inferior to paganism, but he was also prepared to express approval of certain features, as indicated below. In part this was a tactical ploy in his campaign against the Christians (or ‘Galilaeans’ as Julian preferred), but it is also symptomatic of the importance of sacrifice to him. Indeed, a number of sources report him encouraging Jewish leaders to resume offering sacrifices to their god (Socrates Church History 3.20, Sozomen Church History 5.22, Theodoret Church History 3.15), and when they pointed out that this was impossible so long as the temple in Jerusalem lay in ruins, Julian proceeded to initiate its reconstruction (8.5).
Further reading: Bowersock 1978: 88–9; Millar 1992: 106–8; Smith 1995: 193–6.
The Jews behave like the Gentiles (tois ethnesin) except that they acknowledge only one god. This is something distinctive to them, but alien to us. As for everything else, though, we share common ground – temples, sanctuaries, altars, rituals of purification, certain injunctions where we do not diverge from one another at all, or only in insignificant ways.
8.5 Julian’s attempt to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem: Ammianus Marcellinus History 23.1.2–3
In this passage, the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus briefly describes Julian’s plans to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, and their failure (for details of other sources, see Levenson 1990). A number of pragmatic motives can be suggested for Julian’s interest in this project – it would win him the support of Jews, large numbers of whom lived in southern Mesopotamia which he was soon to pass through during his invasion of Persia, and it would help to discredit Christianity, both by re-establishing the legitimacy of Judaism and by disproving Jesus’ prophecy about the destruction of the temple. But it is also consistent with his firmly held belief in the importance of sacrifice (8.4). The fact that Ammianus makes no reference to the religious implications of the plan is not particularly significant in view of his generally low-key approach to religious controversy (on which see generally Matthews 1989: 435–51, recently challenged, though, by Barnes 1998: ch. 8).
Further reading: Avi-Yonah 1976: ch. 8; Bowersock 1978: 88–9, 120–22; Wilken 1983: 138–48; Barnes 1998: 47–9; Stemberger 2000: ch. 7.
(2) Although giving careful consideration to a variety of eventualities as, with keen enthusiasm, he pushed forward a vast range of preparations for the campaign [against Persia], Julian still extended his attention into every area. Eager to prolong the memory of his reign by the greatness of his works, he planned at great expense to restore the once admired temple in Jerusalem, which had with difficulty been captured after many murderous encounters during its siege by Vespasian and subsequently Titus, and he had entrusted Alypius of Antioch – previously responsible to the praetorian prefects for the administration of Britain – with the task of bringing the matter to a speedy conclusion. (3) Although Alypius pressed ahead vigorously with the work, assisted by the governor of the province, terrifying balls of fire kept erupting near the foundations and made the site inaccessible to the workmen, some of whom were burned alive. Since this element resolutely opposed them in this way, the undertaking was halted.
8.6 Church prohibitions on associating with Jews: the Council of Elvira, Canons 49–50
These rulings from an early fourth-century church council in Spain (for the debate about the precise date, see 3.6) are among the earliest evidence for church authorities attempting to regulate Christian interaction with Jews (cf. 8.9).
49. It was decided to warn landowners not to allow their crops, which they receive with thanksgiving from God, to be blessed by Jews, for they might make our blessing ineffectual and impotent. If anyone presumes to do so after this prohibition, let them be completely excommunicated from the church.
50. If any member of the clergy or lay Christian (fidelis) has had a meal with Jews, it was decided that they should be prevented from receiving communion, in order to correct them.
8.7 Judaising Christians in Antioch: John Chrysostom Sermons against the Jews 1: 1.3.3–5; 6.2–5
The following extracts come from the first of eight sermons which John Chrysostom (c. 354–407) began preaching towards the end of 386 during the period when he was a clergyman in Antioch. Although entitled ‘Against the Jews’, Judaising Christians were the primary target of the sermons, which provide valuable insights into the fluidity of the religious scene in late fourth-century Antioch; the virulence of his language betrays how worried he was by Christian fraternisation with Jews, which among other things took the form of observing Jewish feasts and treating the synagogue as a holy place. At 1.6.2, John refers to a synagogue at Daphne, a suburb of Antioch, where it seems that people (including some Christians) went to sleep, that is, a version of the practice of incubation where an individual stayed in a shrine for a number of days in pursuit of a response from the relevant deity, whether it be healing or guidance.
Further reading: Wilken 1983; Simon 1986: 217–23; Feldman 1993: 369–82, 405–6; Kelly 1995: 62–6; Fonrobert 2005.
3. (3) If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honour as a holy place. (4) Let me tell you this, not from guesswork, but from my own experience. Three days ago – believe me, I am not lying – I saw a free woman of good bearing, modest, and a believer. A brutal, unfeeling man, reputed to be a Christian (for I would not call a person who would dare to do such a thing a sincere Christian) was forcing her to enter the shrine of the Hebrews and to swear there an oath about some matters under dispute with him. She came up to me and asked for help; she begged me to prevent this lawless violence – for it was forbidden to her, who had shared in the divine mysteries, to enter that place. I was fired with indignation, I became angry, I rose up, I refused to let her be dragged into that transgression. I snatched her from the hands of her abductor. I asked him if he was a Christian, and he said he was.
Then I set upon him vigorously, charging him with lack of feeling and the worst stupidity; I told him he was no better off than a mule if he, who professed to worship Christ, would drag someone off to the dens of the Jews who had crucified him. I talked to him a long time, drawing my lesson from the Holy Gospels; I told him first that it was altogether forbidden to swear and that it was wrong to impose the necessity of swearing on anyone. I then told him that he must not subject a baptized believer to this necessity. In fact, he must not force even an unbaptised person to swear an oath. (5) After I had talked with him at great length and had driven the folly of his error from his soul, I asked him why he rejected the Church and dragged the woman to the place where the Hebrews assembled. He answered that many people had told him that oaths sworn there were more to be feared . . .
6. (2) . . . Even if there is no idol there [in the synagogue], still demons inhabit the place. And I say this not only about the synagogue here in town but about the one in Daphne as well; for at Daphne you have a more wicked place of perdition which they call Matrona’s. I have heard that many of the faithful go up there to sleep beside the place. (3) But heaven forbid that I call these people faithful. For to me the shrine of Matrona and the temple of Apollo are equally profane. If anyone charges me with boldness, I will in turn charge him with the utmost madness. For tell me, is not the dwelling place of demons a place of impiety even if no god’s statue stands there? Here the slayers of Christ gather together, here the cross is driven out, here God is blasphemed, here the Father is ignored, here the Son is outraged, here the grace of the Spirit is rejected. Does not greater harm come from this place since the Jews themselves are demons? In the pagan temple, the impiety is naked and obvious; hence, it would not be easy to deceive a man of sound and prudent mind or entice him to go there. But in the synagogue there are men who say they worship God and abhor idols, men who say they have prophets and pay them honour. But by their words they make ready an abundance of bait to catch in their nets the simpler souls who are so foolish as to be caught off guard. (4) So the godlessness of the Jews and the pagans is on a par. But the Jews practice a deceit which is more dangerous. In their synagogue stands an invisible altar of deceit on which they sacrifice not sheep and calves, but the souls of men. (5) Finally, if the ceremonies of the Jews move you to admiration, what do you have in common with us? If the Jewish ceremonies are venerable and great, ours are lies. But if ours are true, as they are true, theirs are filled with deceit . . .
(tr. P.W. Harkins)
8.8 Converts to Judaism: JIWE 2.62 and 577 (= CIJ 1.462 and 523)
These two epitaphs, both from third- or fourth-century Rome, are among a number attesting conversions to Judaism (for others, see Williams 1998: 172; for other types of evidence, Feldman 1993: 385–411; Goodman 1994: 134–41). It has been suggested that the first, a freed slave, may have owed her conversion to her patron (i.e., former owner) (Noy 1995: 55), but unfortunately he chose not to include the most obvious item of evidence that might have provided corroboration – his name. The second example (which was accompanied by representations of the shofar (trumpet), lulab (palm-branch) and menorah (seven-branched candelabrum)) is also of interest for the title ‘mother of the synagogues’ – ‘the only one attested for Jewish women at Rome’ (Noy 1995: 426) – where ‘synagogue’ is ‘likely to mean the Jewish community rather than the synagogue building’ (Noy 1993: 7). For further detail on these inscriptions, see Noy 1995: 54–5, 457–9; for the ‘mother of the synagogue’, see Brooten 1982: 57–60; on Jewish proselytising more generally, see Simon 1986: ch. 10; Goodman 1994: ch. 7; Feldman 1993: ch. 11.
(a) JIWE 2.62
Felicitas, a convert ( proselita) for 6 years <with the name?> Peregrina, who lived for 47 years. Her patron [set this up] for his well-deserving [freedwoman].
(b) JIWE 2.577
Veturia Paula, laid in her eternal home, who lived for 86 years and 6 months, a convert (fulfilled) for 16 years with the name Sara, mother of the synagogues of Campus and Volumnius. May her sleep be in peace.
8.9 Further church prohibitions on associating with Jews: The Council of Vannes Canon 12
The Council of Vannes, held some time between 461 and 491, was the first church council since Gaul had come under Frankish rule to issue a pronouncement on relations with Jews. It is similar to one of those issued at the Spanish Council of Elvira in the early fourth century (8.6), though the earlier prohibition had included laity as well as clergy – an omission soon rectified at the Frankish Council of Agde in 506 (Canon 40).
In future all clergy should avoid dining with Jews, nor should anyone welcome them to a meal; for since they do not eat the food partaken by everyone else when at Christian homes, it is shameful and sacrilegious for Christians to eat their food. Since those things which we eat with apostolic approval are regarded by them as unclean, the clergy may begin to be inferior to the Jews, if we eat what is served by them while they condemn the food provided by us.
8.10 Intercommunal violence between Christians and Jews: Ambrose Letter 74 (40). 6–7, 10–15
These extracts from a letter of Ambrose, bishop of Milan, to the emperor Theodosius I in 388 (Letter 40 in older editions) highlight a theme of growing importance in the second half of the fourth century – intercommunal violence between Christians and Jews. The specific incident which prompted Ambrose’s letter was the destruction by Christians of the Jewish synagogue in the frontier town of Callinicum on the Euphrates, though this was not an isolated incident in these years, and is consistent with the growing tide of Christian violence against pagan temples (cf. 6.6), while it seems that Jews had previously taken the opportunity during Julian’s reign to attack churches. Far from condemning the actions of the Christians, Ambrose’s purpose was to berate the emperor for ordering the punishment of those responsible and the rebuilding of the synagogue. It has recently been argued that Ambrose was merely using the incident as a convenient way of placing pressure on the emperor over another, quite different issue (McLynn 1994: 302), but even if so, his attitudes towards the Jews are hardly atypical of this period. Theodosius, whose presence in Milan following his defeat of the usurper Maximus brought him into direct contact with Ambrose, eventually rescinded his order, with the result that the episode has usually been seen as symptomatic of the growth of episcopal power vis-à-vis imperial authority (for an alternative reading, see McLynn 1994: 298–315). On points of detail, the burning of prefects’ houses alluded to in (13) was a regular occurrence in late fourth-century Rome, often prompted by food shortages (cf. Ammianus Marcellinus History 27.3), while the destruction of the bishop of Constantinople’s house in 388 was the result of Arian riots in that city.
Further reading: Homes Dudden 1935: 371–9; Simon 1986: 226–7; Matthews 1990: 232–4; Liebeschuetz 2005: 95–123.
6. There has been a report from the count responsible for military affairs in the east that a synagogue has been burnt down and that this was done at the instigation of the bishop. You have ordered the others [responsible] to be punished and the bishop himself to rebuild the synagogue. I do not add that the bishop’s formal statement should have been waited for, for priests restrain disturbances, their concern is for public order, except when they are provoked by insults to God or by injury to the church. It may be that the bishop was too impetuous in setting the synagogue on fire, too timid in exercising his authority – are you not afraid, O Emperor, that he may accept your decision, do you not fear that he may betray his faith?
7. Are you not also afraid – as will happen – that he will refuse your count? So then he will have to make him either an apostate or a martyr – both alien to your times, both characteristic of persecution, if he is forced either to betray his faith or to undergo martyrdom. You see which way the outcome of this case is headed. If you regard the bishop as resolute, beware of making a martyr of one resolute in the faith; if you regard him as weak-willed, avoid the lapsing of one weak in the faith; for there is a greater responsibility on the one who forces one weak in the faith to lapse. . . .
10. Is a place for the unbelief of the Jews to be created from the spoils of the church? Is the inheritance acquired by Christians through the favour of Christ to be handed over to the treasuries of the unbelievers? We read how temples of old were established for idols from the spoils of the Cimbri and from plunder taken from other enemies. This is the inscription the Jews will write on the front of their synagogue: ‘The temple of godlessness, built from the spoils of the Christians.’
11. But it is considerations of public order that motivate you, O Emperor. So which is more important – a semblance of public order, or the interests of true religion? Judicial strictness should give way to religion.
12. Have you not heard, O Emperor, that when Julian had ordered the temple in Jerusalem to be restored, those who were clearing out the debris were consumed by fire? Are you not wary of the same thing happening again now? You should not have ordered what Julian ordered.
13. But what is it that concerns you – that a public building of any sort has been burnt down, or that it was the location of a synagogue? If you are concerned by the burning of an insignificant building – for what else could it be in such an obscure fortress town? – do you not remember, O Emperor, how many houses of the Prefect of Rome have been burnt down without anyone being punished? To be sure, if any emperor had wished to punish this deed severely, he would have aggravated the difficulties faced by the one hit by so great a loss. So which is considered more worthy of punishment, if it should be – the burning of buildings in some quarter of the fort of Callinicum or in the city of Rome? Only recently the house of the bishop of Constantinople was burnt down and the son of Your Clemency interceded with his father so that you did not punish this insult to the son of the emperor and the burning of the episcopal house. . . .
14. So there is no reasonable justification for such action [by you] to punish people so severely for burning a building, and even less so for burning a synagogue – a place of unbelief, a house of godlessness, a refuge for madness, which God himself has condemned; for so we read, when God our Lord speaks through the mouth of Jeremiah . . . [Jer. 7.14–17]. God forbids anyone to intercede with him for those whom you think ought to be avenged.
15. But certainly if I were arguing my case according to the law of nations (ius gentium), I would mention how many basilicas of the church the Jews burned down in the time of Julian’s reign. Two in Damascus, of which one has barely been restored – but with funds from the church, not the synagogue – while the other basilica presents an awful sight with its hideous ruins. Church buildings were burned in Gaza, Ascalon, Beirut, and in nearly all those parts, and no one sought revenge. A basilica in Alexandria, which alone surpassed the others, was also burned down by pagans ( gentiles) and Jews. That church was not avenged, so why is a synagogue being avenged? . . .
8.11 Imperial protection for Jews: Theodosian Code 16.8.9
Despite the outcome of the Callinicum episode – or perhaps because of it – emperors during the late fourth and early fifth century issued a number of imperial laws officially recognising the right of the Jews to meet without hindrance, and instructing imperial officials to prevent extremist Christians from attacking synagogues. The example below is the first in the series (cf. Theodosian Code 16.8.12 (397), 16.8.20 (412), 16.8.21 (420), 16.8.25 (423)), initiated, interestingly, by Theodosius I himself (also noteworthy for its opening confirmation that Judaism was not an outlawed religion). How effectively these laws were policed, however, is another matter (cf. 8.13) – the very frequency with which the injunction was repeated suggests the difficulties involved. At the same time, a new theme begins to emerge in some of the later laws in this series, namely that the Jews are not allowed to build any new synagogues (a restriction reiterated in the sixth century by Justinian in Novel 131.14 (545) – though there is archaeological and epigraphic evidence which implies it was not always enforced: Gray 1993: 261–4).
Further reading: Simon 1986: 227–9; Linder 1987: 86, 189–91; Millar 1992: 117–18.
The emperors Theodosius [I], Arcadius and Honorius, Augusti, to Addeus, Count and Master of both parts of the army [i.e., infantry and cavalry] in the east. It is well enough known that the religious group of the Jews is not prohibited by any law, so we are gravely disturbed that their gatherings have been prevented in some places. Therefore when Your Lofty Greatness has received this instruction, you will, with appropriate severity, restrain the excesses of those who, in the name of the Christian religion, dare to commit illegal acts and try to destroy and plunder synagogues. Issued in Constantinople on the 3rd day before the Kalends of October when the consuls were Theodosius (for the third time) and Abundantius [29 September 393].
8.12 Official discrimination against Jews: Theodosian Code 16.8.24
In addition to the prohibition on the building of new synagogues (see introduction to 8.11), the early fifth century also saw the initiation of other measures which discriminated against Jews, the most notable being the following prohibition on the employment of Jews in important areas of the imperial administration and in the army. It is, however, rather surprising to find the imperial authorities in the west (where the law was issued) feeling able to dispense with a source of recruits at a time when soldiers were in short supply – a case of religious principle prevailing over pragmatism? Another noteworthy feature is the use of the derogatory term superstitio for Judaism instead of the hitherto customary religio (Linder 1987: 57–8). This period also saw the introduction of laws against conversion to Judaism.
Further reading: Linder 1987: 281–3.
The emperors Honorius and Theodosius [II] to Palladius, Praetorian Prefect [of Italy].
Those living according to the Jewish superstition (superstitio) shall be barred from trying to enter the imperial service (militia) from now on. To those who have already taken the oath of service among the inspectors of the imperial transport system (agentes in rebus) or the palace bureaucracy ( palatini), we concede the right to carry on and complete their specified term of service, overlooking what is happening rather than approving it – but what we wish to be relaxed for a few at the present moment shall not be permitted in future.
Furthermore, we decree that those who, trammelled by the wrong-headed character of this people (gentis huius perversitas), are shown to have entered the armed forces (armata militia), are to be dismissed from military service (absolvi cingulum) without hesitation and with no protection being afforded by a favourable view of previous good service.
However, we do not deny Jews educated in the liberal studies the freedom to practise as legal advocates and we allow them to enjoy the honour of duties as town councillors, which they gain by the privilege of birth and by the splendour of family. Since these [concessions] ought to satisfy them, they should not regard the prohibition of imperial service as a mark of infamy.
Issued in Ravenna on the 6th day before the Ides of March when Honorius was consul for the twelfth time and Theodosius for the eighth [10 March 418].
8.13 A Jewish community and its conversion: Severus of Minorca Letter concerning the Jews 4–8, 12–14
Despite its relative insignificance in the overall context of the Roman empire, the small island of Minorca produced one of the most valuable documents for understanding Jewish–Christian relations in Late Antiquity. Written by the local bishop Severus, it describes the process by which the Jewish community on the island was converted to Christianity in February 418. Two recent discussions (Hunt 1982b, Bradbury 1996 – the latter includes a translation of the whole letter) provide excellent commentaries on this document, but a few points of detail from the excerpts below warrant explanatory comment: the presbyter in 4.1–2 was the Spaniard Orosius, an associate of Augustine, while the Jewish leader Theodorus’ secular post of ‘Defender’ (6.2) involved responsibility for hearing local minor lawsuits (Jones 1964: 144–5); his standing within the Jewish community as ‘Father of Fathers’ is consistent with his role as leader, but the precise significance of the expression remains unclear (for discussion see Noy 1993: 91). Martyr relics and their impact are another important theme of interest (cf. 16.13), even if, somewhat surprisingly, they do not feature explicitly after 4.2.
4. (1) At about the same time that I, though unworthy, assumed the title of so great a priestly office [that of bishop], a certain presbyter, outstanding for his holiness, came from Jerusalem and stayed a short time in [the Minorcan town of] Magona. When it proved impossible to cross over to Spain, as he wished, he decided to return again to Africa. (2) Since it had been his intention to take to Spain some remains of the blessed martyr Stephen, recently discovered, he deposited them in the church of the aforementioned town [Magona] – no doubt at the prompting of the martyr himself. (3) No sooner had this been done than there was kindled the fire of His love which the Lord ‘came to send forth into the earth’ [Lk. 12.49] and which he desires to burn strongly. (4) Indeed immediately our lukewarm attitude began to grow hot and, as it is written, our hearts were ‘burning on the way’ [Lk. 24.32]. For now zeal for the faith was consuming our hearts, now the hope of many coming to salvation was aroused.
5. (1) As a result, even the courtesy of greeting [the Jews] was promptly discontinued, and not only was our habit of sociability [with them] done away with, but the detrimental sight of our longstanding friendliness was temporarily transformed into hatred – but out of love for eternal life. (2) In every street, contests over the Law were waged against the Jews, and in every home, battles over the faith.
6. (1) The Jewish inhabitants were particularly reliant on the influence and experience of a certain Theodorus who was the foremost man of the time in both wealth and honour, not only among the Jews but also among the Christians of the same town [Magona]. (2) For among the Jews he was a teacher of the Law and – to use their own expression – ‘Father of Fathers’ ( pater pateron), (3) while in the town, he had discharged all responsibilities associated with the town council (curia), and had already been Defender (defensor), and was also now regarded as patron of the community. (4) But the Christians, humble in heart and in strength, but mightier in the power of truth, prayed for the help of their patron Stephen, until both sides withdrew, after agreeing a day for the contest and then arranging a truce.
7. (1) The Jews were very keen that Theodorus, on whose strength the whole synagogue depended, should return from the island of Majorca to which he had by chance gone at that time to inspect a property. (2) He returned as soon as a delegation was sent to him and alarmed many by his authority and, without extinguishing it, he damped down a little the flame of dispute. Then flaring up there with greater strength, the flame of faith also swept into the neighbouring town [of Jamona]. (4) And so the saying of Solomon was fulfilled, ‘A brother helping a brother will be lifted up like a strong and towering city’ [Prov. 18.19]. Many servants of Christ, not at all unwilling to undertake the hardship of the journey [from Jamona to Magona], decided to give all the strength of their hearts to this war.
8. . . . (4) Then the Jews encouraged one another with examples from the time of the Maccabees, and were also willing to die in defence of their precepts. (5) And so they began not only to read over their books but also to bring to the synagogue stakes, stones, spears and all kinds of weapons, in order to drive back with physical force – if circumstances demanded it – the battle-line of the Christians protected by the power of the Holy Spirit. [Severus then relates various dreams shown by subsequent events to be significant.]
12. . . . (3) So we reached Magona and immediately I sent clergy to announce my arrival to the Jews, and I asked them to see fit to come to the church. (4) But they sent back to us an unexpected message, saying that it was not proper for them to enter the church on that day (lest, I dare say, they be defiled); for it was, they said, the Sabbath day and if they marred that festival by any actions, they would be committing a very serious crime of violation. (5) Again I asked that they wait for me at the synagogue, if they preferred, since their entering the church seemed a defilement. They were not being forced by us to engage in servile work on the Sabbath day (6) but rather there would be a very restrained debate about the Law. It would not be a case of stirring up quarrels, but of engaging in conversation. . . . [When the Jews persisted in their reluctance to meet, Severus decided to resolve the impasse with decisive action.]
13. (1) So we set out for the synagogue, singing a hymn to Christ en route, so great was our joy. (2) It was, moreover, a psalm, which the Jews were also singing with amazing cheerfulness – ‘The memory of them has perished with a crash and the Lord abides forever’ [Ps. 9.6–7]. (3) But before we arrived at the synagogue, some Jewish women (at the instigation of the Lord, I believe) had the audacity to begin throwing enormous stones at us from an elevated position – no doubt to provoke the gentle attitude of our people. (4) Although these stones fell like hail on the tightly packed crowd, it is marvellous to report that not one of our people was even touched, let alone suffered a blow. (5) Then that awesome Lion removed a little of his lambs’ gentleness. (6) While I vainly remonstrated, everyone took up stones and – ignoring the warning of their shepherd [Severus], since enthusiasm for Christ rather than anger suggested the same course of action to everyone – they decided that the wolves must be attacked with force, although it cannot be doubted that this was done with the approval of Him who alone is the true and good shepherd. (7) Then, so that He should not seem to have been responsible for a bloody victory for his flock, none of the Jews pretended to have been so much as touched, not even from ill-will, as is their habit. . . . (12) After the Jews had withdrawn and we took possession of the synagogue, I do not say no one took nothing from it, but no one considered plundering it. (13) Apart from their books and silver, fire consumed it and all its accoutrements. We took away the holy books so they did not suffer harm among the Jews; but we returned the silver to them so they could not complain about our plundering or their loss.
14. And so while all the Jews were stunned at the destruction of the synagogue, we went to the church singing hymns and giving thanks to the one responsible for our success, and with tears flowing we beseeched the Lord to conquer the true lairs of falsehood and overwhelm with light the lack of faith in their dark hearts. [Over the ensuing days, increasing numbers of Jews (including Theodorus) agree to convert to Christianity, mindful particularly of the risk of further violence if they did not. By the end of Severus’ letter, the tally of Jewish converts has reached 540 and the Jews are busy constructing a new church on the site of their former synagogue.]
8.14 A Jewish convert to Christianity: JIWE 1.8 (= CIJ 12.643a)
This inscription from Grado in northern Italy is one of the few attesting the conversion of a Jew to Christianity (for others, see Williams 1998: 159). It is a mosaic inscription, replete with picture of a vase sprouting grape-laden vines on which perch birds, discovered under the floor of Grado cathedral, and probably dating to the first half of the fifth century. The phrase ‘out of his people’ could refer either to his family or to the Jewish community in Grado, while ‘the grace of Christ’ is probably an allusion to baptism. For detailed discussion and full bibliography, see Noy 1993: 13–16 (including a photograph [Plate V]).
Here rests Petrus, also known as Papario, son of Olympius the Jew, who alone out of his people (ex gente sua) was worthy to attain the grace of Christ and was fittingly buried in this holy church on the day before the Ides of July [14 July] in the 4th year of the indiction.
8.15 Justinian and the Samaritans: Justinianic Code 1.5.17 and Procopius Secret History 11.24–28
The origins of the Samaritans and their relationship to the Jews were, and remain, matters of dispute. Although monotheistic and claiming descent from some of the tribes of Israel, they were by no means viewed favourably by Jews, as implied by 8.3. Roman legislation, however, often bracketed them with Jews – hence their inclusion in this chapter. Despite his fervour for religious conformity, the emperor Justinian did not significantly increase the disabilities of Jews, but for reasons which remain unclear, he pursued an aggressive policy of discrimination against Samaritans, as reflected in the first item, from a law issued in the late 520s. The Samaritans had a reputation for being rebellious which they duly lived up to on this occasion, launching a major revolt in northern Palestine. Although Procopius’ Secret History is notorious for its polemical portrayal of Justinian and Theodora (see Cameron 1985: ch. 4 for general discussion), his outline of the Samaritan revolt is corroborated by the contemporary Chronicle of John Malalas ( pp. 445–7), which Procopius supplements with the interesting, if unsurprising, detail about the superficiality of their conversion. The prohibition on their making wills was subsequently revoked – intriguingly, in response to an appeal by the bishop of Caesarea (Justinian Novel 129 of 551) – but in 555 there was a further revolt (in which some Jews also participated: John Malalas Chronicle pp. 487–8; cf. 7.2) and his successor Justin II reactivated Justinian’s law in 572 on the grounds that ‘some of them, after gaining baptism which grants salvation, have become so mad as to turn back again to that evil from which they had departed’ (included among Justinian’s Novels as 144 [preface]).
Further reading: Crown 1986–87; Gray 1993: 249–59; Moorhead 1994: 25–6; Evans 1996: 116–17, 247–9; de Lange 2005.
The synagogues of the Samaritans are [to be] destroyed and, if they attempt to build others, they are [to be] punished. Whether they make a will or they die without a valid one, they are not able to have successors other than orthodox Christians, and they are not to make gifts or otherwise alienate property to anyone who is not orthodox. Instead the imperial treasury claims it for oversight by the bishops and the governors.
(b) Procopius Secret History 11.24–28
(24) When a similar law was then laid down for the Samaritans as well, utter confusion overtook Palestine. (25) All those living in my native Caesarea and in the other cities thought it silly to undergo any suffering in the name of senseless religious principles and took the name of Christians in exchange for their designation at that time, a pretence which enabled them to rid themselves of the danger posed by the law. (26) And all those who had some common sense and reason did not disdain remaining loyal to the [new] religion, but the majority, angry that they had changed their ancestral beliefs, not voluntarily, but under legal compulsion, very quickly deserted to the Manichaeans and the so-called Polytheists. (27) But all the peasants came together en masse and decided to mount an armed rebellion against the emperor, putting forward as their own emperor a brigand by the name of Julianus, son of Sabarus. (28) They held out for some time when they came to blows with soldiers, but subsequently they proved the weaker in battle and were wiped out along with their leader. (29) One hundred thousand men are said to have been killed in this calamity, and the countryside – the best in the whole world – became bereft of peasants as a result.
8.16 Expulsion of Jews from Antioch in the late sixth century: Agapius of Membij Universal History Part 2, pp. 439–40
Agapius, bishop of Hierapolis (Membij) in Osrhoene in the tenth century, wrote a history in Arabic which preserves portions of earlier histories, now lost. Expulsion of the Jewish community from a city was certainly not a novelty (it had happened in Alexandria in 415: Williams 1998: 140–41; Haas 1997: 299–304), nor was the accusation of their showing disrespect for the religious practices of others. Stigmatising them by shaving their heads, however, does appear to be a disturbing innovation, while episodes like this help explain Jewish willingness to assist Persian invaders in the early seventh century (see Whitby 1988: 335 for references).
In the eleventh year of his reign [592/3] [the emperor] Maurice decreed the banishment of the Jews who were in Antioch, and they were driven from the city. This was the reason: A Christian had rented a house in order to live there. When he vacated it, he left behind an image of Mary. After him, a Jew rented the house, and when he (p. 440) entered it, he found this image and urinated on it. News of this incident reached the emperor, who ordered the expulsion of the Jews from Antioch and made them shave the middle of their heads so that they would be recognised by this mark.
(tr. A.A. Vasiliev)