31.12.2012 Views

Religious Intolerance in the Later Roman Empire - Bad request ...

Religious Intolerance in the Later Roman Empire - Bad request ...

Religious Intolerance in the Later Roman Empire - Bad request ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

po<strong>in</strong>ter, a totemic issue upon which <strong>the</strong> Catholics could vent <strong>the</strong>ir opposition to <strong>the</strong><br />

Donatists. In all o<strong>the</strong>r doctr<strong>in</strong>al respects <strong>the</strong> Donatist Church was identical to that of<br />

<strong>the</strong> Catholic, and by this stage <strong>in</strong> its development it would have been <strong>in</strong>dist<strong>in</strong>guishable<br />

from <strong>the</strong> Catholic Church to an outsider. As such, <strong>the</strong> only discernible dist<strong>in</strong>ction<br />

would have been that it was, <strong>in</strong> effect, <strong>the</strong> Catholic Church, but beyond <strong>the</strong> control of<br />

<strong>the</strong> official Catholic Church and <strong>the</strong>refore and <strong>in</strong> practice <strong>in</strong>dependent from <strong>the</strong><br />

official religion. As such, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tolerance towards <strong>the</strong> Donatists evidenced <strong>in</strong> this law<br />

may have been more pert<strong>in</strong>ent to <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>in</strong>dependence from <strong>the</strong> Catholics than to <strong>the</strong>ir<br />

beliefs. But this is only speculation.<br />

Gratian and Judaism<br />

CTh. 12.1.99 of 18 April 383 was issued to Hypatius, Praetorian Prefect of Italy<br />

and Illyricia; it was <strong>the</strong> only law of Gratian on <strong>the</strong> Jews. 294 It dealt with <strong>the</strong> liability of<br />

Jewish clerics to serve on councils. Although it began with rhetoric not<br />

complementary to <strong>the</strong> Jews, <strong>in</strong> essence it made both groups equal. It began by<br />

referr<strong>in</strong>g to “<strong>the</strong> order with which men of <strong>the</strong> Jewish faith flatter <strong>the</strong>mselves and by<br />

which <strong>the</strong>y are granted immunity from <strong>the</strong> compulsory public services of decurions<br />

shall be resc<strong>in</strong>ded.” 295 That order was probably Constant<strong>in</strong>e's CTh. 16.8.2 of 330<br />

which granted exemption from liturgies to “patriarchs and priests” of Judaism. The<br />

law <strong>in</strong>dicated that s<strong>in</strong>ce not even Christians were able to enter <strong>the</strong> Church until <strong>the</strong>y<br />

had “discharged all <strong>the</strong> service due to <strong>the</strong>ir municipalities” 296 <strong>the</strong>n nei<strong>the</strong>r should <strong>the</strong><br />

Jews. Therefore, and with language that <strong>in</strong>dicated that <strong>the</strong> government regarded<br />

Judaism as a perfectly legitimate, even comparable, religion to Christianity, <strong>the</strong> law<br />

ordered “if any person <strong>the</strong>refore, is truly dedicated to God” he should transfer his<br />

particular that <strong>the</strong>y were not allowed to be on Imperial property. He does not <strong>in</strong>dicate whe<strong>the</strong>r such<br />

rebaptisms were frequent; <strong>in</strong>deed <strong>the</strong> fact that he mentions it at all may <strong>in</strong>dicte that rebaptisms were not<br />

common.<br />

294 Flavius Hypatius 4 PLRE 1.448-449<br />

295 iussio, qua sibi iudaeae legis hom <strong>in</strong>es blandiuntur, per quam eis curialium m unerum datur im m unitas,<br />

resc<strong>in</strong>datur<br />

296 patriae debita univ ersa persolv ant<br />

168

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!