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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Theodosius and Judaism<br />

Theodosius only issued six laws affect<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Jews and two of <strong>the</strong>m were<br />

concerned with regulat<strong>in</strong>g Jewish – Christian relations. Theodosius' first law was one<br />

of <strong>the</strong>se. CTh. 3.1.5 of 22 September 384 to Cynegius, Praetorian Prefect of <strong>the</strong><br />

East. 249 It prohibited Jews from buy<strong>in</strong>g, convert<strong>in</strong>g or own<strong>in</strong>g a Christian slave. It<br />

began: “No Jew whatever shall purchase a Christian slave or contam<strong>in</strong>ate an ex-<br />

Christian with Jewish religious rites.” If this did happen <strong>the</strong>n “a punishment suitable<br />

and appropriate for <strong>the</strong> crime” was to be imposed upon <strong>the</strong> owner and <strong>the</strong> slave would<br />

be “forcibly taken away,” which probably means without compensation. The law also<br />

ordered that slaves who were “ei<strong>the</strong>r still Christians or ex-Christian Jews” <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>y<br />

would be “redeemed from this unworthy servitude by <strong>the</strong> Christians upon payment of<br />

a suitable price.” 250<br />

L<strong>in</strong>der, follow<strong>in</strong>g o<strong>the</strong>rs, believes that this s<strong>in</strong>gle law is actually two laws,<br />

separately issued, and made <strong>in</strong>to one by <strong>the</strong> Visigothic <strong>in</strong>terpreters of <strong>the</strong> Theodosian<br />

Code. However, <strong>the</strong> law is concerned with two different means by which Jewish<br />

owners might have acquired Christian slaves: by purchase (<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> first part) and by any<br />

o<strong>the</strong>r means (<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> second part) such as <strong>in</strong>heritance. Thus <strong>the</strong>re is probably no<br />

“contradiction” <strong>in</strong> this law, as claimed by L<strong>in</strong>der. 251<br />

Evidently <strong>the</strong> law was concerned with ensur<strong>in</strong>g that Christian slaves could not<br />

be owned by Jews, nor converted to Judaism by <strong>the</strong>ir masters. That first section of <strong>the</strong><br />

law is curious as it referred to “ex-Christians” be<strong>in</strong>g subject to Jewish rites; this might<br />

be a euphemism for forced or coerced conversion, or perhaps, it is a reference to <strong>the</strong><br />

249<br />

Maternus Cynegius 3 PLRE 1.235-236; Honoré’s (1998) E5 52-53, who Honoré suggests may have<br />

been a Christian.<br />

250<br />

ne quis om n<strong>in</strong>o iudaeorum christianum com paret serv um nev e ex christiano iudaicis sacram entis<br />

attam <strong>in</strong>et. quod si factum publica <strong>in</strong>dago com pererit, et serv i abstrahi debent, et tales dom <strong>in</strong>i congruae atque<br />

aptae fac<strong>in</strong> ori poenae subiaceant: addito eo, ut, si qui apud iudaeos v el adhuc christiani serv i v el ex christianis<br />

iudaei reperti fuer<strong>in</strong>t, soluto per christianos com petenti pretio ab <strong>in</strong>digna serv itute redim antur<br />

251<br />

L<strong>in</strong>der (1987) 174-177<br />

250

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!