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

conversion ceremony itself, and performed when a Christian slave had renounced his
Christianity prior to becoming a Jew. Such an interpretation would fit well in this
law; as Jews were forbidden from purchasing Christian slaves in the first part of this
law and could not continue to possess Christian slaves that they may have obtained in
another way in the second part of this law, so too they were prevented from
converting Christian slaves to Judaism in that first part (even if such slaves had
renounced their Christianity and were therefore, perhaps, not technically Christians).
Hence, in the second part, the law made provision for such converts from the date of
this law to be removed from Jewish ownership; the law was not, therefore, strictly
speaking retrospective, although it arguably was so in practice. Essentially, the law
provided a ‘solution’ for every circumstance in which a Jew might have found himself
in possession of a Christian as a slave.
In terms of intolerance the law is fairly balanced. Of course, Cynegius would
not tolerate Jews owning any Christian slaves, but is noticeably silent on whether Jews
could own pagan slaves. Therefore, this law may be more indicative of an enhanced
status for Christians, as opposed to a reduced status for Jews, that is, of reducing their
status by removing their right to own certain categories of slaves. Although purchase
of a Christian slave was described as a “crime,” it was only to be punished suitably.
The final clause ordering an appropriate financial recompense for the Jewish owner
would correspond to the sense that this law raises Christians without necessarily
implying a reduced status for Jews. Although, it does show, that the authorities were
keen to maintain strict boundaries between religious groups and that the natural
power balance in a slave-master relationship should not be allowed to affect, nor even
be in a position to affect, an individual’s religion.
251