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

authority of the judges[provincial governors]” despite protests from the “primates of
their law.” Theodosius ordered this “aforesaid outrage to be abolished altogether.”
The law warned that this state of affairs should not be returned to: “nor shall a zealous
group of persons in the aforesaid superstition obtain the power of undeserved
reconciliation” neither through the judges, nor through obtaining a rescript which
would go against the “wishes of their primates who, by the decision of their Most
Noble and Illustrious patriarchs, manifestly have the right to pronounce sentence
concerning their own religion.” 265
This law therefore is advantageous to the Jewish community to the detriment
of the Roman authorities who had apparently assumed at least a right of veto, if not
complete jurisdiction, over internal and religious Jewish affairs. This law therefore
permitted the Jews autonomy in such areas and in a sense put them outside the
jurisdiction of the state. 266
The synagogue at Callinicum was destroyed by a mob led by the local bishop
in 388. An initial order by Theodosius for that bishop to make good the damage was
subsequently reversed. 267 Five years later on 29 September 393 Theodosius sent CTh.
16.8.9 to Addeus, Count and Master of both branches of the Military Service in the
Orient, as he is titled in the law. 268 Like the previous law, it gives some indication of
the circumstances that caused it to be issued. It noted that “the sect of the Jews is
265
iudaeorum querellae quosdam auctoritate iudicum recipi in sectam suam reclam antibus legis suae
prim atibus adsev erant, quos ipsi iudicio suo ac v oluntate proiciunt. quam om nino subm ov eri iubem us
iniuriam nec eorum in ea superstitione sedulus coetus aut per v im iudicum aut rescripti subreption e inv itis
prim atibus suis, quos v irorum clarissim orum et illustrium patriarcharum arbitrio m anifestum est habere sua
de religione sententiam , opem reconciliation is m ereatur indebitae
266
Linder (1987) 186-189 gives examples of Jewish law indicating which Jewish authorities had powers of
excommunication.
267
See McLynn’s (1994) convincing reappraisal of the famous encounter between Ambrose and
Theodosius. For a more traditional interpretation of the encounter which displays Ambrose as the
victor over Theodosius, see Williams and Friell (1994) 64-65 and Holmes-Dudden (1935) 371-379; Ambr.
Ep. Ex. Coll. 1a; Ep. 74, Ep. Ex. Coll 1
268
Addeus PLRE 1.13; Honoré’s (1998) 73-76 E11; this law may possibly have been addressed or
influenced by the contemporary Praetorian Prefect of the east, Rufinus.
255