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.

little to suggest that Constantius was as concerned as his fa<strong>the</strong>r had been to present a<br />

united front <strong>in</strong> which all, or as many as could be possible, modes of op<strong>in</strong>ion may have<br />

been accommodated with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> state or at least unthreatened by it, <strong>in</strong>deed <strong>the</strong>re is little<br />

evidence of a consistent policy at all on religious issues under Constantius, but <strong>the</strong>re is<br />

evidence that, like Constant<strong>in</strong>e, many of <strong>the</strong> laws reflect <strong>the</strong> particular concerns of <strong>the</strong><br />

addressees and <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>consistent results of this <strong>in</strong>fluence appears to be <strong>the</strong> only<br />

consistent facet of <strong>the</strong> legislation.<br />

Constantius and Judaism<br />

Constantius’ legislation directed aga<strong>in</strong>st offend<strong>in</strong>g Jews and <strong>the</strong> punishments<br />

prescribed cont<strong>in</strong>ues <strong>the</strong> dichotomy found <strong>in</strong> his fa<strong>the</strong>r’s legislation to a considerable<br />

extent. There is one law, addressed to <strong>the</strong> same Evagrius who received CTh 16.8.1 of<br />

18 October 329, which was later divided <strong>in</strong>to two laws by Theodosius II’s<br />

commissioners (CTh 16.8.6 and 16.9.2 both of 13 August 339). 107 Whereas<br />

Constant<strong>in</strong>e’s law addressed to Evagrius on assaults carried out by Jews (CTh 16.8.1)<br />

could conceivably have been viewed as at least partly concerned with public order, <strong>the</strong><br />

law issued to Evagrius under Constantius was concerned with offences that appear to<br />

be purely religious, or at least have been presented as purely religious. The first half of<br />

this law (CTh 16.8.6), was <strong>the</strong> first of Constantius’ laws to prescribe <strong>the</strong> death penalty.<br />

It dealt with one offence <strong>in</strong> which a number of Christian women from “our Imperial<br />

weav<strong>in</strong>g establishment” 108 had been converted by an unspecified number of Jews. The<br />

women were to be “restored” 109 to <strong>the</strong> weav<strong>in</strong>g establishment. The law went on to say<br />

that “Jews shall not hereafter unite Christian women to <strong>the</strong>ir villa<strong>in</strong>y” anyone who<br />

ignored this would suffer “capital punishment,” 110 no lesser punishment was given.<br />

This may <strong>in</strong>dicate that any Jews <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> empire, who hereafter converted Christian<br />

women to Judaism would have been committ<strong>in</strong>g a capital offence.<br />

107 See above<br />

108 gynaeceo nostro<br />

109 restitui gynaeceo<br />

110 ne Christianas m ulieres suis iungant flagitiis v el, si hoc fecer<strong>in</strong> t, capitali periculo subiugentur<br />

28

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!