Conflict of The Church and The Synagogue, James Parkes

65-11548 296 P24c Parkes The conflict of the church* and aynagogue
296 P24c 65-11548 Parkes $1.95 The conflict of the church and the synagogue
KANSAS CITY MO PUBLIC LIBRARY
P|
FS___
JKC.1
1966..
THE CONFLICT OF THE CHURCH AND THE SYNAGOGUE

A
study in the origins of antisemitism
JAMES PARKES
Meridian Books
THE WORLD PUBLISHING COMPANY

Cleveland and
New
York
THE JEWISH PUBLICATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA

Philadelphia
JAMES PARKES James Parkes, a British clergyman and

born
in 1896.
historian,
was
His special interests in the historical background and theological determinants of Jewish and Christian relations and, more particularly, of antisemitism, have been expressed in a number of notable works, among which are: The Jew in ike Medieval Community,
An Enemy
Palestine,
of the People: Antisemitism,

Conflict of the
and The
Church and
History of the Synagogue.
To H.E.
MERIDIAN BOOKS
The World The Jewish
First
Publishing Company, Cleveland and New York Publication Society of America, Philadelphia
Meridian printing October 1961. Second printing June 1964.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publisher, except for brief passages included in a review
appearing in a newspaper or magazine. Reprinted by arrangement with The Soncino Press and James Parkes. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 61-11472 Printed in the United States of America. 2MWP664
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
THE LITERARY MATERIAL FOR THE STUDY OF JEWISH-CHRISTIAN

RELATIONSHIPS
Page
ix
ABBREVIATIONS
Page XVIII
CHAPTER
THE
WORLD
I
JEWS
IN
THE
ROMAN
Page i and first contacts with Origin dispersion Rome, and privileges in the empire occupations-Greek and Alexandrian opinion of the Jews the Jews in the Greek cities Roman opinion of the Jews Jewish mis-
sionary activity.
CHAPTER 2
THE CLASH WITH CHRISTIANITY

Page 27
the teaching of Jesus in Mark the accounts in Luke and Matthew the crucifixion-the infant Church and the admission of the Gentiles the activity of Saint Paul and his teaching about the Jews the Jews in the rest of the
Judaism and the Law
New Testament
Jewish relationships with
the early Church Jewish attitude to Saint Paul the issues still confused.
CHAPTER
THE PARTING OF THE WAYS

CUV
The
Paz* 1 uwu.) PUBLIC LiBKAHY T in and Christians separation, Jews

.
the separation, letters to the the Jews and separation, Christians in the diaspora the separation, the Romans, Ramsay's view the separathe date tion, the Romans, Merrill's view of the separation the Judeo-Christians after the separation the creation of an official
Palestine
synagogues
^1
attitude
official
to
Judaism
the
creation
of an
attitude to Christianity
influences
of
Christianity
between scholars
on Judaism relations Jews and Christians.
CHAPTER 4
IN
THE PART PLAYED BY THE JEWS THE PERSECUTIONS Page 121

View
of
modern
scholars
and
their
authority in Patristic literature nature of available evidence Jews in the Acta of

stories showing Jewish from Hadrian to Constantine cases of Jewish hostility in the crowd persecutions under Julian persecutions under
first
the
century
initiative
Shapur II the mythical Acts cases of Jewish kindness to the Martyrs absence of any records of Jewish responsibility for the
persecutions
Summary
of evidence.
CHAPTER
THE FOURTH CENTURY
Page 151
The problem facing the leaders of Judaism and Christianity the Christian view of the Jews Eusebius of Caesarea and Hilary
of Poitiers and Jewish history Chrysostom and the Jews of Antioch Ambrose and the burning of a synagogue Epiphanius and Jewish belief converts, catechumens and church services the councils of the fourth century legislation affecting the Jews up the to the death of Theodosius the Great
treatment
of
heretics
events in fourth-
century history
Jews and Christians.
CHAPTER 6
THE THEODOSIAN CODE IN THE WEST Page 197

The progress of legislation Honorius and Valentinian III Theodoric the Ostrogoth the Lombards Gregory the Great
Honorius, Hadrian.
Gregory
III,
Stephen
and
HAPTER 7
LAW AND HISTORY IN THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE Page 225

The
the
Theodosius II and reign of Arcadius Theodosian Code the treatment of
the Jews of the legislation of Justinian the treatment of heretics by Justinian the council of Chalcedon the Jews and the Persian wars the destruction of synagogues and forced baptisms the Legislation of
heretics in the fifth century
Antioch
Leo and
HAPTER 8
later councils.
THE JEWS IN BYZANTINE LITERATURE Page 271

physical occupational and mental characteristics of eastern Jews early eastern Christian writings against the Jews, Ephrem, Aphraates and Jacob of Serug eastern disputations, Anastasius of Sinai eastern disputations, Gregentius and Herbanus, the Teaching of Jacob, the Trophies of Damascus, the conversion of the Jews of Tomei, the history of Theodosius and Philip the Jews in the Iconoclastic controversy the miraculous conversions of the Jews Jews in apocryphal ' * Jew writings Jews in the theologians as a term of abuse in the Nestorian-Chalcedonian-Monophysite controversy the ritual of the conversion of the Jews relations
,
The nature of Byzantine literature
between Jews and Christians.

HAPTER 9
GIVES ROMANI, RELIGIONE JUDAEI

Page 307
the position of the Jews in Roman Gaul the Syrians in western Europe the simplification of Roman Law the Arian period the Jews and the Prankish councils the Jews and the Prankish kings compulsory baptisms in France the Jews in literature the laws of
The
barbarian invasions
Charlemagne economic position of Jews relations between Jews and Christians.
CHAPTER 10
THE JEWS
The
IN VISIGOTHIC SPAIN
P*8 e 345
Visigothic period conditions of the Jews in Spain the Breviary of Alaric laws and councils of the first half of the seventh century laws and councils of Recceswinth laws and councils of Erwig laws and councils of Egica reasons for the persecution of the Jews in Spain.
CHAPTER
II
THE FOUNDATIONS OF ANTISEMITISM

Page 371
LEGISLATION AFFECTING 300 TO 800
APPENDIX
A.D.
THE JEWS FROM Page 379
APPENDIX 2
THE 146
NOVELLA OF JUSTINIAN Page 392

EXTRACTED
APPENDIX
PROFESSIONS OF FAITH JEWS ON BAPTISM
FROM
Page 394
APPENDIX 4
SPECIAL PRAYERS TO BE ADDED IN THE DEDICATION OF A CHURCH WHEN THE BUILDING HAS BEEN A SYNAGOGUE Page 401
APPENDIX
MARTYRDOM OF THE
TO THE JEWS
FIRST
CENTURY ASCRIBED Page 402

Page 405
INDICES
NOTE.
Each chapter is preceded by a short bibliographical introduction giving the sources, and the main authorities consulted.
PREFACE
The
publication of a study of the causes of antisemitism needs neither justification nor explanation at the present time. But a word may be said of the material offered in the present work. The progress of events from the mediaeval ghetto to modern Europe is fairly well known. That the roots of the present situation lie in the mediaeval past is
The present work tries to go a stage generally agreed. further, and to answer the question: why was there a mediaeval ghetto? In 1096 there were wild popular outbreaks against the Jews in all the cities of northern and What made this possible? The answer central Europe. could only be found by a study of the earlier period, a period incidentally which is little known by either Jewish or Christian scholars of the subject. It was necessary to begin with the Jews in the Roman world, and to trace their passage through the Roman pagan and Roman Christian civilisations into the beginning of the Middle Ages if the significance of this sudden popular fury was to be discovered. The material to be surveyed was enormous, and needed careful selection if a book already large was not to assume
impossible proportions. For this reason much has been left out. Much more evidence could be produced to support the thesis that the hostility of the Roman world to the Jew Dffers no explanation of the creation and survival of antisemitism. More illustrations of the attitude of the Jews could have been drawn from post-biblical Jewish literature. But, as the collection of material progressed, I became more and more convinced that it was in the conflict of the Church with the Synagogue that the real roots of the problem lay; and it seemed wiser to give the maximum material on that subject so as to allow the reader to judge for himself the accuracy of the theory.
It
was necessary
of the
known
to attempt to present all, not a selection, facts of Jewish- Christian relations. To do
otherwise was to expose myself to the charge of selecting only those laws or passages in Chroniclers and Historians
which supported
give references for
my argument. And it was necessary to my quotations, so that scholars might
check them for themselves if they disagreed with my interpretations. I have at least not concealed my sources under such phrases as a late Arab Chronicler or an early
*
'
and reliable authority ', phrases which again and again reduced me to fury in working through the modern material used in the preparation of this book. For this is neither a book of propaganda, nor an attempt to justify by any means available a particular hypothesis. It is an attempt to review with as much impartiality as possible the origins of a
serious contemporary problem. This study carries the history of antisemitism down to the further volume, bringbeginnings of mediaeval Europe. ing the subject down to the end of the Middle Ages, is now
in course of preparation, and will, I hope, appear within a short time. This book was written while I was on the staff of International Student Service, for presentation as a thesis for the Doctorate of Philosophy at Oxford. I must express my deepest thanks to International Student Service for allowing me the necessary time for research, and to Exeter College,
Oxford, for giving me a post-graduate scholarship during the period involved. I must also express my gratitude to the Authorities of the University of Geneva for the hospitality of their admirable library. It would be impossible to express my thanks to all the scholars, Christian and Jewish, who have assisted me in this study. But I cannot omit the names of my two chief counsellors, Professor Powicke, of Oxford, and Mr Herbert Loewe, whose departure to Cambridge has left Oxford
without a Rabbinic scholar. To them I owe a debt which cannot be measured in Words. For financial assistance in publishing this work I have to thank the Committee for Advanced Studies at Oxford and Mr I. M. Sieff for their
generosity.
trious reader errors
still be found by the indusand oversights in the text, yet that the book was finished at all is due to the continual patient work, on manuscripts, sources and proofs, of my two collaborators, Helen Ellershaw and Miles Hyatt. If, after all their work, there are still inconsistencies or errors, the fault is mine and not theirs. JAMES PARKES
Though
fear that there will
May
1934.
INTRODUCTION
ON THE LITERARY MATERIAL FOR A STUDY OF
JEWISH-CHRISTIAN RELATIONSHIPS
The rejection of Christianity by the Jewish people has, inevitably, always troubled the Christian conscience, and it is natural that an immense literature has grown up around the subject. To describe in detail the whole of this literature
would be an enormous work in itself. The purpose of this introduction is more modest. It is designed to supplement the detailed bibliographies given to each chapter by a general survey of the development of the controversy between Jews and Christians from the separation of the two religions up to the present time. So long as the rejection of Christianity remained in doubt it was natural that the main effort of the protagonists of the new
faith should
vinced fellow-countrymen.
be to explain and to justify it to their unconTheir task was to prove by reference to the Scriptures which both parties accepted, that Jesus was really the Messiah. Their attitude to His condemnation by the authorities of Jerusalem was a tentative one. They were more anxious to excuse than to condemn. This is the situation at the time when the synoptic gospels were
written.
But the events following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 made the conversion of the mass of the people less likely, and there is, consequently, a change in the tone of the
A.D.
literature.
It is
designed to confute rather than to convince.
this period belongs the Gospel of Saint John, with its complete lack of distinction between parties, and its con-
To
demnation of the Jews as a whole for actions which the synoptists had more specifically ascribed to the Pharisees or
to
'
'
The spread of the Church among party. and Hellenistic Jews, who were either totally unacquainted with the Scriptures, or at best knew them but slightly, forced the Church into the collection of the main texts from the Old Testament on which it based its claim that Jesus was the Messiah, and many editions of these Testimonies were probably in circulation at the beginning of the
some other
Gentiles
* '
INTRODUCTION
second century. While the problem of the Jews was of capital importance to the Christians, it is easy to see that the problem of the Christians was of but very slight importance to the Jews. Not only were they engaged in a political and religious task which taxed all their energies, but in any case the Christians must have seemed a very small and insignificant
No literature has survived, in which the Jews set ever existed, any in writing their replies to the challenge of the Christians. At most this or that paragraph of the Talmud may have been uttered with the Christian doctrine, and the reply to it, in The main Christian the mind of the rabbi concerned. document of this second period is the dialogue of Justin with Trypho, written in the middle of the second century, which not only contains the fullest statement of the Christian teaching on the authenticity of the claims of Jesus to be the Messiah, but also the beginnings of a developed doctrine of the rejection of the Jews. There must have been many other
sect to the leaders of Judaism.
and
it is
doubtful
if
such dialogues during this period, and one is known to us by name, the Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus. Traces of it are to be found in two dialogues which reflect fairly early conditions, those of Timothy and Aquila and of Athanasius
and Zacchaeus. But in the main the Church of the second and third centuries was concerned with its relations with paganism more than with Judaism, and information about its attitude to the Jews has to be looked for here and there scattered throughout the writings of the Church fathers. Literature addressed to them directly has, however, always existed, and Altercationes'
*
or discourses contra Judaeos are to Disputationes be found in almost every century. The earliest known to have been translated into a Teutonic tongue is the Book on the Catholic Faith of Isidore of Seville, written in the seventh century to confute the Jews of Visigothic Spain. parallel literature from the Jewish side is not to be found before the Spanish controversies of the Middle Ages, but from that time onwards a number of Jewish authors have set themselves to refute the texts used by Christians to assert the truth of their religion. The most famous of the latter works is the Strengthening of Faith, by the Karaite Rabbi, Isaac of Troki, which, written in the sixteenth century and
or
'
'
INTRODUCTION
XI
based largely on older materials, has enjoyed a considerable vogue in eastern Europe up to the present day, and has
produced a number of Christian rejoinders, the

the
latest
being
work of Canon Lukyn Williams,
Christian Evidences for
Jewish People. A detailed study of the literature of the Middle Ages is reserved for a later volume treating of the relations between the Church and the Synagogue during that period, and here
sufficient to remark that works of a precisely similar character to the earlier ones existed throughout the Middle Ages, containing very largely the old texts and methods of
it is
argument.
in
A popularised form of this literature was the miracle play,
which the part of the Jew was, naturally, always an unpleasant one. How far back these plays may be traced is an uncertain point, but there is a Dialogue between the Church and the Synagogue, attached to the writings of Augustine but certainly not by him, which almost looks as To this popular if it were written for dramatic presentation. literature of attack the Jews replied by the production of scurrilous biographies of Jesus. The earliest evidence for such biographies goes back to the second century, but the one which has survived, the Sepher Toldoth Jeshu, is probably mediaeval. It was known in whole or in part to various Christian scholars of the Middle Ages, and was finally published in toto by Wagenseil in his Tela Ignea Satani in 1681 Since then it has provided frequent ammunition for antisemitic writers. In its essence it is a parody of the Gospel narratives, turning all the good in them into evil. It is significant primarily for the use made of it by modern In itself it cannot be considered a antisemitic writers. serious view of Jewish scholarship, and it is indeed very doubtful whether it was as widely known among mediaeval
.
Jews as Wagenseil would claim, though it certainly enjoyed considerable currency among the folk-lore and unwritten legend of the simpler type of Jewish family. The first field covered by this literature is, then, the interpretation of the Scriptures themselves, whether Jewish or second subject enters into consideration with Christian. the development of post-Christian Jewish scholarship in the Talmud, Many of the early fathers show a more or less
Xll
INTRODUCTION
profound acquaintance with the development of contemporary Judaism and the Jewish method of interpretation of the Scriptures. The writer who devoted most attention to the matter was Jerome. He produced innumerable commentaries of the Scriptures in which he contrasts the Jewish and
Christian interpretations, and also a new Latin version of the Bible, in order to give Christians, especially those who knew no Hebrew, an authoritative version for the purpose of confuting the Jews. But there are no lengthy commentaries or attacks upon the Talmud as such until a much later period. All that was done was to prohibit Christians and,
Jews from reading these interpretations '. The Middle Ages condemned the Talmud without trying to read it. The first attempt to secure a Christian view of its contents was undertaken by the Spanish Dominicans in the thirteenth century, and by a papal bull all passages offensive Similar action was taken at to Christianity were deleted. various other points in the Middle Ages, but more serious was the renewed attack of the Dominicans in the sixteenth In 1505 they commissioned a converted Jew, century.
where
'
possible,
Pfefferkorn, to make a collection of all the offensive passages in the Talmud. This was published in 1507 as the JudenSpiegel, and led to a great controversy between the clericals
and humanists, led by the Dominicans and Reuchlin. The won, but Reuchlin, though defeated, ushered in a new era by his courageous defence of the Jews and the Talmud in the AugenspiegeL At the end of the seventeenth century a Protestant professor, John Andrew Eisenmenger, published a violent attack on the Talmud and on Judaism as a whole under the title of Entdecktes Judentum an Original and True Account of the way in which the stubborn Jews frightfully blaspheme and dishonour the Holy Trinity, revile the Holy Mother of Christ, mockingly
clericals
y '
criticise
the
New
Testament, the Evangelists, the Apostles
religion, and despise and curse to the uttermost extreme the whole of Christianity \ This work was so virulent that its first edition was suppressed, and for ten years it only circulated in a few copies. But in 171 1 the King of Prussia was interested in the matter, and the whole two quarto volumes of more than a thousand pages each was republished at the royal press at Kanigsberg.
and the Christian
INTRODUCTION
Xlll
These two volumes are of capital importance for the future development of antisemitism. Not only do all later antiSemites, such as Rohling, plagiarise them, but they link together, as no ancient writer did, the contemporary conduct of the Jews with their theological and historical failings. In
the hatred of the Jews for the Christians is explained consequence of Jewish religious teaching, and the responsibility of the non-Jewish population for its existence is kept well in the background. The matter slumbered during the rest of the century, but it was again fanned into flame by the emancipation of the
this
way
as the
Jews and by the prominent part which they took in the economic developments of the nineteenth century. Economic and religious questions became completely intertwined with politics, and a new form of polemic was evolved, in which contemporary life was the main interest. But the old accusations still remained to explain the Jewish position in society and to deepen the new hostility of the common people
Israelites dans la Societe franfaise by the Abbe Joseph Lemann, himself a converted Jew, and these two works served as a basis for the infamous attack on the French Jews of Edouard Drumont, La France Juive^ which, in spite of being a work of two fat volumes, ran into innumerable editions and produced a whole literature of attack and
U entree des
which this new antisemitic movement enormous, and it is only possible to indicate produced a few examples. The earliest writings came from France, where in the 'forties Toussenel produced in two volumes a work, Les Juifs, rois de Vepogue. This was followed by
is
to the Jews. The literature
defence in the years immediately preceding the Affaire Dreyfus. In Germany a similar literature came into being with the
publication by a journalist, Wilhelm Marr, of a sensational pamphlet on the Victory of Judaism over Germanism. The nineteenth century saw this attack developed along several
different lines. Treitschke developed political antisemitism: Chamberlain embellished all the absurdities of racial anti-
semitism with immense learning in The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century: Canon Rohling in the Talmudjude revived ritual murder accusations and all the poison of
Xiv
INTRODUCTION
finally Werner Sombart in Die Juden und das Wirtschaftsleben combined a serious study of the role of the Jews in the building up of modern society with a fantastic structure of religious and racial theory, linking the development of modern capitalism to the exigencies of
Eisenmenger; and
the Mosaic Law.
The final stage of antisemitic development accompanied the foundation of the Zionist Organisation as a world-wide federation of Jews. Out of this fact emerged a literature as the enemies of individual representing the Jews not merely national of or societies, but as the Christians, particular enemies of the whole world, and the secret plotters of a world revolution in their own favour. Out of this approach grew the famous forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The defence of post- Christian Judaism and the reexamination of the Christian attitude to the Jew begin much later than the attack. While certain mediaeval Popes and ecclesiastical writers were not unsympathetic to them, and while the Papacy, for instance, steadily defended the Jews against the ritual murder accusation, it is not unnatural to find the first defence of the Talmud coming from a sixteenth-century humanist, Reuchlin, and the first complete examination of the history of the Jews among the Christian peoples undertaken by a Pastor of the Reformed Church, who thus did not feel personally responsible for what had happened before the Reformation, This important publication was UHistoire des Juifs, pour servir a continuation de VHistoire de Flave Josephe, published by Jacob Christian
Basnage at Rotterdam in 1701. This work was considerably used by other authors in the eighteenth century, and its
popularity
is indicated by its appearance in several editions both in French and English, and by the appearance of a
pirated edition of it in Paris, in which his texts are falsified to divert the blame from the mediaeval Church. The eighteenth century witnessed the emergence of an
emancipated literary Jewish group in Berlin under the leaderFreship of a Jewish philosopher, Moses Mendelssohn. quented by many of the leading Christian intellectuals of his day, Mendelssohn inspired a new respect for the Jew, which is reflected in the play of Lessing, Nathan the Wise, and in the political plea of Christian William Dohm, Upon the Civil
INTRODUCTION
XV
Amelioration of the Condition of the Jews. In England a similar reaction took place, and a dramatist of the second half of the century, having become extremely interested in
the Jewish problem, produced a play, The Jew. Though Lessing's work is incomparably greater as literature, the two plays have this in common, that the Jew becomes as superhumanly virtuous as society had been accustomed to consider
great philosopher of toleration,
Lessing shows his Jew as the Cumberland as the generous moneylender and anonymous philanthropist. This tendency in literature produced in the nineteenth century Dickens's Mr. Riah (though his Fagin is much better known) and George Eliot's Daniel Deronda. It would, however, be true to say that the literary tradition of the Jew as the evil character is by no means dead, and that
evil.
him superhumanly
when
to-day a character is referred to as a Jew* in a book, it is usually meant as a term of dislike or contempt. This is, in fact, much the older tradition. Jews as a common subject of romances are first found in the time of the iconoclastic controversy, and though the story usually though not always ends with the conversion of the Jew, it invariably begins with his misdeeds. Eastern literature is, on the whole, better disposed towards them than western, but the human side of Shylock is a witness to the genius of Shakespeare only, and has few parallels in anything written between the eighth century and the eighteenth. new element in what may be called the literature of defence was introduced by the emergence in the nineteenth century of higher criticism. The results of the researches of German scholars into the authenticity of the New Testa-
'
'
ment were immediately known to Jewish scholars, who now had access to the European universities. This produced a demand for a re-examination of the part they were supposed to have played in the drama of Calvary presuming it even In 1838 a French Jewish scholar, to have taken place. Joseph Salvador, produced Jesus Christ et sa Doctrine, which was an attempt to study critically the history of the first two This was followed some centuries of Christian history. a more direct attack by J. Cohen, with later twenty years Les Detcides, in which the whole responsibility of the Jews Since for consciously killing the Messiah was rejected.
Xvi
INTRODUCTION
many
Jewish works on the subject have appeared.
then
Among them some of the most noticeable are As others saw Him, by Joseph Jacobs; The Trial of Jesus, by an American Jewish lawyer, Max Radin; and more recently Jesus of
Nazareth, by Joseph Klausner. A second product of the new study of the Scriptures was a re-examination of the debt owed by Christianity to Judaism. This produced a considerable literature during the latter half of the nineteenth century. The first group to undertake such study were astonishingly little influenced by modern views of Judaism. Harnack and Schurer reproduce almost the same conception of the Jews as the theologians of the early centuries of the Church. A revision of the Gospel account of Pharisaism, and of the accepted conception of the Talmud, was made necessary by the appearance of The Pharisees, by Travers Herford, and by the literature arising out of the Rohling-Bloch trial. Though the actual trial never took place, since Rohling withdrew the day before it was to open, it gave the opportunity for a complete refutation of the usual calumnies on the Talmud. At the same time the reemergence of ritual murder accusations led to the publication
by Hermann Strack of The Jew
in Human Sacrifice. Finally, in recent years, have appeared two exhaustive studies by Christian scholars on early Judaism, Judaism of the Tannaitic
by George Foote Moore, and the Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, by Hermann Strack and Paul Billerbeck. On the same subject, from the Jewish side, have appeared The Synoptic Gospels and Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teaching, by Claude Montefiore. To these may be added the study of the different
Period,
strata in the Gospels as they present the teaching of Jesus, Jesus and the Law of Moses, by B. H. Branscombe. third development of the nineteenth century was a new
Jewish interest in secular history. This interest produced a great Jewish apologist in H. Graetz, who began his Geschichte derjuden about 1850, following up and surpassing such limited works as those of Depping and Bedarride on the history of the Jews in western Europe. Since the time of Graetz many Jewish historians have appeared, including Dubnow with a further complete history of the Jews, Juster with a specialised study of the Jews in the Roman Empire,
INTRODUCTION
XV11
Aronius with a collection of early sources for Jewish history in western Europe, and others. This historical work formed the basis for a new apologetic,
which was made very necessary by the re-emergence of antisemitism in the second half of the nineteenth century. This time both Jew and Gentile scholar entered the field on the same side. Among Gentiles, Leroy Beaulieu wrote Israel parmi les Nations in the 'eighties, and G. F. Abbott Israel in
later. On the Jewish side the outstanding work was Antisemitisme by Bernard Lazare, and more recently the racial aspect has been dealt with by M. Mieses in Der Ursprung des Judenhasses. This apologetic literature is now so enormous that it is impossible to quote examples of it. It can only be said that little of it rises above mediocrity, or tries to trace the problem to its real historical It is for this reason that the present study was roots. undertaken. In this brief review of an immense literature, study of the Old Testament history of the Jew has been deliberately omitted; but in a survey of the numerous ways in which non-
Europe some ten years
Jews have been led to a different appreciation of Judaism from that offered by the early Church, the work of Hebraists like the Buxdorf family in the seventeenth century has played no mean part. In the whole of this account it is significant that no honourable part has been played by converted Jews, as interpreters of their old faith to their new. In the Middle Ages converted Jews were either silent or proved the sincerity of their
conversion by virulent attacks upon Judaism. The sixteenthcentury Pfefferkorn was an eminent example of this type. In recent centuries a number of converted Jews have written
works to bring their co-religionists to conversion, e.g. Wegweiser zum Leben fiir Hebraer, oder Beweggrunde wegen welchen ich Thomas Neumann das Judenthum verlies und ein
Katholischer Christ ward, of 1791, or Erreurs des Juifs en Matttre de Religion of Nicolas Leveque, 1828. The first converted Jew vigorously to undertake the defence of the
Jews against unjust accusations was Daniel Abramovitch Chwolson, a Russian Jewish Christian scholar. The attempt to set Jesus in His Jewish setting was also first attempted
by a Jewish Christian
in the
nineteenth century, in the
XV111
INTRODUCTION
the
work of Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus

Messiah.
To-day
Jews has
it
must
still
be said that the popular view of the
altered through the influence of modern for those who will take the trouble, it is But, scholarship. possible at last to understand the true nature of the Judaism
little
out of which Christianity grew, and which still exists side by side with it. But much still remains to be done, both from the religious and from the historical standpoint, if the Jewish problem of to-day is to be understood, and, on the
basis of a true understanding, solved.
ABBREVIATIONS
AJB. (An. Boll
Aronius A.S.
Breviary
)
Analecta Bottandiana, periodical publication of the Bollandists.

Regesten star Geschichte der Juden bis zttm Jahre 1273, Julius Aronius. Berlin, 1902.
Acta Sanctorum. Breviarium Alandense.

1849-
Ed G.
Haenel. Leipzig,
CJ.
Const. Sirm.
Codex Justinianus. Ed. Krueger and

Berlin, 1886.
Mommsen.
Constitute Sirmioms.
See C.T.
Cor
Scrip. Byz.
C.S.C.O. C.S.E.L. C.T.
Corpus Scriptorum Byzantinorum. Corpus Scriptorum Chnstianorum Qnentalium. Corpus Scnptorum Ecclesiasttcorum Latinorum. Codex Tkeodosianus. Ed. Mommsen and Meyer.
Berlin, 1905. Dictionary of Christian Biography.
D.C.B. E. and H.
Letters of Gregory the Great, in edition of and Hartmann, in M.G.H.
Ewald
Harduin
J.Q Jl.
J.T.S.
Sacrosancta Concilia adregiam editionem exacta, 1728.
Jewish Quarterly Review, Old Series. Journal of Theological Studies.

Vis.)
L.V. (Leg.
M. (in Ch. VI only)

Mansi or
Ed. Zeumer, in M.G.H. Leges Visigothorum. quarto, Leges, I, i. Leipzig, 1902. Letters of Gregory the Great, in edition of Migne's
Patrologia Latina.
Cottectio Conciliorum
M.
AmpKssima.
Historica.
M.GJH.
Momimenta Germamae
M.G.WJ.
Nov.
P.G.
P.L. P.O.
P.S.
Monatschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissemchaft des
Judentums. Novellae of Theodosius or Justinian.
See C.T.
and CJ.
Patrologia Graeco-Latina. Patrologia Latina.
Patrologia Oriental*.
Patrologia Syriaca.
R-EJ. R.O.C.
S A.
SAJ.
S.C. SJE.
Revue des Etudes Juives. Revue de VOrient chr4tien. Synaxaire Armenien de Ter Israel. Synaxaire Arabe Jacobite. Synaxarium Constantinopolitanum.
Synaxaire Ethiopien. Synaxaire Georgien.
S.G.
CHAPTER ONE
THE JEWS
IN
THE ROMAN WORLD
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION
It is not the task of this chapter to survey the whole of the Jewish diaspora, nor to give in any detail the legal, social, and religious position of the Jews under Roman protection. For such a study the reader is referred to the works of Radin and Schiirer, and, above all, to the two encyclopaedic volumes of Juster, which contain an exhaustive bibliography of the ancient and modern sources of Jewish history throughout the Roman period. For the documents of the pre-Roman period Willrich may also be consulted. The source material for all such study is mainly Jewish, for the works of Livy and Polybius both present lacunae covering the sections in which they might be expected to give an impartial Gentile survey of the situation of the Jews. are left therefore primarily to the Maccabees, to Josephus
We
and to Philo.
As, however, our purpose is not so much to study the general situation of the Jews in the ancient world, as to consider the relations between them and their neighbours
which existed before the coming of
Christianity,
it is
more
important for us to know the casual references to them in Gentile writers, than to follow their actual history. These references have been collected at various times, but the most complete is that of Reinach, to which reference will be made throughout the chapter. In addition to them we have also to consider the evidence coming from Egyptian papyri, to supplement the work of Philo for our knowledge of the situation of the Jews in Alexandria in the first century A.D.
The main problem

*
set
'.
by these
references
is
that of
classical antisemitism
The
interest in
them developed
largely in
Germany
in the desire to prove that antisemitism
THE CONFLICT OF CHURCH AND SYNAGOGUE
was something which inevitably accompanied the Jew wherever he went, and which was due to his own racial and unalterable characteristics. This is a view which underlies the work of Willrich, Wilcken and Stahelin, and their work should be read with this in mind. The proclamation of the fragmentary accounts of law-suits between Egyptian Jews and Gentiles before the Roman authorities by Bauer and others as Acts of heathen martyrs reveals this tendency sufficiently obviously, and on this subject the criticism of an expert Hagiologist like Hippolyte Delehaye should be
*
5
consulted.
to
While, therefore, the works of the authors mentioned need be studied for the material they contain, the works of
Bell, Hild, Dobschiitz, Heinemann and Fuchs provide a more objective perspective of Jewish-Gentile relationships. The work of Hild is of particular value, because of the care with which he considers the date and setting of each comment upon the Jews in Roman authors. How far racial mysticism has penetrated modern German scholarship can be seen from the work of Fuchs, who would appear from his name to be a Jewish author, and who yet states in his introduction that he is unable to find satisfaction in a com-
pletely historical account of the events to be considered. In so far as all these studies wish to generalise on the position of the Jews in the ancient world from an examination
certain places
of the hostility to which they were undoubtedly subject in and at certain times, they exhibit the weakness of not taking into account the implication of contemporary
Jewish missionary activity and its known success. In general they also omit the peculiar character of the Alexandrian situation, and the inevitable difficulties of adjustment of a monotheistic people in a polytheistic world. The work of Fuchs helps for a consideration of the Alexandrian situation, and a detailed consideration of the adjustments made necessary by Jewish monotheism will be found in Juster. For a study of the missionary activity of the Jews, the works of Schiirer, Krueger and Foakes Jackson may be indicated. The best study seems to me, however, that of Friedlander. Further references to the missionary activities of ancient
Judaism
will
be found in the bibliographies of the two
succeeding chapters.
THE JEWS IN THE ROMAN WORLD
LIST OF BOOKS
BAUER, A.
Heidnische Mdrtyrakten. Archiv fur Papyrus Forschung. Leipzig, 1901.
BELL, H. L.
Juden und Griechen im Romischen Alexandria. Supplement to Alten Orient ', 1926. Jews and Christians in Egypt. British Museum, 1924.
'
DELEHAYE, H.
Les Passions des Martyrs

Litterair es.
Paris,
ff.
et les
Genres
1905:
especially
pages 161
DOBSCHUTZ, E. VON
Jews and Gentiles in Ancient Alexandria. American Journal of Theology,

1904.
FREY, J.-B.
Les Communautes juives a Rome aux premiers temps de VEglise. Recherches des Sciences Religieuses, 1930 and
193 I-
FOAKES JACKSON, F.
J.
Josephus
and
the
Jews.
S.P.C.K.
FRIEDLANDER,
M.
Dasjudentum
in der vorchristlichen
griechischen Welt.
Wien, 1897.
FUCHS, LEO
Die Juden Aegyptens in Ptolemdischer und Romischer Zeit* Vienna, 1924.

J.
HEINEMANN,
Antisemitismus. Pauly supp. 5. 1931.
Wissowa R.E.
HILD,
J.
A.
Les Juifs a Rome devant V opinion et dans la litterature. Revue des Etudes
Juives, Vols.
VIII and
XL

Les Antiquites des Juifs. Ed. T. Reinach. Paris, various dates. Le centre Apian '. Ed. T. Reinach.
'
JOSEPHUS
Paris, 1932.
JUSTER,
J.
Les
Juifs dans F empire Paris, 1914, 2 vols.
Romain.
KRUEGER, P.
Philo undjosephus ah Apologeten der Juden. Leipzig, 1926.
LA
PIANA, G.
Foreign Groups in Rome. Harvard University Press, 1927.

Ecrits Historiques, with an introduction by F. Delaunay. Paris, 1870.
PHILO
RADIN,
M.
The Jews among the Greeks and Romans. Jewish Publication Society of America, 1915.
Textes des Auteurs Grecs et Latins
relative
REINACH, T.
au Judaisme. Paris, 1895.
SCHURER, E.
The History of the Jewish People

in the time of Jesus Christ. English translation. Edinburgh, 1901.
STAHELIN, F,
Der Antisemitismus
Basle, 1905.
des
Altertums.
WILCKEN, U,
Zum
Alexandrischen Antisemitismus.
Abhandlung der Kgl. Sachs. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft, 1909.
WlLLRICH, H.
Juden und Griechen vor der

kabaischen
Mak-
Erhebung.
Gottingen,
of
the
1895. Judaica* (A continuation above.) Gottingen, 1900.

I.
ORIGIN AND DISPERSION
histories of the Jews give the impression that during the period which preceded the exiles they were a more or less definable political and racial group, this is, in fact, far from being the case. careful reading of the Old Testament itself makes it clear that their unity
Although many
was both
Israelites
politically
who
and racially extremely vague. The entered Palestine from the east and brought
the religion of
from the
different
subjugated, success their religion. The boundaries of their authority depended on the prowess of their chieftains, and on the situation of the neighbouring empires. It had nothing to do either with the extent of their actual settlements or with their racial unity. Their religion, the religion of Yahweh, was not the it was the religion religion of a particular geographical area of a military and priestly aristocracy, and was never (during the period of independence at least) the only religion to be found within the borders of Israelite domination. The Old Testament is full of accounts of the struggle waged by the Israelites against the local 'Baals'; and temples to various gods existed in Jerusalem itself throughout the period of the
:
Yahweh with them were certainly distinct Hebrew tribes of Palestine whom they and on whom they imposed with more or less
kingdom
'
1
.
Yahweh was never the sole religion of neither was it ever exclusively confined to Palestine. Sinai, the chosen dwelling of Yahweh Himself, was outside Palestine, and Sinai did not lose its importance even It is after the construction of the Temple in Jerusalem. possible that the original home of the religion was at the mouth of the Euphrates, and that this continued to be a centre of some importance for a considerable period of Old
If the religion of
',
Palestine
Testament history. Deutero-Isaiah, who in all his prophecies makes no reference to Palestinian history, and who addresses in turn Jerusalem and the coast- lands, may have been a Yahwist from this area. But, even if Palestine was the chief centre of Yahwism, it was spread abroad long before the
1
Cf.
Godbey, The Lost Tribes a Myth, pp. 105-110.
by the trading and military stations scattered Asia and north-east Africa. Though Paleswestern through tine itself was a primarily agricultural country, and though it
Christian era
unlikely that many of its inhabitants were engaged in trade in the early days of its settlement by the Israelites, yet certain trade relations were cultivated by Solomon and his successors 1 and a certain number of worshippers of Yahweh
is
,
be found in the trading companies of the states of the coast. In addition to mercantile neighbouring these probable trading centres, there were certain militarystations held by Israelites both in the Assyrian and in the Egyptian empires. In Elephantine and on the edge of Cyrenaica there were Israelite soldiers even before the final fall of the Jewish Kingdoms, and in the third century the Syrian Kings established others in Phrygia. The different exiles contributed to create another group of settlements in
likely to
would be
western Asia, some agricultural, some military, some of a
mixed constituency 2
In accordance with the usual practice in the ancient world, as soon as any of these settlements became sufficiently large and permanent, a cultus centre would be established 3 and the requisite privileges for worship would be obtained from
,
the local authorities, or from the central ruler himself. If, was the case, for example, in the military stations, the privileges obtained were considerable, there would be a steady demand from the other inhabitants of the settlement for admission to the fellowship or family of Yahweh, so that every one of these centres became also a nucleus for proselytising surrounding areas. In addition to the possible privileges which adoption into the family of Yahweh entailed, the purity of Jewish religion must have exercised a powerful influence upon the best elements with which it came into contact,
as
1
land
Kings ix, 26 and xxii, 48 refer to sea traffic, and x, 28-29 refers to traffic in horses. These references are more reliable evidence of
Israelite participation in the Mediterranean trade than the earlier allusions in Genesis xlix, 13, and Judges v, 17, which are not only in conflict with each other and Deuteronomy xxxiii, 18-20, but credit tribes with sea power at a period when it is almost certain that they did not possess the coast towns.
2 For a survey of the Jewish settlements in the Schurer, Div. II, Vol. II, 31, p. 219 ff.
Roman Empire
see
*Ibid. p. 253.
Relics of this proselytism are to be found even to-day in the existence of Jewish customs among many Asiatic and
very little is known. A detailed picture of Jewish life in the diaspora is possible only in the period in which the
majority of Jews were living under Roman rule. That they were already very widely dispersed is shown by the remark * of Strabo that the Jews have already settled in every city, and it is not easy to find any spot on the earth which this tribe has not occupied and where it has not asserted itself2 ', or that of the Jewish Sybil: the whole earth, and the sea also,
'
African peoples from China to the Gold Coast, who are certainly not Semitic and the famous Jewish nose seems to be of Hittite rather than Semitic origin 1 Of the actual conditions of these settlements, and the conditions of the admission of proselytes in different parts
;
is full
of them
3
'.
II.
FIRST CONTACTS WITH ROME AND PRIVILEGES IN THE EMPIRE

first
The Jews
came
into contact with the

B.C.
Romans
at the
an embassy was sent to Rome to invite their alliance against Demetrius of Syria4 This the Romans, on the principle of divide et impera, were prepared to do, and Rome remained on friendly terms with Judaea until in 65 B.C. Pompey, passing through Syria after his conquest of Mithridates and Tigranes, reduced it to a Roman province and so removed the necessity of a treaty relationship with an independent people. In 63 B.C., under the pretext of settling a disputed succession, he re-entered Judaea and captured Jerusalem. Hyrcanus was made High Priest, under Roman protection, but his political power was curtailed and Judaea was placed under the general supervision of the governor of Syria. This situation lasted until
.
time of the Maccabees, and in 162
See Godbey,
op.
cit.,
Chapters ix-xv.
Strabo, quoted in Josephus, Ant.,
XIV,
7, 2,
115 (beginning of
ist cent. B.C.).

3
as the
4
Orac. Sybil, '
iii,
Jewish Sybil
viii,
271 (2nd cent. B.C.). For a study of the work known * see Schurer, op. cit., Div. II, Vol. Ill, p. 271 ff.
Mac.
22.
the time of Julius Caesar, when in return for the support of the Jews a certain measure of their political power was restored to them, only to disappear again with the appointment of a Roman governor by Tiberius, an event itself followed within less than half a century by the destruction of Jerusalem and the obliteration of the political separateness of the Jews altogether. Long before this final destruction arrived, and while the centre of political relationships was still Jerusalem, the Jews in the diaspora succeeded, through the influence of the Maccabees, in securing important privileges from the Roman authorities 1 Already in 161 B.C. they had obtained for all 2 Jews within the Roman dominions the status of peregrini which allowed them to be judged by their own law, and to follow their own customs in such matters as marriage or inheritance. They then asked for, and about no B.C. succeeded in obtaining, the same privileges for Jews resident in all kingdoms and states allied with Rome, under pain of Roman displeasure3 Such privileges were independent of the question of citizenship, which was already possessed by the Jews in many of the cities of Asia, Syria, and elsewhere. All these privileges were confirmed by Julius Caesar in a
.
general permission to 'live according to their own laws'. This formed the magna carta of the Jews in the Roman Empire, being frequently reaffirmed in general terms by 4 subsequent emperors This toleration is generally expressed * in the historians phrase that Judaism was religio licita '. by The phrase is not a legal one, and is first used by Tertullian
.
(Apolog. 21). In Roman law the Jews formed a collegium rather than a religio '; and as such had the right to retain their own observances. There was nothing exceptional in the actual giving of these privileges, for in so doing the Romans
* '
*
were only following their usual custom of granting the greatest possible local
empire.
1
autonomy to the different parts of their average minority policy of a modern European state would have appeared to any Roman statesman an incon-
The
For the complete collection of these see Juster, Vol.

cit. }
I,
Intro., sec.
iii;
also Schurer, op.

2 3
4
Div, II, Vol. Ill, p. 257.

2,
Mac.
viii,
22,
Josephus, Ant., XIII, 9,

Juster, op.
cit.,
and XIV,
i.
10, 22.
Chapter
I, sec.
undisturbed worship of their own God. A society accustomed to polytheism granted this permission without great difficulty, and even before the followers of Yahweh appeared
claiming privileges already granted to others, Rome was the centre of many eastern cults which, in spite of occasional
official repression,
ceivable folly. Privileges granted to the Jews, however, very soon revealed a one-sided character. To allow them to live according to their own law was in essence to allow them the
Such
Jews
grew and flourished in mutual toleration. a policy was general in the ancient world, and the in the days of their independence had themselves
allowed foreign cults to settle in Jerusalem; and every trade agreement they made was accompanied by permission to the trader to worship his own God in the quarter of the town
allotted to
him 1
as the principle of monotheism was by this time firmly established in Judaism, the granting of toleration to the
But
Jews became a granting of unique favours which could not be compared to those granted to others. The principle of was religious liberty very widely respected in the ancient world. It was not difficult, because the Gods of the nations were exceedingly tolerant of each other. It was only the God of the Jews who was haughty and aloof. The tolerance he readily received he did not extend to others. In his supreme jealousy he hindered his followers from the accomplishment of many acts which were obligatory among the different nations. To give toleration to Yahweh was to suppress in favour of the Jews the punishment to which the omission of these acts exposed them. The laws had to be suspended in their favour. Special privileges had to be granted them for an exception in favour of a minority is a privilege. But to refuse this toleration was to run counter to the ancient principle of tolerance, and was to render the practice of Judaism impossible. This was the dilemma: perc
secution or privilege 2 .'

to be permitted not only not to offer Gods, but also to adopt a special form for their expression of loyalty to the emperor. They could neither burn incense to his numen nor accept his statues in
sacrifices to the
1
The Jews had
Cf. I Kings xi, 31-33. Quoted from Juster, op.
cit.,
Vol.
I,
p. 213
10

offices
their synagogues.
from
Moreover, they had to ask for exemption which involved them in official worship of the
Gods or of the emperor. It is a much disputed question whether the Jews were ever employed by the Romans in the army. They were granted exemption by Caesar, and may have always retained it. Jerome says of them that it is no wonder that they have lost their manly bearing, for they are not admitted to the army, or allowed to bear swords or carry other arms 1 '. On the other hand, as independent units they were highly prized by the western Asiatic empires and by the Egyptians. In such a situation it was easier for them to observe their religion. It was the individual Jew in a non2 Jewish legion who presented difficulties As to the general Jewish population in Rome itself, on occasions when bread was given out on the Sabbath they were allowed to receive theirs on the following day. When oil was distributed which was connected with idolatry, they received a money com' .
pensation.
Jews enjoyed throughout the empire, independent of whether they were citizens either of a particular city or of Rome itself. A large number of Jews probably did not possess the status of citizen until the edict of Caracalla extended it to all inhabitants of the empire. Wherever the individual Jew might be, these privileges
These
special privileges the
depended on relations established between Rome and Judaea. Even after the destruction of the Temple, and of any form
of Jewish political autonomy, the Jews still continued to be regarded as a nation by the Romans, and the authority in religious matters of the Patriarch of Jerusalem was still recognised as covering all Jews within the Roman empire. He is always called Patriarch of the Jews * and not of 3 Judaea '. Until the war of A.D. 68 he was allowed to receive the didrachm from all Jews within the empire, and even at times when the export of gold was forbidden the Jews were allowed to send what amounted to considerable sums to
' '
c '
Jerusalem
1
4
.
2, in P.L., Vol. XXIV, p. 59. discussion see Juster, Vol. II, Ch. XXI, sec. ii. 3 Juster, op. at., Vol. I, p. 391. 4 Cf. Cic., pro Flacco, Ixvi-lxix. One of the charges against Flaccus was his confiscation of this offering to the Temple.
Jerome,
On Isaiah, iii,
For a
full

After the destruction of Jerusalem this
II
sum was changed
into a special Jewish tax which, as a crowning insult, was paid to the treasury of Jupiter Capitolinus. Thence it filtered
into a special department of the imperial treasury. It is probable that this tax was continued throughout the duration of the empire, though we only know of its existence up to the third century. In the second century the Jews were allowed to take a new voluntary collection for the authorities in Paleswhich in its turn was confistine, the aurum coronarium
' J ,
cated
right to nominate the chief officers of the different Jewish communities, and was the supreme judge in all religious matters. He was considered
by the Christian emperors. In addition, the Patriarch had the
by the Roman authorities equivalent in rank to a high Roman official, and some Patriarchs were even on intimate terms with
To maintain his contact with the widely scattered communities under his control, there was a regular system of envoys or apostles who had authority
the emperors themselves.
f '
to represent
first
him and to collect his taxes. The word
'
'
apostle
appears after A.D. 70, and is perhaps taken from the This Christians, but the office certainly existed earlier. regularly established link between Jerusalem and the diaspora
was of particular importance during the time of organised hostility to the early Church. Concerted plans could be made and consistent action followed in many parts at once. It seems strange that this internal freedom continued after the long struggle between Rome and the Jews which, beginning with the war in Judaea, lasted with interruptions well into the second century. But apart from the confiscation of the didrachm, the Romans seem to have left the Jews
scattered throughout their possessions completely in peace, and they in their turn do not seem to have taken any part in
the struggle. It
is
not until the time of the Christian emperors
that their status suffers
any
alteration.
With
their social
not expect to position the situation is different. They could retain their popularity, even if the Romans were sufficiently generous to allow them their legal rights, and we shall find a new and more hostile attitude to things Jewish in the times
following the war of 68.
12

III.
OCCUPATIONS
The Jewish
religion and the privileges which it necessitated naturally brought a certain prominence to the Jewish people. But it can be easily exaggerated. Their position in the Roman world had very little in common with their life in
in modern cities. In the main they were indistinguishable from the other inhabitants of the Mediterranean cities. They were not the only orientals ', and they were of the same race and appearance as the Syrians and the Phoenicians who had been dwelling in Greece, Italy and Spain for centuries. They lived in groups, for the convenience of synagogue worship and of common life, but so
mediaeval ghettos or even
did the other foreign groups in all the great cities of the empire. But whereas the modern Jew is distinguished often by his profession, and the mediaeval Jew had not only profession but dress to mark him, and both often presented physical characteristics strange to all the rest of the population of the
locality,
none of these distinguishing marks separated the
rest of its inhabitants. say of any profession in the empire that the bulk of those who followed it were Jews, or conversely that the bulk of the Jews followed that profession. They followed all professions. The immense majority were in relatively humble walks of society, since a large proportion of them began their life in the diaspora as slaves. large number were occupied with agriculture, particularly in the East, in Asia, the Euphrates valley and Egypt. In Europe it was probably only slaves who followed agriculture for the simple reason that it was almost exclusively a slave occupation. But in the East there were free colonists, planted at different periods by different empires. hear of them in all sorts of artisan occupations, especially dyeing, silk weaving
It is impossible to
Jew of the Roman empire from the
We
and glass-making, and in various trades and commercial occupations, but the latter was not a predominantly Jewish characteristic Jamais un auteur paien ne les caracterisa comme marchands, jamais & 1'epoque paienne ces deux notions Juif et marchand ne vont ensemble comme de soi-meme1 *. 1 The whole of this section on the economic Juster, Vol. II, p. 312. position of the Jews in the Roman empire is of great value.
*

Still less
13
we say that the Jews were largely occupied with finance. The kind of financial activities which were known to the Roman world were primitive and unproductive. They were for the purpose of display, and for the purchase of
can
development of industry. and the sprigs of the nobility, and the lenders who would certainly have welcomed no were the Roman knightly aristocracy. There oriental rivals is one reference which is triumphantly acclaimed as the klassische Ausdruck of the unchangeability of Jewish
political favours,
and not
for the
The
borrowers were
cities
'
An Alexandrian merchant, by Wilcken. Serapion, writes to a friend in financial difficulties and warns him above all to keep clear of the Jews 1 '. It is evident that it is a money-lender who is in question, and we know from Philo that such existed at Alexandria, but the letter dates from a time of violent political feeling, and in any case it is never safe to generalise from an individual case of whose setting we are absolutely ignorant. Moreover, if the halfhumorous cynicism of Hadrian is to be trusted, it would be wise to keep clear of all money-lenders in Egypt; for in asking a friend why he had imagined he would ever find
characteristics
*
religions to interest him (Hadrian) in Egypt, he summarises the one God in Egypt is the Egyptian character thus: the It is Christians, by the Jews, and worshipped by money.
*
by everybody
else 2
'.
the various sources available we have collected a considerable amount of information on Jewish occupations, but it almost all comes from inscriptions, from chance papyri, and hardly ever from polemical literature. The satirists Juvenal and Martial make great fun of Jewish beggars, but their descriptions of Jews are no more comprehensive than their descriptions equally vulgar of Greeks and Romans, and apart from the satirists the only occupation which interested the classical world seems to have been their
From
ardour in making converts. Jewish occupations as such were not the basis of Jewish unpopularity, where such existed.
Griechische Urkunden, Berlin, IV, 1097.
Reinach, No. 182.
14
IV.
GREEK AND ALEXANDRIAN OPINION OF THE

JEWS
The Jews were almost the last of the Semitic peoples to become known to the Mediterranean world. It is probable that it was not until the last days of the independent kingdom that they began to take any extensive part in the trade around them, and since they neither possessed the sea coast nor lay on any of the great trade routes which hugged the coast, it is
not surprising that they appear to have escaped notice until the time of Alexander the Great. From then onwards there exist a considerable number of references to them, some
showing actual knowledge, some none, and some showing definite prejudice and dislike. The first thing which attracted outside attention was Theophrastus, Clearchus and naturally their religion. Hermippus, writers of the third century, consider them to be a race of philosophers. The first, after an extremely mixed and inaccurate description of Jewish sacrifices, says that the most interesting thing is that, being by nature philosophers, during the sacrifice, they discuss the divine nature with each other'. Clearchus relates that in India philosophers were called Calani (presumably Brahmins), and in Syria,
* ' '
Jews '. Hermippus considers that Pythagoras learned his philosophy from the Jews. The story reappears as late as 1 Diogenes Laertius in the third century A.D. This picture of the Jews as philosophers was also quoted with disapproval. For they exhibited two characteristics which easily displeased the later Greek philosophers and sophists. They were excessively intolerant, and they combined with their philosophy a number of observances which could only seem the grossest superstition to the Greek world. This disapproval was natural, for whereas the Greek intellectual stood in sharp opposition to the simple-minded Greek who worshipped the Gods, the Jewish philosophers ', in other words the teachers in the Jewish synagogues, believed intensely in the Jewish religion. Later sophists, therefore, found them hateful to Gods and men in their intolerance, and lent a readier ear to the tales of a very different kind which also appeared in the third century. The entire collection of stories by which the
*
Reinach, Nos.
5, 7,
14 and 98.
15
negative characteristic of intolerance was transformed into a positive characteristic of hostility to all humanity can be traced to a single source, Alexandria. Thence come all the
slanders which later writers repeat, and which Tacitus made familiar to the whole Roman world and to our day. The city of Alexandria was the most monu-
At what stage they provided themselves with an pride. alternative version we do not know, but shortly after the settlement of Alexandria it appears in full detail. The first
After his death Egypt was seized by his brilliant general Ptolemy, who shortly afterwards added Palestine also to his dominions. At the beginning of his reign Alexandria was still almost unpopulated, and as the conquerors mistrusted the native Egyptians, the city was largely settled with foreign elements, Greek, Syrian and Jewish. It appears, in fact, that the Jews were specially encouraged to settle there, and they soon filled one of the five divisions of the city, and overflowed into a second. Of these different foreign elements the Jews were the best known to the local Egyptians. Not only were there Jewish settlements in Egypt itself which had been, at intervals at least, unpopular with the Egyptian hierarchy, but Palestine was a near neighbour. The Egyptian intelligentsia must have been familiar with the Jewish story of the Exodus, which was celebrated annually in the Feast of the Passover. It was not a story calculated to flatter Egyptian
ment which Alexander the Great bequeathed
permanent
to posterity.
time it is recounted, by Hecataeus of Abdera, it is in no way insulting to the Jews. Its main purpose is obviously to defend the honour of the Egyptians. Egypt was suffering from a pestilence. The Gods ordered them to purify the country by expelling all foreigners. This was done, and some went to Greece under the leadership of Danaos and Cadmus, but the bulk went to the nearer country of Palestine. Offended at this treatment, Moses, a man distinguished by his wisdom
*
and courage
led the migration to Palestine, founded ', a society deliberately hostile to all foreigners 1 . The story rapidly became more malevolent. Manetho, an Egyptian priest who wrote a short time later, attributes the plague from
who
which Egypt suffered exclusively to the emigrants were all lepers and criminals.
1
foreigners.
The The Egyptians
Reinach, No.
9.
l6

.
themselves had not suffered from the disease 1

as
an explanation of Jewish
'
misanthropy
.
',
it is
In this form, repeated by

,
Poseidonius of
Apamea
2
,
3 by Apollonius Molon
and
is
4 given full expression by Tacitus the once Alexandrian writers soon found Having begun, the means to embroider these stories in which the Jews were presented in an unfavourable light. The previous stories may have been originally Egyptian legends of the Exodus. The later are pure inventions. The Jews worshipped the head of an ass; and they ritually indulged in cannibalism. It is perhaps natural that Egypt, with its animal-headed deities, should have evolved the story of the worship of an assheaded deity by the Jews. The choice of an ass is significantly Egyptian. The Greek or Roman would have found it absurd to represent a deity with the head of any animal, but nothing particularly disagreeable attached itself to the idea of an ass. In fact, the beast was held in some honour both in Rome and elsewhere. To the Jews it was an animal to be ridden by a king. But in Egypt it was considered as unclean. The story first appears in an unknown writer whose name was apparently Mnaseas, a pupil of Eratosthenes, a president of the 5 The story is repeated with Academy of Alexandria variations some half a dozen times, and is also quoted by Tacitus. The other story is from another unknown writer, Damocritus. Once in seven years the Jews catch a Greek, fatten him and eat him. Apion makes the story more living by introducing the actual Greek victim to Antiochus Epiphanes during his visit to the Temple, and by making him himself recount his tragic fate 6 With these stories in the air, it is easy to see how the negative exclusiveness of the Jews was attributed to malevolence and how this malevolence could be translated into active hostility, as when Lysimachus (also of Alexandria)
.
.
alleges that they are

all altars
1
commanded
a charge
and temples
25.
to overthrow and destroy which was true enough of
Reinach, Nos. 10 and

lbid., Ibid.,
n.
3
4
No. No.
27.
i. Reinach, No. 81. Reinach, No. 19. *Ibid., Nos. 60 and 63, D.2.
Tac., Hist., V,
17
the old independent days in Palestine itself, but which happened outside Palestine on rare occasions and under special provocation. But it is evident that something more than literary activity was required to keep these stories alive. This was provided by contemporary life in Alexandria. Unhappy would be the people whose conduct had to be judged exclusively by their behaviour in that turbulent city. Neither Greek, Christian nor Jew would find his reputation enhanced by such a test. Certainly it would be an unhappy ground to choose for a defence of the Jewish character. Of the history of the city during the Ptolemaic period we have little information, but the sources, both in papyri and elsewhere, are considerable for a reconstruction of the situation in early Roman times. The Jews occupy a good deal of the foreground of the picture. The original reason for their unpopularity has already been suggested. They were a foreign element introduced at the beginning, at a time of suspicion on the part of the native inhabitants, and an element which came armed with an exceedingly unpleasant story of the past behaviour of the Egyptians. Further, they were undoubtedly prominent in the commercial life of the city. To what extent it is impossible to form an exact estimate. Many were occupied in the farming of the taxes and royal domains. At least later papyri speak of such people with names which suggest a Jewish origin. But a word of caution is necessary. Not all Semitic names were Jewish in Alexandria, and not all Jews bore Semitic names. The statement can only be a general one, and left at that. The irritation caused by their commercial prominence was accentuated by a third factor. They were apparently not citizens of Alexandria. This is a point which has been much debated, though it is irrelevant to the present issue. But the
letter of Claudius, following
the troubles in A.D. 38, which has been recently discovered1 seems to settle the question But in definitely against the theory that they were citizens. return they possessed powerful privileges, and even a senate of their own, a right denied to the city as a whole. The pres-
ence of a group, powerful both numerically and commercilife of the city, was ally, but taking no part in the common bound to be a source of jealousy and friction. It perpetually 1 H. I. Bell, Jews and Christians in Egypt.
l8
marked out the Jew as having interests other than those of the rest of the inhabitants, and at the same time it would give the Jews themselves a permanent feeling of malaise which know that would not tend to promote peaceful relations. the Jews attempted to obtain both citizenship and a share of the public life of the city. The refusal of this would have embittered the situation in any surroundings, but there was yet another reason in both Ptolemaic and Roman Alexandria to make the distinction of the Jews a source of trouble. The Jews had received many privileges from the Ptolemies and were loyal to them. The native Egyptians in Alexandria disliked the new Greek dynasty. When the Romans appeared, the Jews deserted the Ptolemies for the Romans, an action which was not necessarily dishonourable, for the Romans had always been friendly to the Jews elsewhere, and one of the difficulties of their situation in Alexandria was that, as they were not citizens, they still felt more Jews than Alexandrians. But the Romans were hated not only by the Egyptian population of
We
the city but by all the rest, for by its conquest Alexandria ceased to be a capital city of an independent state, and became merely the seat of a governor subordinate to
Rome.
For the trouble which arose in the time of Caligula our information, though still all reported through the Jewish eyes of Philo and Josephus, is extensive, and the situation which is revealed was one which the emperor Claudius could without exaggeration characterise as being a war between the
Jews and the rest of the population. While it is unquestionable that the blame lay on both sides, and that each side provoked the other, the result, even in the
mouth
is
of the great Jewish philosopher of Alexandria, Philo,
to give a thoroughly unpleasant picture of the general standard of the Jewish population of the city. The fact that
the picture is unintentional gives it more significance. After describing the rioting and the appalling massacres of Jews of every age and sex, he adds: but what was worse than the looting was that business came to a standstill. Moneylenders lost the securities of their loans '. It is true that he
'
adds that farmers, sailors, merchants and artisans could also not carry on their business, but the prominent place given

to the first category
is
19
distressing, and gives a weight it would not otherwise deserve to the remark of Serapion to his business friend in trouble which has already been quoted. But while admitting that the picture thus given of the Alexandrian Jew is all that the most ardent antisemitic writer could demand, it must be repeated that no other group Hadrian's really comes out with any better reputation. the true Alexandria But summary gives perspective. happily
is
not typical of the ancient world.
V.
THE JEWS IN THE GREEK
CITIES
Our knowledge of the relations of the Jews with the inhabitants of the Greek cities of the eastern Mediterranean has mainly come to us through references in the Antiquities of Josephus. The Jews had secured that all the privileges which they possessed from the Romans they should also possess in the Greek cities allied with Rome, and here it was specific privileges rather than any general ill-feeling which seems to have been responsible for such trouble as there was.
These
offices
cities
wealthy.
The Jewish immunity from
were great commercial centres, and very sharing the burdens of
which conflicted with their religious principles might escape unnoticed in the Roman empire as a whole. It could only arouse animosity in a city state. But there was a second grievance, the money which the
*
Jews of every city sent to Jerusalem, and which appears to have been by no means an invisible export '. From Josephus we learn that the cities of Ephesus and Sardis, the provinces of Asia, Libya and Cyrene, and the islands of Delos and Paros had prohibited this export, but without success, for on appeal the Jews obtained from Rome the cancellation of the 1 While the edicts quoted by Josephus present prohibition certain difficulties as to text, there seems no reason for
.
doubting the substantial accuracy of the situation they describe, and, indeed, it would be surprising if there were not resentment at the draining of considerable sums from the cities' resources for such a purpose, especially as all the
1
Jos., Ant.,
XIV,
213, and
XVI,
160.
20

the long period of
cases are quoted
when
effect
from the end of the first century B.C., civil war must have had a serious
upon
their finances.
Apart from these cases of hostility Josephus mentions only one other. There was trouble at Caesarea, a city which the Jews considered as a Jewish foundation of Herod, but which the Syrians claimed as a much older Syrian settlement, in which, therefore, the Jews had no 1 In general the right to behave as though they owned it Greek and oriental cities were the greatest field of Jewish proselytism, and such implies fairly friendly relations. In the
.
second half of the first century A.D. the situation changed, but until that time we can presume that the Jews normally lived in fairly good relations with both the Greeks and the Syrians.
VI.
It
ROMAN OPINION OF THE JEWS
thinkers of the
was customary among the philosophers and political Roman Empire, as it is among certain Hellenists of to-day, to lay the blame for the decline of Greek and Roman morality on the invasion of eastern religions which continued steadily throughout her history from the time when Rome came first into contact with the eastern world. There may be a certain element of truth in the assertion, but the Greek and Roman worlds collapsed
morally through their own inherent weaknesses. Lucretius, struggling passionately to believe his own theory that nothing owed his despair existed but matter and failing to do so to no corrupting eastern mystery religion; and Virgil, the most spiritual and mystical of the Roman poets, shows in his
gentle melancholy no trace of eastern influence. Sections of the Semitic and oriental world did introduce morally degrading religions into the west, but it was not the Jewish section. Tacitus, with his statement that the Christians distinguished
odium generis humani ', prevents us from taking seriously his statement that Jewish converts were taught to hate their country and their family. Otherwise the only specific accusation against the Jews is not that they were
themselves for their
ijos., Ant.,
XX,
173.

corrupting society, but that they were utterly exclusive. Juvenal says
: *
21
As
Romanas autem
Judaicum ediscunt
contemnere leges metuent jus Tradidit arcano quodcumque volumine Moses: Non monstrare vias eadem nisi sacra colenti; Quaesitum in fontem solum deducere verpos1 .'
soliti
et servant, et
This accusation is indeed constant throughout the period, but it can scarcely be called a method of degrading Roman
civilisation.
It is easy
at
enough to understand that the Romans did not once distinguish between Judaism and the other oriental
which had penetrated into Roman
society.
cults
*
They
appear at first to have confused Yahweh Sabaoth with Sabazius ', a Syrian epithet of Dionysus, and to have believed the Jews to be worshippers of Jupiter Sabazius '. As such they were expelled from Rome in 139 B.C. by the It seems Praetor Peregrinus, Cn. Cornelius Hispalus 2 so in that the were not dwellers Jews expelled probable Rome, but an embassy from the Maccabees. This action did not, however, change the friendship which already existed between the Romans and the Maccabeans. After
'
these incidents silence
falls
for nearly a century.
During this
time the Jews must have established some kind of settlement in Rome, for they appear to be already powerful and organised by the time of Cicero. By this time events in Judaea had changed the whole situation. Pompey took Jerusalem in 63 B.C., and the independent relations between Rome and Judaea came to an end. But the conquerors showed moderation, and though Pompey was never forgiven by the Jews for having violated the Temple, the friendship between the Jews and the Romans persisted, and was generously rewarded
by
Herods was one in which the Jews enjoyed complete security under Roman protection. Representatives of the royal house were for long periods in Rome
The
Julius Caesar. period of the
and knew how

1
to adopt
all
the popular vices of
Roman
high
Juv., Sat. t xiv, 100.
Reinach, No. 172.
Reinach, No. 141.
22

In Palestine
itself,
all
society.
cent
Roman
buildings of
outside Jerusalem, rose magnifikinds dedicated to the emperor.
The Jewish upper classes cultivated Roman friendship and the Roman way of life. The future seemed secure. And yet within twenty years the whole picture changed, and Rome and Judaea were engaged in a war which taxed the resources of the empire itself. To understand this change we must pass from the life and ambitions of the Romanised Jewish aristocracy to the preoccupations and longings of the rank and file and the religious leaders of the Jewish people.
Whatever was the opinion of the
politicians
and
priests,
neither the Pharisees nor the ordinary people felt anything but hatred for the Roman rule. The Pharisees acquiesced because under that rule they were allowed the privileges
Judaism, but they only threat acquiesced so long as that condition was observed. to their law, and they were ready to take up the national cause at once. In fact the peace was a very brittle one. It
essential for the continuation of
tact on both sides, and tact was not a conspicuous characteristic either of the Jews or of the Roman governors. The New Testament records several incidents ', and it is probable that a multiplication of these would in the end have led to war. But it was precipitated by the flood of Messiahs who sprang up in the first half of the first century A.D. The causes of the emergence of so much Messianic unrest have often been missed. It was not merely a reaction against the loss of national sovereignty. It was brought about by the fact that according to the calendar in use among the Jews at that time, the coming of the Messianic 1 age was expected about the middle of the first century One essential factor of that age would inevitably be the disappearance of the Roman authority in Palestine. Many of the followers of Jesus expected Him to lead them against Rome, and both before and after His time there were many attempted risings which were crushed by the Romans with increasing severity. Under such circumstances, it is amazing that outside Palestine the Romans showed the moderation to leave Jewish privileges untouched, especially as the
depended on a great deal of
'
troubles in Palestine were spasmodically accompanied

1
by
See Messianic Speculation in

ff.
Israel,
by Dr A. H.
Silver. Macmillan,.
1927, especially p. 16

empire.
23
serious troubles in various other eastern provinces of the
was soon an immense difference in tone between the references to the Jews in the Augustan age and in the second half of the century. While Horace and Ovid
in the situation in Palestine itself
is
The change
reflected in
Rome. There
laughed at them good humouredly, Juvenal and Martial found them contemptible and detestable1 It is very unfortunate that the references to Jewish history which existed in Livy and Polybius are in the portion of the works of those authors which are lost. But it is extremely doubtful if we should find the same bitterness in them that we find in Seneca and Tacitus 2
.
.
VII.
JEWISH MISSIONARY ACTIVITY
general ferment in the Jewish world which this Messianic excitement occasioned both drew especial attention to the Jewish religion and accentuated among the Jews
their activity as missionaries. Both were a menace to their have seen that Judaism remained at best somesecurity.
The
We
thing incomprehensible to the Roman world. It would have been astonishing that philosophers did not appreciate it had they not been quite unaccustomed to the combination of ethics of which they could approve, with ritual and theopresuppositions which they associated only with superstition. The universalism of the Jewish conception of God seemed in complete contradiction with the intolerance of Jewish religious practice. As soon as the situation became troubled it was natural that it was the bad and incomprehensible side which dominated the situation. Such being the case, it was evident that once the loyalty of the Jews to Rome
logical
was doubted
all the reputation which they had enjoyed in estimation tumbled down like a house of cards. The glamour removed, all that the Roman saw was a people who
Roman
disbelieved in the Gods,
who
despised
is
Roman
ways,
were gloomy and

1
fanatical, exclusive
and
intolerant.
who The
crimes of individual Jews became, as

2
always the case in
Hild, op. dt. y R.EJ., Vol. XI, p. 38. Reinach,Nos. 131, 134 and 172. Hild, op. tit., R.EJ., Vol. VIII, p. n, and Vol. XI, p. 39.
24
such situations, the crime of the whole people. They were

a rabble of aliens, fortune-tellers and charlatans, and a menace to the morality of the Roman people. To complete the picture of the situation it is necessary to look at it from the other side, and to consider the attitude of the Jews to the Gentiles during this period. The Jews were not in an easy position. As long as they lived in an
independent community it was possible for them to possess a conception of life in complete variance with that of their contemporaries without it seriously affecting the daily life of the individual Jew. It is noticeable that as long as this period lasts they are spoken of by pagan writers with admiration
and respect. But for the Jews living in the diaspora the situation was different. Life was impossible without definite
The demand for these privileges was the first privileges. cause of friction in the Greco-Roman world. The genius of Julius Caesar, and the continuation of his policy by Augustus, have already seemed at first to have solved the problem. seen how brittle the solution was. Even so it might have lasted had the exclusiveness of the Jews been really a fact. If their attitude to their neighbours had been the haughty contempt for Gentiles to be found in parts of the Talmud, the Roman might have tolerated it with an amused contempt on his side also. But all that we know of the period shows that the attitude of the Jews was the exact opposite to this aloof indifference. They were enthusiastic missionaries of their religion, and this fact was the final and in some \vays the most important cause of the destruction of their security. For this they were expelled from Rome in 139 B.C. They were expelled again by Tiberius, and again by Claudius. Even in the middle of the wars at the end of the first century the Flavians had to take measures to make the circumcision of Gentiles a capital offence. In the whole of Jewish history contempt for the non-Jew was never less in evidence than in the century which saw the foundation of Christianity. That the Apostles themselves, who were Jews, that Paul, who claimed to be a Pharisee, could consider as they did the question of Gentile observance of the Law is evidence of this. The references to the interest taken by Greeks and Romans in Judaism are legion1 The foundations of the Gentile
We
Reinach, Nos. 51, 99, 101 and 145.

Church were
people
laid almost exclusively among proselytes already interested in Judaism. The transition
25
or
by which these groups passed from partial membership of Judaism to full membership of the Christian Church was an easy
one. Had the synagogues of the diaspora insisted primarily on the ritual and not the moral and ethical implications of
Judaism, on observance of the letter rather than the spirit of the Law, it is doubtful if this transition would ever have taken place except in a few individual cases. What Christianity offered them was not something completely different, but the same thing with, in addition, the power of Jesus Christ in place of the disadvantages of circumcision
and other
ritual prescriptions.
always suspicious of the activities of Rome, and the Jews were not the only people concerned. But the Jewish proselyte seemed particularly dangerous to the security of the empire because he was an atheist '. This did not so much mean a believer in no God, as a disbeliever in the Gods of the state. It had nothing to do with the absence of images in Jewish worship. It was not an irreligious attitude, but one which escaped being seditious only by the granting of special privileges. All that was required for conformity to the state religion was to scatter a few grains of incense upon an altar, and to obtain a certificate, easily granted, that this had been done. To refuse so simple an act of fellowship with society, one might almost say of common courtesy to one's neighbours, seemed to show a strangely malignant character. One was not asked to believe anything. One was only asked to conform to a political convention. And the Jews, and later the Christians, were the only people who refused. Whatever Seneca or Tacitus might think of this courage from the standpoint of their philosophies, they could only condemn it as men of action and Roman officials, and consider that to allow such a religion to spread was an act of supreme folly. To chastise it with the scorpions of ridicule, to repeat the accusations of a Manetho or an Apion was an act of political wisdom, whether the accusations were well founded or not. It was therefore not the actual principles of the Jewish Messianism and the religion, but the effervescence of in the diaspora which the of Jews missionary proclivities
eastern missionaries in
*
The Romans were
26
The destroyed the peace between Rome and Judaism. numerical and political strength of the Jews embittered and prolonged the struggle when it came. It did not cause it. The struggle left bad blood on both sides, but essentially the advent of Christianity to power removed all the causes of the conflict. For the reasons which inspired the Jews inspired also the Christians, and the victory of the Christian attitude to atheism and to missionary activity should have brought Instead, the advent of Chrispolitical peace to the Jews. tianity perpetuated their tragedy. The reasons for this have nothing to do with the old enmities. They are to be found only in the conflict of Christianity with its parent religion.
*
J
CHAPTER TWO

narrative of this chapter turns mainly upon the account given in Mark and in the Acts of the Apostles of the ministry of Jesus and the development of the early Church. It is claimed that these narratives give a logical, reasonable and satisfying picture of what occurred, and it cannot be too strongly urged that the main sources to be consulted are the narratives themselves, approached with an open mind instead of with some particular modern theory as to their corruption. While modern exegesis has rendered incalculable services to the elucidation of the texts, it has become so
The
complicated and contradictory that we are in perpetual danger of forgetting that a reasonable amount of inaccuracy and forgetfulness on the part of their authors may be allowed without any need for a logical reason being given for The danger of the modern approach is this carelessness. nowhere more conspicuous than when it is the general atmo-
sphere and picture of the original narrative which is under consideration, and not the exact implication of this or that
point of detail. This plea is urged, not with the intention of claiming any originality for my approach or conclusions, but because it is impossible to survey and assess all the different theories
which might invalidate them. Something, however, needs to be said of the two books which have been mainly quoted.
The
defended by Burkitt, and
essential accuracy of the historical narrative of Mark is I see no reason to forsake his
presents happened fortuitously seems to me impossible. And if it is not fortuitous, then,' whether the author received it from eye-witnesses or together with the scraps of teaching,
conclusions for the new German theory of authentic scraps of teaching set in an imaginary framework, which is presented by Rawlinson. That so logical a development as Mark
seems to
me
an utterly unimportant
issue.
The same
is
28
true of the narrative of Acts. In both cases to imagine the to be a late composition embodying older traditions is to ascribe to the authors a prophetic realisation that
framework
people would one day wish to

tion between
know
exactly
how
the opposi-
Judaism and Christianity arose, and a determination to answer the question, and this seems an entirely gratuitous complication of the problem. Further to consider that authors, writing an imaginary skeleton at a time when relations between Jews and Christians were at their worst,
deliberately invented for us the data for exonerating the Jews from the charge of malicious blindness which the authors themselves make against them, seems to me still
more absurd. A word must be added to explain the omission of the fourth gospel from the study of the first period. I have removed it to the following chapter, not because I do not
accept the authenticity of its picture of the esoteric teachings of Jesus, but because it seems to me to contain in its attitude to the Jews far more elements of the situation around A. D. 100 than of the situation in the lifetime of Jesus. brilliant defence of a contrary view will be found in the work of Canon Raven (especially p. 203). But I do not find it convincing, for he seems to me to be certainly wrong in speaking * ' of a synoptic attitude as though the synoptic gospels were consistent in their picture, and he omits the speeches of Jesus to the Jews from this defence. It is, however, interesting that the reasons which he gives for accepting the Johannine picture in preference to that of the synoptists are exactly those which make me choose Mark in preference to John; in other words, that it presents a more real picture of human relationships. It may be, however, that one should accept the Johannine picture of the internal divisions of the authorities over Jesus as a valuable supplement to the general picture as sketched by Mark. The attitude of Paul to the Law is mainly developed in his earlier epistles, which have been the object of a detailed study
by Kirsopp Lake. While
their dating is not an essential part of the argument, I have followed this order:
Galatians, on the journey to the council mentioned in Acts, c. A.D. 50.
at
Jerusalem
29
Thessalonians, during the second missionary journey, and probably from Corinth, c. A.D. 52. I and II Corinthians, during the third missionary
journey,
c.
A.D. 53-57.
c.
Romans, from Corinth,
A.D. 57.
The
any
other books of the
New Testament do not seem to
need
special comment. The relation of the teaching of Jesus to the currents of
thought in the Judaism of His time is still a matter of controversy. We must, however, exclude those estimates of the opposition between Him and contemporary Jewish teachers which do not take account of modern researches, and which base their conceptions of Judaism exclusively on the gospel narratives. Whether they be accepted or rejected, the work of Travers Herford, Moore, Billerbeck and Strack, and Montefiore cannot be ignored. There are, however, a
number
of
modern authors who, while recognising the
inadequacy of the gospel portrait of Judaism, still hold to the traditional view of the complete originality of Jesus and His
entire
independence of and opposition to the Judaism of the
The work of Bischoif belongs to this category; and Raven enunciates the view that while the teaching of
Pharisees.
Jesus
completely Jewish, it is completely un- Judaic ; which seems somewhat of a paradox. To a lesser extent the same view is held by Easton. The denial of originality in the teaching of Jesus will be mainly found in the Jewish biographies referred to in the general biographical introduction. An analysis of the differences in attitude revealed in the
is
different gospels will
be found in Branscombe.
attitude to the Law has not been undertaken with anything like the same thoroughness. An original point of view is presented in Montefiore's work on Saint Paul, but scholarship in general retains the position
The study of Saint Paul's
that the rejection of the Judeo- Christian compromise was essential to the development of Christianity, and consequently, while Saint Paul's views have been violently challenged by Jewish scholars, Christian scholarship seems to have felt little need to defend them. The theory that
Christianity was founded by Paul has to be worth consideration.
now too few
advocates
30
LIST OF BOOKS
ABRAHAMS,
I.
Studies in Pharisaism
and the Gospels. and 1924. Cambridge, 1917
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES Commentary by R. B. Rackham,

Westminster Commentaries,
1904.
BISCHOFF, E.
BergpreJesus und die Rabbinen, Jesu '

digt
in ihrer Himmelreich Rabbinismus. vom Undbhdngigkeit
und
'
Leipzig, 1905.
BRANSCOMBE, B. H.
Jesus and the
Law
of Moses.
Hodder
and Stoughton, 1930.

BURKITT, F. C.
The Gospel History and

mission.
its
Trans-
1907.
the
EASTON, B.
S.
Christ in
Gospels.
Scribners,
1930.
HERFORD, R. T.
Pharisaism.
1903.
Williams and Norgate,

1924.
The Pharisees.
Judaism
1928.
in the
New Testament Period.
JONES,
M.
The
New
Testament in the Twentieth
Century.
Macmillan, 1924.
avant Jesus
Christ.
LAGRANGE, M.
J.
Le Judaisme
Paris, 1931.
LAKE, K.
The Earlier
Epistles of Saint Paul.
Rivington, 1911.
MARK, GOSPEL OF
Commentary by A. E.
J.
Rawlinson,
Westminster Commentaries, 1925.

MONTEFIORE, C.
The Synoptic Gospels. 2nd ed., 1931.
Rabbinic
Literature
Macmillan,
and Gospel Macmillan, 1930. Judaism and Saint Paul. Goschen,

Teachings.
1914.
MOORE, G. F.
RAMSAY, SIR
Judaism, 3 vols.
sity Press, 1927.
Harvard Univer-
W.
Saint Paul the
Traveller
Roman
RAVEN, C. E.
Jesus
Citizen.
and the Hodder and
Stoughton, 1895.
and the Gospel Hodder and Stoughton,
of Love. 1931.
SANDAY, W., AND
HEADLAM, A. C.
STRACK, H., AND BlLLERBECK, P.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. International Critical Commentaries, 1900.
Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. Berlin,

1924.
WALKER, T.
Jesus and Jewish Teaching. Allen and Unwin, 1923.

I.
33
JUDAISM AND THE LAW
It is not part of this study to attempt a theological estimate of the relative merits of Judaism and Christianity. are concerned with the clash of two religious organisations, and
We
only indirectly with the conflict of theological conceptions
which was involved. It is not Christian doctrine which has been the main external influence in the Jewish life of the last fifteen hundred years, but the Christian Church. The Jewish problem to-day expresses itself primarily in economic and political phraseology. False racial theories have been substituted for false readings of the Old Testament. Jewish observances are perhaps more coloured by Roman influences than by Christianity. Sephardic Judaism owes much to its contact with Arab civilisation. But the whole of the Jewish world even to-day bears the marks of the environment, friendly or hostile, created by the Christian Church. For
throughout all those centuries a large portion of the Jewish people have lived under the domination of a Christian majority. The Jews of to-day are the direct inheritors of the life of mediaeval Jewry, and the life of mediaeval Jewry was
built
upon foundations
laid in the earliest centuries of its
daughter religion.
we have to pursue two enquiry simultaneously, the line of the historical development of the events, and the line of the historical development of the literature in which those events were recorded. An event related in the gospel of Matthew as occurring in the first months of our Lord's ministry needs to be considered from the standpoint of the date when the gospel was written, as much as from that of the time to which the event is ascribed. The most obvious example of this contradiction is to be seen in the reference to the different groups within Judaism. In the synoptic gospels it is now the Pharisees, now the scribes, now another party which is described. In the fourth gospel all are included together under the general term the Jews *, and all are considered equally to be, and always to have been, the enemies of the
trace the origin of the conflict
lines of
c
To
new
teaching.
not possible historically to trace this antagonism of the Christian to the Jew exclusively to the fact of the
It is
34 THE CONFLICT OF
CHURCH AND SYNAGOGUE
crucifixion. Nor can the Jewish antagonism to Christianity be traced exclusively to the teaching of Paul. The origin of the
profound difference which
exists
between Judaism and
related to the teaching of Christianity Jesus, although He Himself lived and died a Jew. Even if we recognise, as we are bound to do, that many of the sayings
must ultimately be
Him in the gospels are either unauthentic or coloured by memory and intention, yet we cannot eliminate all the conflicts with other Jewish teachers or the denunciations contained in them unless we are prepared to deny their
attributed to
entire historicity. But it is very important to know exactly the nature of the conflict and what Jesus denounced, and to distinguish this from the colouring which belongs to the period of transcription rather than to the period of occurrence. Hewished to change things in current teaching, but not to abandon Judaism itself. He attacked the Pharisees unsparingly, but His greatest predecessor was the Pharisee Hillel. In view of the fact that the Pharisees, and therewith postChristian Judaism, are almost universally judged by Christians on the basis of the twenty-third chapter of Matthew and Paul's Epistle to the Romans, it is essential to enquire have further into the scope and causes of this opposition. no Jewish sources of the time of Jesus, except as they are embodied in the Talmud, and we are compelled to build up our knowledge of the Judaism of the first century largely from a disentangling of the teaching of earlier rabbis from But thanks to the the later material contained therein. researches of various modern scholars we can assess the Judaism of the first century with sufficient accuracy to be in a position to deny that there was so profound a difference between the Judaism of the first century and that of a hundred years later that the New Testament picture of the one and the Talmudic picture of the other can both be taken as equally accurate. It is, however, unwise to swing to the opposite extreme and condemn the whole New Testament picture without discrimination. The picture of the Jews in the fourth gospel may be completely invented. The synoptists and Paul cannot be so easily set aside, and they describe a real conflict. To consider that Jesus dismissed the whole of Pharisaic ' Judaism as simply hypocrisy is to attribute to Him an
We
35
to impossible superficiality. Him to be pessima because it was corruptio optimi. But if it had not been for the work of the Pharisees, Jesus would not
He denounced what seemed
have been born a Jew, because no Judaism would have survived until His time1 The Pharisees had saved it, but in the externally and internally troubled centuries which followed Ezra its development had been extremely difficult;
.
and since it was intricately involved with contemporary and social questions, the result at the time of Christ was a mass of ill-adjustments 2 Fanaticism, meticulous insistence on detail, and narrow-mindedness are not the prerogative of the Pharisees, but are to be found in any intensely religious group fighting with its back to the wall, as was Judaism during these centuries. One would not go
political
.
to the Scottish Covenanters or the Albigenses for a realisation
of the broad charity of the Gospel. And like the Covenanters and the Albigenses, the Pharisees considered that their meticulous insistence upon certain acts and beliefs was, in the conditions under which they were living, essential for the development of the true mission of Israel, the The Pharisees, worship of God according to Torah. with their teachers everywhere, with their independence of the authorities at Jerusalem, the political and priestly leaders of the nation, wanted the whole of Israel to know Torah, for only in so doing would Israel be fulfilling its mission before God. In opposition to the Greek philosophers, who built their ideal city on slave labour, the Pharisees were completely democratic. Many of the most famous
rabbis, especially of the earlier period, were themselves artisans. Jesus, as a village carpenter, would not inspire
them with any contempt.

that
'
It
would not even arouse comment
He
'.
followed a trade.
Law
The word Torah is only very imperfectly translated by To the Jew it has a far richer meaning, and does not
in the least imply a slavish following of a written document, ' It is near the even if that document has final authority. truth to say that what Christ is to the Christian, Torah is to
the
1
Jew
.'
It also
could be spoken of as an
'
Incarnation
'
Pharisaism^
2 *
by R. Travers Herford, Chapters I and II. The Synoptic Gospels, by C. G. Montefiore, Introduction, p. Ixxx
ff.
Pharisaism, p. 171.
36
for,
it expressed the whole of the Divine will and thought about, man. It contained far more than mere precept or laws, although even the precepts, by being Divine ordinances, brought men to God in the performance of them. Thus to have many precepts was not a burden
of the Divine, for

*
'
it
opportunities for doing will, and even if some of the precepts seemed trivial, it was not for man to judge the importance of what God had ordained. The task of the scribes was to study the written Law, which of itself was not always easy to under-
only gave expressly His
men
so
many more
stand in changing conditions, and to know its interpretation so that in everything which a man did he might please God. The written Law was thus the basis of Torah, but Torah itself was the complete revelation of the life of the holy community or nation through which the individual in every act could fulfil the purpose of God in His creation. Nor
was
this conception merely rational and intellectual, in spite of the continual emphasis on understanding '. It was in Torah was a living Christian language redemptive '. creative force expressing itself through the Holy Community to the world as a whole. The scribes were not necessarily
'
* *
'
Many or most were laymen, but laymen set apart by competent authorities because of their knowledge of Torah and of the guidance which previous interpreters had found in it. Torah was divine and final, and therefore it was
priests.
essential for every
new precept proposed to
find
its
authority
work of a previously accepted scribe or interwritten of the Law, or else in the written Law itself. preter Naturally enough in times of crisis and confusion their tendency was to interpret the written and oral Law more and more strictly, and to increase the wall of legal severance which separated Jew and Gentile, or, for that matter, the righteous from the unrighteous Jew. If it would be unfair to say that
either in the
'
the Rabbis deliberately extended the ceremonial at the expense of the moral Law ', yet it is true to say that their devotion to the non-moral side of the Law did occasionally produce evil results on the moral and spiritual side both in themselves and their followers 1 \ Wherever there are external forms in a religion there is a danger of formalism,
*
The Synoptic Gospels, Montefiore,
Intro., p. Ixxviii.

and even a group with no external forms such of Friends is not free from the danger.
37
as the Society
the spiritual reasons for doing certain acts are no longer accepted it is natural for it to seem mere hypocrisy ' ' to insist upon doing them. To those who see in the Law the letter ', it is natural to call it dead and powerless. merely But if it is necessary to understand something of the inner meaning of both religions to understand the tragic conflict which exists between them, it is no juster to go to Christian sources to understand Judaism than to go to the Jews to understand Christianity. Even those Christians who have re-examined the attitude of Christianity to Judaism still tend to see between the two religions a gulf which is unbridgeable. Travers Herford found that 'the conflict was one between two fundamentally different conceptions of religion, viz. that in which the supreme authority was Torah, and that in which the supreme authority was the immediate intuition of God in the individual soul and conscience. The Pharisee stood for one; Jesus stood for the other1 '. But this opposition is only true upon the assumption of certain Protestant interpretations of Christianity. It would be truer to say that the Christian through Jesus, the Jew * the immediate through Torah, sought the same thing ' intuition of God in the individual soul and conscience and that to preserve for succeeding generations the possi' ' bilities of that intuition each religion has hedged it round with the discipline of a system and the humility of an
*
When
authority. Jesus attacked the scribes
and Pharisees because they seemed to Him to obscure that direct relationship between man and God by falsifying the nature of Torah. He went further than they would ever have allowed in claiming that the written word of the Law itself could obscure that point. But it was not relationship. This was a fundamental r It was His Gentile fola rejection by Jesus of Torah lowers a century later who, seeing in Torah only a body of of a dead prescriptions, saw in Judaism only the observance law which Jesus had rejected.
*
.
'
'
Pharisaism, p. 167.
38

II.
THE TEACHING OF JESUS IN MARK
opposition is not to be understood from a consideration of the recorded controversies alone. It lay in the manner of His teaching. Statements made by Jesus might be wise or good in themselves from the Pharisaic point of view, but He was neither a scribe nor did He quote the authority of
The
accepted scribes for His utterances. To accept them as authoritative expressions of Torah was, in the minds of its official interpreters, to undermine the whole structure. The stages of this feeling are easy to trace in the gospel of Mark.
When
Jesus first preached in Capernaum the people were astonished for He taught them as having authority, and not as the scribes n When on that, or more likely on a subsequent, occasion He healed a man in the synagogue, they
' .
That this authority to no Torah is to Jesus opposition implied authority shown by the healing of the leper which occurred some time later. The leper is sent to the priest to have his health 3 Meancertified, and to perform all the ritual acts required while the reputation of Jesus grew, and the scribes were troubled at it. When He returned to Capernaum, there occurred a fresh incident. Healing a man sick of the palsy, He said to him Son, thy sins are forgiven '. This caused the scribes still further anxiety. They reasoned in their hearts, saying, Why doth this man thus speak? he blaswere
still
more amazed
'
at
His
'
'
4> This phemeth: who can forgive sins, but one, even God? cannot be called a hostile attitude, and the reply of Jesus is not hostile. It is plain and straightforward. He perceives they are questioning His action, and He justifies it to them. So far it has been a question of authority, and the quesit is absurd to call them tioners opponents at this stage
*
'
next incident introduces the Pharisees, perhaps significant that it introduces a direct question of the strict observance of the Law. Jesus was eating with publicans and sinners. The scribes and Pharisees
are the scribes.
The
and
it is
Mark
i,
22.
*Ibid.
3
2*].
Ibid. 44.
Ibid,
ii,
6 and 7.
39
remarked upon it, and again He gives them a reasonable answer, and one which they could have accepted as adequate. They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick 51 A little later the disciples of Jesus were not fasting, when those of John the Baptist and of the Pharisees were observing a fast. They ask Him to explain. He does 2 so, but the answer contains a new note Naturally we have only the slightest summary in the gospels of a process which had been going on for several months at least. We cannot know what other conversations and discussions took place between Jesus and His disciples, and between Him and the Jewish teachers who followed with so much uneasiness His growing popularity. But we can see that there has been a change between the time when they found Him eating with publicans and sinners, and when
'
No man putteth new they questioned Him about fasting. * wine into old wine-skins could be taken to imply a complete
*
Law and tradition. His previous actions, unusual, contained nothing explicitly illegal. Though the forgiveness of sins shocked them, yet, when Jesus proved His knowledge of the man by showing them that He had cured him, they could have reconciled this with their ideas. When they questioned Him about fasting, there is nothing in their words to show that they were other than anxious for information. But His reply must have greatly increased their disquiet. It seemed an admission that He looked at the matter from a frankly novel standpoint. They soon found their anxiety confirmed. On the Sabbath His disciples ate ears of corn as they passed through the fields. Here was a straight issue. Why, they asked Him, do your disciples do on the Sabbath day that which is not lawful? Jesus' answer is half a justification from the Scriptures, but He adds the revolutionary words The Sabbath was made >3 for man, and not man for the Sabbath Such an answer, coming as a climax to a long development, decided them to take action. But they determined first to make sure of the correctness of their suspicion that He was
rejection of the old
although
'
1 Mark ii, 17. Graetz, English trans,, Vol. II, Ch. conception of the mission of Jesus on this verse.
6, builds his
whole
Mark
ii,
19-22.
-Ibid. 27.
40 THE CONFLICT OF
adopting an unorthodox attitude to Torah. Jesus went into the synagogue and found there a man with a withered hand.
case
presence was deliberate. In any He would heal him on the whether watched Him, they Sabbath day; that they might accuse Him n Jesus recogIs it lawful to do good nised the challenge, and accepted it. on the Sabbath day or to do harm? The Pharisees did not answer. They were there to observe His action, not to indulge in a controversy. And Jesus looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their hearts ', And the Pharisees went and proceeded to cure the man. out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against Him how they might destroy Him.' Jesus, on His side, withdrew from the region. Though the question at issue seems a slight one to a Gentile, it went directly to the heart of the whole Pharisaic conception of Torah. For they did not admit that there could be a question of relative gravity in a deliberate and unnecesIt is quite likely that his
'
.
'
'
'
sary breaking of
its
precepts.
The
scribes admitted that in cases of life
and death
it
was
lawful to set aside the laws of the Sabbath. But in the first case, that of plucking the ears of corn, and in the second, that of healing the man with the withered hand, no such ' urgency could be alleged. The question Is it lawful to do
seemed to the Pharisees beside the point. The man could just as well be healed on the next He was in no danger, and therefore there was no day. legitimate ground for breaking the Sabbath. To postpone the cure by a day was neither to do harm nor to kill '. From the point of view of the Pharisees Jesus was undermining the whole structure of Torah by such an action.
good on the Sabbath day?
' ' *
'
The divergence between them in practice was slight. But so long as Jesus defended His action just on its own basis and did not interest Himself to explain it as a legitimate interpretation of the written Law, so long was He to their
minds really doing harm and not good by His conduct. For however long the process of interpretation, every good thing was included in the written Law which was the basis of Torah 2
.
Mark
iii,
2-6.
*Cf. Pharisaism, p. 152.
41
There follows a period when Jesus was left in peace, and He on his side seems deliberately to have avoided disturbing the authorities. Those whom He healed He charged much that they should not make Him known 51 But it was
'
.
impossible that the situation could continue thus indefinitely, and it appears that the local scribes and Pharisees fearing, perhaps, to act on their own initiative against anyone who enjoyed such popularity, asked the advice of the authorities
friends
at Jerusalem. Perhaps also they attempted to persuade His and relations to restrain Him. In any case, at some
we find both His friends attempting to under restraint as mad, and the scribes which came down from Jerusalem condemning His miracles as the work of the devil2 This attempt was felt by Jesus to be so grossly unjust that it moved Him to His severest condemnation. To cavil at His attitude to the Law was one To ascribe His healings to the devil was a very thing. different matter. It was blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Perhaps His reply abashed them, for they left Him in peace for a long while. But it could only be a truce, and when they returned, it was again to challenge Him on the direct This time He observance of the prescriptions of Torah 3 and them in in formal to detail, argument replied opposed their traditions with the Mosaic Law itself. He accepted their challenge, and admitted that He did not observe their prescriptions. But he did not by a single word suggest that He rejected Torah itself. It was the other way round. He
point unmentioned,
put
Him
'
'
charged them with nullifying it. Into the further details of the conflict
to enter.
it is
The
other gospels add
many
not necessary other details, and
confuse the historic development of the picture. But they do not substantially alter it. The Sermon on the Mount in the first gospel gives in much greater detail the teaching of Jesus and allows us to see His attitude to the Mosaic Law, and to its development. After insisting that He came not to
destroy but to fulfil it, He goes on to interpret it. The method He adopts, that of setting one precept side by side with another in order to mitigate the rigour of the first, is
which
1 2
Mark
iii,
12.
Ibid. 21-29.
Ibid, vii, 1-23.
42

'
the normal method of rabbinic teaching. But the rabbis did Ye have it impersonally. If the contrast in the sermon but / say heard that it was said to them of old time is accurately reported, and is not a Greek version unto you
.
'
also
of a not completely understood Aramaic original, then here He went further than any Pharisaic teacher would permit himself to do.
III.
THE ACCOUNTS IN LUKE AND MATTHEW
thus created was never bridged by either no concession which the Pharisees might made Jesus have accepted, and they on their part were not prepared to
The gulf which was

side.
withdraw their opposition to a teacher who would not conform to the accepted rules of interpretation, and who presumed on His own authority to discriminate between what should be observed and what could be neglected. It is no 1 and it is to-day a part of our task to judge between them either side could have whether academic question purely bridged the gulf created. But it is important to attempt to define as exactly as possible the extent of the conflict, and to disentangle from the narrative what belongs to the event, and what reflects the period of the writer. This is essential from both sides, from the Christian side as it concerns the unmeasured denunciations in the later ministry of Jesus, and from the Jewish side in relation to the events leading up to the condemnation of Jesus by Pilate, and His Crucifixion. There is an unmistakable increase in hostility in the tone
,
of the three synoptists if they are read in the historical order Mark deals with explicit questions, of their appearance. shows a reasonable historic development, and allows the
be accurately traced. There are certain difficulties, but nothing which interrupts the essential realism of the related is connected with an actual picture. Each incident
conflict to
example of conflicting opinion. There is no general and apparently unprovoked attack upon them. With Luke there
is
a frequent colouring of the incidents recorded by Mark. relates that the people of Nazareth were offended at Him. Luke adds the story of their attempt to cast Him over
Mark
1
Cf. Pharisaism, p. 167.

a
cliff,
43
and places it at the very beginning of His ministry, there was no reason whatever for such hostility 1 Additional emphasis is given to the incident of the healing of the palsied man 2 It cannot be said that this reflects any deliberate intention on the part of Luke. He records several occasions on which Jesus was invited to a meal by a Pharisee3 and though these occasions are used to illustrate the conflict, they imply a certain spiritual fellowship. Further, Luke alone gives the incident of the Pharisees warning Jesus of an intention of Herod to seize Him4 . The most important addition which he makes to the Marcan narrative is the strong condemnation in the eleventh chapter of formalism
when
and
its
accompanying
vices.
is
With Matthew there
a
'
much more
noticeable bias.
The
'
gospel was written to convince the Jews that in Jesus the promises made to Israel had passed from the Jews to the Christian Church. The change in tone is illustrated at the very beginning of the gospel. Luke and Matthew both record the preaching of John the Baptist. In Luke it reads:
therefore to the multitudes that went out to be of him, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you baptised to flee from the wrath to come? .
. .
He said
In the version of Matthew there
is this
change:
out to him Jerusalem and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan; and they were baptised But of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming
to his
Then went
who warned you

In
all
baptism he said unto them, Ye offspring of vipers, 5 to flee from the wrath to come? .
,
the incidents which he takes from Mark there is slight change accentuating the opposition between The incident of the Jesus and the Jewish authorities. centurion's servant, with its condemnation of the lack of faith in Israel, is set at the very beginning of the narrative
some
1
2
Mark Mark
Luke
vi, 4,
ii,
6, 7,
vii,
and Luke iv, 28. and Luke v, 17 and 21. 36; xi, 37; and xiv, i.
4 5
Ibid, xiii, 31. Ibid, iil, 7, and
Matthew
iii,
5-7.
44 THE CONFLICT OF

.
1 Even before immediately after the Sermon on the Mount any encounter with the scribes or Pharisees is recorded
there
a strong condemnation of them in the sermon itself, although they are not mentioned by name, but only as the
is
'
In the incident of the man with the palsy, the hypocrites question of Jesus: Why reason ye in your hearts ', becomes Wherefore think ye evil >3 In the answer which He gives them on fasting, the words are added: go ye and learn what 4 The this meaneth, I desire mercy and not sacrifice is emphasised by the doubling of the Pharisees of hostility No the accusations that Jesus healed by diabolic power 5 references to hospitality offered by or accepted from the Pharisees are recorded. Finally there is nothing in Mark or even Luke which corresponds to the violence, bitterness and thoroughness of the famous denunciations of chapter twenty-three, which even if it opens with the recognition that
>2
.
'
'
they sit in Moses' seat sees nothing but corruption and hypocrisy in all their works. Much depends on the manner and setting of the incidents. Neither in Luke nor in Matthew have they the naturalness of Mark. There is only one passage in Mark which goes
attitude to
difficulties
'
'
beyond a condemnation of formalism, and of the Pharisaic the Law, and that passage presents certain
6
.
Jesus accuses
them
of rejecting the
command-
ments of God that they may keep their traditions. The illustration which Mark proceeds to give of this is the law of Corban '. But the attitude which Jesus condemns was also condemned by Pharisaic Judaism, and that which He
'
approves is the Pharisaic interpretation of the original. It is only possible to imagine that the error comes from Mark, who was not a Jew, and who confused what he received. When the violence of the conflict between Jews and Jewish or Gentile Christians, which existed at the time when the gospels were being written down, is realised, it ceases to be surprising that there is this additional vehemence in the
1
Matthew
viii,
ff.
2
8
Ibid, vi, 2, 5,
Ibid, ix, 4.
1 6.
4
6
Ibid, ix, 13.
Ibid, ix, 34,
and
xii,
24.
Mark
vii,
9-13.
45
denunciations put into the mouth of Jesus. As to His own teaching, we can be certain that He did denounce unsparingly that attitude which did not discriminate between one
He did reject refused to give
law and another, and which demanded unquestioning obedience of the whole. He did not reject the idea of interpreting the Law, for He interpreted it freely Himself, but
some of
*
their
their traditions
actual interpretations, and * the force of Torah itself.
IV.
THE CRUCIFIXION
Jesus and the Pharisees differed on the question of Because the authority in the interpretation of Torah. attitude of each side hardened in the half century which followed His death, the separation between Judaism and
Christianity became inevitable. It was the Law and not the Crucifixion which was the basis of this separation. It is only later that the words (which typically enough are to be found * ' only in Matthew) His blood be on us and on our children
to assume their terrible importance, and that the Christian hostility to the Jews was based upon the Cross. It is evident that the Pharisees were decided not to accept the authority of Jesus. But it is a long step from the refusal to accept the teaching of a new preacher to the plotting of His death. It is to be noted that in the account from the betrayal to the Cross there is no mention of them. The * scribes are included by Mark, but omitted by Matthew. But neither mentions the Pharisees. It was not the teaching of Jesus which led to His death. It was the fear of His Messianic claims by the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem, the fear that it would lead the Romans to remove what little
'
came
privileges they still enjoyed. The actual facts of the arrest

difficult to establish.
and
trial
Since the disciples are
are exceedingly all recorded to
have forsaken Him and fled, there is no certain basis for the which follow the scene in the garden of Gethsemane. Moreover none of the evangelists were, so far as we know, experts in legal questions, and here they are describing
narratives
a serious
trial
some modern
ending in a capital sentence. writers have attempted to deny
Consequently
all
authenticity
46

.
It is true that the process related to the gospel narratives 1 does not conform to the known juridical procedure of the
But this would probably be so with an amateur report of any great modern trial especially when the author was not himself present and the existence of this confusion does not justify a total rejection of the narrative. For the main
time.
outlines are clear.
The
initiative
was taken by the Jewish
though it is evident that Jesus Himself foresaw the danger in coming there, and expected His death. But while the authorities were unwilling to risk
authorities at Jerusalem,
their precarious
autonomy
it is
for a teacher
whose teaching
wish to endanger their own position with the populace who thronged Jerusalem for the feast, by themselves executing some sentence upon Him. They secured themselves both with the Jewish crowd and with the Roman government by their action in first condemning Him and then handing Him over
they did not accept,
also clear that they did not
to Pilate for sentence.
to be the actual outline of the events. It the narrative and the known conditions better than either of the two alternative hypotheses, which would ascribe the whole responsibility either to the Romans or to the Jews. It would seem at first to be an argument for total Jewish responsibility that the purely Jewish story of the death of Jesus, to be found in the Sepher Toldoth Jeshu and in the Talmud 2 , ascribes the whole action to the Jews, gives stoning (the Jewish punishment) as the cause of His death, and omits
Such seems
satisfies
reference to the Romans. But it is probable that the of responsibility (which involved no moral condemnation to the Talmudic rabbis, for they insist that
all
acceptance
He had
that the
all,
fair trial) is
due
to the frequent Christian charge
that this responsibility had, in fact, been theirs. But if the whole responsibility had, in fact, been Jewish, it is incredible
Romans were ever introduced
into the narratives at
which they were written the Church was desirous of cultivating the friendship of Rome. If, on the other hand, the entire responsibility had lain with Rome, then the vehemence of anti-Jewish polemic in the earliest
for at the time at
1 For a fully documented exposition of this view see Juster, op. Vol. II, p. 134, note 2. full bibliography is there given.
cit.,
Christianity in
Talmud and Midrash, pp. 78-80.
VYllU UHKJLSTIANITY
offensive to the Jews.
47
period becomes incomprehensible, because so unnecessarily For, after all, the Church desired to win the Jewish acceptance of the Messianic claims of Jesus, and it would be the height of folly to repel them by pinning to them so terrible an accusation without any cause. Each of the narratives presents special characteristics, and again it is Mark who gives the most reasonable account. Luke, who emphasises throughout the universal appeal of Jesus, is clearly anxious to present the Romans in as favourable a light as possible. Pilate twice attempts to free Jesus, and even Herod is introduced to support him. Matthew is equally interested to present the Jews in an unfavourable light, and adds the words already referred to.
V.
THE INFANT CHURCH AND THE ADMISSION OF THE GENTILES

the Cross, these are the two rocks on which
The Law and
Christianity and Judaism divided, but it must not be thought that the separation became immediately apparent. It is to the in Acts of see the the gulf widening possible Apostles
his first speech after the Peter carefully avoids insisting upon Jewish responsibility for the Crucifixion by emphasising first the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God ', and then * n by ascribing the act itself to the hands of lawless men In the second speech he goes a little further, but after saying whom ye delivered up, ... when Pilate was deter-
and in the Epistles of Saint Paul. In

Resurrection
'
'
that in ignorance ye uses the same guarded language in his prayer of *thanksgiving after his release from his first imprisonment: against thy holy Servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered
to release
',
mined
did
it,
him
he adds
>2
'
wot
as did also
your rulers
He
together, to do whatsoever thy
hand and thy
counsel fore-
ordained to come to pass
3
.
1 Acts 11,23. The latter words may be a summary in Lucan language, but they appear to reflect accurately the development of ideas. 2 Ibid. Hi, 13 and 17.
Ibid, iv, 27.
48

The Jews
also only gradually
came
to believe in the
irreconcilable nature of the
new
religion.
When
.
Peter was
arrested for the first time they were content to forbid him 1 The second to speak in the name of Jesus, and to let him go time he was arrested Gamaliel undertook his defence. His
speech as recorded in Acts exactly reflects what we should expect of this first contact with the leaders of the new sect. He is clearly uncertain whether their teaching is true or not 2 We learn that at this time a great company of the 3 Violent antagonism priests were obedient to the faith did not manifest itself until Stephen began to preach. Then it was not the Palestinian Jews whom he offended, but the Libertines, Cyrenians, and Alexandrians ', Jews of the diaspora, who were more sensitive to the possible dangers to Judaism than were the Jews of Jerusalem. Stephen was accused of stating that Jesus would destroy the Temple and would change the customs which Moses delivered unto us 4 Brought before the High Priest, Stephen abandoned all the tact with which the Apostles had so far spoken before
'
.
'
'
'
'
the authorities, and after a lengthy introduction on Israelite ye history, suddenly burst into a violent denunciation: stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? and they killed them which showed before of the coming of the Righteous One; of whom ye have now become betrayers and murderers; the law as it was ordained by angels, and ye who received ' 5 not it What Stephen had said about the Law we do kept not know, and what he was leading up to before he broke
*
.
off is also uncertain, except that he was obviously going to taunt them with not having kept it themselves 6 but in any case the priests decided to take energetic measures to supThe commission to do so was press the new heresy. entrusted to Saul 7 .
;
Acts
iv,
21
The idea that the two
arrests are a doublet
seems to
me
to
3
be
false.
Ibid, vi, 7. Ibid, vi, 14. B Ibid, vii, 51.
a
7
Cf. Ibid,
vii,
39.
Ibid, viii, 1-3; cf. xi, 19.

Events
at the
49
same time took place within the Christian community which were bound to strain relations still further. As a result of a vision, Peter accepted a call to go to Joppa to visit a God-fearing Gentile, Cornelius. There he became convinced that God had called the Gentiles also, and that he should not call any man common or unclean ', for God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him '. With the consent of the Jewish Christians present called for the first time he they of the circumcision
'
'
'
'
'
baptised Cornelius directly into the Christian Church. The Christians at Jerusalem, when he reported the matter to them, after some opposition accepted his action, and glorified God, saying: then to the Gentiles also hath God
*
n granted repentance unto life The admission of the Gentiles inevitably brought the question of the Law into prominence, but there is as yet no question of the Law not being valid for Jewish Christians.
.
at this period itself unanimous that Gentiles ought to observe either circumcision or the whole There were those who held and believed that of the Law. the true circumcision was of the heart rather than of the flesh, and who were willing to argue that, for the proselyte at least, such spiritual circumcision was all that God required or that man should ask. They were anxious to throw the moral laws of the Pentateuch into strong relief, so that the dangerous multiplication of ritual and ceremonial enactments might be counteracted' 2 The synagogue was surrounded by large numbers of God-fearing Gentiles, and so long as the leaders of the Christians remained Jews, it is possible that it was not clearly understood by other Jews that the Christians had in fact eliminated all distinction between Jews and Gentiles within the Church. They may have been aware that a conflict of opinion was in progress, but it is unlikely that they realised its outcome before the Christians themselves, and it was some time before a decisive step was taken by the Church. The Christians had clearly become a party whom they would need to watch. ' But they were a party ', not a separate religion.
'
.
Nor was Jewish opinion
'
'
Acts x and
xi.
tit.,
Montefiore, op.
Ixxix.
50
VI.
THE ACTIVITY OF SAINT PAUL AND HIS TEACHING ABOUT THE JEWS
on his
first
In A.D, 49 or 50, when Paul set out from Antioch missionary journey in Asia Minor, he began his quite naturally in the synagogue, and though openly that Jesus had been crucified by the Jews
*
preaching
in Jerusalem, and their rulers congregation to return the next
',
he was Sabbath and continue his
he stated that dwell invited by the
During the week they apparently thought and when he began to preach on the following Sabbath there was a disturbance, attributed by the author of the Acts to the jealousy of the Jews at his influence over the Gentiles 2 Paul replied seeing ye thrust it [the Word of God] from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal The importance of this life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles '. statement is great. But it was not a final or exclusive decision of policy. In the next city, Iconium, He again preached in the synagogue on his arrival. Apparently his preaching caused a great division of opinion, and he was ultimately
preaching
better of
1
.
it,
forced into flight by the opposition to it3 The question of the Law very soon became an internal question of the Church, affecting the relations between Jewish and Gentile Christians, and it was decided that Gentiles did not need to observe its precepts long before it was felt that they were not valid for Jewish Christians either. The Apostles took the basis on which the Jews accepted the proselytes of the gate ', the Noachian commandments ', and made them the basis of Gentile participation in the Church, but with this difference, that the observance of these regulations admitted the Gentiles to full membership and not only to partial adherence to the fellowship. But when Peter is referred to by Paul 4 as living as do the Gentiles ', it meant no more than that he no longer observed the rigid separation of Jew and Gentile at meals, and that he consented, as he had already done in the case of Cornelius, to eat with the Gentiles. It did not mean that he ceased to observe the Law in so far
.
'
J
2
Acts
xiii,
42.
i
Ibid, xiii, 45. Ibid, xiv,

ff .
3
4
Gal.
ii,
14.

as
it
51
affected his
own conduct
apart from contact with the
Gentiles, nor did Paul himself at this time think of laying aside his own obedience to the Law, though we should
clearly where he stood if we had any idea of the meaning of his reference to the circumcision of Titus 1 That he was firmly convinced that observance of the Law wasjn general unnecessary for the Gentiles is clear from the Epistle to the Galatians which was written at this period. In this Epistle he makes the definite statement that if righteousness 2 is through the Law, then Christ died for and nought again Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the free woman. These women are two covenants: one from mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar. Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is Now we, are free, which is our mother.
. ' '
know more
children of promise >3 Taken by itself the whole argument would suggest that Paul himself no longer observed the Law. But we know that this was not the case. When he says that he through the law died unto the law that I might live unto God >4 , it would, if we had no other evidence, appear unquestionable. But, in fact, among Jews he accepted even rigid observance of the Law. Such a position could be only transitional, for as he himself says, every man that receiveth circumcision is debtor to the whole Law ', and Jewish Christians could not permanently pick and choose what they should obey of its ritual and ceremonial observances. It is evident from this epistle that many of them had not accepted the compromise for which all the Apostles had first stood at Jerusalem, and that the party which considered Christianity to be only
. * '
Gal.
'
ii,
fT.
whom we gave place in the way of subjection, impossible to say either from this passage, or from PauPs position at this time, if he did or did not circumcise Titus. It would, of course, be known to his hearers, who would have known if the emphasis was on compelled *, meaning he was circumcised, or on * * not even (i.e. though he was my companion), meaning he was not.
privily
was compelled
to
But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, be circumcised; and that because of the false brethren
is
brought in, ... to
no, not for an hour/ It
*Ibid.
3 4
ii,
21.
Ibid, iv, 22. Ibid,

ii,
19.
52
a Jewish sect was a strong one.

Paul's
We
cannot even be sure of
own attitude, in its entirety, to these Jewish Christians.
We
have neither sermon nor epistle to this section of the Church. Peter and James, in addressing Jews, do not raise The first writing addressed to them in which it the issue.
is
receives full treatment
the epistle to the
Hebrews written
nearly twenty years
later.
On both his subsequent journeys, though it is evident that the tension was growing steadily greater, Paul always began his preaching with the Jews in any centre visited, and at one, Ephesus, he was so well received that he was asked to stay
for
some months. But

'
to the Gentiles
1
.
and
there, as at Corinth, he finally went left the Jews in open opposition to his
'
During this period he elaborated considerably his teaching doctrine of the Law and of the relation of the Church to the Jews, which he had foreshadowed in his epistle to the Galatians. In contrast to one violent outburst to the Thessalonians (from whom he had certainly received bad treat2 ment) , in which he denounces the Jews who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drave out us, and please not God, and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved; to fill up their sins alway: but the wrath is come upon them to the utter*
most
*
he usually speaks with great restraint and with great sorrow and unceasing pain '. Since the doctrines enunciated by Paul in these epistles,
,
'
particularly in the epistle to the Romans, have provided the doctrinal basis for the attitude of the Church to the Jew
throughout the centuries, it is important to give them in some detail. Since Paul and Jesus are in certain schools of theology set in stark opposition to each other, it is also important to note that in this respect Paul is logically following
1
2
Acts
xviii,
4-7 (Corinth) and Acts xviii, 19; xix, 8-9 (Ephesus).
Ibid, xvii, 5.
I
Thess.
ii,
14
fT.
It
seems to
me likely that
Temple.
'
added
after the destruction of the
the last verse is a gloss If it is genuine, it is difficult
to see to to their
could apply about A.D. 52, unless it is a reference them that obey not the (cf, II Thess. i, 8: gospel of our Lord Jesus; who shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction ')>in which case it is an outburst of rage in complete contrast to his real view of the future of the Jews set out in his epistle to the Romans. See infra.
it
what event
final
damnation

the gospels.
53
to their conclusion the denunciations of the Pharisees in
According to Paul, the Law itself is holy, and the commandment holy and righteous and good and it was a What advantage privilege to the Jews to have received it then hath the Jew? Much every way: first of all that >2 All this is they were intrusted with the oracles of God again summed up in the sentence my kinsmen according
'
>:L
'
to the flesh; who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh 3 The 4 Gospel itself was first given to the Jews , and only when 5 they refused it was it given to the Gentiles The rejection of the Gospel by the Jews raised several new problems. The Jew felt that he had no need for the Gospel because he had all that he required in the Law. Paul, with his belief in the universal significance of Christ, could not Nor could he admit two possibly admit such a claim. alternative schemes of salvation. Having decided that salvation was according to Jesus, he was forced to conclude Safethat the Law was incapable of bringing salvation 6 guarding as well as he could its holy character, *he attempts to explain its failure in practice by saying that the Law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin '. The Law showed him what was good, but because of sin, he was powerless to
'
.
.
do the good which he saw 7
alternative explanation, and one which won more general acceptance, was that the Law had not saved Israel,
An
because Israel had never understood it. Israel, following after a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works.' 8 The real function of the Law had been
1
2
'
Rom.
Ibid,
vii, 12.
iii,
i, 2.
Ibid, ix, 3, 4. *Ibid. i, 16.
5
6
7 8
Ibid, ix, 19, to

Ibid,
iii,
end of
xi, especially xi,
17
ff.
20.
Ibid, vii, 14-25.
Ibid, ix, 31.
54

'
?1 and instead, the ; tutor, to bring us unto Christ Jews had elevated into a final and eternal dispensation what was meant as temporary and imperfect2 .
to be our
Even more
difficult to
explain were the

to
promises
later
',
which
were made both
to
Abraham and
generations
through the prophets. It was inevitable that Paul should claim that the promises now belonged exclusively to the Church, and that therefore Israel was, at any rate so long as it persisted in refusing to accept Christ, excluded from them. The promises of God could not lapse. The failure of the 3 Nor Jews could not make the word of God ineffective could they claim that the promises depended on the Law, for
.
the promise to Abraham preceded the giving of it4 The Gentiles, accepting Christ, became the true inheritors of them. They are not all Israel, which are of Israel.' 5 Here he is attacking directly a Pharisaic argument that the
.
promises applied finally and exclusively to Israel, and that the worst Israelite was better than the best Gentile 6 God did not cast off Israel, but Israel failed to see in Christ the fulfilment of the Law. By their fall salvation is come unto
. '
the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.' 7 As a result of this provocation Paul was convinced that ultimately the
Jews also would be gathered
in,
and
this
he looked forward
to as the culmination of the Gospel. 'For if the casting away of them is the reconciling of the world, what shall the
from the dead? And if the first and if the root is holy, so are the lump: branches. But if some of the branches were broken off, and thou, being a wild olive, wast grafted in among them, and didst become partaker with them of the root of the fatness of the olive tree; glory not over the branches: but if thou gloriest, it is not thou that bearest the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, Branches were broken off, that I .Be not high minded, but fear: might be grafted in.
receiving of
them
be, but life
fruit is holy, so is the
1
2
3
Gal.
II
iii,
23-24.
iii,
Cor.
iv
n and
xi.
15.
Rom.
iii,
ai.
Rom,
and
4
6 6
7
Ibid, iv, 10-12.
Ibid.ix, 6ff.
See Sanday and Headlam, Epistle
to the
Romans
p. 246.
Rom.
xi, it.

for if
55
spared not the natural branches, neither will He spare thee. Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee God's goodness, if thou continue in His goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they continue not in
God
them
their unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft in again. For if thou wast cut out of that which is
by
nature a wild olive tree, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which are the natural branches, be into their own olive tree?' 1
grafted
While, naturally, no Jew would accept his diagnosis of their situation, yet they could not accuse him of hasty and violent denunciation. He himself was convinced of their
ultimate salvation, which meant to him their acceptance of the Gospel, for salvation under other terms was unthinkany able. This he expressed in the Isaianic doctrine of the remnant. God did not cast off His people which He foreknew. Or wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elijah?
*
Lord, they have have digged down thine altars: and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have left for myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according
killed thy prophets, they
How
he pleadeth with
God against Israel.
to the election of grace. . . . if their fall is the riches of the world, and their loss the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?' 2 These two statements are
Now
important, for they preserved the Jews during the Middle Ages from complete extinction. For it was argued that if they were completely extinguished there would be none to provide the converted remnant which was to be the final crown of the Church. In so far as his own position was concerned, Paul never ceased to regard himself as a Jew. I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin 3 but he observed the Law, not because he any longer felt it to be For though I was necessary, but in order to win the Jews. free from all men, I brought myself under bondage to all,
* '
Rom.
xi,
15-24.
Ibid, xi, i.
56
might gain the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law.' 1 It was on this
that I
principle that he acted during his final visit to Jerusalem, when he found the Jewish Christians very troubled by the
Thou seest, reports which they had heard of his activities. brother,' they said to him, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them which have believed; and they are
'
all zealous for the law: and they have been informed concerning thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.' 2 To show them his orthodoxy he took a vow ', and accepted responsibility for four other men who had taken the same vow, involving particular attendance at the Temple. But there he was recognised by some Jews from Asia, and his presence caused a riot from which he was only saved by Roman intervention. There followed his arrest, his long imprisonment, and his appeal to Caesar. If we accept the Jewish Law by its own standards, then we cannot be surprised at their refusal to accept the idea of becoming a Jew to save the Jews '. It is rather astonishing that the Apostle had been so long able to maintain such an
' '
attitude 3
The Jewish Christians at Jerusalem were apparwhen he showed his personal obedience to the Law. But those who knew him on the mission field were not so easily satisfied. In the same way, when he was
.
ently contented
this
We find no evil in man: and what if a spirit hath spoken to him, or an '* But the majority was against him, and he remained angel?
of the resurrection.
brought before the council for trial, he was able to bring some of the Pharisees over to his side by raising the question
They
protested that
a prisoner under the charge of the Roman authorities. cannot be certain of the exact nature of the accusations 5 he was a mover of According to Acts against him.
'
,
We
1
2 3
Cor.
ix, 19.
Acts xxi, 20 ff. Cf. I Cor. vii, 18-20.
4
5
Acts
xxiii, 9.
Ibid, xxiv, 5
and
6.

' J
57
J
insurrections among all the Jews throughout the world , a ring-leader of the sect of the Nazarenes and a profaner of the Temple. But the original charge must have been more
specific.
That Paul in his attack upon the Law was doing it less than justice can be said without detracting from the greatness
of the Apostle. The Christian will probably say in reply: Did not Paul himself know all about it? Was he not born and bred a Jew? Was he not a " Pharisee of the Pharisees"? Had he not been " zealous beyond those of his own age in the Jews' religion". Was he not "as touching the law, blameless ". Who could be a better and more reliable witness upon the question of what the Jews' religion really was? Yes. And did not Paul abandon the Jews' religion? Did he not write about it long years after he had been converted to a different religion? And is it not common knowledge that a convert seldom takes the same view of the n The fact religion he has left as those who remain in it? remains, however, that the Christian Church adopted without enquiry the Pauline estimate of the Jewish religion. The ultimate redemption of Israel on which Paul pinned his deepest faith was rarely referred to by Patristic writers. The inadequacy of the Law, and the forfeiture of the promises, was their continual accusation against the Jews. By the time the Book of Revelation was written at the very end of the century, it was already possible to speak of the redeemed of the Church in terms of the twelve tribes of Israel without
it
2
*
appearing strange
1 Herford, op. cit., p. 175. Compare also Judaism and S* Paul, by C. G. Montefiore, where it is argued that Paul did not really know full rabbinic Judaism, or he could not have so completely misrepresented it, particularly by leaving out entirely the Jewish doctrine of forgiveness, and by ignoring the intimate and personal relationship with God under the Law in Jewish thought. a Rev. vii, 4-8.
58

VII.
THE JEWS IN THE REST OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
even when dealing with Jewish queswere addressed to Gentiles who were in danger of being influenced by the prestige of the Jewish Law. But the New Testament also contains letters directly addressed to Jewish Christians. The epistle of Peter is addressed from
The
epistles of Paul,
tions,
the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion, in The Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia '. to the twelve is addressed tribes of James generally epistle which are of the Dispersion ', while the epistle to the Hebrews, in view of its contents, is almost certainly addressed to Palestinian Jewish Christians familiar with all the daily ritual of the Temple services. The epistle of Peter, while it makes hardly any reference to the Jewish origin of its recipients, condemns the whole of the old dispensation almost contemptuously as your vain The manner of life handed down from your fathers l ' right of the Christians to the promises is also clearly and exclusively stated in the emphasis of the words: to whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto you, did they minister these things, which now have been announced unto you through them that preached the gospel unto
to
' '
c
Rome
'
'
'
you
>2
.
In contrast to the rest of the literature of the Apostolic Age, the epistle of James contains no polemic at all. Its calm and quiet tone, and its exclusive preoccupation with the
building up of practical saintliness, impress the reader at once. The absence of Christological argument has led some scholars to see in it a Jewish epistle adapted for Christian 3 While this view is not generally accepted, it is a purposes commentary on the self-contradiction of conventional views of Judaism that this, in many ways the most attractive of Apostolic writings, should be attributed by anyone to Jewish authorship without it being realised that such an attribution condemned the view that Judaism was arid and dead. It is
.
1
2
Peter
i,
i,
18.
Ibid,
12.
E.g. F, Spitta in
Zur Geschichte
u. Literatur
des
Urchristentums,
Vol. II.

impossible to tell
59
what was the attitude of the author to the
Law.
He
whom
accepts perfectly the situation of the people to
far as it was concerned. As we do not know the details of its date nor the occasion of its composition, all that we can safely deduce from it is that the question of the Law was not so universally a burning issue as we might be tempted to think from the works of Paul. The third document addressed to Jewish Christians is the epistle to the Hebrews, and here the situation is very different. It has been conjectured, with a fair amount of probability, that it was addressed to Palestinian Jewish Christians during the war with Rome from A.D. 68 to 70. It reflects a time of crisis and of difficult decision which best fits this period. Its insistence on the priesthood and on sacrifice shows the Temple to be still standing. Its recipients were familiar with every detail of its ceremonial. The pur-
he was writing, in so
pose of the letter is clear. It is written to convince them that they are no longer members of the Old Covenant, and that, therefore, the defence of the Temple and the Holy City is
of theirs. Its argument is precise. The Law made nothing perfect, and is cancelled because it is weak and 1 It was only the copy and shadow of heavenly unprofitable 2 . Its things dignity is only stressed when the author wants to contrast the still greater dignity and glory of the New Dis3 The sacrifices and priesthood of the Old pensation Dispensation are similarly thrown into shadow by the perfect 4 sacrifice and priesthood of the New . God's own intention
no
affair
to cancel the
Law is proved from

'
Jeremiah
5
.
Such language
is even stronger than that of Paul himself, who nowhere speaks of God finding fault with the Law '. To emphasise its weakness still further the author contrasts it with the faith of those who had lived before and after it had been 6 The list goes straight on through the heroes pronounced
.
of the Old Testament, making no distinction, and thereby implying that those who lived after the issue of the Law were
1
Hebrews
Ibid, Ibid,
ii,
vii, 18, 19.
2
3 4 5 *
Ibid, viii, 5.
z and ix, passim. x and vii.
Ibid, viii, 8-13. Ibid. xi.
60
themselves only justified by the same faith as those whose lives preceded it. And of all alike he underlines the fact that all died in faith, not having received the promises >1 To make his rejection of the whole outlook of life of the Jew still more distinct, he says of these heroes of faith, many of whom, such as Gideon, Samson, David and the Maccabees, had lived and died in the struggle for national independence and for the sacred soil of Palestine, that they confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth ', and not mindful of that country from which they went out >2 From this it was easy to deduce that the promises belong to the Christians, and refer only to a heavenly Jerusalem. In its approach the epistle to the Hebrews belongs to the period of the first gospel. It is an argument to people not yet convinced. The insistence with which both documents build up their proofs that Jesus was the Messiah of prophecy and the High Priest of a New Dispensation imply a period when proof was still needed. Jews were shown in the gospel that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. Jewish Christians are shown in the epistle that they are no longer members of the Jewish faith. The other book to be considered belongs to a later phase. The fourth gospel assumes without argument that the separation has already taken place. It is no further use arguing with the Jews. They are assumed to be the enemies of Christianity: and Christianity itself is a universal and not a Jewish religion. A careful reading of the book shows an amazing contrast in spiritual tone between the discourses addressed to the disciples and those addressed to the Jews ', and while the former constitute some of the most exquisite treasures of Christian literature, the latter are unreal, unattractive, and at times almost repulsive. can attribute the one, even if indirectly, t6 a personal memory. But the other is a reflection of the bitterness of the end of the first century, and will be discussed in the
*
.
'
'
'
We
following chapter.
1 *
Hebrews
xi, 13.
Ibid, xi, 13, 15.

VIII.
6l
JEWISH RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EARLY
CHURCH
We
its parent the estrangement from the other side. The Christians were, after all, a very small sect, and there is no reason why a contemporary Jewish writer should devote much time to them. Talmudic literature reflects the existence of early hostilities, but we cannot trace in it any exact development. are compelled to make use of the New Testament, and in particular of the Acts of the Apostles, and we must use the evidence with caution, not because of any intentional mis-statement, but because Jewish
have ample documentation for tracing in growth of the hostility of the growing Church to
It is
detail the
Judaism.
more
difficult to trace
We
motives and feelings were, naturally, much less known to the author than were the reactions of his Christian brethren. It is, however, abundantly clear that it was the question of the Law which was the principal cause of conflict. It is therefore inherently probable that the first serious trouble arose over the preaching of Stephen, in which there appears to have been outspoken condemnation of its observance. In any case something compelled the Jewish authorities to see that the new movement had to be taken seriously, and the commission to root out the new sect was entrusted to Saul. It is to be noted that Stephen's preaching first aroused 1 opposition among the Jews of the diaspora , and that it was to a Jew of the diaspora that the commission to exterminate the new sect was entrusted. Again, when Saul has become Paul and has returned for the last time to Jerusalem, it is the diaspora Jews who stir up the riot against him for his nonobservance of the Law. The reason is probably to be found in the fact that the diaspora Jews, living among the Gentiles, were quicker to see the menace to the Law in the new teaching than were the Jews living in Palestine, where observance of the Law, by being universal, aroused less
interest.
To understand the significance of the mission entrusted to Saul it is necessary to describe in greater detail the authority of the Jewish High Priest in the Roman empire. He was
1
Acts
vi, 9.
62
recognised by the Roman authorities as the supreme head of all the Jews of the empire, and in all matters of religion or custom he had absolute authority so far as the Romans were concerned. Even after the destruction of Jerusalem, the Patriarch had the same position. But while Judaism was a recognised religion or while the Jews were a recognised nation, for there was no distinction between the one conception and the other it was not necessarily possible, without certain risks, for any Roman or other non-Jew to declare himself a Jew. The severity with
which
this
was regarded
a short period under Hadrian,
differed at different epochs. and after the time of
For Con-
stantine, it became a punishable offence to become a convert to Judaism under any circumstances. The privileges given
though in fact given to the Jews were confined to practising Jews1 so that by excommunication the Jewish authorities could
to the Jews, originally as a
'
by the Romans
nation
',
deprive a Jew of his legal privileges. After A.D. 70,
when
all
Jews were compelled to make a payment to thefiscusjudaicus, this payment formed the recognition of the fact that an individual was a Jew. Until the time of Constantine it was not a crime in itself to become a Jew, but to do so exposed the proselyte to a
charge of atheism.
In the case of a
as
man
this
would not
necessarily be known, so long
he did not hold any public office. As master of his household, his family worship was to some extent his own affair. But his conversion would necessarily be made known if he occupied an official position
requiring participation in public sacrifice, though, probably, some proselytes took to heart the lesson of Naaman 2 woman could only become a proselyte with the consent or at least the connivance of her husband, since her absence
.
from domestic worship could not be concealed from him. In the main such proselytism could only be revealed by a system of spies, and the first emperor who made use of such was Domitian3 who extracted large fines from poor persons convicted of becoming proselytes, and executed wealthy ones
,
Edict of Lentulus, Jos., Ant.> XIV, 10, 13 ff. II Kings v, 18. Among the Egyptian papyri are a number of certificates that sacrifice had been offered, f .. by either Jews or Christians.
2
Suetonius, Domitian,
xii,
and Dion Cassius,
Ixvii, 14.

in order to confiscate their estates.
63
His successor, Nerva, 1 the work of the immediately stopped spies and the proselytes were again left undisturbed until the time of Hadrian's law against circumcision 2 This was repealed in favour of 3 Jews by birth by Antoninus but proselytes were to be punished with banishment or death, and proselyte slaves were to be set free, as having been mutilated against their
, . ,
'
will.
It
was always possible
for the
Roman
authorities, without
undermining the privileges extended to genuine Jews, to punish efforts on their part to make proselytes. This they seem to have done as early as 139 B.C.4 and the expulsions from Rome recorded by Tacitus and Suetonius in the reigns of Tiberius and Claudius were probably connected with their
,
missionary activities
5
.
While proselytes would, of course, come under Roman

law, if the Romans wished to punish them, the Jewish authorities could punish Jews who offended Jewish law as
did the Jewish Christians. The narrative in Acts contains nothing impossible in the statement that the Jerusalem authorities sent Paul with a mission to uproot the new The only heresy in certain synagogues of the diaspora. uncertain point is that they apparently exercised the right * of extradition, since Paul was to bring his captives bound to Jerusalem '. Apart from this text, there is no evidence
High Priest possessed this right, which was very conceded by the Romans, and had only been granted rarely There is, however, no to Herod as a special favour 6 . definite evidence that the right did not exist, though in this particular case it is difficult to see why the High Priest should want the prisoners brought to Jerusalem, a somewhat costly procedure, when all that was required was to give instructions that they should be punished wherever they were found. The Jews had the right of flagellation; and this is the
that the
1
2 3 4
Dion Cassius, bcviii, i, 2. Vita Hadriani, xiv, 2.
Digest, 48, 8, ii. * Valerius Maximus, I, 3, 3: Judaeos qui Sabazi Jovis cultu inficere mores conati erant, repetere domos suas coegit *.
* '
Romanes
Annals^ II, 85. Suetonius in Reinach, 185-186. Juster, Vol. II, p. 145, and note 5.
64
punishment which would probably have been applied in this case, since it is extremely unlikely that they would have thought of putting a large number to death, even if they had the power to do so 1 as they seem to have had. If it had seemed sufficiently grave it is more likely that they would have been excommunicated and thereby lost the privileges
,
they enjoyed as Jews. It will be thus seen that at the beginning Judaism had the whip hand of Christianity, in that it was the Jews who decided what a Jew was, and who had the right to be admitted to the privileges they enjoyed. By the simple act of excommunication they could expel a Christian from these
privileges and report against him as an atheist. Moreover, so long as the Christians chose to remain officially, at least
a Jewish synagogue.
sect,
How rigidly this
they were subject to the discipline of the discipline was applied we have
no means of knowing, but that more happened than is recounted in the Acts of the Apostles is seen by Paul's
declaration in the second epistle to the Corinthians (xi, *n pri 80118 niore abundantly, in stripes above 16-29)
*
measure, in deaths
oft.
Of
the Jews five times received I
forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, ... in perils from countrymen, in perils from the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilder-
my
ness, in perils in the sea, in perils
among
false
brethren
'
2
.
IX.
the circumstances would lead us to expect hostility at this stage to be directed against the leaders of the new sect. The sudden dispersion which followed Stephen's murder seems to have been an isolated incident. The real danger lay with the ringleaders, and as long as the issue lay in the question of the Law, the most dangerous man was Paul. At first the opposition manifested itself in sudden violence, which was rather
1 The question of whether the Jews at this time had the right to administer capital punishment depends on the credibility given to the narrative of John (xix, 31) that the Jews delivered Jesus because they could not execute Him themselves. This is not mentioned by the synoptists, or by any other authority. See Juster, op. cit. r Vol. II, p. 133.
Both the information
JEWISH ATTITUDE TO SAINT PAUL we possess and a consideration of
See also Ch. IV, section III, and Appendix Five.
65
mob
and
action than official condemnation. On the first journey, at the Pisidian Antioch, the Jews urged on the devout women of honourable estate, and the chief men of the city,
a persecution against Paul and Barnabas and of their borders n At Iconium the Jews that were disobedient stirred up the souls of the Gentiles and made an onset both of the Gentiles and of the Jews with their rulers to entreat them shamefully and to stone them >2 At Lystra they actually did stir up the mob to stone them 3 The same mob violence stirred up by the 4 Jews is reported on the second journey at Thessalonica
stirred
cast
up them out
'
'
and
at
Corinth 5
At
Philippi they got into trouble, as Jews
with the
Roman
Jews had any
colonists, but there is no statement that the hand in their arrest. But at Corinth the Jews
bring them before Gallic the proconsul. This incident has been almost as much disputed as the trial of Jesus Himself. Those who for one reason or another doubt the credibility of Acts point out quite logically that, as the Jews had their own jurisdiction, they had no reason for bringing Paul before the Roman authorities. But Luke clearly realises this also, for in his account Gallio refuses to hear the charge on exactly this ground. Luke's accuracy might have been suspect had Gallio acted differently, but as Luke shows himself aware that the Jews were not compelled to bring Paul before the Roman court, there seems little reason for doubting his narrative when he states that they did so. Actually it seems not to have been the first time that the Jews brought Christianity to the notice of the Romans, though they do not figure in the story of the trial and imprisonment at Philippi. If when in writing to the Corinthians Paul says that he has thrice been beaten with rods ', then it must be assumed that, apart from Philippi, he had twice appeared in a Roman court. In other words, though Acts
4
to them, it seems that there had been other incidents similar to that at Corinth at other periods of his missionary journeys. Nor is this inherently unlikely
makes no reference
Acts xiii, 50. -Ibid, xiv, 5.

Ibid, xiv, 19.
4 5
Ibid, xvii, 5.
Ibid, xviii, 6
and 12
ff.
66
if
there is any probability in the statement that the Jews of Corinth dragged Paul before the Romans. The charge they brought was that Paul was trying to persuade them to worship God contrary to the Law '. This is certainly a charge with which they could technically have dealt themselves. The situation is the same as it was in the trial of Jesus. The New Testament in both cases informs us that
*
the Jews preferred to lay the responsibility on the Romans for deciding what to do. In the first case it has been suggested that they did so in
order to transfer the odium, which they might incur from the crowd, from themselves to Pilate. This can scarcely be the reason in this case. There is, however, a possible explanation. The teaching of Paul had both in Corinth and elsewhere been attracting a good deal of attention, and had
proselytes to Christianity. These were not proselytes in the Jewish sense that they thereby became circumcised or observed the Law without performing that
been making
*
'
rite. But the Church itself was still a Jewish sect in the minds both of Jews and Romans. Though the Jews were tolerated, though becoming a proselyte was not in itself a crime, yet it is evident that it was not officially looked on with favour by the Romans. It was not so many years since the Jews had been turned out of Rome because of their proselytising activity. The Roman colonists of Philippi, as soon as they found that Paul was trying to make proselytes of them, raised a disturbance, and though the magistrates could not find it to be a crime, they asked him to leave the city. It seems legitimate to assume that Paul was felt by the Jews to be endangering their position with the Roman
authorities at Corinth.
He was
attracting
more
attention
than they desired. If this be so, then it was natural that they should attempt to dissociate themselves from him, not by the privacy of a condemnation in their own courts, but by the publicity of denouncing him to the proconsul. There is
for saying this if we realise that already occasions Jewish communities had without the slightest success attempted to silence Paul by condemning him in their own courts. Nor can it be said that the fact that ' Paul had already left them and turned to the Gentiles in
all
the
more ground
on
five
'
any way freed them from the embarrassment in which he

placed them. Paul himself was
still
67
a Jew, and, moreover, he was elaborating a doctrine that those who believed his teaching were the true Israel. He was making the situation altogether too complicated, and the best way out was to show the Romans that they at all events had nothing to do with
him. Their attempt
failed, because actually it was difficult for a precise accusation against him. Beneath the * brief words that he taught men to worship God contrary to the Law ', almost any complaint that they could make
them
to
make
would be included.
thing
*
Their speech might have been some-
like this:
This man is causing a great deal of trouble to our loyal Jewish community. He calls himself a Jew, and has been preaching here for some time, both in the synagogue and outside; but his teaching is absolutely unorthodox, and he has five times been condemned by different synagogue
it. Our Law is the basis of the privileges which and under beneficent rule, enjoy your you know well that the Law enjoins us to be good and obedient citizens. But this man preaches an incomprehensible rigmarole against the Law itself, and is perpetually claiming his privilege as a Jew to do it. There is another point. We are a peaceable community, and if a proselyte does join us from time to time, you have
courts for
we
we should never allow. When these people get into trouble as they are sure to do, it is we who will be blamed for it, for
, , .
always kindly looked the other way, for you know that by making him observe the Law we guarantee that he will remain a good citizen. But this man spends all his time making proselytes out of anyone he meets, and does not enjoin upon them the keeping of the Law, in addition to the fact that they are not taken from the most reputable elements 1 among the population and some of them lead lives which
,
they will call themselves Jews and claim our privileges But they know nothing about the Law on which these privileges are based and are even taught to despise it. We beg you to forbid this Paul to call himself a Jew, and to go on abusing
1
This
is
based on the evidence of the character of the early Church
in Corinth as revealed in the epistles.
68

our Law, and also to recognise that neither he nor his precious following have anything to do with us. We might mention that we understand that there would be some
precedent for scourging him.'
Such an accusation, which seems to me to represent the attitude of the Synagogue to the Church as it was beginning to define itself, might well have been dismissed by Gallio
as nothing to do with him; for actually they could not accuse Paul of any legal Roman crime. Why they took and beat Sosthenes at the conclusion of the proceedings we shall never know; perhaps because he was a Christian, and is the same as the Sosthenes who greets the Corinthians in the opening salutation of the first epistle; perhaps because he put their
case badly. In the narratives of the imprisonment and trials of Paul before different Roman-Palestinian authorities there is little new to be learnt. Evidently, in spite of his declaration that
it
he had committed any crime he was prepared to die for he preferred to be judged by Rome and not by his own courts. The accusations of the priests have somewhat the same vagueness, in so far as actual crime is concerned, as those at Corinth. The most noteworthy point of the whole affair is the passion with which Paul insists that he himself had done nothing against the Law 2
if
1
,
X.
It
THE ISSUE STILL CONFUSED
is made evident that the Jewish authorities had not worked out a concerted plan for dealing with the new sect by the reception which Paul received at Rome. The local Jewish leaders were aware that Christianity was everywhere 3 But they had received no instrucspoken against tions about it, and had heard no evil of Paul himself. On the contrary, they express a desire to hear Paul's own view of the matter. The original mission of Saul was local, and of short or duration. The enemies of the Church were also local
* '
. .
.
1
2
Acts xxv,
11
Ibid, xxii, 3; xxiii, Ibid, xxviii, 22.
i;
xxiv, 14; xxvi, 5, 22; xxviii, 17.

.
09
1 The Jewish people might approve when parties within it Herod killed James, the brother of John, and attempted to seize Peter 2 but here also it was an attack upon the ringleaders, not upon the rank and file that was made.
,
It was possible for either side to seize upon single points or persons, but neither had yet a general policy towards the other. Though a mediaeval Christian, if he were asked what
was the substance of his hostility to the Jews, would undoubtedly place first the Crucifixion, yet in the conflicts of this period it lies outside the field of debate. Even before a developed Christology arose it was felt to be part of the fore-ordained purpose of God '. It was always spoken of
'
by Jesus Himself
as a necessity for the accomplishment of His mission. Paul only once accuses the Jews of responsi3 bility for His death and that in a moment of anger. In the whole of the long argument in Romans there is no single verse which ascribes the death of Christ to the Jews. Foakes
*
'
,
Jackson, in summing up the period, says: What the apostles are said to have preached is that His Resurrection proved His Messiahship This was a cause of offence to the ruling priestly aristocracy, on grounds purely political; the people seem to have received the message with some approval. The impression left by a candid perusal of the Acts is that the Judaism of the time was not intolerant of opinions. The real battle was the question of observing the Law. The least weakening on this point aroused a storm of indignation, as it had done '4 during the ministry of Jesus . But on the Law also neither side occupied a consistent position towards the other. Jew could not easily condemn outright a sect which contained so many blameless followers of all its prescriptions, and the Judeo-Christians had not yet sunk to the unhappy position which they occupied in the second century. Nor did all Christians go so far as Paul appeared to do indeed, it was difficult for them to do so in view of his inconsistency. The time had not yet come when Christians felt so strongly about it that they could doubt whether a Christian who
.
Cf.
Thess.
xii, 1-3.
ii,
ii,
14.
2
3
Acts
I
Thess.
15.
Christianity, p. 83.
The Rise of Gentile
70 THE CONFLICT OF
observed the

.
1 So far, any chance of salvation Gentile and Jewish Christians lived in mutual toleration. External events were soon to compel a clearer attitude on both sides. The generation of Jews and Christians which
Law had
followed the destruction of Jerusalem, not the generation which first heard the preaching of Christianity, is responsible for the completion of the separation. That accomplished, it still required several centuries for the beliefs of each party to crystallise into the forms which they have historically
assumed.
Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, xlvii.
CHAPTER THREE

is taken from the patristic For English readers most of these are to be found in convenient form in the collection of Ante-Nicene Fathers, though in some cases the editions are not complete. This is particularly so for Origen, the most copious of the early writers. Together with patristic literature has been included the gospel of Saint John, to which reference is made in the bibliographical note of the previous chapter. There are also various writings of importance which are not included in the patrologies, in particular the early apocryphal gospels and certain heretical works, such as the Clementine Recognitions and the Didascalia
The
material for this chapter
literature of these centuries.
Apostolorum.
the fathers quoted is impossible in however, three classes of literature and certain special writers who deserve a remark. The most important of all early sources is the Dialogue of Justin with Trypho the Jew, a work of the middle of the second century, by one of the most brilliant of the early Christian apologists. This dialogue, though perhaps not the
all
To comment on
There
this note.
are,
first
(the lost dialogue of Jason
and Papiscus
all later
earlier) is the model from class of literature spring.
which
is probably examples of this
second class of literature of particular importance is Testimonies ', collections of texts of the Old Testament to prove different claims connected with the person of Christ and the call of the Gentiles. For this the work of Rendell Harris will need to be consulted, though many scholars do not wholly agree with the early date to which he traces them
the
'
back.
The third group of writings calling for special consideration are the sermons or homilies especially directed against
?2
the Jews. Of these there are a considerable stream. In most cases they were not spoken to Jews, and in general it is not to be presumed that Jews were present at all at their delivery. They were warnings to Christians of the danger of intercourse with the Jews. Inevitably they all recall each other, for the ground to be covered in such addresses was relatively restrained. It is significant that without exception none of them are primarily, or in most cases at all, interested in the doings of contemporary Jews. For our knowledge of actual relations we are therefore thrown back upon chance quotations in other writings. And for all our knowledge of the development of a theological attitude to the Jews we must look to the same sources, and not to the homilies expressly devoted to them. For this reason no special list of these homilies is included. It
would be
entirely deceptive.
Five writers deserve special mention, Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Origen. The first was a native of Shechem in Palestine, and was trained as a philosopher, the second was an African and a lawyer, the third apparently a Roman, the fourth an African and teacher of rhetoric, and the fifth an Egyptian. They thus represent not only geographically but also in their trainings an astonishingly varied range of interests. Their different writings are of capital
importance for the development throughout the Church of the absolute condemnation of the Jews which is characteristic of patristic literature as a whole. In the list of books given below a number of local monographs are of particular interest for a more detailed survey of Jewish Christian relations in the centres with which they
deal.
Finally there is the question of the Judeo- Christians. number of books are quoted dealing with the rise of the Gentile Church, but I doubt whether full justice has yet been done to this section of the early Church. At least, I have not been able to find an adequate study of the subject.
73
LIST OF BOOKS
Ancient Sources
PATROLOGIA LATINA For convenience all quotations are PATROLOGIA GR^CA made from these two collections. (The Vienna Corpus of Ecclesiastical writers should be consulted on questions of texts, for it embodies more modern discoveries and corrections.)
THE APOCRYPHAL
Ed.
M.
NEW TESTAMENT
DIDASCALIA
R. James, Oxford, 1924.

2.
In Horce Semitica, No.

trans.,
English
APOSTOLORUM
London, 1903,
T. Clark.
Edinburgh, n.d.
THEANTE-NICENE
FATHERS
T.
&
2ovols.
Modern Works
SYMPOSIUM
Judaism and the beginnings of Christianity: a course of Lectures delivered

at Jews* College.
Routledge, 1924.
BONWETSCH, N.
Die Schriftbeweise fur die Kirche an den Heiden ah das wahre Israel bis
aufHippolyt. Theologische Studien,
Leipzig, 1908.
FOAKES-JACKSON, F.
J.
New
FREIMAN,
The Rise of Gentile Christianity. York, Doran, 1927.

in den
M.
Die Wortfuhrer desjudentums

Aelteren Kontroversen.
M.G.WJ.,
1911 and 1912.
GINZBERG, L.
Erster TeiL
Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvdtem. Amsterdam, 1899. 2nd, Berlin, 1900. 3rd, Poznansky Memorial,
Warsaw, 1927.
Wien, 1933.
4th, Studies,
New
York, 1929. sth, Chajes
Me-
morial,
74 THE CONFLICT OF
.
GOLDFAHN, DR. A. H. Die Kirchenvdter und die Agada. M.G.W.J., Vol. XXII.
HAAS,
MAX
Die Makkabder als christliche Heilige.
M.G.W.J., Vol. XLIV.

HARRIS, RENDELL
The Early Christian Testimonies. Expositor, 1906 and 1910.

Christianity in
HERFORD, R. TRAVERS
Talmud and Midrash. Williams and Norgate, 1903.

Macmillan,
the
HORT, F.
J.
A.
Judaistic Christianity.
1894.
HULEN, A. B.
The Dialogues
with
sources for the early Jewish
Jews as Argu-
ments against Christianity. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. LI, i.
KlTTEL, G.
Paulus
im
Talmud, in Rabbinica.
Leipzig, 1920.
KRAELING, C. H.
The Jewish Community at Antioch up to A.D. 600. Journal of Biblical

Literature, Vol. LI.
KRAUSS, S.
Jews
in
the
Works of
the
Fathers.
J.Q.R., Vols.
Church and VI,
Old
LAGRANGE, M.
LAIBLE, H.
J.
Series.
les Juifs.
Le Messianisme chez
1909.
Paris,
Jesus Christus im Thalmud.
Berlin,
1891.
LE BLANT,
E.
Le Controverse
des Chretiens et des
Juifs auxpremtires Sticles de VEglise.
Memoires delaSocit6Nationale des

Antiquaires de France, No. 7, 1898.
6me
serie,
MERRILL, E. T.
Essays in Early Christian History. Macmillan, 1893.

MIESES,
75
M.
P.
Der Ursprung des Judenhasses. Harz Verlag, Wien, 1923.

Les Colonies Juives dans VAfrique Romaine. R.E.J., Vol. XLIV.
MONCEAUX,
RAMSAY, SIR W.
The Church
ton, 1893.
in the
Roman Empire
before A.D.iyo.
Hodder and Stoughund

die Christen
STRACK,
HERMANN
L.
Jesus, die Hdretiker
nach den
dltesten judischen
Angaben.
Schriften des Institutum Judaicum, Berlin, No. 37, 1910.
TURNER, C.
The Testimonies
in the early
Church.
Journal of Theological Studies, 1905 and 1908.
WERNER, KARL
der Apologetischen und Polemischen Ltteratur, Vol. I. Schaffhausen, 1861.

Geschichte

I. THE SEPARATION JEWS AND CHRISTIANS IN PALESTINE
:
77
At the death of
Paul, Christianity was still a Jewish sect. In the middle of the second century it is a separate religion busily engaged in apologetics to the Greek and Roman world, and anxious to establish its antiquity, respectability
and
loyalty.
is
took place
considered. When the armies of Titus approached Jerusalem, the Judeo-Christians retired to Pella. At the same time the rabbinical leaders retired to Jabne. The defence of Jerusalem
To decide on the date at which the separation no easy task, for there are so many parties to be
was undertaken by the
political and not by the religious leaders of the people. The fall of the city, however, reacted differently upon the two different groups. The rabbinical leaders might consider it to be a punishment for the sins of
the people. But the Judeo-Christians went further, and saw in it a final departure of the sceptre from Israel '. The loss of the Temple meant that Judaism had now only the Law as a basis for its continued independence. Had the JudeoChristians been the only members of the new faith, the breach between them and the Jews might have been healed, for they also desired to observe the Law. But the rabbis at Jabne were not unaware of their contact with Gentile Christians who did not observe the Law at all. They knew the 1 It was only a teaching of Paul, and condemned it utterly step from this condemnation to the refusal to accept as orthodox the conformity of the Judeo-Christians. This step was taken by the insertion into the daily Blessings recited in the synagogue of a declaration about heretics so worded that the Judeo-Christians could not pronounce it. This declaration, the Birkath-ha-Minim, was composed by Samuel the Small, who lived in the second half of the first century. His exact date we do not know, but he was a contemporary of Gamaliel II, who presided at Jabne from 80 to no, and was also acquainted with two rabbis who were killed in the capture of Jerusalem in 70. may therefore conclude that he was somewhat older than Gamaliel, and date the malediction which he composed to between
'
We
Kittel, op. dt. y
Chapter
I.
78

.
80 and go 1 Of the actual wording of the original malediction we cannot be certain. Later forms only contain the word minim or heretics ', and it now only refers to slan*
'
*
to Jerome it contained the express ', but according a word which may well have condemnation of Nazarenes been erased in the many censorings to which Jewish literature has been subject at the hands of Christian authorities. The
derers
'
purpose of the malediction is to detect the presence of Minim, for if they were invited to pronounce the Eighteen Benedictions they would inevitably omit that particular paragraph from them. The fact that the test was a statement made in the synagogue service shows that at the time of
making
it
the Judeo- Christians
still
frequented the syna-
gogue. There would be no point otherwise in trying to prevent them from leading the prayers. In other words,
when official Judaism, represented by the rabbis had decided that the presence of these people could not be tolerated, the Judeo-Christians, however much they disagreed from other Jews on the question as to whether the Messiah had or had not come, still considered themselves to be Jews; and it is not too much to suppose from this that there were also Jews who considered that a disagreement on
at the
time
at Jabne,
this point did not
make fellowship with them impossible. must have been They generally accepted, or it is incredible
that they should have continued to frequent the synagogue. They were evidently there as ordinary members, since it
needed the introduction of

if
this
formula to detect them.
A breach would, however, from their point of view, occui

the rest of the Jews decided definitely on another Messiah, this is what happened in the time of Barcochba. Even though all the Jews did not by any means accept his claim,
and
yet
it was accepted by very influential leaders such as Aqiba, and the discussion round it would inevitably bring into relief the fact that they were at least agreed in refusing to accept Jesus as Messiah, whatever was thought of Barcochba. This would give a date well into the second century for the break from the side of the Judeo-Christians. So late a date would not, however, apply to all of them and, indeed, there is no reason to suppose that all simultaneously came to the
1
Travers Herford, p. 125.

Jer.,
On
Isaiah, v, 18.
P.L.,
XXIV,
87.

same conclusion.
earlier,
79
to
it
Some had
evidently
come
much
even as Paul and other Jewish apostles had done. We may, however, accept the date of the malediction as that affecting the majority of those concerned. This would fit in with the addition in the first gospel of the words His blood be on us and on our children \ which implies a final separa*
and the date usually given for this gospel is between 80 and 90. It is important to add that even if dates round the end of the first and the beginning of the second century are given for the official break between the two religions, yet, as long as there were any number of conversions from Judaism to
tion
;
Christianity, there were many places in which it would be difficult to draw the dividing line. The existence of much of the anti- Judaic literature of the early Church, and in par-
such courses of sermons as those of Chrysostom at Antioch in 387, show that respect for the synagogue was by no means dead among some Christian groups. It was, however, regarded by orthodox theologians with absolute disapproval, and was also so regarded by the central authorities of Judaism. But these had moved before the end of the second century to Babylon, where their contacts with Christians were fewer than in the west.
ticular
II. THE SEPARATION: THE LETTERS TO THE SYNAGOGUES
the letters and Apostles sent out to the Jews of the diaspora to the end of the first century. Through his emissaries the Jewish Patriarch of Palestine was able to keep in fairly close touch with the Jews in the rest of the world because of the annual collection which was made by all the synagogues to the central organisation. The decision which is marked by the inclusion of the test malediction on the heretics into the Eighteen Benedictions was an important one. The matter touched the diaspora even more closely than Palestine itself . may therefore presume that before the end of the century all the synagogues of the diaspora had been informed of the new malediction and warned to have no dealings with the Christians.
It is reasonable also to date
'
We
80

It is
official
the
important to attempt to define exactly the nature of The frequent instruction issued at this time.
references in patristic literature make it certain that some such step was taken, but they differ in the contents which they ascribe to the letters sent. It is difficult, but necessary, to try to distinguish what was sent out officially from
Palestine
from what was spread abroad
unofficially
by
what is told us by Justin, Eusebius and Jerome, we can make a fair reconstruction of the letter. It contained a formal denial of the truth of the Christian account of the teaching and resurrection of Jesus. 1 It was Christianity was a denial of God and of the Law based on the teaching of Jesus, who was a deceiver, and who had been put to death by the Jews. His disciples had stolen His body, and then pretended that He had risen again from the dead and was the Son of God. It was therefore impossible for Jews to have anything to do with such teaching, and His followers should be formally excommunicated2 Jews were to avoid all discussions of any kind with the It is probable that the letters also contained a Christians 3 copy of the Birkath-ha-Minim, with instructions to include it into the Eighteen Benedictions. For the daily cursing of Christ in the synagogue is very closely associated with the 4 All three writers insist on the official character of letters
. .
.
individual Jews. If we take the substance of
these letters, and
wide dispersion. would have us also include in the official letters the broadcasting of slanders against both the 5 person of Christ and the morals of Christians They accuse
their
on
Many modern
writers
the Jewish authorities of spreading officially the stories to be found in the Sepher Toldoth Jeshu as to the illegitimacy of Jesus, and His evil ways. They believe that from this source came also the rumour of Thyestean banquets and 6 Oedipean intercourse at the meetings of the Christians
Justin, Dialogue, cviii, p. 213.
2
and Eusebius ,On
Isaiah, xviti,
i;
P.G.,XXIV,
Justin, ibid.,
Justin, xxxviii,
4
6
and Jerome, On Isaiah, xviii, 2; P.L., XXIV, p. 184. and Origen, Celsus, VI, 27; P.O., XI, p. 1333.
Justin, xvi, xlvii, xcv, cxxxiii.
E.g. Harnack, see below, Ch. IV, Section I. Cf. Origen, Celsus, VI, 27, and Section VIII below.
8l
This seems exceedingly unlikely. It is natural that the step taken was bitterly resented by the Christians, but at the same time we cannot be surprised at its being considered necessary. The Church still contained many Jewish members who considered that belief in the Messiah could be reconciled with membership of the Synagogue, and the Gentile Christians were still probably largely recruited from the group of the metuentes Deum '. To make accusations which could
'
It easily be disproved would have been very bad policy. would have discredited the entire letter, for those who received it would inevitably know that Christians might be in error, but were not leading immoral lives. If we exclude
the charges of immorality, the charges against the personal character of Jesus fall also, for the two come from the same source. can, in fact, legitimately conclude that it was a
We
dignified but firm denunciation of the Christians, accompanied by an order to have no fellowship with them, and a
copy of the new passage to be included in the service of the synagogue. For more than this we cannot hold the authorities responsible; and for acting thus we can neither blame them nor be astonished at them.
III.
THE SEPARATION:
JEWS AND CHRISTIANS IN THE DIASPORA

Before considering the effects of the receipt of this letter diaspora, we must consider what the general situation was in the communities which received it. It is natural to assume that the initiative in the development which took place was due to the Christians. When they denounced, the Jews reacted. To suppose an initiative on the part of a majority, which was very occupied with other matters, is to suppose an unnatural order of events. The Church has never declared a movement heretical until the movement has made a statement which is unacceptable. To propose the contrary order in this case is to propose some-
upon the synagogues of the
thing inexplicable and unique. But, in fact, we know that The whole the Christians gave continual provocation. development of teaching in the sub-apostolic period was inevitably infuriating to the Jew. The fact that the Christians
82
considered it essential to the explanation of their position does not alter this truth. Although Judaism rallied with extraordinary speed from the blow struck at the Jewish religion by the destruction of the Temple and of all the ceremonial of which it was the centre, and though the Jews in the diaspora had long been accustomed to centre their religion round the synagogue, yet it cannot but have left a sense of tragedy and humiliation upon the generation which witnessed it. It was a point which they would have liked to pass over in silence, until time had healed the scars. But the Christians never allowed them to forget it. In all the literature of the period there is only one reference in which the destruction of the Temple is not cast up at them as a gibe, as a proof that their glory had departed. This one reference is in the Didascalia Apostolorum, a work remarkable throughout for the lack of hostility which it shows to the Jews. It calls Christians also to fast over the fallen city: for their sake we ought to fast and to mourn, that we may be glad to take our pleasure in the world to come, as it is written in Isaiah, " rejoice all ye " that mourn over Zion so we ought to take pity on
* .
.
them, and to have
faith,
and to
fast
and
to
usual attitude to the Jews is that expressed in the addresses to them in the fourth gospel, or, fifty years later, in the Dialogue of Justin with Trypho. It is possible to read the beginning of the gospel of Mark without knowing how the discussions with the Pharisees are to end.
The more
pray for them
>x
.
fourth gospel opens with a statement of the rejection of He came unto His own, and they that Jesus by the Jews. were His own received Him not.' 2 On His first visit to Jerusalem He cleanses the Temple, and thereby puts Himself openly in opposition to the authorities 3 Nicodemus 4 the Pharisee is afraid to come to Him by day Jesus is afraid of their possible interruption of His ministry as soon as He knows that they have heard that His disciples are baptising 5 those who come to Him, and withdraws from The
'
The
going
Judaea
See Horae Semiticae t 2 John i, ii.

ii,
II, xxi, p. 96.
*Ibid.
4
5
13
2.
ff.
Ibid,
iii,
Ibid, iv, i, 3.

first
.
83
Sabbath controversy leads to a persecution, and imme1 Then follows one diately after it the Jews seek to kill Him of the long and unsympathetic denunciations of the Jews which mark the gospel, and which contain words which accurately reflect the situation at the time when they were written, but which would seem strange in one of the earlier gospels: ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life, and these are they which bear witness of Me and ye will not come to Me 2 The speech continues: think not that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that accuseth you, even Moses, on whom ye have set your hope. For if ye believed Moses ye would believe Me, for he wrote of Me >3 From this moment onwards every time that Jesus is made to speak to the Jews He appears deliberately to mystify and to antagonise them. He does not attempt to win them, for He knows His own, and treats the rest with hostility and unconcealed dislike. The Jews themselves are represented as perpetually plotting to kill Him, and afraid to do so, because of His moral power4 Even when Jesus addresses those Jews which had believed on Him \ He says of them that they are of their father the devil >5 In the middle of His ministry the Jews decide to expel from the Synagogue 6 any who believe in Him so that people are afraid to speak 7 All this is redolent of the atmosphere openly of Him which must have existed at the end of the century, when, indeed, confession of Christianity meant expulsion from the Synagogue, and exposure to the unknown dangers of Roman persecution. The whole content of the addresses to the Jews is self-justification to those who have already made up their minds, and not pleading with those who are not yet enlightened. The temper is fundamentally different from that shown by the synoptists, or by Paul, but it is very close to
c
'
'
the gibes of Justin:

1
circumcision was given you as a sign,
John
v,
2 3
Ibid, v, 39 Ibid, v, 45
and 18. and 40. and 46.
4
5 6
7
Ibid, vii, i, 19, 25, 30, 45; x, 31, 39; xi, 53. Ibid, viii, 44.
Ibid, ix, 22.
Ibid, vii, 13.
84
that you may be separated from other nations, and from us, and that you alone may suffer that which you now justly suffer, and that your land may be desolate, and your cities burnt with fire. These things have happened to you in fairness and justice n
.
caused acute resentequally to be expected that resentment, would quickly develop into violence. But these attacks were merely the surface expression of a more deep-seated contradiction. With the destruction of the Temple the Christians were convinced that all that there was of promise and encouragement in the Old Testament had passed to them 2 They disinherited the Jew from his own sacred books at the very
It is not surprising that such an attitude

it is
ment, and
moment when
these provided his only comfort. All the

*
Law
and the promises led on to Christ the Messiah, Rejecting Him, the Jew lost also all share in them. Judaism ', says is nothing but funeral monuments and tombIgnatius, stones of the dead/ 3 The Christian did not even allow him any further merit in the actual observance of the Law. It was only a mass of frivolities and absurdities, except as a preliminary to the Gospel 4 By some mysterious process all that was good in Judaism had become evil. To Ignatius it was merely human ideas, for on its funeral monuments were human names alone 5 The whole of the epistle of Barnabas is an exposition of the Church as the true Israel. It is heresy even to try and share the good things of promise with the Jews. In tones of unusual gravity, and with a special appeal, the author warns his hearers against such mistaken generosity: This also I further beg of you, as being one of you, and loving you both individually and collectively more than my own soul, to take heed to yourselves, and not be " like some, adding the largely to your sins, and saying: " 6 covenant is both theirs and ours
*
'
'
Justin, Dialogue with Trypho,
Chapter xvi.
See further, Section IX.

Ignatius,
To
the Philadelphians, vi, I.
4
6
Epistle to Diognetus,
Ch.
iv;
P.G., II, p. 1172.
Ignatius, Epistle to Philadelphia^, * calls them monuments '.

9
Ch.
vi, I.
The
shorter version
Ch.
iv.

If
85
such was the attitude of the Christians, we cannot be surprised if Tertullian is right in saying that the Jews attached infamy to the name during the interval from Tiberius to Vespasian n The evidence of violent hostility on the part of the Jews of the diaspora belongs almost
'
exclusively to this period. The actual content of the persecution of the Christians by the Jews will be considered later 2 , but it is evident that the temper on both sides was such that in the diaspora also we may date the separation to the generation following the destruction of Jerusalem. From this time
onwards Christianity would have to make its own peace with Rome, and would be little likely to be protected by the Synagogue in case of trouble with the Roman authorities.
IV. THE SEPARATION: THE ROMANS, RAMSAY'S VIEW
In the consideration of the date of the separation between the Church and the Synagogue, we have to consider not only the parties already discussed, the Palestinian Jews and Judeo-Christians, and the diaspora Jews and Gentile Christians, but also the Romans. As long as Christianity was a Jewish sect it enjoyed the protection extended to Judaism, and the attitude of Gallio was the only one possible. When they were recognised as separate, the Christians were exposed to the possibility of suppression. The whole question of the beginning of the persecution of Christianity by the Romans It turns on two points: is involved in violent controversy. when did the Romans first become conscious of the organised existence of Christian Churches, and, when they did, for what precise crime did they persecute them? It is impossible to state all the different opinions which have been expressed. It will be of more value to the present purpose to summarise somewhat fully two contrasting points of view, that of Dr
Ramsay, which is exposed in The Church in the Roman 3 Empire before A.D. iyo and that of E. T. Merrill in Essays
,
in
1
2
Early Christian History*.

Answers to thejew$> Ch. See Ch. IV.
Macmillan, 1924.
xiii;
P.L., II, p. 637.
Hodder and Stoughton,
1893.
86

Dr Ramsay, Roman
basing his main argument on the efficiency provincial organisation, decides for a very early recognition of the existence of the Christian Church. Starting from the fixed point of the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan, of which the date is 112, he states that Trajan clearly regarded the prescription of the Christians as a fundamental principle of imperial policy which he did The question to not choose, or shrank from altering n decide is the date from which this policy became fundamental '. Some say from the time of Domitian, but this is to ignore the full account of the persecution under Nero, which is given by Tacitus and confirmed by Suetonius. The theory that Tacitus is only describing a single isolated event is contradicted by the form of mention in Suetonius, who refers to the persecution of the Christians among other acts, not of a temporary character, but of the nature of permanent 2 police regulations for maintaining order and good conduct The fair and natural interpretation is that Suetonius considered Nero to have maintained a steady prosecution of a mischievous class of persons ', which implies a permanent and settled policy '. Properly considered, the account in Tacitus also shows more than casual action. The first charge was incendiarism, but when the public got disgusted at the cruelty inflicted on the prisoners they were charged with odium humani generis, which was not an abstract charge, but
of the
* .
'
'
meant an attempt to destroy Roman society. This is sup3 Moreover, Tacitus ported by the first epistle of Peter speaks of an ingem multitude, which must mean more than a short attack on a few incendiaries. On these grounds we
.
'
conclude that
if
Tacitus has
correctly
represented
the
Nero, begun for the sake of diverting popular attention, was continued as a permanent police measure under the form of a general prosecution of Christians as a sect dangerous to public safety.' 4 The charge was not yet the Name as it was in Pliny's time, but flagitia cohaerentia nomini, the accusations of disgraceful immorality and cannibalism, to which the
*
authorities, the persecution of
'
1
z
Op.
I
cit. 3
p. 226.
12:
*
Ibid. p. 230.
3 *
Peter
ii,
they speak against you as evil doers
'.
Ramsay,
p. 241.

apologists constantly refer.
87
When Nero had once established
the principle in Rome it would be naturally followed in all ' the provinces. There is no need to suppose a general edict, or a formal law. The precedent would be quoted in every 5 case where a Christian was accused. But between 68 and 96, the attitude of the state towards the Christians was more clearly defined, and the process was changed, so that proof of definite crimes committed by the Christians was no longer required, and acknowledgement of the name alone sufficed for condemnation. Nero treats a great many Christians as criminals, and punishes them for their crimes. Pliny and Trajan treat them as outlaws and brigands, and punish them without reference to their crimes n The Flavians continued the policy laid down by Nero, and Ramsay accepts the authenticity of a council held by Titus before the capture of Jerusalem 2 . In Titus' speech the difference between Judaism and Christianity is fully recognised, but the fact was not grasped that the latter was quite independent of the Temple, and of Jerusalem as a centre.' 3 When this latter fact was recognised, the enmity which underlies the speech of Titus would be carried into * action based on the extensive reports vigorous action on the Christians which Ramsay assumes would exist in
'
. *
'
the imperial archives. The policy of Titus was naturally followed by Domitian, and it is only because of his anti- Christian bias that Dio Cassius says that Clemens and Domitilla, whom Domitian exiled, were Jews, whereas really they were Christians. It is quite impossible that the government could still be confusing the two, and the treatment of Jews was quite different. The silence of Christian writers about this steady and continual persecution is to be referred to their lack of interest in history at this early period. There has also been misrepresentation of the references which are to be found. * The author of the first epistle of Peter says to his readers: Let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or an evil-doer,
1
Ramsay,
p. 245.
Ramsay argues
that the persecution in Bithynia
had
nothing to do with the law against sodalitates, as the Christians, by giving up their common meal, had conformed. Ibid. p. 213.
1 3
Sulpicius Severm, Chron.j II, xxx.
Ramsay,
p. 254.
88

if
or as a meddler in other men's matters: but as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but
man
him
suffer
let
glorify
God in this name

and
'
'
l
.
This implies
*
official action,
since only
the governor could execute capital sentence. The Apocalypse of John refers to Rome as drunk with the blood of the
saints
*
of references to persecution 2 Clement * the examples ?vhich belong to our generation refers to >3 as a vast multitude of die elect , and Ignatius speaks of 4 Ephesus as the highway of the martyrs to Rome
',
is full
'
It is evident that persecution could not have preceded the separation of the Church and the Synagogue, so that, on Ramsay's view, we should have to date this separation back to the time of the Apostles themselves, and presume that the attitude taken by Paul was both understood and followed
by the immense majority of
his converts.
V. THE SEPARATION: THE ROMANS, MERRILL'S VIEW
E. T. Merrill, writing as a classical scholar and not as a Church historian, finds that there has been a perpetual tendency to exaggerate the persecutions altogether, and to accept as evidence statements which would not be accepted in any other branch of research. He considers that the Church historians have come to believe in persecution for the Name because of its persistent affirmation '; and in spite of the fact that, firstly, such a condition would be inexplicable in
'
'
'
Roman law, and that, secondly, other explanations are ' In the presence of a considerable number of possible. isolated but evidently cognate phenomena there is a natural tendency in the trained human intellect to relate them together into a system, and to find a single rule to explain all the allied cases, a single cause to account for all results.' 5 As we know of no Roman legislation condemning * the Name ', modern scholars invent the theory that Christians
1
2
Peter iv, 15 and 16.
e.g. vi, 9; vii, 14; xii, n; xiii, is;xvi, 6; xvii, 6; xviii, 24; xx,4; etc. ist Epistle of Clement, vi; P.O., I, p. 220. 4 Epistle to the Ephesians, xii.
*
5
See
Op.
cit. t
p. 132.
89
were treated as wild beasts, enemies of humanity, outlaws and so on. Further confusion has been created by the statement that Christianity was illicita, and this has been taken to correspond to the modern idea of illegal, whereas it only means unincorporated. It is quite absurd to think that all members of such groups, of which many existed, were treated as outlaws.
It is equally incredible to suppose that the high officials of the empire were aware of the existence of Christianity 1 until the middle or end of the second century , at which time a concerted policy began to appear. But even then
persecution was not for the Name ', but for the crimes which these particular collegia were alleged to practise. As to the persecution under Nero, there is no evidence in pagan or Christian writers that it extended outside Rome, or that an ingens multitudo perished in it. Tacitus was fond of such rhetorical exaggeration, and in another passage he has an even stronger phrase to describe an event in which we know from Suetonius that there were twenty victims2 The persecution in Rome arose from the need of finding a culprit for a particular event, and Christians were selected
*
.
because it was known that they were unpopular with the masses. Jews might have equally well been taken had they not had influence at court, in the person of Poppaea. The account in Tacitus makes it quite clear that arson was the legal charge, and the odium kumani generis only added to give
it
plausibility. The crisis once over, interest in the sect. Turning then to
Nero had no further examine the accounts
said to exist in Christian documents, Merrill notes that no details would be known to us at all of this persecution, if it
were not for the pagan writer Tacitus. Evidently, therefore, it did not make so profound an impression upon the Church as is supposed. The evidence of I Peter and the Apocalypse he considers to be misinterpreted and sometimes mis*
dated'
3
.
Sporadic action in different provinces was

place for
1 2
many
years.
ff.
all that took was obviin action Bithynia Pliny's
Op. dt. y p. 56
Ibid. p. 1 01 .
The twenty victims are
omnis sexus, omnis

8
described as immensa strages, aetas, iilustres, ignobiles, dispersi aut aggerati*.
'
Ibid. pp. 113-124 for a discussion of the texts.
90
ously such, for Mellito, Bishop of Sardis in the vicinity, writing more than fifty years after it had happened, had When all possible concessions have been never heard of it. made regarding the influence of precedent in Roman legal procedure, there is to be found in all the history of Roman law and administration no precedent that would justify the assumption of a pronouncement or other action that could possibly be regarded as putting any class of Roman citizens or subjects once for all outside the pale of the law. The whole spirit and tendency of Roman law and administration was in precisely the opposite direction.' 1 As a matter of fact, even the rhetorician and lawyer Tertullian makes no such absolute charge as modern writers have attempted
'
to do 2 .
The persecution under Domitian he discredits entirely. The opening of Clement's letter to the Corinthians, on which so much is built, is absurdly exaggerated in its interpretations.
Clement says that he has been delayed in writing through The unexpected and repeated troubles and hindrances '. an sounds like introduction curiously apologetic language to a modern letter "I really meant to write you long ago, but all sorts of bothering things have interfered ".' The allegation that Clemens and Domitilla were Christians, and that Dio Cassius concealed the fact through prejudice, is absurd, and Dio's prejudice a myth. There is no reason why he should have had much information about an obscure sect, and still less why he should conceal it. Dio's supposed
'
statement apart, the

five years later,
first
evidence of persecution
is
seventy-
and unconvincing. As to the Apocalypse, it can only be said that historical data cannot be studied in such 3 In dealing with the poetical and apocalyptic dreams he Bithynian persecution, replies point by point to the 4 and finds that it was, and was argument of Ramsay considered by Pliny and Trajan to be, simply a question of the existence of a sodalitas, when such had been forbidden. It was so far from being a crime to be a Christian apart from
.
Op.
cit.,
p. 143.
*Ibid. p. 134.
3
Ibid. pp. 158-159.

Ibid. p. 199
ff.
QI
other evidence, that Trajan, hearing of the nature of this particular sodalitas, gave it special favours. Merrill is not concerned with the date of the separation between the two bodies. His interest is the persecution of Christianity by the Romans, and his conclusion would be that we cannot get any useful evidence from Roman action for settling the date of the separation, whatever we may deduce from the internal relations of the two groups.
VI.
THE DATE OF THE SEPARATION
In the light of the previous discussion it is possible to conclude that the definite separation into two religions took Some of the place towards the end of the first century. leaders on either side had decided upon its inevitability, or necessity, much earlier. In some cases the link was kept much later, but in general we can say that at the end of the first century Christianity began to stand upon its own feet and a Such conclusion is theologically socially. supported by the appearance of the Birkath-ha-Minim, and by the development of the attitude of the Gentile Christians to Judaism. The only arguments against this date are those of Ramsay. For it is clear that however excellent the Roman State Archives, and however much time the emperors spent
in studying them, it is somewhat extravagant to assume that the Romans were aware of the emergence of a new cult before its own sectaries, and before its parent body had number of Christians were certainly executed realised it. by Nero. But it was not a persecution of the Church or of It was an isolated event, even if Suetonius Christianity. thought that it was a declaration of routine policy. If we
recognise this, then
we can
also recognise that Titus, if
really held a council before Jerusalem in
he which he declared
that the destruction of the city would lead to the destruction of Judaism and Christianity, did not recognise that two different faiths were involved, and that he still considered Christianity merely to be a Jewish sect. In the same way all
argument
can accept at
and
Dio Cassius disappears, and we face value his statement that Clemens Domitilla were Jews. Whether Domitilla became a
for the bias of
its
92
Robbed Christian later in life does not concern us. of all the supports which ultimately rest on a persecution under Nero of Christianity as such, the arguments of Ramsay collapse, for the references in epistles and in the Apocalypse are not enough by themselves to prove a persecution of
and suppose that the of Christianity the existence of unaware were high before the middle or end of the second century. The references in the epistles and Apocalypse do mean something. Christians were looked on with disfavour, from whatever source that disfavour came. The second century apologists clearly felt the need for a defence of Christianity to the pagan world. Disturbances within the Jewish community took
officials
Christianity in the first century. But we need not go as far as Merrill
Rome as early as the days of Claudius. aroused by the missionary journeys of Paul, and doubtless of other Apostles. These would demand no more than police action to preserve order. But if we imagine them to have continued, as they probably did, throughout the half-century in which the separation was taking place, then we can safely say that the evidence of the epistles and Apocalypse is adequately accounted for, and that so far as the Roman evidence is concerned, the end of the first century is the time of the definite emergence of Christianity as a new religion.
place as far west as
They were
VII.
THE JUDEO-CHRISTIANS AFTER THE
There is
SEPARATION one group to whom it has been already implied that

the Judeo-
the preceding argument does not wholly apply

Christians.
There
is
no more
history than these
unhappy
tragic group in Christian people. They, who might have
been the bridge between the Jewish and the Gentile world, must have suffered intensely at the developments on both sides which they were powerless to arrest. Rejected, first by the Church, in spite of their genuine belief in Jesus as the Messiah, and then by the Jews in spite of their loyalty to the Law, they ceased to be a factor of any importance in the development of either Christianity or Judaism. It is conventional to state that they would have permanently confined
93
Christianity to the Jewish world, that they wished to impose conditions which were impossible for the Gentiles, but we only possess the evidence against them. And they on their side might well say paradoxical as it may appear to us now that the Gentile Church its attitude made the
by
accept-
ance of the Messianic claims of Jesus impossible to the Jew; and that the perpetual statement of the Gentile leaders that the Jews continued to reject Christ was fundamentally untrue, because they were being offered Him only upon
to
conditions which were false and impossible for a loyal Jew accept in other words, an attitude to the whole of
Jewish history and to the Law which was based upon Gentile ignorance and misunderstanding, and was quite unsupported by the conduct of Jesus Himself.
thus isolated, they lingered on in Palestine for For them, the critical years were not so much from A.D. 70 to 100, as from 70 to 135, and the final destruction of Jerusalem under Trajan. Until the Jews had in large numbers decided for another Messiah, they might continue
Though
centuries.
hope that they would accept Jesus. But when, led by the famous Aqiba, the bulk of the population followed Barcochba, then the position became hopeless. Though the Birkath-ha-Minim dates from thirty or forty years before these events, yet we know of no actual persecution of them by the Jews between the death of James and the outbreak of the revolt in the time of Trajan. Then indeed they
to
suffered severely for their refusal to accept Barcochba, and to share in the defence of the city, and many were put to
After the defeat of the revolt, when the Jews were formally prohibited from entering Jerusalem, for the first time a Gentile bishop was established in the city. As the choice of Barcochba confirmed the refusal of the Jews to accept Jesus, so the presence of a Gentile bishop emphasised the break from Judaism of the new religion. Just as it is conventional for Christian historians to consider that the history of the Jews up to the Incarnation is to be considered as a preparation for the Gospel, and that Jewish history in some way stops when Christian history begins, so also the Judeo-Christians are regarded as ceasing to be of importance when their defeat by the Gentile
.
death 1
Justin, First Apology,
Chapter xxxi; P. G., VI,
p. 375.
94
But the Church of the second of the fourth than was the Church no the more was century Judaism of the second century the complete Judaism of the Talmud. Neither had yet absorbed or rejected various intermediate groups which existed at the earlier period. The interesting fact about this period is that from the two poles of Catholic and Rabbinic orthodoxy stretch an unbroken stream of intermediate sects. For there were some groups which had both Christian and Jewish representatives, such as the Gnostics and the Ebionites, and among the Jewish believers in Christ there appear to have been a number
Christians was assured.
of different groups varying in their conception of the amount shall see when of the Law which should still be obeyed. we come to consider the action of the councils, and the denunciations of the fourth century, that there is every reason
We
common people were much more friendly with each other than the leaders approved of, and this is reflected in some of the popular literature which has survived, and which lacks the bitterness of the more intellectual
to believe that the
theologians.
The disputation between Peter and the Apostles on the one side and representatives of the different Jewish parties on the other, which is related in the Clementine Recognitions, shows no special bitterness towards the Jews, and the discussions themselves are said to have taken place at the request Even more striking are the Acts of of the High Priest 1
.
Philip , a town
a production of the third century. Philip goes to called Nicetera in Greece, and when the Jews hear
'
of his presence there they say hard things of him as of a corrupter of the Law '. They agree, however, readily to the proposal of the chief among them, Hiereus, that he should undertake to argue with Philip. Hiereus does so with much
courtesy, and is converted by Philip, and after some resistance on the part of his wife, from whom Philip demands that he shall live separated, she is converted also, and Philip makes his home with them. This situation lasts for some time, and then when Philip preaches again, the Jews and pagans get very angry, and summon him to the court. Philip appears, and the mob wish to stone him. But again a Jew intervenes
1
Clementine Recognitions,
I, liii;
P.G.,
I,
p. 1236.
*An. BolL, Vol. IX, 1890.

and undertakes
to argue with
95
questions Philip on the interpretation of the Prophets, and on the virgin birth, and professes himself satisfied with Philip's replies. He then takes the credit to himself for Philip not being stoned by the mob, and for this presumption Philip afflicts him with a number of ailments, of which Hiereus subsequently heals him in the name of Jesus. This double miracle instils fear, if not affection, into the Jews, and they make no objection when Philip proceeds to convert and baptise all the inhabitants, themselves apparently included. The hostility of the Jerusalem authorities was always presupposed, but the apocryphal Acts, which began to appear in the second and third centuries, saw nothing strange in the general conversion of the Jewish people. In another version of the Acts of Philip 1 , he goes to Athens, and is pursued thither by Ananias and an army of five hundred men. These are converted by Philip's miracles, while Ananias himself, for his refusal to be so, is swallowed up in the
him.
He
ground
stage.
'
by stages bravely protesting his refusal at each In the Acts of Peter2 of the second century, there is
,
the strange contrast of the fourth gospel repeated. The * Jews believe, but are afraid to confess it for fear of the Jews '. In the later apocryphal works the hostility is much more marked, and no Jewish conversions are expected. While, therefore, we may correctly date the actual separation from the end of the first and the beginning of the second century, we should be wrong to assume that the distinction which we can now observe between Christians and Jews represents the situation as it appeared to those living at the time.
'
VIII.
THE CREATION OF AN OFFICIAL ATTITUDE TO JUDAISM
If there be any justification to be found for the picture of the Jews and of their history drawn in the writings of the Fathers, it would be that they believed the influence of the Jews to be a perpetual and present danger to their flock,
1
The Apocryphal New Testament,

Ibid. p. 90.
p. 439.
96
that they saw in the Jews the opponents of orthodoxy, and the deceivers of the simple. It must be admitted that very little evidence of the truth of this supposition is to be found
in the literature
remaining to us.
We
hear of heretical
Christian sects influencing the orthodox, but we hear nothing about such influence being exercised by Jews. It is not a charge made by Justin, or in any writing deliberately addressed to them. The usual charge is inveterate hostility, which is something essentially different. But in view of the
such a situation did apparently occasionally exist and fifth centuries 1 it is, perhaps, reasonable to believe that it existed in the second and third centuries
fact that
in the fourth
also.
By the second century the controversy over the Law had ceased to play the role which it had played at the earlier period. The Church had become predominantly Gentile in membership and almost exclusively so in leadership. Justin refers pityingly to some few Gentile Christians who, from weakness, still observed the Law, and as a magnanimous concession on his part admitted that they might be saved 2 , but he adds that other Christians would not venture to have any intercourse whatever with such persons. The compromise arranged in Acts, and the concessions made by Peter and Paul, had absolutely no further validity3 and the actions of the Apostles, approved in the first century, would, as Jerome and Augustine later agree, have been the rankest The heresy once the Church was properly established. field of controversy has shifted from the Law to the promises ', in other words, to the whole question of the fulfilment of all prophecy in the person of Jesus Christ. We may at first wonder why the attempt to prove the reality of the Divinity of Christ made it necessary to falsify the whole of Jewish history, as the Gentile Church undoubtedly did, but if we study their approach to the problem we see that they were led on inescapably by the method of their own argumentation from the first legitimate assumption to
, '
See Ch. V, Section VII, on the influence of Jews on catechumens.

Justin, Trypho,
Ch.
xlvii.
Cf. the correspondence between Jerome and Augustine on this point. Letters 28, 40, 75, 82 in the Edition of Augustine's letters by Marcus Dodds, or P.L., XXXIII, same numbers.

the
last
97
Unhappily,
and most extravagant
fabrications.
historical criticism did not exist for either party in the struggle, and the system which the Church used to support
her claims was in manner, though naturally not in matter, the same as that used by the Jew to refute them. Historically, Jesus during His earthly life was linked to Jewish history and to the Jewish scriptures. The Church, in spite of all its philosophising, never lost sight of the actual
of the Incarnation, and unhesitatingly those views which tended to reduce to a plane of rejected secondary importance the events of the earthly life of Jesus. The Fathers insisted on His relation to Jewish prophecy and the divine history of His people. But in safeguarding themselves against an identification of Jesus with a Greek demigod, or with the mythical saviour of a mystery religion, they were compelled to interpret the whole of the
historical
reality
all
Jewish scriptures in such a way as to support their own view1 We have already seen how the writer of the epistle to Barnabas feared that his readers would be tempted to share the scriptures with the Jews. The only alternative was to claim the whole of it for themselves and to antedate the
.
rejection of the
Jews and the emergence of the Church to
the
beginning of revealed history, by emphasising the position of Abraham as the father of many nations, of whom only one, and that themselves, was chosen.
It is therefore not surprising to find Justin saying of the * Bible to Trypho: your scriptures, or rather not yours but ours, for you, though you read them, do not catch the spirit that is in them 2 The writer of the epistle to Diognetus, in speaking of the spirit of the Church, says, in the most natural way possible, the fear of the Lord is chanted, the grace of the prophets is recognised, the faith of the gospel is established, the tradition of the apostles is guarded, and the >3 of break joy of the Church rejoices , without any feeling and the rest. Lactantius, the two clauses between the first * most Greek of the early fathers, speaks casually of our
'
.
'
1 This action apparently attracted the comment even of pagans. Cf. Eusebius, Prep. Evan., I, ii-v; P.G., XXI, p. 28 S.
2
certain
Trypho, xxix.
not to be by xi; P.G., IV, p. 1184. Actually this chapter seems the author of the rest, but it is contemporary.
3
Ch.
98

,
who were the leaders of the Hebrews J1 and every to dishonour his obedience to the God of refused martyr Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob. Tatian, who lived about the middle of the second century, in his Address to the Greeks, claims Moses as proof of the antiquity and respecta2 That he should wish to claim such bility of Christianity
ancestors
.
perhaps natural when we remember that the whole of his Antiquities of the Jews to wrote Josephus the disprove pagan gibe that Judaism was an upstart faith. Antiquity appeared to have been highly valued in the ancient world. Theophilus, bishop of Antioch from 168 to 181 (or 188), in his letters to Autolycus, after relating the story of creation, and of the flood, and after pointing out pagan ignorance of these events, adds and therefore it is proved that all others have been in error, and that we Chris>3 He also is distressed tians alone have possessed the truth that the accusation Christianity has but recently come by
antiquity
is
*
. *
' to the light 4
But it was not enough to make a general claim to the whole of the Scriptures. It was necessary to claim each particular advantage offered in it, both in relation to Christ and, as
a deduction therefrom, in relation to themselves. Once the Messianic question became a point of controversy, the a
Christians had to deal with a primary Jewish objection that man crucified could not be the Messiah, for the Law said
'
explicitly he that is hanged on a tree is accursed of God So far as we know, the manner of the Crucifixion excited
>5
.
no
controversy in apostolic times. There is only one reference 6 it in the Pauline correspondence and then it does not as a But in the second defence. appear subject needing out an to the reproach Christians had to think answer century that a man cursed by the Law could not possibly be the Messiah. Trypho puts the question directly to Justin, and 7 But later Trypho returns Justin's answer is at first evasive
to
, .
1
2
Divine Institutions, Bk. IV, x; P.L., VI, p. 470. Chs. xxxi and xxxvi-xl; P.G., VI, p. 868. Bk. II, xxxiii; P.O., VI, p. 1105.
Ibid. Ill, iv, p. 1125.
4
6
6
7
Deut. xxi, 23, in the translation of the Septuagint.

Gal.
iii,
13.
Trypho, Ixxxix.

to the charge,
.
99
and then Justin replies by the parallel of the brazen serpent 1 This was the answer generally accepted in the Church, and it is still conventional to represent as symbols of the Old and New Dispensations the brazen serpent and the Cross. It is to be seen in innumerable Tertullian and Hippolytus both stained-glass windows. admit that the question as to whether the Messiah has come is the only issue between them and the Jews 2 The question was vital for the obvious reason that it was not commonly held possible that there should be two Messiahs. If, therefore, Jesus was the Messiah, the only person for whom the Jews could be waiting would be, by their own method of 3 Moreover, a prophecy could arguing also, the Antichrist not be fulfilled twice, and Jacob of Serug, a writer of the
. .
fifth century, rubs in the implication of this by stating, after he has proved that Christ fulfilled all prophecies, that even if the Jews did obtain a Messiah, he could not claim any of the Old Testament prophecies on his behalf, for Our Lord, when He came, fulfilled the totality of prophecy. And He 4 gave no opportunity for another to come As a result of this necessity to prove the reality of the Messianic claims of Jesus from prophecy, the Church turned the whole of the Old Testament into a vast quarry with no other function than to provide, by any exegesis however far-fetched, arguments for His claims. A large portion of the Dialogue with Trypho turns on this point. Trypho and Justin pit text against text, and differ only in the interpretation which they give to them. It is probable that by this time various collections of texts were already in existence
*
'
in order to give Christians a handy compendium of arguments for possible controversies. One such collection has survived, 5 compiled by Cyprian , but many others were probably in existence 6 .
1
In Cyprian's collection over seven hundred

xcii
Trypho,
and
xciv.
Tertullian, Apohget., xxi; P.L., I, p. 391; and Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies, Bk. IV, xiii-xxv; P.G., VII, p. 1006 ff. 3 Cf.Pseudo Hippolytus, Discourse on Last Things, xxviii;P.G.,X, p. 932. 4 First Homily against the Jews, line 283. Cf. Ch. VIII, Section III. 5 The Testimonies against the Jews, P.L., IV. 6 On the use of such collections see Rendell Harris in The Expositor for Nov. 1906 and June 1910. He considers that they were already in use by the time the present gospels were written (Expositor, Sept. 1905). See also Glover, The Conflict of Religions in the Roman Empire, Ch. VI.
2
100
texts are collected, dealing with every possible subject of
controversy.
The
Messianic question
once
settled,
there
was an
inevitable deduction to be made by the Christian writers. If Jesus was the Messiah promised to Israel, then they were It is here that we see how inevitable the true Israel 1 . was the defamation of the actual history of the Jews, for
Old Testament history, and Christian history was shown be older than Jewish history in that it dated from the 3 creation and not from Sinai, or even Abraham. Continual references to Christ were found in the Old Testament, and the Christ of God who appeared to Abraham, it was instructions to Isaac, and held converse with divine gave Moses and the later prophets 4 In order to justify this reading of history, they were of the Law. compelled to challenge the Jewish conception The Pauline doctrine that it was good in itself, and divine, was not universally respected. The Old Testament as the embodiment of a complete conception of a community, and of the place of religion in common life, which is to the modern scholar the fascination of the Law and the prophets, had no meaning for the writers of the early Church, Gentiles themselves, they missed entirely the moral and corporate Unconscious that they significance of the Mosaic legislation. themselves were creating a ritual and a rule almost as comsaw in the observances of plicated as the priestly code, they Judaism something comic and contemptible. Their descripto
,
'
the Gentiles were the true Israel, then the Jews had the time been sailing under false colours. That they were the true Israel they proved by innumerable passages from the prophets, in which God speaks of His rejection 2 of His own people and His acceptance of the Gentiles the whole of into Little by little the Church was read back
if
all
.
'
'
tions of Judaism, though probably perfectly sincere, read to us like a deliberate parody. Justin puts into the mouth of ' Trypho the following summary of his religion: first be
circumcised, and then observe what ordinances have been

1
Bonwetsch, op.
Trypho,
cxxiii.
cit,,
passim.
I, iv;
2 3
Eusebius, Ecc. Hist.,
P.G.,
XX,
p. 76.
IOI
enacted for the Sabbath and the feasts, and the new moons of God, and in a word do all the things which have been written in the Law, and then, perhaps, you may obtain
. little later Justin draws attention to the collapse of all the sacrificial ritual with the destruction of the Temple, and asks Trypho what he considers now to be valid of the Law. Trypho replies that it remains c to keep the Sabbath, to be circumcised, to observe months, to be
mercy from God
J1
washed
if
you touch anything prohibited by Moses, and
after sexual intercourse' 2 .
The
Diognetus, while admitting that in so far as they are monotheists, they are better than the heathen ', adds that their sacrifices are absurd their scruples about the Sabbath ridiculous, their vaunting of circumcision nonsense, and their festivals folly 3 Such attacks might be legitimate criticisms of one side of Judaism in those who showed also a knowledge of its positive moral content. As an inclusive summary it was an inexcusable absurdity. Those who had such a strange ignorance of Judaism had no difficulty in considering the Law to be an unimportant portion of the Scriptures, a temporary addition to a book otherwise universal and eternal, added because of the special wickedness of the
' . .
writer of the epistle to *
'
Jews
4
.
Those who still clung to the Pauline conception of its dignity had two other courses open to them. They could
to interpret
or they could claim method is that adopted by the epistle of Barnabas in a detailed review of 5 many of its enactments. It was also followed by Hippolytus , and comes to its full flower in later centuries in works such as the amazing commentary of Gregory the Great on the book of Job. Those who wished to claim that the Jews had never observed the Law had only to refer to the Golden Calf,
it,
claim that the Jews never observed

it
allegorically.
The
latter
Trypho, Ch.
vfii.
*Ibid. xlvi.
iii and iv (abridged); P.O., II, p. 1174Trypho, xix-xxii. Jerome (Ep. CXXI) in the fourth century goes so far as to say that it was a deliberate deception of them by God to lead
3 4
Chs.
them
5
to their destruction.
See especially his interpretation of the Blessings of Jacob inGen.xlix, in Fragmenta Rxegetica in Genesim, P.G., X, p. 588 ff., and Adversus
Judaeos, ibid. p. 788.
102
to the murmuring in the wilderness, and to the many other passages in the historical and prophetic books in which the In difference between the real and the ideal is expressed. later writers it is generally this line which is followed, for it made it easier to map out a consistent history of the Church
Old Testament by contrasting it with every lapse from the ideal, while the sum of these lapses made up the whole of the history of the Jews. This method of rewriting history led later to the conclusion that the Jews were heretics, or ' For it is clear that they have deserted the Law, apostates. who have not believed in Him whom the Law proclaims to be alone sufficient for salvation. They should be considered apostates, for denial of Christ is essentially a violation of the Law.' 1 All the writers who wrote catalogues of heresies
in the
included under that heading many Jewish sects. While in pre-Christian Judaism they only include divagations from orthodox Judaism, for contemporary times they include all Jews. This is but another instance of their claim to possess
whatever
it is
'
honourable in Old Testament history 2 In occasionally denied that the Jews had ever known
is
.
fact,
God
at all,
for they
.
who suppose
angels
treat
it,
know Him, serving the moon >3 The tendency to

truth and refused
know God, do not and archangels, the month and

that they
heretics,
Jews as
who knew
the
very evident in the apocryphal gospels which began to appear about the middle of the second century. Naturally, the critical period which needed to be rewritten was that immediately following the miracle of the Resurrection, though a later group also attach great importance to the incidents which are alleged to have accomIn its panied the burial and assumption of the Virgin. earliest form the story is found in the Gospel of Peter. After the Crucifixion the Jews are filled with terror and remorse,
is
beating their breasts and saying if these very great signs have come to pass at His death, behold how righteous He was '. They therefore ask Pilate to put a guard on His tomb. In spite of the guard many are witnesses of the Resurrection,
1
'
Pseudo-Ambrose, On Romans, ix, 27; P.L., XVII, p. 139. Cf. Epiphanius and Philastrius. Fragments of the Preaching of Peter collected in Apocryphal
,
y
New
Testament p. 17.

*
.
103
and would believe it if they were not afraid of being stoned J1 by the Jews The next development is that the High Priest, also impressed by the events of the Crucifixion, calls a meeting to examine carefully whether the prophecies really prove that Jesus was the Messiah. The meeting finds that He was; and their decision comes to the ears of Pilate, who sends to them to adjure them to tell him the truth. They admit that He was the Messiah, but say that they have decided to conceal the fact, lest there should be a schism in our synagogues '. They implore Pilate to keep silence. Pilate, however, writes to the emperor Tiberius that the Jews through envy have punished themselves and their posterity with fearful judgments of their own fault; for their fathers had promises that God would send them His Holy One, and when He came, and performed marvellous works, the priests through envy delivered Him to me, and I, believing >2 In the Acts of Philip the scene of them, crucified Him the conversion of the Jews is laid at Athens, and all are convinced except the High Priest himself, who is swallowed up by the earth for his unbelief. The various Assumptions of the Virgin carry on the tradition for several more centuries.
*
In one of the
Priests
',
Prince of the versions of it3 , the struck blind on trying to overthrow the bier,
many
Do we not believe in Christ, but what shall we The enemy of mankind hath blinded our hearts and shame has covered our faces that we should not confess the mighty works of God, especially when we did curse ourexclaims:
'
do?
selves, crying out against Christ
on our children
secretly believe
"
"His blood be on us and
'.
is
to
suggestion that the Jews be found in the Arabic History of the
The same
Patriarchs 4 .
1
is a short step from this to make Tiberius, and ultimately Pilate himself, believe in Jesus, and the emperor propose His acceptance by the Senate as a God. All these stages seem to have been gone through before the time of Constantine. Cf. also
2
Gospel of Peter y vii, 25, and viii. Acts of Pilate, Latin version. It
Gospel of Nicodemus.
3 Apocryphal New Testament, pp. 196, 201, 214. Cf. also P.O., II, the Coptic Gospel of Twelve Apostles, in which Pilate wishes Jesus to be made King, and on the death of the Virgin the High Priest is openly converted.
P.O., Vol.
I,
p. 122; see
Ch. VIII.
104
The bitterness which infects these attacks can be seen from the remark of Justin on circumcision, quoted above, or from the even bitterer sarcasm of Tertullian on the same 1 subject in which he identifies it with the Roman prohibition against Jews entering Jerusalem, and suggests that God ordained it to the end that they might be more easily identified. It would be a mistake to imply that such unworthy bitterness is to be found continually in patristic literature, but it is to be found unhappily frequently, and it is not confined to one or two authors. The attack upon the Jews which is included in the works of Hippolytus begins with
,
the exhortation:
Hear my words, and give heed thou Jew. Many a time dost thou boast thyself that thou didst condemn Jesus of Nazareth to death, and thou didst give him vinegar and gall to drink, and thou dost boast thyself because of this. Come therefore and let us consider together whether perchance thou dost not boast unrighteously, Israel, whether that small portion of vinegar and gall has not
'
me gall to eat, and in my thirst vinegar to drink ". And these things he did endure from you. Hear the Holy Spirit tell you also what return he made to you for that little portion of vinegar. For the prophet says as in the " Let their table become a snare and a person of God: retribution ". Of what retribution does he speak? Mani2 festly of the misery which has now got hold of thee.'
One would never gather from this passage that the giving of vinegar and gall was a service organised by the charitable women of Jerusalem to dull the pain of the
upon the Church's adoption of the Scriptures of the Jews by the assimilation into Christian hagiology of all the heroes and religious leaders of the Old Testament. The mother and her seven sons who braved the
final seal
brought down this fearful threatening upon thee, and whether this is not the cause of thy present condition, Listen with involving thee in these myriad troubles. " Jew, to what Christ says: understanding, they gave
. .
The
punishment!
was
set
1 *
Tertullian, Answers to the Jews,
Ch.
iii;
A dversus Judaeos,
P.L., II, p. 642.

p. 789.
Chs.
and
v; P.G.,
X,
THE PARTING OF THE WAX'S

.
105
wrath of Antiochus 1 were already celebrated by a feast in the fourth century 2 The story formed the basis of Origen's Later on at different great Exhortation to Martyrdom. periods the others were added, until the memory of every reputable character in the Old Testament was associated with the past of the Church rather than with the ancestors
of contemporary Jews. Abraham, Lot, Moses, Miriam, Aaron, Job, Shemaiah, Elijah, Elisha, Tobit, and all the prophets were included. The intention of the Church in thus adopting these figures is well expressed in the commentary which accompanied the account of the Maccabean
martyrs, and was read on their feast day in the Jacobite
Church:
It is right that thou shouldst know, O listener, that our Christian fathers have established the rule to hold a
'
memory of the just of the Law of Torah, that we that we have not abandoned the work of the know may
feast in
of Torah by rejecting it, but by passing to a better admit the just of the old Law in their rank: we do not honour them more than the fathers of the New who have done much more than they.' 3
Law
Law.
We
The great characters of the Old Testament having been thus removed, this is the final resume of Jewish history as the Church presented it to her congregations:
Moses they cursed because he proclaimed Christ, Dathan they loved because he did not proclaim Him; Aaron they rejected because he offered the image of Christ, Abiron they set up because he opposed Him; David they hated, because he sang of Christ, Saul they magnified, because he did not speak of Him; Samuel they cast out because he spoke of Christ, Cham (?Egypt) they served, because he said nothing of
Christ;
'
Jeremiah they stoned while he was hymning Christ,

II Mace. vii. Both Chrysostom and Gregory of Nazianzen preached sermons in their honour, and the latter refers to their feast as not yet very widely observed, so that we may presume it to be a fourth century innovation. 8 SAJ. in P.O., Vol. XVII, p. 712.
2 1
106
Ananias they loved while he was opposing Him; Isaiah they sawed asunder shouting His glories,
Manasseh they glorified persecuting Him; John they slew revealing Christ,
Zechariah they slaughtered loving Christ, 1 Judas they loved betraying Him.'
people has ever paid so high a price for the greatness religious leaders, and for the outspoken courage with which they held up an ideal and denounced whatever seemed to them to come short of it. If they had known the use that was to be made of their writings, then, indeed, many of the prophets might have obeyed literally the sarcasm of the Jews, had they been Irenaeus when he says that cognisant of our future existence, and that we should use
of
its
No
own
these proofs from the Scriptures which declare that all other nations will inherit eternal life, but that they who boast themselves as being the house of Jacob are disinherited from the grace of God, would never have hesitated them' selves to burn their own Scriptures 2
.
IX.
THE CREATION OF AN OFFICIAL ATTITUDE TO CHRISTIANITY
It might be thought, and it is claimed by certain writers, that the fact that Christianity now stood out as a Gentile 3 religion would have led to a change in the Jewish attitude , and apparently it did lead to a certain softening of their
attitude to the Jewish Christians 4 .
The
for this ignoring of Gentile Christianity reference to it in the Talmud 5 during the
strongest argument is the paucity of
centuries, the centuries during

1
second and third which the Church com-
Pseudo-Cyprian, Adversus jfudaeos, C.S.E.L., III, iii, p. 135. Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, III, xxi; P.G., VII, p. 946. 3 E.g. Israel Abrahams in Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels > Vol. II, p. 57: The synagogue had far less quarrel with Gentile Christianity, . . . and Christianity as such was not the object of much attention, still less of attack*.
2
'
*Travers Herford, op. cit., Div. 2, Chu II. 6 The only reference found by Travers Herford is the one which refers to the time of the triumph of the Church in the fourth century >
op.
cit. t
p. 210.
1OJ
plained bitterly of the attitude of the Synagogue to Christianity. But in spite of this silence it is impossible to believe that the Jewish authorities, at least in the diaspora, were uninterested in the progress of Gentile Christianity. No organised group could be expected to pass over in silence
libels on their history as were being produced Gentile by theologians. But there was a still more serious reason. The Synagogue had by no means ceased from its missionary activity. Even in turning to the Gentiles, the Church was competing for influence over the same personalities. In the second century it is possible that a much smaller proportion of its converts came from the ranks of the metuentes Deum % for the Christian no longer had easy access to the synagogue; but the type of pagan likely to be attracted by either religion was the same. Though the terms which they offered it were different, both offered a life of
such perpetual
'
upon
discipline
and of hope, and the promise of future happiness. Both emphasised morality, and fought against the corruption
of the surrounding world. The extent to which proselytism was encouraged by the authorities of the Talmudic period has been much discussed, and the remark of Rabbi Helbo, a Babylonian who taught in Palestine in the third century, has frequently been quoted as
though
it
were
final
'.
a scab to the skin
A detailed study of the evidence,
a proselyte
is
as harmful to Israel as
how-
times ever, suggests that the quotation of this remark four in the Talmud, and the stories of Shammai's hostility to
because general opinion prospective converts, are inserted was against them, and that throughout the period in which the Babylonian Talmud was being composed, the main In a detailed Jewish opinion was in favour of proselytism. comes to of Rabbi chief the Israel France, M. Levi, survey, There is no doubt that in its attitude this conclusion. towards proselytes there are two tendencies in Judaism. Nor is it questionable that those in favour of proselytism were more powerful outside Palestine, in- the diaspora. It is also probable that the missionary volunteers in the diaspora were not recruited from among the rabbis. It is therefore not surprising that in rabbinic literature there are unquestionable traces of the tendency hostile to these conversions. What is surprising is to find so much evidence of the opposite
*
108
view.
THE CONFLICT OF CHURCH AND SYNAGOGUE Was
the favourable tendency the stronger of the two? Yes; unquestionably. But in a particular milieu, that of the note is almost Hagadists, or preachers. Among them the In preaching, the tendencies are not always consistent. opposed to each other as they are in the legislation. One note alone dominates the Palestinian Midrashim, that shapeless collection of popular sermons spread over several It is the attitude of those who proclaim the centuries. the father of proselytes. Now, where of Abraham, example does one find the ideal of a religious body, in its corpus juris or in its preaching, in its canon law or in its literature? Is the spirit of Christianity to be found in the gospels or in the Leges Visigothorum?' 1 There were throughout the
first
centuries
many
half-way houses from Christianity to
to suppose that something in them was due to the activity of contemporary Jews, and not only to the written word of the Bible. If the Jews were still interested in making converts in the Roman world, it is obvious that they must have been ready with detailed answers to the Christian approach to the same individuals. These answers would be of two kinds, a state-
Judaism, and
it is fair
ment of the Jewish interpretation of passages in the Old Testament used by the Christians, and comments upon the New Testament from a Jewish standpoint. There is evidence in the Talmud for both of these answers, and traces of them
can also be found in Christian
literature.
The Messianic
belief having passed into a definition of the doctrine of the Trinity, most of the Talmudic texts deal rather with the
assertion of the unity of God, than explicitly with the claims of the Christians about Jesus. For in this way the denial of
the claim to divinity of Jesus was involved without direct reference to it 2 . In the Church of the fourth and later centuries the Hebraic interpretations of disputed passages of prophecy were well known, and the commentaries of Jerome are full of them. The interpretation of a passage accepted as genuine by both sides was not the only issue. Jews and Christians disputed as to what the actual text contained. The Jews did not accept the Christian translations,
L and LI. Travers Herfbrd, op. cit., pp.239 and 291 ff.,and the homilies against the Jews of Jacob of Serug, passim.
*R.E.y., Vols.
2

and few Christians could read Hebrew. The
109
interpretation
of the passage of Isaiah referring to the Virgin Birth was, naturally, the most hotly disputed of these passages, but even as early as Justin others existed1 Just as Christians show a knowledge of post- Christian Judaism, so also the rabbis show a knowledge of the New Testament and of the details of the life of Jesus. The gospels are known as Aven-gillayon ' by Rabbis Meir of Jabne and
. '
an offensive pun meaning revelation of sin or falsehood of blank paper 2 There is a discussion reported as to what shall be done with external books ', which would doubtless include primarily Christian books. Rabbi Meir says that they are not to be saved from the fire, but to be burned at once, even with the names of God in them. Rabbi Jose says that on a week-day the name of God ought to be cut out and hidden away. Rabbi Tarphon invoked a curse on himself if he did not burn the books, names of God and all 3 While the references to the life of Christ are few in the Talmud, they are inevitably insulting. Jesus was the
Jochanan.
is
'
'
The word
'
'
illegitimate child of a soldier called Panthera. He performed had learnt in Egypt. His miracles by magic, which After His death, which was a legal condemnation in which
He
He was given every chance to prove His innocence, His body was stolen by His disciples in order to invent the story of the Resurrection4 He was a deceiver of Israel and His teaching was evil. The Talmud and Midrash have little more than this, but it is evident that common Jewish stories went far further, and that all the main elements of the Sepher Toldoth Jeshu were in existence from a very early date. There are explicit references in Origen to some of the stories. Jesus collected a band of malefactors around Himself, and with these He lived the life of a bandit up and down Palestine 5 More references are to be found in Tertullian, who speaks of the libels on Jesus as the son of a carpenter or
'
'
'
Trypho,
xliii
and
Ixxi-bndii.
Cf.
H. A. Hart
in the
Expositor,
Nov. 1905. *T.B.Sabb.,

3
W. M.
116, a, foot. Christie in J.TJS., Vol.
XXVI,
p. 361.
4
8
Travers Herfbrd, pp. 35 and 51. Strack, pp. 18-46. Origen, contra Celsum, I, xxxii, xxxviii, and Ixii; P.G., XI.
JIO

.
furniture maker, the destroyer of the Sabbath, the Samaritan n Eusebius expresses his disgust that possessed of a devil when a writer belonging to the, Hebrews themselves [Josephus] has transmitted from primitive times in a work of his own, this record concerning John the Baptist and our Saviour, the Jews should proceed to forge such memoirs
*
passage he is referring to is that which many now think to be original and not an interpolation. In any case, it existed in the
against
them
?2
The
alluding to Christianity
copies of Josephus in the fourth century. There are also many references in the Talmud to the >3 As the Judeo- Christians under the name of Minim ' with associated the word found is often Minim word
*
.
'
it is probable ', which means traitors or betrayers, most of the bitterness against them is to be associated with the war under Hadrian, when the Jews were forbidden to study the Law and the Judeo- Christians were accused of betraying those who did to the Romans. In the Gentile Christian the Talmud shows practically no interest. It is, however, one of the most serious charges made by Tertullian and Origen that the Jews stirred up the pagans against the Christians The former makes the general statement that the synagogues were the seed-plot of all the calumny against us >4 Origen is much more explicit and says that Celsus has acted like the Jews, who when Christianity first began to be preached, scattered abroad false reports of the Gospel, such as that Christians offered up an infant in sacrifice, and partook of its flesh, and again that the professors of Christianity wishing to do the works of darkness used to extinguish the lights, and each one to have sexual intercourse with any woman he chanced to meet '. These calumnies, says Origen, have long exercised, although unreasonably, an influence over the minds of many, leading those who are alien to the Gospel to believe that Christians are men of such character, and even at the present time they mislead some, and prevent them from entering into the simple intercourse of conversation
Mosarim
that
'
'
Tertullian, de Spectaculis, xxx; P.L.,

I, ix, 9;
I, p.
662.
*Ecc. Hist.,
3
4
P.G.,
cit.,
XX,
I,
p. 105.
Travers Herford, op.
and Strack, pp. 47-80.

p. 579.
To
the Nations, I, xiv; P.L.,

with those
J1
.
III
who are Christians It is, of course, impossible to deny that individual Jews may have taken a share in spreading such calumnies against Christians. But
before accepting this picture given by Origen and Tertullian
as generally reliable, it is necessary to consider the evidence on the other side. Although this is negative it is extensive.
We
complete Apologies addressed to the pagan world during the second century 2 ; in other words, the century of the greatest Jewish unpopularity, and in which it would have been a telling argument to
eight
possess
no
less
than
'
Two of people? the authors who wrote Apologies also wrote against the Jews. All of them mention the unpleasant accusations made against the Christians. But none of them ascribe the accusation to Jewish sources. Yet these apologists come from all parts of the Christian world Asia, Rome and Africa and all wrote in the second century. But in addition there is positive evidence that the libel did not come from Jewish sources. Justin speaks of it to Trypho, and asks him if he has believed it; and Trypho replies: These things about which the multitude speak are not worthy of belief. Moreover, I am aware that your precepts are so wonderful and great that I suspect that no one can 3 Athenagoras, in his Plea* for the Christians , is keep them' still more definite. When he says that it is not wonderful that they should get up tales about us such as they tell about their own gods ', he is clearly implying a heathen source of the statement4 It is also significant that these statements have almost always to be searched for in odd corners in writings which have nothing to do with the Jews. They are not to be found in the many writings addressed to them. While, then, no man can prove that no Jew ever repeated them, it is clear that the evidence is against the accuracy of the statement of Origen that the main source of the more unpleasant accusations against the Christians was Jewish. On the other hand, it is not to be expected that when a Jew
say:
'
Why
do you believe the Jews of
'
all
'
Contra Celsum, VI, xrvii; P.O., XI, p. 1334. By Aristides, Justin (2), Minucius Felix, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Tatian and Tertullian.
2
Trypho, Ch. x.
Op.
*.,
Ch.
xxxii.
Cf. Ch.
ii ff.;
P.G., VI, pp. 894 and 964.
112

it
was asked
load
his opinion on the Christian Church he should with praises; and if we possessed copies of addresses given by local Jewish preachers, it is probable that we should
find
in
them plenty of uncomplimentary

c
references
to
Christianity.
Altercations written yield astonishingly little the discussions which must have information upon precise They are arranged to give the frequently taken place. victory to the Christian or to the Jew, and the arguments of
The
'
the other side are given little weight. Only in one Christian Altercation does the Jew make a really good stand, and that is the seventh century Altercation of Gregentius and Herbanus 1 But that the Jew was not without ammunition is shown en passant in two stories in the Acts of the Martyrs. From these it appears that one Jewish defence was to claim a superiority of their miracles over those of the Christians. After Donatus, bishop of Istria, who was martyred in Egypt, had made a great apologetic speech which had led to the conversion of seven philosophers, eleven lawyers, and two hundred and eighty-two others, the Jews began to make trouble. When Donatus spoke of the miracle of the raising of Lazarus, they admitted it was a miracle, but claimed it was inferior to one reported in the Old Testament. Christ had been alive when He raised Lazarus, but the very bones In the same of Elisha had performed a similar miracle 2 strain, when the martyr Romanus at Antioch is about to be burnt, the Lord sends a miraculous storm to quench the fire in case there are any Jews standing about who might compare the event contemptuously with the safety in the flames of the Three Holy Children 3 It would appear that the latter event was a strong point in Jewish apologetic, for there are many other references to rival miracles as evidently designed to put it in the shade. Saint Maris, who converted Persia, where the original miracle took place, had a special furnace constructed,
.
.
.
through which he walked

the fire*. See Ch. VIII, Section V. II Kings xiii, 21. *A.S., May, Vol. V, p. 145.
2 1
twice,
and then began
to extinguish
'An.
Boll., Vol. IV, p. 99.

It is a
113
disputed question whether there are relics of long discussions between Jews and Christians in the Talmud.
Naturally,
when
a discussion
is
referred to, the
Jew wins,
but according to Dr. Marmorstein, a full discussion is to be found in Sifre, which bears out the evidence of Christian
To which he (the Christian) replies I will create a new heaven and a new earth. (Is. Ixv, 17.) Master of the universe, I look with repentance on the places where I have sinned, and I am ashamed, as it is said: Consider thy conduct in the valley, and recognise what thou hast done. (Jer. ii, 20.) But he replies: every valley shall be exalted, and every hill shall be brought low. (Is. xl, 4.) Master of the universe, my name still survives. But he: I will change it, as it is said: They shall call thee by another name. Master of the universe, Thy name is spoken of with those of idols. But he: I will make to disappear the names of Baals from their mouth. (Hos. ii, 19.) Master of the universe, hast thou not written: If a man repudiates his wife and she leaves him to marry another. And hereplies: I have written " if aman ",but of me it is said: I am God and not man. (Hos. xi, 9.) Are you separated from me, Israelites ? Is it not written: Where is your mother's bill of divorcement, by which I have sent her away? Where is the creditor to whom I have sold you?
:
method followed. One day the community of Israel will say: Master of the universe, my witnesses are still living (and can testify in my favour), as it is said: This day I take the heaven and earth to witness. (Deut. xxx, 19.)
writers as to the
'
'
By the last sentence of this somewhat confused battle of texts, the victory of Israel in the encounter is evident 1 There is also evidence of discussions with Christians held 2 by Rabbi Hoshaye of Caesarea, a contemporary of Origen and by Rabbis Simlai and Tanhouma at Antioch. But more complete than any references in the Talmud is a Genizah 3 fragment which gives the anti-Christian polemic with a directness which no censor of the Talmud itself would
.
Friedmann, fol. i3ob> quoted from A. Marmorstein in It should be added that other Jewish scholars see in this passage only a discussion between a saddened Israelite and his God. Even so it may have been the memory of Christian propaganda which saddened him and framed his questioning.
Stfre, ed.
R.E.J., Vol.
LX.
J.Q.R., Vol. Ill, p. 357Article by Dr. Krauss in R.E.J., Vol. LXIII, p. 63.
114
have allowed to survive. The actual fragment is late, for it includes a reference to the dishonour of riding on an ass which must belong to either the Mahomedan or Byzantine periods, when Jews were not allowed to ride on horses. But the material it contains is likely to go back to the beginning. Various items in the life of Jesus are discussed. His attitude to His parents and their disbelief in Him are contrasted with the commandment to love father and mother. Moreover, it is absurd to say that God could have a mother. Jesus Himself says that He was a man, and He was known in Nazareth His pure humanity is proved by His sufferings upon the Cross, by the fact that He fasted, and that He was tempted by the devil. Somewhat irrelevantly it is then pointed out that a young ass would not be strong
as an ordinary individual.
ass
enough to bear a man Christian tradition insisted that the had never been ridden before apart from the dishonour
of riding an ass at all. As to His divinity, the author insists passionately on the unity of God, and asks how it is possible that if the heavens could not contain His glory, He could be contained in the womb of a woman? The two lines of argument, that the miracles of the
Old Testament are superior to those of the New, and that the personality of Jesus was inferior to that of the prophets, are joined together in a speech of the Jewish High Priest in one of the apocryphal gospels 1 There it is pointed out that
.
whereas the prophets worked more wonderful miracles than Jesus, they did not preach a new law, they did not speak in their own name, and they did not call themselves God. Jesus, on the other hand, did everything for ostentation, abused everyone else indiscriminately, and showed throughout a character inferior to the best of the prophets. If we compare the situation of the Jews and the Christians, we can see that it is probable that the Jewish attack on Christianity would be less violent than that of the Christians on Judaism. The Christians were claiming the promises in a book which was composed of promises and denunciations. The denunciations, therefore, must belong to the
Jews. But they, on their part, were only compelled to adopt a negative attitude, the refusal to accept the Christian claim as to the person of Jesus, and though this naturally involved
1
Hebrew Gospel
of
Matthew, A.S., Feb. 24.
115
disputing His perfection and the two miraculous events concerned with His life, the Virgin Birth, and the Resurrection, there is not much evidence in these first centuries that
their attack
went further. The stories contained in the Sepher were in existence, but apparently not widely known. For one reference to it (in Origen) we have a dozen or more to the purely negative approach, that Jesus was not what the
Christians claimed
Him
to be.
X.
It
INFLUENCES OF CHRISTIANITY ON JUDAISM
well be that there was a subdued note in Jewish apologetic during the second century, the century of the triumphant Christian apologists, and that even if we had as much material from the Jewish as we have from the Christian
may
side,
faith.
we should still find fewer violent insults to the opposing
For Judaism had been more severely shaken by the tragic events from 70 onwards than is generally realised. Though in the end rabbinical teaching not only survived,
but succeeded in doing more than salving a wreck, yet
inevitably the terrible failures of those years tried severely the faith of the simple and unlearned. Doubtless, too, the growing arrogance of the Christian Church and its obvious
successes
his
would not only nerve the Jew to greater efforts on behalf, but would also cause him to cast wistful eyes at those doctrines which seemed to enshrine the rival
own
Christianity. The doctrine of forgiveness and the mediatorial power of Christ, so potently preached by the Church, must have caused anxious searchings in many Jewish hearts. Origen tells us that in his day Jews told him * that as they had no altar, no temple, no priest, and therefore no offerings of sacrifices, they felt that their sins remained with them, and that they had no means of obtaining pardon' 1 Dr. Marmorstein, in a close examination of numerous rabbinic texts of the third century2 , has found ample evidence of this preoccupation with the question of how to
power of
Innumerable achieve forgiveness apart from sacrifices. solutions of varying spiritual value were proposed. Some
1
Ham.
on Num., x, 2; P.G., XII, p. 638.
R.E.J.,
LXXI,
p. 190.
Il6
said that the blood of circumcision
was itself a sacrifice, others that Elijah offered continual sacrifices in heaven; yet others offered more deeply spiritual explanations to comfort the faithful, and stressed the redemptive value of suffering a natural development in a century so full of suffering for the Jews. Others took the line that prayer and repentance
in themselves creative of forgiveness, teaching which Judaism has retained.
were
which
is
the
Still more interesting was the attempt to provide an alternative mediator to Christ. Rabbis of the second and third centuries found a parallel to the Cross in the sacrifice
of Isaac. In the book of Jubilees, which

sacrifice of Isaac is said to take place
is
pre-Christian, the
on the fourteenth day of Nissan, the day of the Passover, and to be a type of the 1 Post- Christian Jewish writers associate paschal lamb his sacrifice with the ceremonies of forgiveness of Rosh Hashanah; and the horn that is blown is symbolically connected with the horns of the ram caught in the bush. In one of the prayers of that day Israel demands that the merits of the sacrifice of Isaac cover it and save it from the consequence of its faults. As Abraham suppressed his feelings as a father, so they appeal to God to forgo His righteous anger. Rabbi Jochanan (Palestine, third century) makes Abraham say
.
the descendants of Isaac are guilty of transgressions remember the sacrifice of Isaac and have * >2 when the In another version Abraham says, pity descendants of Isaac are in danger, and there is none to intercede for them, be Thou their defender, remember the J3 sacrifice of Isaac and have pity . Isaac is called the expiator of the sins of Israel 4 and emphasis is laid on his
when
.
and
evil actions,
'
'
a detail which is not explicit willingness to be offered up in the Biblical narrative 5 . Rabbi Isaac says that at the
moment all the angels marvelled at his acquiescence and interceded with God that he might be spared 6 .
1
2 3
Chs. xvii and
xviii.
Ber. Rabba, 56. Ps. Rabb. t

Taanit, 6sd. Cant. Rabba,
I.
XXIX,
i.
4 6 6
I, 14.
Ber. Rabba, 56.
Levi, in R.EJ.,Vol.
LXIV. The Talmudic quotations are
all taken
from the same source.
IIJ
Although no doctrine of the vicarious sacrifice of Isaac has ever been an official part of Judaism, it appears that it is still a favourite subject for sermons in the synagogue. The parallel between Isaac and Jesus is, on the other hand, one which is rarely used by the Fathers. It is used by Origen, and his use of it suggests that he knew it was quoted in the 1 synagogue Irenaeus, Clement and Tertullian, who belong
.
to the
But, considering how apposite the parallel is, it is surprising that it is not used more frequently. It may be that this silence is due to the fact that they were aware that it was used by the
parallel
.
second century, also make use of the
Jews, and that therefore they were unwilling to emphasise the

similarity.
XL RELATIONS OF CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS WITH JEWISH SCHOLARS

Inevitably the borrowings of Christianity from Judaism were of a different kind. The main transference took place in the first century. What Christianity required from its parent religion it had taken at that time. Its spirit in the second century was scarcely such that it would be prepared to admit that contemporary Judaism had anything to teach it. Yet it had to go to Hebrew masters for help in interpreting the Scriptures, and there is much evidence in fathers such as Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Aphraates, Ephraim the Syrian, and above all Jerome, of knowledge which must have been the result of hours of patient discussion. It is impossible to believe that these were never carried on in the tranquil spirit of the student. Many of the writings which are left to us show extensive knowledge of Jewish legend and story which are not included in the Old Testament. Many interpretations given in the endless homilies on the Scriptures of the period show considerable acquaintance with the work going on, side by side with that of Christian scholars,
Horn, on Gen., viii; P.O., Vol. XII, p. 203. Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, IV, 5; P.G., VII, p. 893. Clement, Stromata, II, 5; P.O., VIII, p. 952. Paedagogi, I, 5; P.G.,VIII, p.277. Cf. also Paulinus of Nola, Tertullian adv. Judaeos, x; P.L., II, 626. Ep. XXIX, 9; P.L., LXI, p. 317. Some of these passages are discussed in the article of Levi.
2
Il8

.
1 in the rabbinical schools
The
accusation
made
that the
Jews
falsified texts,
accurate texts discussions of the passages concerned. Christians also needed Jewish teachers for learning Hebrew and Jerome complains that they charged a great deal for their lessons. But if all relations were such as a first
and the contrary determination to get from the Jews, inevitably imply contacts and
reading of the literature which remains would suggest, it is doubtful if any Jew would have consented to teach a Christian at all. Eusebius 2 refers to the Jewish teachers of his time as people gifted with an uncommon strength of intellect, and whose faculties have been trained to penetrate to the very heart of scripture '. Doubtless in many of the discussions which took place the Jew gave as good as he received, and even won the victory. There is an air of reality about the remark of Zacchaeus in discussion with * Athanasius ', who has taunted him with the loss of Jerusalem, that insults are not a serious form of argument >3 It is reasonable to assume that, since human nature is generally better than it appears to be, this was a protest which did not need constant repetition from either side.
' '
'
'
XII.
JEWS AND CHRISTIANS
practice their common attitude to the surrounding paganism must often have drawn them together, and their common interests must often have been more important to ordinary
folk than the disputes of the theologians.
So far it has been mainly polemic and apologetic literature which has been discussed, but it is obvious that there must have been many day to day contacts between Jews and both Jewish and Gentile Christians when they did other things than hurl abusive texts at each other's heads. In daily
days every
pocket.
1
man
Even in those did not live with a book of proof texts in his
Krauss
in J.Q.R. for Oct.
See
articles of S.
1892, Oct. 1893,
and
Jan. 1894.
i; P.O., XXI, p. 952. Dispute of Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, and Zacchaeus, a teacher of the Jews, edited by F. Connybeare, Oxford, 1898. The dialogue is probably a re-edition of the second- century dialogue of Papiscus and Jason.
*Prep. Evan., XII,

8
119
Though there is no evidence of Christianity adopting any practices of post- Christian Judaism, yet relations with
contemporary Jews were continual, and are shown by the number of centuries which it took to separate the Jewish Passover from the Christian Easter. It was not until the time of Constantine that a formal decision was taken, and even in later centuries councils had frequently to prohibit Gentile Christians from celebrating Easter on the same day as the Jews celebrated the Passover. In other matters also it is evident that many, apart from Christians of Jewish birth, were powerfully influenced by the teaching and practice of the Synagogue. Though this provoked the furious denunciation of such bishops as Chrysostom1 it is significant that he has no definite moral charges to bring against the Christians who were involved, and it seems to have been fear of Jewish influence which caused his violence more than anything else. Jerome refers to Christian women using phylac,
teries for covering religious objects as
reverence 2
The importance
to observing Jewish dates 3 and of differences between heretics
a mark of special attached by many Christians is a frequent cause of abuse
such as Novatian and
the Catholics.
and what
Of Jewish life at this period comparatively little is known, is known suggests that there was nothing special to distinguish it4 It was in no way specialised as it was in
.
the mediaeval ghetto. Various professions are referred to casually, but there is no suggestion of special importance attaching to the reference. Jerome refers to the wealth of the Jews of Palestine, but as he also says that it is legitimate to relieve the wants of poor Jews from Christian alms if there Chrisis anything over, they were obviously not all rich.
tianity
very but neither in their social status nor in their attitude to the
1
2
much
and Judaism,viewed from outside,probablyappeared alike: they were distinguished in their doctrines,
Adversus Judaeos, eight sermons preached at Antioch in 387.
In Matt,
xxiii, 6;
P.G.,
XXVI,
p. 174.
much later dates than this to prevent Jews and Christians from celebrating their religious feasts together.
3
There
is
frequent conciliar legislation at
Cf
of
men by any other mark
Justin, Trypho, xvi :
You are not recognised among the rest than your fleshly circumcision*.
*
I2O
heavily weighted for ritual and later for political reasons in favour of the Christians. Judaism was still making proselytes in the second and third centuries, but there were difficulties which more than compensated for its doctrinal simplicity. The confused and quarrelsome theology of the early Church must have been a great moral hindrance, but the link between Judaism and the nation of the Jews was a greater one. Christianity at least made no distinction between clean and unclean, and had not yet rites which were an unlearnable comwas plication to those who were not born in them. There probably also a real difference in their attitude to their Judaism proclaimed, indeed, that God missionary task. forgave sin, but Christianity proclaimed that God redeemed
sinners.
heathen world. There is no evidence of any emperor or governor being favourable to one and hostile to the other. He might persecute the Christians for the crime of atheism, which was not a crime allowing of persecution for the Jews. But that implied no special affection for the Jews. Even Julian, though to begin with he liked the Jews because they offered sacrifices, ended by disliking them as heartily as he did the Christians. To each other they were still rivals for the conversion of the pagan world around them, but there the scales were
Yet even so the Church never really ceased to fear the rival influence of Judaism, and the contact of Christians with Jews. As late as the thirteenth century in Poland the Charter of Boleslav of Kalish provoked violent of protestations from the clergy because of the danger settling Jews among the newly converted Poles. It is significant that the first law which the Church imposed upon the newly Christian empire was the prohibition to the Jews to
considered more a danger than a blessing.
make converts, and from this time onwards Judaism became more and more a closed faith until proselytes came to be
CHAPTER FOUR
THE PART PLAYED BY THE JEWS IN THE PERSECUTIONS

The material for a study of the part played by the Jews in the various persecutions which Christians endured during the early centuries is to be found in the lives of the martyrs. Acta ', Vitae and Passiones ' of her heroes were early collected by the Church, and from the fourth century to the Middle Ages they formed one of the most popular elements of Christian literature. Every church possessed its collection, and many national and local churches had their own special group of saints, and wrote and rewrote their lives 'with The collection of these different lives was advantages'. undertaken by many writers from the eighth and ninth century onwards, and their scientific study began in the seventeenth century with the work of two savants, Ruinart, who published a collection of Acta which he considered worthy to be counted historical, and Bollandus, who undertook the much greater task of collating all the material which existed in the different collections and individual narratives, and of producing a critical study of the lives of all those who were commemorated in the calendars of the Roman and Greek Churches. This work has been going on ever since, and the Acta Sanctorum of the Bollandists is the main repository for the study of the lives of the martyrs. It has now reached the saints commemorated in the middle of
* '
'
November. The Acta Sanctorum may be taken to contain the traditions of the western churches and of the Greek Orthodox
tions in Syrian
Church. In the eighteenth century the study of the collecand other western Asiatic languages was the and undertaken, Syriac Acts of the Persian martyrs and were published Syriac versions of the lives of western martyrs
122
by Assemani. Since then much has been published in those languages, but there will only be quoted in this chapter those oriental Acta which are accessible in European languages and in Latin, through the publications of the Bollandists and of the Patrologia Orientalis. The former have published a number of separate documents and the latter have published the complete Synaxaria of the Armenian Church and the Jacobite Church, and are in process of completing the Synaxaria also of the Ethiopian and Georgian Churches, In addition to this collection of sources, certain modern
studies are of great assistance. Hagiology is a special science of its own, and in order to know what to expect and how to
understand the different Acta, whose historical value differ considerably, the two books of Hippolyte Delehaye are The five volumes of P. Allard on the indispensable. persecutions in the Roman empire give the general frame-
work
for the study of the individual Acta,
Labourt,
Uhlmann and Funk do
and the works of the same for the persecu-
tions in Persia. In addition there are certain works professing to deal with the Jewish responsibility for the persecutions, which are cited rather as a warning than for any objective value they possess. There are generalisations on Jewish malignancy in the introductions to the Acta of most of the saints referred to in this chapter (e.g. A.S., Nov., I, p. 33, para. 63,
Austremonius), and a long introduction on the same lines in the volume quoted of Leclercq. In addition there is a very one-sided and at times inaccurate study by Rosel. Otherwise the references are to be found scattered through the general works on Church history.
PART PLAYED BY JEWS IN PERSECUTIONS
123
LIST OF BOOKS
Ancient Sources
ACTA SANCTORUM
ASSEMANI, S. E.
Vol.
I,
Antwerp, 1643
continuing.
Ada Marty rum

dentalium.
Orientalium et Occi1748.
Rome,
ANALECTA BOLLANDIANA
EUSEBIUS
periodical Bollandists.
publication
of
the
The Martyrs of Palestine. P.O., XX.

Greek Acts of the Persian Martyrs under Shapur II. In P.O., Vol. II.
DELEHAYE, H.
LE SYNAXAIRE ARABE
JACOBITE
Ed. Rene Bassett, in P.O.
Aug. 29
Oct. 28
Dec. 27 Feb. 25 May 26

Indices
Oct. 27 Dec. 26 Feb. 24
25 Aug. 28
May
In In In In In In
Vol. I. Vol. III. Vol. XI. Vol. Vol. Vol.
XVI. XVII.
XX.
LE SYNAXAIRE ARMENIEN DE TER ISRAEL
Ed. G. Bayan and Prince Max of Saxony, in P.O. In Vol. V. Aug. ii Sept. 9 In Vol. VI. Sept. 10 Oct. 9 In Vol. XV. Oct. 10 Nov. 8 In Vol. XVI. Nov. 8 Dec. 8 In Vol. XVIII. Dec. 9 Jan. 7 In Vol. XIX. Jan. 8 Feb. 6 In Vol. XXL Feb. 7 Aug. 10
SYNAXARIUM ECCLESIAE In Ada Sanctorum. CONSTANTINOPOLITANAE Propylaeum

.
November,
124

Ed.
I.
LE SYNAXAIRE
ETHIOPIEN
Guidi, in P.O.
May
26
June 24
July 8 Aug. 6 Aug. 7 Sept. 12
Nov. 27
Dec.
1 1
In In In In
Vol. I. Vol. VII. Vol. IX. Vol. XV.
LE SYNAXAIRE
GEORGIEN
Ed. N. Marr, in P.O., Vol. XIX.
Modern
ALLARD, P.
Studies
Histoire des Persecutions des premiers Stales. 5.vols. Paris, various dates.
DELEHAYE, H.
Les Passions des Martyrs

Litteraires.
et les
Genres
Brussels, 1921.
Les Legendes Hagiographiques. Brussels,
1903.
FUNK,
S.
Die
Juden
in
Babylon
200-500.
Berlin, 1902
and 1908.
LABOURT, M.
J.
Le
Christianisme dans F empire Perse sous la Dynastie Sassanide. Paris,
1904.
LECLERCQ, H.
ROSEL, G.
Les Martyrs.
Tom. IV.
Paris, 1905.
Juden undChristenverfolgungen in den erstenjahrhunderten. Munster-i-W.,

1893.
UHLMANN,
F.
Die Christenverfolgungen in Persien

unter der Herrschaft der Sassaniden. Zeitschrift fur die Historische Theologie, 1 86 1.

I.
12$
THE VIEW OF MODERN SCHOLARS AND THEIR AUTHORITY IN PATRISTIC LITERATURE
The
statement that the Jews were directly or indirectly responsible for the persecutions which the Church endured in the early centuries is a commonplace among nearly all
is
modern historians. Even where no such specific accusation made they are described as perpetually inspired by the most violent hatred for the Church and the individual Christian, waiting only for an opportunity to do them some
harm. Harnack boldly asserts that the hostility of the Jews appears on every page of Acts from chapter thirteen onwards. They tried to hamper every step of the Apostle's work among the Gentiles; they stirred up the masses and authorities in
every country against him; systematically and officially they scattered broadcast horrible charges against the Christians which played an important part in the persecutions as early as the reign of Trajan; they started calumnies against Jesus; they provided heathen opponents of Christianity with literary ammunition; unless the evidence is misleading they instigated the Neronic outburst against the Christians, and as a rule wherever bloody persecutions are afoot in later days, the Jews are either in the background or the foreground ?1 . The Bollandist Joseph Corluy, in an introduction to the Me of Abdul Masih a saint whom another Bollandist, Paul Peeters, explains as of very doubtful authenticity writes in
Judaeis ad Christianos persequendos nullum imperatorum decretum necesse est; sed debacchante
his polished Latin:
*
persecutionis procella ipsi saepe maiore quam ethnici furore in Christianos ferebantur. Cuius furoris in Perside, >2 H. tempore Saporis regis, plurima exempla fuerunt the in his voluminous of devotes history Martyrs, Leclercq, entire introduction to one volume to a description of the 3 M. AJlard, in his implacable violence of Jewish hostility
.
Dom
five- volume history of the persecutions,
whenever he has the
1 The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, English Ed., Vol. I, p. 58 ff. For a Jewish criticism of Harnack, see R.E.J., Vols. LI and LII, UEsprit du Christianisme et du Judaisme. 2 An. Boll., Vol. V and Vol. XLIV. On the persecution under Shapur,
see below, Section VII.
*Les Martyrs, Vol. IV.
126

to the
possibility, attributes the active role 1 passive to the pagans .
Jews and the
If the accuracy of this estimate of the role played by the Jews in the first three centuries of the life of Christianity were challenged, its defence would be found in the allusions to Jewish hostility which are scattered throughout patristic literature. Justin, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and others You have not all imply that such was indeed the situation. now the power to lay hands upon us on account of those who have the mastery ', says Justin to Trypho, but as often as
'
'
And again in his Apology to so.' Antoninus Pius, he says that 'the Jews count us foes and enemies, and like yourselves they kill and punish us whenever they have the power, as you may well believe. For in the Jewish war which lately raged Barcochebas, the leader of the revolt, gave orders that Christians alone should be led to cruel punishments >2 Tertullian's famous remark: the
you could, you did
*
.
synagogues, the sources of the persecutions ', is equally clear**. A reference which is even more impressive, because it is an aside, lies in the attack of an anonymous author upon the Montanists. When he disallows their right to be called Christians, because they and their women prophets have neither been scourged in the synagogues of the Jews nor stoned by them, he is clearly implying that such treatment was, to some extent at least, the lot of the orthodox Christians4 Finally, Origen, in commenting upon the * thirty-seventh psalm, remarks that the Jews do not vent their wrath on the Gentiles who worship idols and blaspheme God, and they neither hate them nor rage against them. But '5 against the Christians they rage with an insatiable fury It would be possible to collect further references, but these are sufficient to express the point of view of the writers of the third and fourth centuries.
.
*Histoire des Persecutions, Vol. Vol. IV, p. 256.

*
I,
p. 308; Vol. II, p. 374
and p. 353;
Trypho, xvi; and First Apology, xxxi; P.G., VI, p. 375.
On
*
5
Quoted by Eusebius,
Origen,
the Scorpion's Bite, x; P.L., II, p. 143. Eccl. Hist., V, xvi, 2; P.G.,
XX,
p. 469.
On
Ps. xxxvi; P.G., XII, p. 1322.

IL
If
127
THE NATURE OF THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE

of the persecutions of the
Church only from such should certainly be justified in accepting such quotations as proof of a steady and malicious hatred on the part of the Jews, even though they are all, as it were, statements of the prosecution, and we are ignorant as to the other side. But, in fact, we possess thousands of documents of varying value dealing with the sufferings of individual martyrs and several histories of particular persecutions. These have on the whole been neglected by modern historians, with the exception of the contemporary story of the martyrdom of Polycarp, and the three martyrdoms of 1 It is therefore essential, Pionius, Pontius and Philip before examining the basis of the charge made by Justin, Tertullian and the others, to see what evidence these documents offer us on the subject. It was a very early custom for Churches to keep a record of their local heroes, and to commemorate them upon a parliterary sources
we knew
we
ticular
local,
day of the year. At first such commemorations were but soon Churches began to acquire names from their
neighbours, and to communicate to them their own lists. In some cases letters relating the storms through which they had passed were sent out by the Churches themselves to a considerable number of others. famous example of this is the letter describing the persecution at Lyons and Vienne recorded by Eusebius2 The next stage was for the great metropolitan churches to make general collections, and to introduce some uniformity into the different local celebrations3 At first such lists contained little more than names. But monastic writers began to embroider them with all kinds of wonders and miracles, so that it is possible for many different versions to exist of the fate of the same martyr.
1 There must be some common source from which Juster, Frey and others quote these three cases. It is evident that it is not the coincidence of original study of the Acta, for two of them are of doubtful authenticity, and none of them prove any Jewish initiative in the martyrdom of the
saints concerned I
* 8
Eccl. Hist.,
V,
i;
P.O.,
XX, p. 409 ff.

two books of Delehaye
in
history of martyrologies see the the bibliography to this chapter.
On the
128

this rested
When
upon a basis of a contemporary written the main traits can be followed through all the document, embroideries, but where no such document existed, all was left to the fancy of the scribe, and to popular imagination. Even these, however, are not entirely without value for our
purpose, for in inventing what he imagined to have happened, the scribe was bound to some extent by popular memory of what was likely to have occurred. To-day we have any number of such collections. The main local and general western collections and the Greek menologies have been collected together in the huge volumes of the Bollandists, the Acta Sanctorum a work which was begun in the seventeenth century and, working by months, has now reached the middle of November. But it is not the first of its kind. It is itself based upon collections made in the early and late Middle Ages as well as upon small More recently this local collections and individual acts. collection has been supplemented by the discovery and gradual publication of the lists and stories of eastern Churches which in many cases enshrine quite an independent tradition.
,
III.
JEWS IN THE ACTA OF THE FIRST CENTURY

in these collections as they
Embodied
stories
now
exist are
many
which to-day are recognised to be entirely fabulous, to be nothing more than novelettes produced in some
pagan origin, or due simply to the ingenuity of the writer. A group of persons around whom such legends were especially likely to cluster are those characters mentioned in the New Testament about whom the earliest Church, with its lack of interest in history, preserved no authentic details. It is this last class which contains by far the largest number of references to Jewish malice and to Jewish initiative1
.
monastic centre, based upon a local legend possibly of
of the Apostles provides the starting point for these legends. They recall a time of frequent and, at times, violent hostility to the preaching of the Gospel. They
The Acts
record, in the person of Stephen, one act of summary execution, and in that of James, the brother of John, an
1
See Appendix Five.

official, if
129
capricious, death sentence. It was not an unreasonable presumption that other persons of the period suffered the same fate as these two. But the stories are not entirely confined to the compass of the experience of the Acts of the Apostles. It was a tradition that the Apostles themselves and their earliest followers had evangelised the whole of the ancient world, and had visited regions in which Jews and Greeks were not the natural actors. These two traditions can occasionally be seen in the stories of the same person. In most of the western accounts the apostle Andrew was killed by Herod at Bethlehem 1 But according to the Ethiopian Church he was murdered by a heathen priest at Patras 2 Aristobulus, the brother of Barnabas, was supposed
.
Jews and Greeks, to have been persecuted by them, and finally to have met his death by stoning at their hands 3 The Armenian Church, while agreeing as to his career, states that he died in peace4 But western traditions make him the first bishop of Britain, where he died
.
to have preached to
peacefully
While thus the two tendencies, the tendency to copy actual events of the Acts of the Apostles and the tendency to illustrate the breadth of the missionary work of the first generation of Christians, are at times found concentrated in the same person, there are others of whom the tradition is consistent throughout, and can even be traced back to fairly early sources. The death of James the Just, the first bishop of 6 and the story is Jerusalem, is mentioned by Eusebius substantially the same in the records of all the Churches. In view of the important position which he occupied, the accuracy of the story may be accepted. The same is possibly true of the death of Barnabas, whom all agree to have been 7 But killed in Cyprus by, or at the instigation of, the Jews more mean does not historicity, any necessarily unanimity
, .
A.S., Feb. 10.

P.O., Vol.
2
3
XV,
15.
15.
p. 583.
SA.J., March 15.
4
5
6
7
SA., March
A.S.,
March
Ecd.
Hist., II, xxiii; P.O.,
A.S., June
XX, p. 196 ff. n; SAJ., Dec. 17; SA., June n.
130
than diversity denies it. One would expect all the martyrologies to agree with the straightforward account in the Acts of the Apostles of the death of James, the brother of John. But they do not do so. In one account he was accused to the Roman governor of preaching another king ', and was stoned at his order1 The name of the scribe who accused him and was afterwards converted by him and shared his third ascribes his death is given in another martyrology 2 death entirely to the Jews 3 But none of these stories cast any real doubt on the original narrative of the Acts of the Apostles. That unanimity is also not necessarily convincing is illustrated by the stories clustering round Longinus, the centurion who pierced the side of Christ, and was impressed by His death. The gospels do not identify these two soldiers, and in any case give neither a name. The name Longinus cannot be traced to within centuries of the occurrence, and if the soldier had actually been a prominent convert it is surprising that he does not figure in any of the second century apologies to the Roman authorities as an objective and Roman proof of the story which they had to tell. But he is a familiar figure to the hagiologist, and his story with a wealth of detail is given in almost every collection4 with surprisingly little variation, if we accept the fact that the accounts derive from two versions of the same original, in one of which the malice of the Jews is shown in their bribing him to make sure of the death of Jesus, and in the other in their bribing Pilate to ensure the death of Longinus 5 . Yet all these accounts do not end by creating a conviction that such a Longinus ever existed. With all this confusion it would seem at first sight a hopeless task to seek for a historical basis for any of these stories, and a dangerous assumption to claim them as an adequate foundation for any conclusion. But if we pass from the consideration of individual cases to an examination of them as a group of stories we find certain traits which are
*
. .
1 *
S J., Feb. 4 S A., April 30.

S.C., Oct. 9.
A.S., July 30.

6
March
15;
SA., Oct.
16;
SAJ., July 18 and Nov.
i;
S.E.,
Cf.
SAJ.,
July 18, with SA., Oct. 16.
13!
inherently probable, and which may well portray an accurate historical tradition as to the period which followed the If they were original preaching of Paul to the Gentiles. based on the Acts of the Apostles only we might expect the preaching of the next generation to have been exclusively directed to the Gentiles. But all the Acts which record to Greeks record also have preaching preaching to Jews. seen that it is historically probable that the Church continued to exist within the Synagogue for some thirty years after the death of Paul, but this is not a natural deduction from the Acts of the Apostles. There is also more variety in the stories than there is in the mythical acts of later martyrdoms. In the latter case the routine of torture and miracle follows through with a monotony of accumulated horror. The same replies, the same events, succeed each other again and again. It would be simple if we could explain this variety by attributing to all the stories a single author who sought variety for artistic effect. But this solution is ruled out by the contradictions of the stories which have been already discussed. What we have is a number of stories alike in general line and differing in detail. One man was killed by the Jews; another was killed by the pagans; one suffered much persecution but finally died in peace; and another
We
encountered
travelled
little
opposition during his ministry.
One
from place to place. Another worked all his life in a single spot. Here it was at the hands of the mob that he met his death, there it was at the hands of the officials. If we leave out the names the stories are inherently probable. It is a well known tendency of popular tradition to become more and more precise, to give the exact spot where each event occurred, and to give a name to every actor. This is what seems to have happened in this case. There was an
authentic tradition that the first preacher of Christianity was stoned by the Jews. Who was he? It was natural to seek a name among the unallotted personalities of the New Testament. Two local Churches selected the same name. Hence the different lives attributed to the same man. If such an explanation be accepted, then it can be said that the first period of the expansion of Christianity was marked by many and violent conflicts between the new preachers and the Jews in whose synagogues and under whose auspices they

preached. The remarks of the patristic authors find confirmation in numberless local traditions. To say more is difficult until a scientific study of the earlier Acta of the different Churches has been undertaken. But one detail may be pointed out. Even a superficial reading of the hagiologies reveals the superiority of the historical sense of the western and Greek Churches over the imagination of the eastern groups. Even where they invented they gave a sufficiently probable account for it to be possible to debate whether an event did or did not take place. The eastern Acta pay no attention to historical or even moral probability. In the cases under consideration it is to be noticed that nearly all the descriptions of official action by governors and prefects are in the eastern narratives. The western speak of mob
action, and it is just what we should expect at this stage. So far it has been suggested that these stories as attached to the names of particular persons have no historical value,
but that as a group they embody an authentic, if anonymous, This view finds strong confirmation if we consider them as a particular group within the wider frame of the Acta as a whole. We are then faced at once with a most
tradition.
illuminating fact. These stories cease entirely at the beginning of the second century. Acta attributed to the first century number at most a few hundred among the thousands of individual records. In them we find a very high proportion of stories ascribing definite hostility to the Jews, culminating sometimes in the death of the saint. From the beginning of the second century onwards there is almost complete silence as to any Jewish responsibility for, or even interest in, the fate of the heroes of the Church. Apart from a genuine historical tradition, it is difficult to explain so precise a fact. Its accuracy is, however, confirmed by the form in which Justin speaks of the persecution which the Church endured at Jewish hands. You cannot harm us now, but as often as you could you did ', describes exactly the situation presented 1 by the Acta Before considering the reliability of the later statements, of Tertullian and Origen, it will be well to consider other references to Jewish action in the persecution of Christians as recorded in the lives of the martyrs.
*
.
22;P.L.,XXV,p.
Cf. Gaudentius, Sermo,IV; 1001.
P.L.,XX, p. 868; and Jerome, On Amos,
i,

IV.
133
STORIES SHOWING JEWISH INITIATIVE IN THE PERIOD FROM HADRIAN TO CONSTANTINE
By far the greater mass of Acta refer to the period between that already considered and the peace of the Church under Constantine, the period covered by the great general Roman persecutions culminating in the ten years* reign of terror
under Diocletian. Responsibility passes completely from the Jews to the Romans. Such stories as there are of Jewish action belong, in character, to the earlier and unsystematic violence of the individual and the mob. This is well illus-
by the fate of the first missionary bishop of the Chersonese, Basil. He was consecrated at the beginning of the fourth century by Hermon, patriarch of Jerusalem, together with some others, to preach among the heathen of that region. The success of his preaching earned him the hostility of the adherents of the older worship, and of the Jews who were numerous in the region. Stirred up by the latter, a mob of pagans seized the bishop and dragged him 1 His successor, through the streets until he expired Antherius, is said to have applied to Constantine to obtain On the death of soldiers to drive out his murderers 2 for a the inhabitants sent new Antherius, bishop. When he arrived the unbelievers demanded a miracle to prove his
trated
.
claims. The bishop walked through fire in full canonicals, and the Jews and unbelievers were thereupon converted,
*
the soldiers with the other Christians receiving them at the font '. This last detail suggests that the narrative covers a forced conversion, exacted as the penalty for the murder of Basil. story of a somewhat similar character comes from
Clermont in Auvergne. Bishop Austremonius, who is said to have been of the first century, but was more probably of the beginning of the fourth, was particularly successful in preaching to the Jews of Clermont, and among his converts was Lucius, the son of one of the Jewish elders. The father, enraged at the disloyalty of his son, seized a knife, and killed both the bishop and his own child3 Ubricius, the successor
.
A.S., March 7; S.C. Sel., S.A., April 20. A.S., April 3.
March 6;
S.A.J.,
March 6;
SJV.,
March7.
134

and secured
.
of Austremonius, convened the authorities,
a decree that all the Jews should either accept baptism or, if 1 The they remained in Clermont, be sentenced to death actual narrative contains various miracles which are clearly
embroideries.
action of the
The most serious difficulty is, however, the Roman authorities. Ubricius is said to have so
acted in 312,
when Judaism was a lawful religion, and not only unrecognised but actually being was Christianity
persecuted. Either the incident occurred after the peace of the Church, or it is a memory of the similar action of Avitus Even if this be the case, in Clermont in the sixth century 2 the original story remains probable enough. The action of Ubricius may be only what a scribe thought ought to have
.
happened for so great a crime. But a family tragedy of such a character is not an unknown occurrence in the history of
religious differences.
Two other cases are of particular interest in view of the continual legislation of the Church against the possession of Christian slaves by Jews. Matrona, the slave of a Jewish mistress at Salonica, was found by her to be a Christian, who refused to enter the synagogue. In a rage she beat her, and
locked her
still
up
in a
room without food or water. Finding her
her so severely that she died. The was an story exceedingly popular one, and the versions of it are manifold3 A similar case, though less well attested, is reported from Portugal. No time is given, and it may belong to the fifth or sixth century. But in its essence the story is the same as that of Matrona. A slave, Mancius, is found by his Jewish master to be a Christian. He is severely beaten, but refuses to alter his religion. Finally, he dies under the
recalcitrant, she beat
.
punishment
Indignation at the conversion of a Jewish family to Christianity is said to have been responsible for the death of a group of Jews at Leontini in Sicily. Christian, Alphius, was being with some companions led to prison by the Roman soldiers, when he was observed by a Jew who
'
A.S.,
Nov.
i.
*
3
See Chap. IX, Section VIII.
A.S., March 15; S.C., March 27; S.A.J., Sept. 7; S.A., (A.S. gives more than one version.) 4 A.S., May 21.
March
21.
135
was possessed of a devil '. The Jew implored Alphius to cure him. Alphius did so, whereon all his family became converted, and were stoned by the other Jews for their 1 Here again there is nothing improbable in the apostasy
.
action of the epileptic or otherwise spiritually in throwing himself at the feet of Alphius is not incredible. The glamour which must have attached itself to a Christian going to his fate is exactly the kind of
story.
The
diseased
Jew
any one in such a condiconversion of his family in gratitude, and the indignation of the other members of the Jewish community are equally within the bounds of probability. The final case which can be quoted rests upon much less certain evidence. Paul, Valentina, and Thea were Egyptian Christians who were taken for sentence to Diocaesarea, a predominantly Jewish town. There they were tried by Fermilian and sentenced to death. In his last prayer, Paul prayed for the Jews and pagans. This is the account given by Eusebius in the Martyrs of Palestine*. There are two other accounts of the incident. What we may call the Constantinople tradition adds that when they were brought before Fermilian, a mob of Jews stirred him up against them, and ' * secured their conviction. The Armenian tradition goes further. The accused lived in Diocaesarea, and did not come to the notice of Fermilian until the Jews denounced them3 It is reasonable to take these three versions as an admirable example of the growth of legend. If we take the account of Eusebius as the authentic narrative, which we are justified in doing, we can explain the reference to the Jews in the prayer of Paul by the fact that their presence must have been apparent to him. But the Constantinopolitan scribe felt that there must have been some special nobility in this prayer. It became, therefore, the reply of Paul to the Jewish clamour at the judgment seat for his death. The Armenian goes one further. It was still nobler, for it was by the Jews that he was originally denounced as a Christian.
power
to exercise an influence over
tion.
The
'
1 2
SJL, April 9Ch. viii. P.G., XX,

S.C.
Sel.,
p. 1489. July 16, and SA., Aug. 5.
136
V.
CASES OF JEWISH HOSTILITY IN THE
CROWD
In addition to these cases showing definite Jewish initiative in securing the death of the martyr, there are also a few cases in which the special hostility of the Jewish members of the crowd which watched the different stages of the trial and
It is execution are commented upon by the narrator. the cases from them to already quoted. distinguish important It is indeed reprehensible to gloat over the condemnation of a fellow man for his religious convictions. But it is much more revolting to be the actual betrayer of him to the authorities, or the direct cause of his death. The most familiar, and the earliest of these cases, is the 1 martyrdom of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna in 155. In this for no is there Jewish any of the events. responsibility story Polycarp is betrayed by a Christian, a member of his own
,
household,
who
confesses his whereabouts
under torture.
persuade him
The Roman
authorities
make every
effort to
to sacrifice, but when Polycarp refuses, he is taken to the stadium to be examined by the pro-consul. The latter again
urges every argument upon him, without success, and finally condemned to be burnt. When the proclamation Polycarp is * the whole multitude, both of the heathen and is made, Jews who live in Smyrna, cried out with uncontrollable " fury: This is the teacher of Asia, the father of the Christians, and the overthrower of our gods, he who has been teaching " many not to sacrifice, or to worship the gods '. The Jews can hardly be considered to have taken the active part in that cry, but the decision having been taken, it appears that there are no materials prepared, and the crowd begin to collect wood from the neighbouring shops and baths, the
*
Jews
in
it
especially, according to custom, eagerly assisting

'.
them
Polycarp is then placed among the faggots, and bound, but the fire refuses to touch him. (Some writers think that this miraculous element is a later interpolation.) As he is not burned, a soldier kills him by stabbing him. The Christians wish to take his body, but the Jews persuade the father of
1
A.S., Jan. 26.
The
is to
letter of the
Church of Smyrna describing the

the writings of the Apostolic
death of Polycarp
Fathers.
be found
among
the
PART PLAYED BY JEWS IN PERSECUTIONS 137 Roman official in charge to refuse to give it up. The
*
centurion, seeing the strife created by the Jews the body on the pyre and it is consumed. The whole event is said to have taken place
great Sabbath
',
',
places
*
upon
the
whatever the author may mean by the phrase, and this is used as an argument by Dr. Abrahams to discredit the whole story, for, he argues, if it were such a day, Jews would neither be found frequenting the theatre nor carrying wood 1 If it could be presumed that all the Jews of Smyrna were orthodox, the objection would be valid. But it has this value, to show that it was in no way an official Jewish mani.
festation against Polycarp. It * lewd fellows of the baser sort
was the action of Jewish such as once persecuted Paul. Such as it was, the Jewish action was not responsible for any of the events of the actual martyrdom. The betrayer was a Christian. The condemner was a Roman, the actual executioner a soldier. At most, Jewish initiative appears in the disposal of his dead body. Everything would have happened, had no Jews been there. Their presence accentu',
ated but did not cause the tragedy. hundred years later Smyrna was again the scene of a martyrdom in which the Jews were said to have taken part. In the persecution in 251, under Decius, one of the victims is Pionius. He has been warned of his approaching martyrdom in a dream, and is performing a last act of worship with his fellow Christians when Polemon, who is the official charged with seeing that every citizen offers
sacrifice, comes and arrests him and his companions. They are marched to the forum, where, as it is again the Sabbath, there is an immense crowd and many Jewesses. Polemon
invites Pionius to sacrifice,
and he refuses. It is to be imagined that the crowd make a hostile manifestation at this refusal, for Pionius turns and addresses them in these words:
'
You who
rejoice in the
beauty of the buildings of
Smyrna, and delight in its adornment, you who are proud of your poet Homer, and you Jews also, if any of you are present, listen to these few words. For I hear that you laugh at those who have sacrificed, whether they have done it voluntarily, or yielded to compulsion, and in both cases
1
Studies in Pharisaism t Vol. II, p. 67.
138
you condemn what is weakness as deliberate infidelity. You should obey rather the words of your teacher and
master Homer,
who
says that
it is
a sin to insult the dead,
and that none should war against the blind or the dead. And you who are Jews should obey the precepts of Moses, who tells you that if the animal of your enemy fall, you should help it and not pass by. And Solomon likewise
says that you should not rejoice over the fall of your enemy or the misfortune of others. Wherefore I would rather die and suffer any torment, however awful, than renounce either what I have learnt or what I have taught. I say this to you Jews who dissolve in laughter and mockery
at those who voluntarily or involuntarily sacrifice, and who laugh at us also and shout insultingly that we have been given too much licence, I say to you that if we are enemies, we are also men. Have any suffered loss through us ? Have we caused any to be tortured? Whom have we unjustly persecuted? Whom have we harmed in speech? Whom have we cruelly dragged to torture? Such crimes are very different from those of men who have acted in
Who made them ungrateful? Who compelled them to return in heart to Egypt, or, when Moses had ascended the Mount to receive the Law, to say to Aaron: " Make us Gods, and a calf to go before us " ; and to commit all their other sins? You pagans, perhaps, they may deceive,
but they
will
fear of the lions. There is an immense difference between voluntary and involuntary sin. There is this difference between him who is forced, and him who of his own free will does wrong. There it is the will, here it is the occasion which is responsible. And who compelled the Jews to foul themselves with the worship of Belphegor, with heathen Who forced them into fornication rites and sacrifices? with strange women, or into sensual pleasures? At whose compulsion did they make burnt offerings of their own sons, murmur against God, and secretly speak ill of Moses? At whose behest did they forget so many benefits?
never impose upon us.'
In the whole collection of hagiological literature there are few utterances more moving than this defence of the weaker brethren by one who, though he confessed that he loved life,
139
was yet prepared to die for his faith; and it is one of the most amazing abortions of the religious mentality that with models before them of such exquisite and poignant beauty as the story of Pionius, they produced the thousands of morally repulsive Grand Guignol travesties of heroism which deface the whole of this literature. After his speech, Pionius is examined by the pro-consul, who does all he can to save him. But Pionius will not 1 compromise, and is led away to be burnt There is a later, and much inferior, version by Simeon Metaphrastes, who composed martyrologies at the beginning of the tenth century. It contains one detail which is interesting, if it can be considered authentic. The Jews are said to have offered the Christians the shelter of Judaism during the persecution. Naturally, such a solution was unacceptable to Pionius, but one would like to believe that it was some attempt at reparation for the conduct for which Pionius reproached them in words which must have touched the hearts of many, Jews and pagans, who stood in the forum that day. There are in the Acta a few other and briefer references to Jewish hostility among the crowd of bystanders. At the martyrdom of Leo at Patara in Lycia, in the third century, when Leo begins a defence of Christianity, a crowd of irreverent Jews and pagans began to clamour that he should not be allowed to speak 2 On the appearance of Philip, the of that town, there is a of in forum Heraclea, bishop hostile demonstration on the part of the Jews, for, as is usual, some when they see the martyrs pity them, but others grow more furious at the actual sight of them, especially the Jews, according to the scripture. For the Holy Spirit says " through the prophet, they have sacrificed to demons and 3 not to God" There is one more story, dealing with an At Caesarea a incident of the Diocletian persecution. martyr, Carterius, is sentenced to be burnt, and is thrown into the fire. But he remains unharmed in the midst of it. A Jew in the crowd, in a frenzy, seizes a spear and kills him with it. This story is on the border-line of history and myth.
.
'
'
Cf. Les Passions des Martyrs, p. 28 ff. i. A.S., Feb. 18. The Acta are a late compilation. 9 Ibid., Oct. 22. The Acta are late and their reliability is questioned by some. But they are defended by Delehaye, A.B., Vol. XXXI, p. 243.
A.S., Feb.
140
It is

it
only recorded in one martyrology, and the main defence is the originality of the action and the poverty of invention of the monastic novelists 1
for
.
VI.
JEWS IN THE PERSECUTION UNDER JULIAN

is
Such
the record of the Jews in the persecutions which
preceded the peace of the Church. There are two other periods during which their active malevolence is most
frequently alleged. During the reign of Julian there was a brief moment of violent attack upon the Christians. The Acta offer three stories of Jewish participation. There was at Toul in northern France a preacher, Eliphius, who was
always attacking the Jews in his sermons. For this they hated him, and when the opportunity offered, under Julian, they seized him and his companions, and threw them into prison to please the emperor. They then, apparently, forgot them, for they came out of prison again and were arrested by the
Romans and put to death. At Lyons there was a Christian woman, Benedicta, who was brought before a judge, who was also a Jew, who condemned her with gusto because of
2 Both these stories are of exceedingly doubtful authenticity, and only merit mention because of the coincidence that both come from France, and might, perhaps, be considered to gather mutual support thereby. More probable is the story of the soldiers Bonosus and Maximilianus who refused to remove the cross from their standards at Antioch. All that is alleged of the Jews in their story is that when they resisted the effects of torture in the arena, Jews and Gentiles who had come to mock at their " 3 " deaths cried out Sorcerers, criminals
his hatred of Christ
'
'
VII.
JEWS IN THE PERSECUTION UNDER SHAPUR
II
The second case in which generalisations on Jewish malignity

is that of the persecutions under Shapur II in the fourth century in Persia. The situation of Jews and Christians in Persia changed radically at the beginning of the
are frequent
*Ibid., Oct. 16,

3
A.S., Jan. 8, from the Synaxarium Constantinopolitanum. and Oct. 8.
Ibid..
Aug.
2,1.
141
fourth century. Before the peace of the Church the Jews were on the whole unmolested within the Roman empire, and the Christians were similarly unmolested in Persia. But the peace of the Church, and the consequent legislation against the Jews, caused a considerable influx of Jews into Persia, and at the same time caused the Persian Christians to look with more friendship towards Rome, no longer a persecutor but a great Christian state. Two events in Persia itself helped to bring about the attacks upon the Church. The Sassanid dynasty was more fanatically Zoroastrian than
its
which allowed them freedom by minor concessions which did not involve principles. The Christians were not disposed to be so tolerant. More serious was the resumption in 338 of the traditional war with Rome. This increased the friendliness between the Persians and the Jews who were naturally hostile to Rome, and similarly increased the hostility towards the Christians who were with equal reason friendly towards
to retain their religious
for a policy of active proselytisation. to make a modus vivendi with the Magi
predecessor, and abandoned complete religious toleration The Jews were able
Christian
Rome.
Religious intolerance and political bitterness led to a persecution which lasted intermittently for several decades. But authentic references to Jewish participation are limited to a particular moment, and a particular person, Simeon Bar Sabbae, the Archbishop of Ctesiphon, who was executed in 339. The incidents connected with his arrest are frequently and fully recounted. The Archbishop, who was supposed to be a personal friend of the king, Shapur, was ordered to provide double taxation from his community for the purpose of the war. The Jews had also been compelled to pay this tax, and had accepted it. But Simeon refused in a haughty letter to the king. The Jews are said to have prejudiced the king against him by telling him that the Roman emperor would despise any gifts which the king might send him, however costly, and would venerate with exaggerated humility the
tiniest scrap of
paper which came from Simeon.
There
is
obscurity and some contradiction in the exact part allotted to the Jews in this incident, and the natural deduction is that in fact Simeon was engaged in a treasonable correspondence with Rome, and the Jews, or Jews and Magi,
much
142

.
1 betrayed this fact to the king The death of the Archbishop and the general persecution which followed was as much a
political measure as a religious oppression. the sister of Simeon, was also arrested, the
When
Tarbula,
Jews were again
accused of responsibility. Sozomen gives the reason that she was trying to poison the queen, who had Jewish sym2 But other accounts make the queen a Christian3 pathies In any case, there appears to be a widespread tradition that the Jews were concerned in the deaths of these two victims, and in view of their loyalty to Persia, and the probability that Simeon was overtly friendly with Rome, it is not unlikely that the tradition is correct. But apart from these two, the only mention of the Jews is casual. They were 4 present at the stoning of Mar Kadagh and they provided a prison for Sira, a victim of the hostility of the Magi, and used her cruelly while she was under their charge 5 Neither of the stories are particularly trustworthy. No other participation in the persecution which lasted, with intermissions, throughout the long reign of Shapur is mentioned. Two documents which might be expected to contain a reference to general Jewish responsibility, if such existed, are silent on the point. Aphraates, who wrote his Twenty First Demonstration in reply to the Jewish taunt that the Christians ought to be able to work a miracle to prevent their being persecuted, might legitimately be expected to attack the
.
Jews for their responsibility if he was aware of it. But he 6 The other document is the treatise says nothing about it on the martyrs celebrated on the Friday after the Crucifixion of Isai the Doctor, which contains the words/ we pass from the passion of our Redeemer whom the wicked Jews killed, because of the truth of His teaching, to the commemoration
'
.
'
of the confessors
1
whom
the pagans killed for preaching the

t
For references to Simeon, see Sozomen, Hist. Ecd. II, ix; P.G., p. 956; Martyrium Stmeonis in P.S., II, p. 737; Nestorian History in P.O., IV, p. 297; and Assemani, p. 20. Jewish responsibility is not mentioned in the Armenian story (April 13) or the Jacobite (April 14).
LXVII,
*
Sozomen, Hist. EccL, II, xii; P.O., LXVII, p. 964. Cf.P.O.,II, p. 439.
A,S., Nov. 2.
3
4
AJB.,VoI. IX, p. 101.
'A.S.,
*
May
18.
P.S., Vol. I. It was written before the arrest of silence on that point is natural.
Simeon, so that his
143
hope of the Resurrection. The Jews crucified Christ because they could not receive His teaching: the pagans tortured the
martyrs because they could not bear the outrage done to
It would be difficult to find a case where negative evidence is more illuminating, for the feast was established not for the general commemoration of the martyrs, but to commemorate the Persian martyrs in
their idols
?1
particular.
VIII.
JEWS IN THE MYTHICAL ACTS
It is also interesting to consider the role allotted to the Jews in the frankly mythical acts. Mention of them is very rare. In some cases there is clearly a reminiscence of biblical
In the Ada Pontii, which abound in the form of miracle which has no moral value, first the crowd are moved to demand the release of the martyr on observing his immunity from torture, and cry that the God of the Christians is the only God; then the judge himself quails before such supernatural insensitiveness to pain, and finally the execution only proceeds because the Jews cry Kill him, kill the malefactor '. Pontius thanks the Lord for allowing his passion to be like that of his Master, in that the Jews have shouted the same condemnation at him as they once did to 2 At the martyrdom of Pilate, and gracefully expires Isbozetas by Chosroes, the saint is impaled on a cross with a Magus on his right side and a Jew on his left. The Magus desires to become a Christian, and, being accepted, expires. The Jew expresses his willingness to do anything to save his 3 At Nicolife, but is ignored and expires with the others media, during the persecution under Aurelian, the Christians retire from the city. The governor offers the command of his guard to anyone who will reveal where they are concealed. Jew, Simeon, exposes the place and goes by night with a band of soldiers to arrest them 4 .
events.
* .
2 *
Isai the Doctor, P.O., Vol. VII, p. 27. A.S., May 3. And this is one of the cases always quoted.
Ibid.,
Nov.
9.
A.B., Vol. sur s'appuyer J
XXXI. The story is told with

un
pareil
the comment, on n'oserait document pour ajouter a la liste des martyrs de
Byzance
144
Myth, bordering on farce, accompanies the mention of the Jews in the stories of Marciana at Caesarea in Mauretania, and Demetrius at Thessalonica. In the first case the whole house of the Jew who mocked at her in the arena falls upon his head; and in the second, Gentiles came from Athens, Jews from Jerusalem, Manicheans from Mesopotamia, and Arians from Alexandria to slaughter the unhappy victim. But their voyage was fruitless, for a rascally Greek caught him with a spear on the way to his bath, before their arrival1 Myth without the burlesque marks the charming and pathetic story of the little Jewish martyr Abdul Masih. He was a
.
little
shepherd boy in Persia, who fed his flocks in the company of Christians and little Magi. But he was the only Jew, and at his meals he was lonely, for neither of the other groups would allow him to feed with them. He begs the Christian boys to let him share their meal, but they will only do so if he is baptised. This he is ready to accept, and after
a discussion marked by the earnestness of childhood, the Christians themselves baptise him, and give him a gold earring as a symbol, for a free Jew will never pierce his ear. On his return his mother and ultimately his father observe the symbol of his apostasy, and in spite of the pleadings of the other Jews who are present, the father pursues the boy and 2 kills him by the very pool where he was baptised .
little
IX.
CASES OF JEWISH KINDNESS TO
THE MARTYRS
To form a true estimate of the place of the Jew in the minds of those who composed the different histories and myths of the Martyrologies, it is essential to consider also references which do not show hostility. For the Jews are not always monsters in these stories. It has already been mentioned that in one account of the martyrdom of Pionius the Jews offer the shelter of the Synagogue to those who wish to avoid
martyrdom.
It is usually
assumed that this was an invitation
to complete apostasy. But if a Christian wished to apostasise, he had only to offer sacrifice. If it be genuine, it can only
be a
1
real offer of protection, for the
Romans had no
authority
A.S., Jan. 9 and Oct. 8. *A.B., Vols. V and XLIV.
PART PLAYED BY JEWS IN PERSECUTIONS 145 to ask a member of the Jewish community about his religious opinions, and the Jews could cover with their name any one they liked. We know from other sources that there were Christians who adopted this expedient, both in Rome and Persia 1 If it is sometimes related that Jews were among the
.
most hostile elements of the crowd, it is also sometimes mentioned that they showed pity. The tortures to which Theodore of Cyrene was subjected were such that all the the people, Jews and infidels as well as Christians, wept at 2 even at After of Habib the Edessa, sight martyrdom some Jews and pagans took part with the Christian brethren in shrouding and burying his body 3 The life of Venantius of Aries was so beautiful that he was loved alike by Hebrews, Greeks and Latins '*. Such was the memory of Agatha of Catania that Jews and Gentiles as much as Christians venerated her grave 5 There are also three cases in which Christian martyrs are said to have been buried in Jewish cemeteries 6 either with or without the knowledge of the
4
'
'
.
'
'
'
At the least this does not suggest the hostility of the Jewish community concerned. In the mythical acts, while there is almost complete silence as to Jewish hostility, there are constant references to their miraculous conversions by the Saint concerned.
Christians.
X.
ABSENCE OF ANY RECORDS OF JEWISH RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PERSECUTIONS
of their Finally, we have to consider not only the evidence from presence, but also that of their absence, the evidence are there that to claim not is it silence. possible Naturally no other cases in which the Jews are mentioned in the accounts of martyrdoms. Many texts are not yet published or are inaccessible. But it can legitimately be claimed that
1 Cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., VI, xii; P.G., XX, p. 545; Vogelstein, Geschichte der Juden in Rom, Vol. I, p. 35; Funk, Juden in Babylon, Vol. II, pp. 52, 53.
2
3
S A., July 6. Martyrs of Edessa in Euphemia the Goth, by F. C. Burkitt.

A.S.,
Ibid.,
4
5
6
May
Feb.
30.
i.
Agricola and Vitalis at Milan, Nov. 4; Hermes, Aggaeus, and Caius in Dacia, Jan. 4; Vincent and Orantius in Spain, Jan. 22.
146
it is
improbable that even if they add to the amount of evidence we possess, they would substantially alter its character. It is also evident that we cannot expect that every time Jews were present the writer thought of mentioning it. But again, we have sufficient positive evidence to make it improbable that any such general hostility as modern writers assume would have been passed over, not only by those who were accurately recording a single incident, but also by those whose
imagination allowed them to embody in their fiction the main elements of popular ecclesiastical tradition. In view of the number of documents preserved the
argument from silence is, in fact, a very strong one, and it is strongest at the starting point, the persecutions of the first century. Here we have seen that there are a large number of statements involving Jewish hostility and even initiative. But there is complete silence as to Jewish participation in any part of the persecution which is supposed to have
occurred in the reign of Nero. It is usually worthless to quote examples to prove a negative, but in this case, as the number of documents concerned is slight, it may be permitted to refer to the martyrdoms of Hermagoras, Paulinus, Severus, Justus, Orontius, Priscus, the Martyrs of Aquileia, and Hedistus1 They are at least sufficient to prove that no Jewish general responsibility for this persecution was believed to exist. In view of this silence, the argument that the Jews were responsible for the arrest of Christians for burning Rome loses much of its force. It is not an accusation made by any early writer, and it rests upon the assumption that the choice of a victim must have lain between the Jews and the Christians, and that the Jews would have inevitably been selected if they had not had powerful protection at court in the person of Poppaea and others. But so far as we know it is a gratuitous assumption that the Jews or Christians were the only possible alternatives. Nero might equally well have chosen the worshippers of Isis or Astarte for all that Suetonius or Tacitus tell us to the contrary. When we come to the great persecutions of the second and third centuries, we are confronted with the same silence. The cases which reveal Jewish initiative do not enter into
.
1 A.S. July 12 and 28, Aug. 26, Sept. Auctarium).

J
and
3,
and Oct. 12
(in the
147
the category of general persecution. Nor is it that the narratives only begin with the trial of the victim. The method by which he is discovered is usually given. Sometimes he declares himself; sometimes his refusal to sacrifice reveals
him; sometimes he is betrayed by heathen priests. But he is not betrayed by the Jews. The same holds good for perse-
The Jews are supposed to have been particularly friendly with the Arians. They are not recorded as taking any part in the Arian persecutions under the Vandals in Africa, or in any of the Arian persecutions in Europe. They are supposed to have been very friendly with the Arab conquerors of Spain. But they are not mentioned in the stories of the martyrdoms of the eighth
cutions outside these centuries.
and ninth centuries in Mahomedan Spain. They are represented as being permanently and violently hostile to the orthodox Christians in Alexandria, and their participation in the Arian riots in the time of Athanasius and his successor is quoted as evidence of this. But in two long narratives in which it is specifically mentioned that all the inhabitants of
Alexandria took part, they are passed over in silence 1 . Finally, it is clear that in the narratives in which they are mentioned their presence is not considered to be an essential or even important part of the narrative. The martyrdoms of Poly carp and Pionius are found in many collections. That of the Armenian Church is a lengthy account which has clearly used the letter of the Church of Smyrna. But while it states that Polycarp disputed much with Jews, and brought many to the faith, it is completely silent as to the presence of Jews at his death, and actually ascribes to the influence of idolaters the destruction of his body 2 The same Church gives a long account of the martyrdom of Pionius, without referring to the Jews.
' ' .
The Martyrdom
S A., Feb.
23.
of Theodorus, A.S., Sept. 12, and Philip, A.S.,
Sept. 13.
*
Cf.
S A.J., same
date.
148
XL SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

the basis of this examination of the martyrs we can turn back to the generalisations of the theologians which appear to contradict it. Justin has already been discussed, and the evidence which justifies his statement can to a considerable extent also be used as an explanation of the statements of Tertullian and Origen. But the key to the explanation lies in the quotation from the latter. The statement of Jewish hostility in general terms is based on theological exegesis and not on historical memory. It has already been shown how the Christian use of the Old Testament made of The accusation now the Jews an historical impossibility. under consideration is a specific example of this general rule. Origen remarks that the Jews do not vent their wrath on the Gentiles who worship idols and blaspheme God, and
On
'
they neither hate them nor rage against them. But against the Christians they rage with an insatiable fury '. He is
1 commenting upon a passage of Deuteronomy They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; and they
*
have provoked
me
to anger with their vanities (idols)/
As
the Jews were no longer themselves idolaters, Origen interprets this by making them exceedingly friendly with idolaters a statement allegorically necessary, but historically
passage then goes on to say: I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will them to anger with a foolish nation '. The not a provoke * people are Christians, for they are not a separate people. The interpretation requires, therefore, that the Jews shall be very hostile to the Christians. The events of the first century give ample historical justification for the statement. To claim that Origen must be implying immediate hostility at the moment is unnecessary2 Such an interpretation is confirmed by the speech of Pionius, who without any feeling of irrelevance justifies his charges against the Jews by relating events which had happened in a previous millennium, and which bore no relation to Jewish conduct in his time.
inaccurate.
*
.
The
One would
1
expect
him
to mention their action towards
Deut. t xxxii, 21. I.e., 2 Compare his superb Exhortation to Martyrdom, in which no mention of Jews occurs; P.G., XI, p. 564 ff.
On
149
Polycarp, only a century earlier in the same city, but neither he nor the author of his Acta think of the parallel. refer-
ence to the index of almost any volume of the Patrologia will give numbers of accusations of Jewish hostility based
upon quotations from their pre-Christian history and their prophets. It was the natural result of their belief in the verbal inspiration and eternal validity of the scriptures,
own method of allegorical interpretation. take these texts out of their context, and use them to justify generalisations in the modern sense, is to ignore the actual evidence provided by the lives of the martyrs and to produce a distorted picture.
coupled with their
To
The material which these offer allows us to reconstruct with considerable accuracy the sequence of events. The period which immediately followed the Apostolic age and the fall of Jerusalem was marked on the Jewish side by the official determination to oust the Christians from the shelter of the Synagogue. On the Christian side it was a period in which a doctrine of the position of the Jews in the scheme of salvation was being evolved which was so offensive to Jewish
feelings that violent hostility inevitably marked its proclamation. The offence was the greater for the bitter and unsym-
pathetic attitude adopted towards the national tragedies in Palestine, and because of the determination of the Christians to rob the Jews of the one hope left to them, the promises made to them in the Old Testament. In this period we find
documents considerable evidence of the bloodshed which such a situation provoked. A true picture of the situation is a humiliating one for both religions. The charity they showed to others they did not show to each other. It is obvious that the blame lies on both sides. But
in the
while the attitude of each side is regrettable, the attitude of neither side is abnormal. The history of religion offers many unhappy parallels, and the internal divisions of Christians themselves in later centuries have produced far more victims than their first conflict with Judaism. In the second century the situation changed. The Jews were themselves involved in an exhausting struggle with Rome which ended disastrously for them, and the Church was a definitely Gentile institution. It is a period in which * incidents took place occasionally. But if there is anything
'
150
it is their rarity and not their frequency. a steady, deliberate, and unsleeping hostility there is no trace. The time has not yet come when it is a reasonable presumption that Jews will only be motivated by hatred in their attitude towards Christians. Sometimes there was intense local hostility of the kind of which Tertullian speaks when he tells the story of the Jew who paraded through the
abnormal in them,
Of
of Carthage with a placard bearing an offensive At other times relations were friendly. Much, doubtless, depended on the behaviour of the local clergy and rabbis. The theologians of both sides were either hostile or contemptuous towards each other, and in later centuries their persistence prevailed. But in these centuries,
streets
caricature 1
for the rank
and
any overt or
file, special provocation secret act of hostility.
was necessary
for
The
to
universal, tenacious, and malicious hatred referred Harnack, Corluy, Allard and others, has no existence by
in historical fact. The generalisations of patristic writers quoted in support of the accusation have been wrongly The evidence that the Jews took no part in interpreted.
the great persecutions of the second, third and fourth centuries comes not from Jewish sources, nor from inference, nor from later generalisations, but from the masses of contemporary lives of those very martyrs themselves whose deaths are in question.
Tertullian,
To
the Nations,
I,
xiv; P.L., I, p. 579.
CHAPTER FIVE
THE FOURTH CENTURY

There is extremely little to say by way of bibliographical introduction to this chapter. Its material is almost exclusively taken from the great patristic writers of the century, and from the Theodosian Code. Special studies on this period are few. The books of Lenz and Murawski form a striking contrast, the former with his rabid antisemitism, collecting only the most virulent passages of patristic literature to serve as a guide for his unfortunate contemporaries, the latter, a Roman Catholic Bishop, writing an objective and scholarly study of his subject. The work of Lucas contains much valuable material, including special studies of Basil,
He perhaps Athanasius, Jerome, Ambrose and Augustine. emphasises unduly the ascetic side of Christianity, but his insistence on the importance of Jewish propaganda during this century is certainly justified, and the material thereon
is excellently
presented.
152
LIST OF BOOKS
BERARD, P.
S. Augustin et 19*3S. Augustin
les Juifs.
DOUAIS, G.
et le
Judaisme.
versite Catholique,
L'UniLyon, 1894.
LENZ, H. K.
Der Kirchenvdter Ansichten und Lehren fiber die Juden, den Christen in Erinnerung gebracht. Miinster-i-W., 1894.
LUCAS, L.
Zur
Geschichte
der Juden
im IV.
Jahrhundert.
Berlin, 1910.
MURAWSKI, BP.
RAHMER, M.
Die Juden
bet
den Kirchenvdtern und

Berlin, 1925.
Skolastikern.
Die Hebraischer Tradttionen in den Werken des Hieronymus. M.G.W.J., Vols. XIV, XVI and XVII.
THE FOURTH CENTURY

I.
153
THE PROBLEM FACING THE LEADERS OF JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY

moment in the history Though neither were
The
fourth century marks a decisive of both Judaism and Christianity.
born in this century, yet both owe more to its outstanding leaders than to any other similar group of contemporaries, and both are to this day, in many ways, fourth century
The councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, the schools of Pumbeditha and Sura have left an indelible mark
religions.
on their respective faiths. Augustine, Chrysostom, Jerome and Ambrose were contemporaries, and they are not the only names of note in a period which counted also Athanasius, Cyril and Basil. It was also a century of great Talmudic teachers. Kabbah bar Nachmani, who died in 330; Joseph bar Hama, who died in 333; and Abaye, the pupil of both, taught at Pumbeditha. Raba (bar Joseph bar Hama), who died in 352, founded the school at Mahuza on the Tigris.
In the next generation Nahmani bar Isaac, who died in 356, taught at Pumbeditha, and Papa, who died in 375, founded the school of Neres near Sura. After their deaths Sura again became prominent through the presence of Ashi, who died in 427. The sayings and controversies of Joseph and Rabbah, and those of Abaye and Raba occupy a considerable portion of the Babylonian Talmud. Though less distinThe guished, the Palestinian scholars were also busy. patriarchate of Jerusalem was not suppressed until about 425, and during this period the Jerusalem Talmud was also
receiving
its
main contributions.
this intense
activity there was discussion between practically theological Jew and Christian, though most of their work was based upon the same books. As far as we know Jerome was the
In spite of
contemporary
no interchange of
only Christian father who both knew Hebrew and was acquainted with the Talmudic^ -schools and the rabbinical method of argument. He lived in Palestine in close contact with Jews, but it would be difficult to detect in his writings any trace of an attitude to the Jews other than that held by his contemporaries. Sharing the conventional view, he saw only material for ridicule or disgust in their behaviour
154

'
run to the synagogue every day to study the Law, in their desire to know what Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the rest of the holy men did, and to learn by heart the books of Moses and the prophets' 1 I could not tell you how many Pharisaic traditions there are to-day, told by the Talmudists, and I do not know their old wives' tales. Many of them are so disgusting that I blush ' to mention them 2 His idea in learning Hebrew was not to acquire Jewish wisdom, but to be able to confute them with an authority which most Christian scholars, by their ignorance of the language, lacked 3 Though he shows much knowledge of Hebrew exegesis, and often quotes Jewish interpretations, yet he shows very little sign of having ever discussed theological points with his expensive Jewish teachers. While, on the other hand, some Talmudists doubtless knew Greek, and some even Latin, it is not to be expected that they would follow with any detail the interminable controversies as to the relation between the divine and the human in One whom they did not consider to be divine at all. Nor could they follow these controversies
beliefs.
',
.
and
The Jews
he sneers,
'
except at a distance, for neither in Persia nor in Palestine existed great intellectual centres of Christian thought. The orthodoxy of Aphraates would, as we shall see, have horrified
Arians and Athanasians alike. It has already been said that the Judeo- Christians, though they still existed, had lost all influence. Jerome has as much 4 Hellenistic contempt for them as the Jews themselves Jews of the type of Philo had disappeared even more comProselytes who chose Judaism in the third and pletely. fourth centuries did soon the ground of a conscious rejection of the alternative, Christianity, and would not form a bridge between the two. Even in the second century Justin refers
.
to their hostility to Christianity, and later it would certainly have been still greater. So far as the future was concerned
Christianity was a rabbinic Judaism.
1 2
Gentile
religion,
and Judaism was
On
On
Isaiah,
Iviii;
P.L.,
XXIV,
p. 582.
Ep. CXXI; P.L., XXII, p. 1006.

Contra Rufinum,
III, xxv; P.L., XXII, p. 497. Ezekiel xxxviii; P.L., XXV, p. 370; Isaiah xi, 6; P.L., XXIV, p. 150, and Ep. to Augustine, 112; and the reply of Augustine, Ep. 116 in P.L., XXII.
*
THE FOURTH CENTURY The problems
155
facing the leaders of the two religions were also entirely different. Christianity was faced with the immense task of imposing moral and intellectual standards on the happy-go-lucky pagan Roman world. Judaism was
attempting to find a new basis for survival for its own community' without either land, central authority or Temple. The solutions found or attempted thrust them still further apart. The Christian authorities, presented by Constantine with the empire as their playground, were in no easy position. The laws whose passage they secured may seem to us unduly harsh. Their attitude towards virtuous heretics
for Origen had explained that a virtuous heretic is worse than any other1 may appear to-day to be very remote from
the Christian ideal. The extravagances of the ascetic, the interminable lucubrations on the advantages of virginity, may seem to us repulsive. But before condemning the men who proposed these actions we need to understand what they were attempting to do. Had Judaism had to fight the same battle, she would almost inevitably have used the same weapons. Judaism no less than Christianity insisted on a definite theological belief in God, even if she expressed it for her own purposes in much less theological terms. The early, and primarily Jewish, Christian Church was content with a simple expression of her belief. The Christological discussions of the fourth century were forced upon her not by the inherent complications of her own faith, but by the acuteness and confusion of philosophic speculation among the Greek and Roman intellectuals with whom she came into contact. Yahweh,in such surroundings, would have fared no better than the Trinity. For in spite of much mediaeval Jewish accusation, the cause of all the trouble was the insistence of the Christians that the Church should retain uncontaminated her belief in the unity of God. The same transformation would also have taken place had Judaism, with its quiet and dignified personal morality, attempted to clear out the Augean stables of Roman sexual and stomachic standards. Already the slight contact with
Greek and Roman

produced
1
civilisation in
Judaea and Syria had
ascetic
movements.
The
healthiest-minded
VII;
Jerome's translation of Origen

ff.
On Ezek., Homily
P.L.,XXV,
p.
742
156
Pharisee would have found it hard not to approve of the teaching of Jerome before circumcising an average batch of infants in Rome or Antioch. The extraordinary prohibitions as to episcopal conduct to be found in the decrees of Church councils have no counterpart in Talmudic discusBut neither did sions with all their splitting of hairs. Judaism ever see a man elevated to the rank of Gaon a month after his circumcision. The Jewish community passed with
little
change from generation to generation. With its insistence on the importance of the family, it had little difficulty in handing on its healthy traditional sex morality and its high principles of conduct. The Christian Church had a mass of nominal adherents, often in high official or ecclesiastical positions, who were entirely unacquainted either by environment or tradition with her standards. The effort made by the Fathers compares very favourably with the compromise attempted by the Herodians, and, after all, the morality which the Church was attempting to teach was
Jewish morality, as often supported by Old Testament 1 quotation as by quotations from the Gospels A period of extravagant denunciation of what was not in itself immoral may have been necessary as a counterblast Like enforced Prohibition in to contemporary laxity. America, it may have done as much harm as good. But it was a state of affairs created by circumstances, and not the expression of something inevitably inherent in Christianity. Its persistence has less justification than its original emergence. But its emergence not unnaturally profoundly alienated Jewish opinion, which, having never faced the same
.
dangers since its earliest days, saw no justification for its adoption. Fortunately or unfortunately the Christian Fathers of the fourth century could not attempt to apply the solution of Samuel or Elijah and settle the question by wholesale massacre, a method which was entirely forgotten by the Jews themselves at the time of the rabbinical schools of Babylon. The problems confronting these schools, if different, were no less grave. To find a foundation for survival, with the
1 This comes out in the battle which the Church waged against usury among Christian laity and clergy, and which was based entirely on the Mosaic Law. Cf. p. 192, n. 4.
*
'
THE FOURTH CENTURY

loss of any national centre,
157
Jew
was not easy. The bitterness of the against the Christian was based on his adoption of the promises of the Scriptures, which were all that the Jew had left for his own comfort. To centre a people's life around
a book
was a tremendous
task.
The method adopted by
the
rabbis, to incorporate it into every act of daily life, even at the cost of far-fetched interpretation, was a reasonable and
natural one. But the result was unhappily as repulsive to the Christian as was Christian theological quibbling and ascetic exaggeration to the Jew. The followers of the councils, and the followers of the Talmud were inevitably
poles apart.
II.
THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF THE JEWS
The battle between the two had so far been a battle of words, varied with the occasional violence of exasperation. But the victory of the Church brought a new element into
the struggle. not only of
possessed recognition which the other enjoyed already but, increasingly, of power over the whole executive machinery of the empire. The claim for equal toleration with others which was advanced by the apologists in the 1 days of their suffering , the Church did not grant to others in the days of her triumph. Though argument ceased to be her only weapon, yet the words of Justin or Tertullian are moderate in tone compared with the denunciations from the pulpit of Chrystosom or Cyril of Jerusalem. second change was the widespread adoption of a superficial Christianity by the upper classes of Roman society. This brought into the Church a large membership which was
official
One party to the dispute now became
probably already hostile towards the Jews. The wars of the period from Vespasian to Hadrian had destroyed the popularity which they had previously possessed, and they had, at most, regained a silent toleration, accompanied by a certain watchfulness on both sides. For the Jews had not lost their turbulence, and were still ready to break into open rebellion at a threat to their privileges. Even the presence of their rival, Christianity, at the court of the emperor did not
1
E.g. Athenagoras, Plea for the Christians, Ch.
i;
P.G., VI, p. 889.
158
overawe them, and in the fourth and succeeding centuries there were revolts which needed considerable military force to suppress. This was soil on which the hostility of the Church Fathers found it easy to sow seed. The Jew as he is encountered in the pages of fourthcentury writers is not a human being at all. He is a monster *, a theological abstraction, of superhuman cunning and malice, and more than superhuman blindness. He is rarely charged with human crime, and little evidence against him is drawn from contemporary behaviour, or his action in contemporary events. He is as unreal as the Boche created by the Allied press during the war from 1914^0 1918, and far more abstract. The colourful imaginations of later antisemites, such as Drumont or Chamberlain, at least tried
* *
'
to
they saw
as a menace to contemporary society as Fathers of the fourth century saw no such necessity. In view of the close relations which obviously existed between local Jewish and Christian communities, it is amazing how this myth of Jewish character could so long have passed muster. But certain considerations help to
it.
show the Jew
The
explain, if they do nothing to excuse, its survival. The most important factor was the universal attitude of the time, shared alike by Jew and Christian, to the written word of To the modern critic the fact that the Jews the Bible. reached so high a standard in their conception of the mutual obligations of the community as is shown in the Mosaic Law, and so lofty an idea of God and His relation to the world as
is shown in the prophets, would argue for considerable moral progress on the part of the nation producing these phenomena. But to the student of that time the whole of the Bible was written by God, and human hands had little and human hearts and brains nothing to do with it. This idea did little harm to the Jew, for he still preserved the unity of the Scriptures, with its combination of denunciation and encouragement, of threat and promise. But the moment these were separated and all the promises applied to one group, and all the curses to an entirely separate one, an appalling falsification took place. The Fathers obtained the perspective of a distorting mirror and drew faithfully what they saw. The monstrosity of Israel was evident to them. There was not one single
THE FOURTH CENTURY

virtuous action in her history.
159
She had been a perpetual

all
the wonderful things to separate these from the main strain of the history of the people. The Church might claim all the virtuous actions in the Old Testament for a kind of pre-existent Church, but she could not deny that all the people had been led out of Egypt, guided by day and night across the desert, and into the Promised Land. But their record was one of nothing but disobedience, and their ultimate rejection was almost inevitable from the very beginning. The one mystery which the Fathers never attempted to solve was why, if they were
disappointment to God, in spite of
He had done
for her.
For
it
was impossible
God had had expected them, unrepentant malice and

really like that,
so,
either chosen them, or having done after a career of unchanging and

vice, to accept
His
final revelation
in Christ.
This picture of the Jew was still further coloured and confirmed by their eschatological conceptions. For, if they looked for any change of heart in the Jews as a whole, they expected it only at the second coming of Christ. Even of this they were not quite sure, and Jerome, who gives more attention to Jewish matters than any of his contemporaries, hesitates between three opinions. At times he proclaims with gusto their final and absolute rejection1 At other times he holds that a remnant of them will be saved2 Sometimes he holds a third view, that all will ultimately be saved, and
. .
that after the gathering of the Gentiles all Israel shall be 3 gathered in . Even if this latter was the more commonly
'
'
accepted version, it inevitably created an artificial relationship, for it expected no immediate response from the Jews to any appeal that might be made to them4
.
E.g.>
On
Isaiah, vi, 9, 14; xxvi,

ff.
n; and Ixv,
lix, 19;
13;
P.L.,XXIV, pp.
100,
307 and 665

2
On
Isaiah, xlviii, 22; xlix, i;
and
P.L.,XXJV, pp. 480, 482,
608.
3
On Jeremiah,
It is
xviii;
P.L.,
XXIV,
p. 829.
not surprising that in this uncertainty Jerome at one place * Haec pie quidem dicuntur, sed quomodo cum pathetically remarks: ceteris cpngruant, et consummationis mundi temporibus coaptentur,
difficilis interpretatio est '. For a collection of passages from different authors dealing with the ultimate destination of the Jews, see P.L.,
CCXX,
p. 1004.
l6o

III.
EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA AND HILARY OF POITIERS AND JEWISH HISTORY
The endless repetition of the same epithets, the same charges, and the same crimes can only be explained by this theological and exegetical necessity. The phrase a Jew ', or some
* '
Jews
',
is
almost
it is
rare occasions
unknown in patristic literature. On the when an action of contemporary Jews is

*
mentioned
when
always the Jews ', and more often than not, a specific accusation seems to be made, it is proved
only by a reference to past history. If error be an excuse, then this must be the excuse for those who first framed Christian legislation against the Jews, and for those who by
and writing ultimately persuaded the ordinary people that their picture of the Jew was permanently true, and that any contact with him was a defilement. It is related of Hilary of Poitiers that his orthodoxy was such that he would not even answer the salutation of
their continual preaching
which amazed his biographer. realise that he really believed that before the Law was given the Jews were possessed of an unclean devil, which the Law for a time drove out, but which returned immediately after their rejection of Christ >2 In another passage commenting on Psalm 52, he says that the strong man who scoffs at the righteous is to be applied to that people which has always persisted in iniquity, and out of its abundance of evil has gloried in wickedness. For it was mighty when it was, as a slave, visited by God; when on its account Egypt was struck by so many plagues; when in
a
Jew
*
in the street1 , a fact

it if
But we can understand
we
the three days' darkness
it
did not feel the dark, for the light
was with it; when it left Egypt to its fate despoiled of its silver and ornaments; when it was accompanied day and night by a column of smoke and fire; when it crossed the Red Sea on foot; when it lived on the bread of angels; when it saw the majesty of God descending on the mountain; when it heard His voice speaking from the fire; when it overturned many kingdoms in terrible wars; when it saw Jordan
flow back for
1 2
its
own
passage;
when
xiii,
it
possessed prophets,
ff.
Life of Hilary, P.L., IX, p. 187.

Hilary,
Commentary on Matthew,
22; P.L., IX, p. 993
THE FOURTH CENTURY

when
it
l6l
enjoyed priests for cleansing it from sin and for redeeming its soul; when it deserved to obtain its kingdom. In all these things it was mighty. But ever it was mighty in
when it longed for the flesh-pots of Egypt; when through its addiction to wickedness it preferred an unholy slavery to a holy liberty; when it worshipped the calf; when it cursed Moses; when it hated God; when it vowed its sons as offerings to demons; when it killed the prophets, and finally when it betrayed to the Praetor and crucified our God Himself and Lord, who for its sake
wickedness;
became man. And so glorying throughout all
its
existence in
iniquity, when it was mighty, it was persistently in iniquity that it showed its might 9I . It is upon this background of
Jewish history, which was prepared by the previous centuries, that the Church was to act for many centuries to come. While a more or less violent form of this attitude is to be found in most of the commentaries and writings of the
period, scattered here and there in the exegesis of suitable verses from the Old Testament, its classic expression is to be found in two immense volumes of Eusebius, the Preparatio
2 These two Evangelica and the Demonstratia Evangelica works, the first in fifteen books which have been completely preserved, and the second in twenty, of which only the first ten remain, were written just before the peace of the Church, and completed in 3 1 1 They are of great importance to us, because they constitute the most complete example of the instruction given at this critical epoch in Church In the first book Eusebius history to the pagan world. the and superiority greater antiquity of Christianity proves in comparison with all other religions; in the second he proves the superiority of Christianity over Judaism and the uniqueness of the person of Christ. In so far as the relations between Jews and Christians are concerned, the fundamental hypothesis from which he starts ' c in both books is a sharp distinction between Hebrews and * ' 3 . The Hebrews are the most ancient Jews people in the 4 world, and their religion is the basis of Greek philosophy .
.
.
Commentary on Psalm #, 6; P.L., DC, p. 312. *P.G,, Vols. XXI and XXII. E.g. y Prep. Evan., VII and X; Dem. Evan., I. 4 and XL Prep. Evan.,
162

*
'
But they themselves, though not Jews ', were not Gentiles either. Rather they were from the beginning ChrisThe Patriarchs tians, and led a Christian way of life '. pleased God by their lives, and Abraham, 'in that he lived 1 by virtue ', lived as a Christian and not as a Jew Into this primitive and Christian life of the Patriarchs, for reasons which Eusebius leaves obscure, came Moses, with his special law for the Jews. This law which he introduced was never meant to have any meaning for the Gentiles 2 and he
'
' .
'
himself bears witness to the independent righteousness of * the Hebrews 3 Even for the Jews who lived outside Palestine the law was impossible, since its provisions could not be carried out without a temple4 In his insistence on these points it is possible that Eusebius is implicitly opposing himself to the efforts among the pagans of Jewish missionaries. While Eusebius is thus careful to insist on the partial character of the law, he is equally careful to insist that it was even for the Jews. Throughout only a temporary expedient * the period of Jewish history, that is from Moses to the
' . .
5 Incarnation, Hebrew prophets were continually pointing to the period of its supersession by a new and superior law.
Eusebius
to ask
realises that this attitude
why
might well cause pagans Christians should bother themselves at all with
by copious quotations from the abandonment of the Jewish law, and foretell the utter reprobation of the Jews themselves. It is for these prophecies alone and for the historical conceptions based on them that they are valuable 6
Jewish
literature.
He
replies
the prophets, which
command
Eusebius thus gives a picture of the Jew as negligible rather than contemptible, as a relatively unimportant *
companion
to
the
older
7
.
Hebrew
who
foretold
and
But, equally with Hilary, he was anticipated Christianity the with a complete caricature of world presenting pagan the history of the Jews.
1 *
Dem. Evan.,
I,
vi.
Prep. Evan., VIII; Dem. Evan.,
II.
Dem. Evan.,
iii.
I, ii.
*Ibid., I,
*
prophets are never called Jews. Only the law Dem. Evan., II, III and IV passim. * Dem. Evan., I, i. 7 Cf. e^. Prep. Evan., VII, vi, viii and xi.
The
is
Jewish.
Cf.
THE FOURTH CENTURY

IV.
163
CHRYSOSTOM AND THE JEWS OF ANTIOCH
While in their writings Hilary and Eusebius introduced the pagan world to this strange version of Jewish history,
Chrysostom expressed similar theories with much greater violence from his pulpit at Antioch. In eight sermons which he delivered in 387 he speaks with a bitterness and lack of restraint unusual even in that place and century 1 If it were not for the exegetical background which has already been
.
would be impossible to explain, let alone excuse, Christianity was no longer in any danger. He himself had not, like Athanasius, ever known any persecution from the Jews, and the period of trial under Julian had been very short. Even had they been a menace in old times, the rich and powerful Jewish community of Antioch was now hemmed in, like every other, by numerous imperial edicts issued under Christian inspiration. Moreover, Chrysostom was a man whose character excited the admiration of his If he was hated by politicians for his contemporaries. unswerving firmness, he was loved by the multitudes, and his commentaries on the gospels are still read and studied in the Orthodox Church because of their deep spiritual
shown,
it
his tone.
beauty.
Such was the man who in eight sermons covering more than a hundred pages of closely printed text, has left us the most complete monument of the public expression of the Christian attitude to the Jews in the century of the victory of the Church. In these discourses there is no sneer too mean, no gibe too bitter for him to fling at the Jewish people. No text is too remote to be able to be twisted to their confusion, no argument is too casuistical, no blasphemy too startling for him to employ; and, most astonishing of all, at the end he turns to the Christians, and in words full of sympathy and toleration he urges them not to be too hard on those who have erred in following Jewish practices or in visiting Jewish synagogues. Dealing with die Christians, no text which urges forgiveness is forgotten: dealing with the Jews only one verse of the New Testament is omitted: * Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do '.
1
P.O., Vol.
XLVIII.
164

only explanation of his bitterness contained in the
The
sermons themselves is the too close fellowship between Jews and Christians in Antioch. There is no single suggestion that the Jews were immoral or vicious; no suggestion that Christians were actually corrupted by the contact, either in their morals or their orthodoxy. Only one contemporary event is referred to at all, apart from general denunciations
of the visiting of the synagogue at times of Jewish feast or This was the case of a Christian woman who was taken into a Jewish house to take an oath in a business affair, because the Christian with whom she had to deal believed that an oath taken in the Jewish manner was more binding than any other. What the actual affair was we are not told. To Chrysostom's eyes the crime was that a Christian woman had been taken into a Jewish house, not that she had been seduced or taught heretical doctrine or anything else. 1 It was enough that she had been made to enter the house . There is no material in these sermons for a study of contemporary Jewish life. Events and beliefs of centuries earlier are quoted as though still accepted. On the strength of Psalm xcvi, 37, he states that they sacrificed their sons and daughters to devils: they outraged nature; and overthrew from their foundations the laws of relationship. They are become worse than the wild beasts, and for no reason at all, with their own hands they murder their own offspring, to worship the avenging devils who are the foes of our life 2 . It seems almost as if his hearers in Antioch objected to so monstrous a statement, for in his sixth sermon he returns to the charge, and says that even if they no longer murder their own children, they have murdered the Christ, which is The synagogues of the Jews are the homes of worse3 idolatry and devils, even though they have no images in
fast.
'
'
are worse even than heathen circuses 5 . The very idea of going from a church to a synagogue is blas6 phemous ; and to attend the Jewish Passover is to insult
.
them 4
They
1
2
Sermon,
I,
I,
3.
6. 3.
VI, 2 and
I,
4 5
3; II, 3;
based on Jer.
vii,
u,
etc.
I,
3-
THE FOURTH CENTURY

Christ.
165
be with the Jews on the very day they murdered is to ensure that on the Day of Judgment He will say Jesus Depart from Me: for you have had intercourse with my murderers '*. Some say that the synagogue is hallowed by the fact that the Holy Books of the Law are to be found in it. One might just as well say that the temple of Dagon was hallowed by the Ark being in it, even though the Ark
*
To
2 It is truer to say destroyed the idol to prove the opposite that the fact that these Books are to be found in the syna.
gogues makes them more detestable, for the Jews have simply introduced these Books, not to honour them, but to insult them, and to dishonour them >3 The Jews do not 4 5 worship God but devils , so that all their feasts are unclean God hates them, and indeed has always hated them. But since their murder of Jesus He allows them no time for
'
.
repentance
their worship
.
was of set purpose that He concentrated all in Jerusalem that He might more easily 7 The Jewish pretence that their misfortunes are destroy it due to Rome are not worthy of attention. * It was not by
.
It
their
it
own power that the Caesars did what they did to you: was done by the wrath of God, and His absolute rejection
of you.' 8 It
is childish in the face of this absolute rejection to imagine that God will ever allow the Jews to rebuild their Temple or to return to Jerusalem. Their experience under
9 Julian should convince them of that . When it is clear that God hates them, it is the duty of Christians to hate them
too;
it
and he begins his sixth sermon with a revolting analogy of a beast in the arena, who has tasted blood, and longs for
again.
the Jews, cannot leave off10 for he

,
So he, Chrysostom, having once begun to denounce who has no limits in his
and VI,
8.
III, 5,
I,
5, referring to I 3 I, 5, and VI, 6.

4
I,
Sam.
v.
3,
based on John via, 19.

i.
*I, 6.
VI,
7
IV, 6.
8
*
The whole sermon is an insulting sneer at their misfortunes and exile, and a gloating over the certainty of their damnation. Cf. the sermon That Christ is God: addressed to Jews and Pagans in the same volume.
*
*
VI, 3. V, passim.
10
VI,
i.
l66

' .
love of Christ must have no limits in his battle with those who hate Him1 * I hate the Jews he exclaims roundly, * for they have the Law and they insult it '. But when in the last sermon he comes to address those miserable sinners who had been frequenting Jewish celebrations his tone is unrecognisable. He insists that they must be dealt with gently, for the true attitude to a sinner is * whenever we hear any good of him, to tell it to all; but when we hear any evil or wicked thing, to keep it to ourselves, and do all in our power to change it >2 . It is evident that Chrysostom's Jew was a theological necessity rather than a living person. If he looked different from the actual Jews living in Antioch it was part of the malice of the Jew, one of the snares of the devil, set to catch the unwaryChristian. The comment of a Catholic theologian on these
sermons is worth quoting3 Das Gebot der Nachstensliebe wird man in diesen Reden nicht wiederfinden, und ebensowenig werden solche Reden f ahig gewesen sein die Juden mit Sympathie fur das Christentum zu erfiillen '.
*
:
V.
AMBROSE AND THE BURNING OF A SYNAGOGUE
Midway between the theologian of Gaul and the preacher of Antioch, stands Ambrose, the Christian statesman and bishop of Milan. His attitude to the Jews is also known in full detail from his two letters on the subject of the burning of the synagogue of Callinicum in Asia by a Christian rabble led by the bishop in person4 The details of the incident, and possible provocation by the Jews, are not known. The offenders were punished by the Roman governor, and the bishop was ordered to rebuild the synagogue out of his own resources. This decision was confirmed by the Emperor Theodosius, and came to the ears of Ambrose. The latter at once wrote a long letter to the emperor, in which he denounced this condemnation. After claiming that the accusation is false, or at least unproved, he changes his
.
'VIII, 3. Murawski, op. dt. t Chrysostom. 4 Ambrose, Epistles, Bk. I, Nos. 40 and 41; P.L., XVI, p. 1101 The event took place in 388.
3
ff.
THE FOURTH CENTURY

ground. The emperor is forcing the bishop
either to
167
become
he has the courage to refuse to obey. He then roundly denies that it was a crime at all, and asks the emperor to punish him
if if
it is true that he has not burnt down the synagogue of Milan, it is only by laziness on his part, and the fact that God had already destroyed it Himself. But it would be a glorious act to do so, that there might be no It may be that someone place where Christ is denied '. will come forward and pay for the rebuilding of the
an apostate,
he accepts the sentence, or a martyr
instead, for though
'
this,
synagogue in place of the bishop. If the governor allows then he, the governor, becomes an apostate. In any
case, police obedience
must give way

c
to religion,
and the
synagogue was probably a miserable hovel, and it is ridiculous to make a fuss about a place of unbelief, a home of insanity, which God Himself has condemned '. The Jews paid no compensation for the many churches they destroyed under Julian, and now Christians are going to give them a
new
and they
festival to gloat over, a festival of triumph over Christ, will inscribe over their synagogue the words:
THE TEMPLE OF IMPIETY

BUILT
FROM THE
SPOILS OF CHRISTIANS
empire through ordering the people of synagogue they had burnt, and it is monstrous that Jews who despise Roman law should look to it to avenge themselves. Why should we fear their vengeance in any case? Who will avenge them? God whom they have insulted, or Christ whom they Crucified? Such is the tone in which Ambrose addresses the emperor,
lost the
Maximius
Rome
to rebuild the
'
in his cathedral, in the presence of the emperor, he preaches on the Church and the Synagogue, picturing the richness of the one and the poverty of the other. The emperor asks him if the sermon is preached against him, and Ambrose replies that it is to save him. The emperor states that the action was perhaps severe. The bishop refuses to continue the service until the sentence is annulled.
and the following Sunday,
that he relies
bishop replies says that he will do so. The * on the emperor's promise. Age fide mea responds the emperor, and at last the service is allowed to
The emperor
'
l68
continue. The extraordinary arguments of Ambrose are thrown into higher relief by his own pre-episcopal career. He had himself been a governor. How in those unregenerate days he would have received such arguments as those which he advanced to the emperor, it is difficult to imagine.
VL EPIPHANIUS AND JEWISH BELIEF

fourth writer who is entitled to separate consideration is Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis in Cyprus from 357 to 403. He was of Palestinian Jewish origin, and is supposed to have been converted about the age of sixteen 1 Though his reputation has not survived the test of time, as have those of his three great contemporaries already considered, and though, indeed, he has left no reason why posterity should honour him, in his own day he enjoyed a reputation for holiness and learning second to none of his contemporaries. He was a friend of Jerome and a great patron of the monastic movement, and an enemy of Chrysostom, on the somewhat inadequate grounds that Chrysostom had not condemned certain holders of Origenistic beliefs prior to the meeting of the synod called to hear their defence. To posterity he
.
appears narrow-minded and quarrelsome. His type of piety explains something of the bitterness of fourth-century controversies and the need for the continual disciplinary measures passed by the councils. For him anathema and
excommunications were expressions of faint disagreement or even of the fear that there would be disagreement if he knew what the opinions were of the man he anathematised. He never hesitated to meddle in the dioceses of other bishops, and even ordained presbyters in their dioceses to contradict their teaching2 For our present purpose his main interest is that he was a Jew until adolescence, and that he wrote about Jewish beliefs. Epiphanius was regarded as the great authority on heresy, including therein all false belief, even Greek philosophy. And he wrote a work in which he contentedly confutes no
.
1 It is typical that later ages considered his conversion to have been due to a miracle. On the many versions of the fate of his donkey, see the Acta Sanctorum and Eastern Acta. * See his life by Lipsius in the Dictionary of Christian Biography.
THE FOURTH CENTURY

less
169
than eighty varieties. While he used earlier writers, especially Irenaeus and Hippolytus, much of it is his own observation. In his work he includes four Samaritan and seven Jewish heresies, in addition to three Judeo-Christian sects. The seven Jewish sects are the Sadducees, the Scribes, the Pharisees, the Hemerobaptists, the Nazareans, the
Ossenes, and the Herodians; and the three Judeo-Christian and the Sampseans 1 The heresy of Paul of Samosata can really be considered
sects are the Nazarenes, the Ebionites,
also as
.
coming under
most part worthless, regarding the Jewish and what he says of the Nazareans and Ossenes is derived purely from misunderstood narratives concerning the Ebionites and Elkasites. The accounts he gives of the JudeoChristian and Gnostic sects of the second and third centuries exhibit a marvellous mixture of valuable tradition with 2 misunderstandings and fancies of his own.' In spite of this lack of permanent value they are of importance in that they show the complete ignorance of Judaism of fourth-century Christians even of Jewish origin. Though we have no evidence that Epiphanius was as profound a Hebrew scholar as Jerome, yet he clearly knew some Hebrew, and if he was born of Palestinian Jewish parents, he had some
opportunities of knowing something at first hand about Jewish opinion. But this fact is deduced more clearly from his biographer's statement than from anything in his own
writings.
this heading. sects are for the
His communications
To
to
the
New
Testament account of the Sadducees he

explains next, are said Law c a certain gram-
adds nothing.
The scribes, whom he

'
add in
their interpretation of the
a deduction one imagines from the and admit four or and the four Annanus Moses, Akiba, Judas, interpreters, sons of Assamoneus 3 The Pharisees agree with the scribes, but are much more severe in their discipline, of which he
matical knowledge
name
scribe.
They
are completely legalistic,

.
1 The Samaritan Heresies Epiphanius Adversos Haereses. P.G., are Nos. IX-XIII, the Jewish Nos. XIV-XX, the Nazarenes No. XXIX, the Ebionites No. XXX, and the Sampseans No. LIII.
XLL
Lipsius in D.C.B. mixture of the Mishnah of Judah and the earlier one ascribed to * Akiba. No Mishnah is ascribed to Hananyia. The four sons is unin8
'
telligible.
170
writes with monastic approval. They are ascetics, and believe in the resurrection, and in angels, but not in the Son. Their failing is that they are astrologers, and too interested in 1 This Epiphanius considers acutely to be reading the stars in contradiction to their belief in a judgment following the
.
resurrection, since if all is determined by fate, there is no such thing as free will and therefore no sin to form the basis
The fourth sect are the Hemerobaptists, who apparently have no doctrine of their own, but agree with the Sadducees, scribes and Pharisees. In addition, they insist on a daily bath of purification. The fifth are the Nazareans, who come from the north of the country, and Trans-Jordania. They keep the Law, but do not believe in fate or in astrology. They do not believe in animal sacrifices and they eat no living thing. They do not accept as genuine the parts of the Bible referring to such practices. The sixth sect are the Ossenes, who are spiritually disinfor judgment.
'
genuous and intellectually ingenious '. They come from Nabatea and Perea, and are gnostics, detesting virginity, damning continence, and insisting on marriage '. They
'
teach that apostasy is allowable in times of persecution, for it is possible to agree with the tongue and disagree in the heart. They accept Christ and call Him the great king ', recognising Him as a power. The Holy Spirit is also a power, but female. They pray, not towards the east, but towards Jerusalem, and they accept neither sacrifices, meat, nor the use of fire. Their only points of contact with other Jews * are circumcision and the Sabbath. In a word, their wickedness is blindness, and their aberrations are senseless '. The * last sect are the Herodians, who are real Jews, being lazy and dishonest '. They believe that Herod was the Christ. Epiphanius concludes by saying that in his time * there were still some traces of Essenes, but otherwise only Jews *, by which he presumably means Pharisees and Nazareans. The Ossenes have adopted the Sampsean heresy and are neither
c
Jews nor Christians.
1 This XIII, v,
is
a confusion with the Essenes described in Josephus, Ant.,
9.
THE FOURTH CENTURY

VII.
171
CONVERTS, CATECHUMENS AND CHURCH

SERVICES
the rest of the literature of the fourth century there is Indeed there was little which could be added to the body of belief built up by previous centuries. The main interest was Christological in the philosophical and not in the historico-prophetic sense. There was no change in the attitude to the Jews, but there was no addition to it. Neither Athanasius nor Augustine showed any special interest in them; Augustine's remarks on them are quite conventional, and those of Athanasius can even be considered to be moderate in tone when contrasted with the epithets he applies to Arians. The Talmud has as little to say about Gentile Christians 1 It is generally believed that the Synagogue was making few proselytes in countries under the domination of Christianity, though Lucas considers that the
From
nothing new to learn.
attacks upon synagogue buildings, which were as much schools as places of worship, indicate that this was not so 2 It is certain that the Church was still making a certain number of converts among the Jews themselves, for one of the first laws passed under her inspiration forbade Jews It is fairly frequently to insult or molest such persons. mentioned of illustrious ecclesiastics that they had converted many Jews. It is said of Philastrius, bishop of Brescia, that among his other good works,
.
Barbaras gentes idolis recurvis
Atque Judaeos, homines iniquos

Perfidos contra monitis supernis Restitit ipse 3 Regis aeterni amabilis minister .
That the Jews should use every argument possible to prevent such apostasy is natural, and it is also true that, if they wished either to annoy the Church or to divert pagans from her to
1 Dr. Marmorstein sees a reference to Gentile Christians in some of the passages dealing with the nations of the world \ Cf. Religions* ff. geschichtliche Studienj p. 2 Op. dt^ passim, but especially in the latter half of the book. On the other side is the fact that to circumcise a non-Jew was now a crime.
*
In laudem
Filastrii,
by Gaudentius; P.L., XX, p. 1003.
172
the Synagogue, the newly converted were admirable material During the period of the catechumenate a pagan was being for the first time introduced to the doctrines of the
for attack.
Church, and perhaps also was making his first acquaintance with the Scriptures common to both Jews and Christians. It was an obvious opportunity for Jews to put forward rival
interpretations, and in actual fact we find considerable evidence that they did so in the frequent warnings against
Jewish
interpretations contained in the catechetical addresses of different preachers. There is nothing particularly 1 They are inherent in the original in the subjects at issue
.
situation.
The Jew of the time probably regarded the Trinitarian doctrine of the Church as an aberration rather than as He could, however, easily challenge deliberate tritheism. the Church interpretation of various passages in the Old Testament in which the Fathers affected to find allusions to the division of personality within the Godhead. second subject for challenge was, naturally, the foretelling third was the possibility of the of Christ in the prophets. ultimate restoration of the Jewish people to Palestine. fourth was the observation of Circumcision and the Jewish ritual Law, which was commanded by God to Moses in
passages which the Christians accepted as inspired. The Jews might well reproach the average Christian interpreter with getting exactly what he wanted out of these passages 2 /cat dvatSo)s avawrxvvrw? . Even after their acceptance of were still troubled by Jewish objecChristianity converts tions. This is revealed not only by the passages already quoted, but even more by various letters in which new Christians are warned of the danger of conversation with Jews, or are given the answers to objections raised by the
3 Jews to which they had been unable to reply Jews were naturally acute critics and quick to catch the Christians out
.
See, for example, Augustine, De Catechizandis, Chs. vii, xx, xxv, XL; Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Address, P.G., of Jerusalem, Catechetical Addresses , IV, 2, and X, 2; XLV, P.G., XXXIII, pp. 456 and 661; Nicetas of Aquileia, Explanatia Symboli, V, ix; P.L., LII, p. 869.
xxvii; P.L., Vol. p. 9; Cyril
*
Eusebius,
Dem. Evan.,
I, ii;
P.G.,
XXII.
I,
E.g. Nilus, Ep., 57; P.G., LXIX, p. 108; and Isidore of Pelusium, 141; III, 94; IV, 17; P.G., LXXVIII, pp. 276, 797 and 1064.
THE FOURTH CENTURY

if
173
they had a chance. And the fact that most Christians had to use a not too perfect Greek or Latin translation of the
Bible gave them endless opportunities for detecting errors of translation or interpretation 1 In fact, it was to arm the Christian against such attacks that Jerome learnt Hebrew and undertook to translate the Scriptures into
.
Latin 2
It
also be remembered that Jews and pagans were permitted to be present at the services of the Church up to the moment of the missa catechumenorum 3 , and availed themselves of this permission. In fact, their presence so seriously annoyed the Church of Jerusalem that the synod * complained bitterly of Jewish serpents and Samaritan imbeciles listening to sermons in Church like wolves sur' 4 rounding the flock of Christ In the early liturgical uses themselves there is little antiJewish material. That was left for the sermon. The liturgical explanation of the Creed which was always given to the catechumens contains no reference to the Jews under the ' clause was crucified under Pontius Pilate 5 , and Christian Our early worship itself retained many Jewish forms. second-century information justifies us in believing that the influence of the Palestinian Jewish community on Gentile Christianity had been sufficiently strong to induce the latter not only to adopt from the former the main elements of the Synagogal worship, but also, after the final severance of the Jewish and Christian Churches, and the consequent cessation of attendance at the synagogue, to transfer much of the Sabbath Synagogue worship to the specific Eucharistic service on the first day of the week.' 6 Apart from the special Jewish form of abjuration, and a special form for the dedication of synagogues, which is to be found in the Gelasian
c ' . '
*
must
Jer.,
2 s
4 6
On
Ezek., xxxvii,
i;
P.L.,
XXV,
p. 363.
Jer., contra
Rufinum, III, 25; P.L., XXIII, p. 497.
Council of Carthage, IV, can. 89.

Letter of the synod of Jerusalem in P.L.,
XXII,
p. 769.
See Assemani, Codex Liturgicus, Vol. I passim. On references to the Jews in patristic writings for catechumens, see Juster, op. cit., I, 297 rT.
6 The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy, Oesterley, Oxford, 1925. See also The Jewish Antecedents of the Christian Sacraments Gavin, S.P.C.K., 1928, and Juster, op. at., I, 304.
,
174
and other early Sacramentaries 1 ,!! is only in the services of Holy Week, and especially Good Friday, that there are any references to Jews at all. At that season there were always
special prayers for their conversion.
VIII.
THE COUNCILS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY
contribution of the fourth century to Jewish Christian relationships is not, however, to be found in the theologians, but in the enactments of the ecclesiastical and
secular authorities.
The significant
The
earliest
Council whose canons
survive was actually held before the time of Constantine, but the multiplication of councils was possible only when Christians were able openly to travel and meet on ecclesiastical business. Their main task was to introduce uniformity and discipline into the different Christian communities. They were only incidentally interested in the Jews. There is at first no attempt to use conciliar action for actual restrictions upon the internal life of the Jewish communities. The interest of the councils is only in Jewish Christian
and they thereby reveal how close those were. relationships The pre-Constantinian council is a Spanish meeting at Elvira, and its decisions were of only local importance. Four of its canons deal with the Jews. Intermarriage between Jews and Christian girls is prohibited, unless the Jew is 2 The reason given is that girls should willing to be converted not be given to Jews or heretics because there can be no The fellowship between a believer and an unbeliever '. penalty for disobedience is five years' abstinence from
relationships,
.
*
communion. A second canon prohibits adultery with pagan or Jewish women, and is probably a reference to concubinage. The penalty for disobedience is the same3 The other two canons emphasise still further the intimacy between the Neither cleric nor Jewish and Christian communities. 4 Both are to be layman is to accept Jewish hospitality excluded from communion as long as they persist in doing
.
.
Assemani, Vol. IV, pt.

Elvira,
Ibid.
ii,
p. 90. See
Appendix Four.
*Ibid.
Canon 16. Canon 78. Canon 50.
THE FOURTH CENTURY

so.
175
Finally, Christians are forbidden to have their fields blessed by Jews. Excommunication is the penalty for dis-
obedience.
The
strange reason given

.
is
that such profanation
would be likely to render fruitless the subsequent benediction of the fields by a priest 1 This canon is of special interest in that it reveals that agriculture must have been largely practised by the Spanish Jews. It is difficult to see what would lead Christians to ask the Jews to perform this action unless they had seen some ceremony which impressed them in Jewish fields. What they saw was probably a sort of
invigilation connected with the preservation of a vineyard
from possible
unclean
if
pollution. A Jewish vineyard would become drops of wine taken from it were used for pagan
sacrifices.
the western churches of the fourth century there is conciliar legislation on the Jews, but the situation is substantially the same in Africa and the east. The eastern councils suggest even closer relations than the canons of ' Elvira, and presuppose very definite judaising tendencies among those who, because they were amenable to orthodox
From
no further
conciliar jurisdiction, cannot have been definitely heretics. The council of Antioch excommunicates any cleric who
receive gifts
of Jews and heretics 5 . And finally they are not to accept unleavened bread from them nor take part in their impieties >6 . These regulations taken
and in view of the canons of Laodicea some twenty years later, and the practices referred to by Chrysostom, it is possible that this refers not merely to the adoption of the same date for Easter as for the Passover, but to actual participation in the latter. Such a practice is certainly implied by Chrysostom, and the council of Laodicea dealt with kindred questions. It is laid down that the gospels are to be read on the Sabbath as well as the rest of the * * 3 Christians are not to Judaise but work on the Scriptures 4 Sabbath, and rest upon the Lord's day They are not to
.
.
celebrates Easter with the Jews 2 ,
from the
festivals
Elvira,
Canon
49.
i.
1 8
Antioch, Canon
Laodicea,
Ibid. Ibid.
Ibid.
*
5
6
Canon Canon zg. Canon 37. Canon 38.
16.
176 THE
CONFLICT OF CHURCH AND SYNAGOGUE
together certainly leave a strong impression that even in the fourth century there were not only Judaic practices in the Church in Asia, but that there was actual religious fellowship with the Jewish inhabitants. The Apostolic Canons, which are a Syrian compilation of the fourth century, strengthen this interpretation. They deal in still further detail with No religious fellowship between the clergy and the Jews. of member the other or or deacon, any bishop, presbyter clergy is to share in Jewish fast or feast, or to receive from them unleavened bread or other material for a feast.' 1 No cleric or layman is to go into the synagogue of Jews or heretics to pray 2 No Christian is to tend the lamps of heathen 3 temples or of Jewish synagogues on the feast days This is who to Christian a reference servants, performed clearly acts on the Sabbath which were prohibited to orthodox Jews. A final canon seems to date part of the collection at If any cleric through fear of least to the time of Julian. Jews, pagans or heretics denies the name of Christ he is to be expelled: if it be his own rank which he denies and he 4 repents, he is to be received back as a layman Of the African canons it is more difficult to speak, since their dates are by no means clear, and the collection was made in Gaul some centuries later. The adoption of Jewish 5 superstitions and festivals is prohibited in general terms Two other canons are peculiar to Africa, and somewhat contradictory in tone. One reminds bishops that they are Jews from attending the services of by no means to prohibit * the Church up to the missa catechumenorum >6 ; and the other, which is twice repeated, reminds judicial authorities that Jews, being in the category of infamous persons, are not to be allowed to give evidence in court, except against each other 7 The inclusion of this reminder in an ecclesiastical collection is curious, but it is probably the copy of an
' .
.
'
'
1
2
Can. Apost., 69.

Ibid.
Ibid. Ibid.
4
5
Canon Canon Canon Canon
63.
70.
61.
Carthage, IV,
Ibid.
'
Canon
si
84.
84.
part of the Mass,

7
Cf. the invitation at the beginning of the second ' quis catechumen procedat, si quis Judaeus procedat
Ibid.
Canon
196;
and VI, Canon
2.
THE FOURTH CENTURY
177
imperial edict which has become accidentally included in the collection. Actually, no such edict is known at so early a period 1 , but its existence is not improbable.
IX.
LEGISLATION AFFECTING THE JEWS UP TO THE DEATH OF THEODOSIUS THE GREAT
With the exception of the last canon, the councils dealt only with religious and social contact between Jews and Christians, but the influence of ecclesiastical authority was equally
visible in the imperial legislation of the century,
which dealt
with the actual rights and privileges of the Jewish community itself. The Codex Theodosianus, which was put together in the middle of the fifth century, does not contain all the
legislation previously passed.
But
it
contains
all
that
was
in force, or not explicitly withdrawn, at the time of its composition. As it gives the date of each law, the place at which it was issued (an important consideration when the
unity of the empire was only nominal, and the legislation of east and west reflect very different conditions), and the name of the recipient, it allows us to reconstruct with a fair degree of certainty the progressive decline in the privileges and ultimately in the security of the Jewish communities of the empire. The fourth century witnessed the gradual breakdown of the immense machine of imperial central government. This was due to a number of causes, social, economic and political, It was a period in into which it is not necessary to enter 2 which the rich became richer, or at least more powerful, and the poor became poorer. The middle class was crushed by the burden of imperial taxation which the great proprietors avoided, and this burden, added to the barbarian invasions, ruined commerce. The frequent suggestion that the Jews were extremely wealthy because they numbered both merchants and slave-owners rests on no foundation of fact.
.
See C.J.,
1.5.21,
which implies the existence of previous but confused
legislation.
2 See S. Dill, Roman Society in the last century of the Western Empire, Macmillan, 1905, and F. Lot, La Fin du Monde Antique, Part I, Chs. 4 and 7. Dill underestimates the moral collapse by ignoring the evidence of the many councils of the period, with their monotonous prohibition of ecclesiastical immorality.
178
Doubtless there were wealthy individuals, but there is no direct evidence for wealth in these two facts themselves. The legislation of Constantine affects the Jews at three points, their treatment of proselytes from Judaism, their treatment of their non- Jewish slaves, and their share of the burdens of the decurionate. That Jews should share in the burdens of the decurionate was just. Their ancient immunity had rested on their inability in pagan days to hold an office which involved offering sacrifice. This was no longer the ' case in the Christian empire. At the same time the curiales
c
were the unhappiest
class in the empire.
They were respon-
sible for the collection of taxation, and compelled to make good the deficit from their own fortunes. The evasions of
the wealthy, and the increasing poverty of the time, made the burden an increasingly impossible one to bear, and huge penalties had to be imposed on any attempt to evade the responsibility. No member of the class was allowed to leave his town or sell his property, without the most stringent
safeguards for the imperial treasury. The class was hereditary, and as the caste system of the empire became more ' ' rigid, to be born into the curiales became an ever greater misfortune. Many were prepared to become serfs or monks rather than retain its imaginary honour1 While it was not unjust that the Jews should be compelled to enter with Christians of equal wealth into this unfortunate class, it is not surprising that they made continual efforts to evade it, and throughout the whole period of Roman legislation there is continual repetition of this obligation. It was customary to exempt from this burden those who occupied religious positions. The Catholic clergy possessed this exemption, and the same was accorded first to two or ' three in each Jewish community 2 , and then, more explicitly, to all who were entirely occupied with such functions 3 There was thus no intention to be more severe towards Jews than to the rest of the population, and this is borne out by the terms of the law which grants Jewish curials the immunities from other official duties which the rest of their class enjoyed,
. ' .
Cf. Dill, op. dt., p. 250
ff.
*C.T., 16.8.3.
3
Ibid., 16.8.2.
THE FOURTH CENTURY
179
and forbids in perpetuity the imposition of curial responsibility on those who are not of the class. It would seem that in the first flush of victory Christian officials were disposed
to stretch a point against the Jews, for not only did the freedom of religious functionaries need to be twice repeated,
but
it
was reaffirmed
1
.
in a special charter addressed to those
persons themselves If the Christians were behaving insolently in the hour of The victory, the Jews were evidently not yet cowed. dramatic change in the status of Christianity seems to have led many Jews to desert the Synagogue for their now triumphant rival. Within two years of the transformation it was necessary to attach the severest penalties to those who ' molested converts from the baleful religion of the Synagogue to the light of the Church. Addressing the Jewish authorities themselves, Constantine informs them that he is well aware that it is their present habit to pursue with * stones and other violence such persons, and he sentences all such offenders to death at the stake. This was more than the of law which makes second the same part justifiable 2 it a crime to become a Jew The first part of the law had to be repeated towards the end of his reign 3 The same law marks the beginning of the long struggle to prevent the Jews acquiring other than Jewish slaves. Any Jew who circumcised a slave who was either a Christian or a member of any other non-Jewish religion, forfeited the slave. The latter acquired his freedom. No extra penalty was suffered by the Jew, and he was apparently not prohibited from owning such slaves provided he did not circumcise them4 It is sometimes stated that Constantius, because he was an Arian, was more favourable to the Jews than was Constantine. If this was so, he did not show it in his legislation, which goes considerably further than that of his father. In the year following his accession he considerably strengthened the restrictions upon the Jewish possession of slaves. If a Jew bought a pagan slave he forfeited him. If he bought a
* '
.
C.T., 16.84.
Ibid.y 16.8.5,
*Ibid. t 16.8.1.
*
a sentence
4
and Const. Sirm., 4. In both the penalty commensurate with the particular offence. Const. Sirm., 4, and C.T., 16.9.1.
is
reduced to
l8o
Christian slave he forfeited also all his property. If, in either case, he circumcised the slave, he was sentenced to
death.
The
slave,
property of the
flsc
however, did not become free, but the 1 This insistence on the rights of
.
Christian slaves at the very beginning of the law-making power of the Church is probably due to two causes. For a Jew to circumcise his slave was a natural action, and one intended for the slave's benefit, since in that way he became in some sort a member of the owner's family, and shared
in
its
religious observances.
It
would, however, be easily
been interpreted by the Church, if the slave had previously a Christian, as a hostile action, and doubtless the average Jew, with the attitude to official Christianity which he was a not entirely religious likely to have at the time, would get satisfaction out of the action. The second reason was the extent to which Christianity had penetrated into the lower If the Jews were, as is supposed, an strata of society. of the slave traders of the time, it would section important give them a considerable power of harming the Church if
they were allowed to convert their slaves to Judaism. The law was also the natural sequel to the law already quoted which makes it a criminal act to join the Jewish faith. The slave could only be included in the intentions of this law by an attack upon his master. The two other laws of Constantius exhibit the
same tendency. Any Christian who became a Jew was to forfeit the whole of his property to the 2 fisc Any Jew who married a Christian woman employed in the imperial factories (gynaeced) was to be put to death, and the woman returned to the factory3 No laws of Julian are extant, but his letter to the Jews 4 implies that he had in some way lightened their lot and a
. .
law of Gratian reimposing the burdens of curial office 5 suggests that he had actually again released them from it .
1
C.T., 16.9,2.
In the Justinian edition of this law (C.J., 1.9.2) other
methods of acquisition are included.

'C.T., 16.8.7.
9 4
5
Ibid., 16.8.6.
Julian, Ep. 51.

*
*
fiscus Judaicus % It is usually held that Julian abolished only the lussio quae sibi Judaeae legis but the terms of the law of Gratian, homines blandiuntur per quern eis curialium munerum datur immunitas rescindatur ', imply that he abolished the law of Constantine also.
THE FOURTH CENTURY
l8l
The reign of Julian, short though it was, was long enough to remind each side of the past, persecution on the one side and real toleration on the other* It was well that his successor was not a fanatic, for had he been disposed to yield to it, the temper of the Church would have sanctioned any measure of revenge which he might have proposed. Though Jovian only reigned for some months, he gave time for spirits to cool, and his successors, Valentinian and Valens, continued a policy of toleration, though the former was an adherent of Nicaea, and the latter an Arian who from time to time showed his dislike of the Nicaeans by repressive measures. But the toleration he extended to Jews was complete, and the only incident of his rule which was remembered by later chroniclers was that he gave gardens to the pagans for their sacrifices, and the same to the Jews at Antioch for their n The immunities which the Jews secured from worship Julian they seem to have kept undisturbed for twenty years. It is not until 383, under Gratian, the successor in the west of Valentinian, that they were again compelled to shoulder the burden of the decurionate. But the new law was more severe than the old had been. The clergy also were included in it, and either had to postpone their religious duties until their public functions had been performed, or pay for a substitute out of their own pocket2 . This is the first real infringement of the rights of Judaism as a lawful religion, for it placed it on a definitely inferior plane to orthodox Christianity. Having thus returned to the policy of Con'
stantine, with additional severity, in the matter of public duty, Gratian followed up with the re-enactment, also with
additional stringency, of the prohibition of conversion from Christianity to Judaism. The convert and the missionary responsible were both to be punished, the former with
charge intestacy, the latter at the discretion of the court. might even be preferred under certain limitations against one who was dead, and his descendants robbed of their
inheritance3 . In this return to previous conditions it was natural that the slaves of Jews should also be considered, and in a spirit similar to that animating his other legislation
1
Michael the Syrian, Bk. VII, Ch.

Ibid. 16.7.3.
vii.
*C.T., 12.1.99.
3
182
Gratian enacts that no Jew is to buy a Christian slave, or convert him, when bought, to Judaism. Circumcision is not The masters are to be punished in explicitly mentioned. addition to forfeiting their slaves. But a new clause is added. Christian slaves, or slaves who had been converted from Christianity to Judaism, already in the possession of Jewish masters, are to be compulsorily sold at a fixed price to Christian masters 1 This second phase of Jewish legisla.
tion
was completed by Theodosius I, who enacted, first that any marriage between Jew and Christian (man or woman) was to be considered adultery, and that anyone might make the accusation 2 secondly that Jews might only marry among themselves according to Christian practices. They had to observe the Christian tables of affinity, and might not con3 tract two marriages at the same time It is possible, and indeed probable, that we should add yet
,
.
another restriction to those in force at the death, in 395, of Theodosius the Great. One of the crimes of the patriarch Gamaliel, referred to in a law of 415, is that he had built new 4 synagogues whereas the first surviving law prohibiting such
,
s It is evident, therefore, that an earlier building is of 423 law has been lost, and a reference in a work of Zeno, bishop of Verona, who died in 380, makes it probable that this law was anterior to this date 6 On the other hand, the reference of Zeno (* if Jews or pagans were allowed, or if they wished, they might build more beautifully their synagogues and refer to a prohibition to alter the .') may only temples . The Church was always jealous of existing buildings. especial beauty in a synagogue, and this may have been the But some legislation was clearly in first step in the attack. existence by the time at which Zeno wrote, and has now been lost, having been replaced by the later laws.
.
.
Ibid. 3.7.2
and
9.7.5.
C.J., 1.9.7; the
copy of the law
in
C.T.
is lost.
*C.T., 16.8.22.
*Ibid. 16.8.25.
6
Zeno, Tract^xiv; P.L.,XI, p. 354. For a discussion of the passage

I,
see Jusier, Vol.
p. 469, n. 2.
THE FOURTH CENTURY

X.
183
THE TREATMENT OF HERETICS
We
should have a very false picture of the place of this legislation in the life of the times if we imagined it to be the attack of an otherwise homogeneous population upon an
alien minority.
That became the
situation in the
Middle
,
Ages, but the fourth century was otherwise constituted. If the Jews were one thorn in the flesh of the Christian emperors heretics (that is, Christians from whom they disagreed) were another. During two reigns, that of Constantius and Valens, the Catholics were themselves heretics ', though neither emperor seriously attacked them. It was a period of many different groupings, whose rival powers might change almost overnight, each occupied in using what secular power it possessed to oppress the other, and each indulging in anathema and excommunication when legislation failed. While this was but cold comfort to the Jew, and is but
* '
*
a poor justification for the Christian apologist, it enables us, looking at the century from a distance, to avoid seeing more definitely anti-Jewish tendencies in the legislation
So far as abuse was concerned, Jews said be to have fared equally badly. So may far as the underlying implications of the abuse were concerned the heretic had the advantage. For it was more likely that he would bow to ecclesiastical anathema than that the Jew would accept baptism. In the matter of conciliar legislation, which was designed to preserve the purity of the Catholic fold, they were on an equal footing, for contact with a heretic was as polluting as contact with a Jew, and was punished with the same penalties. But in the secular legislation of the empire, the Jew had an advantage. For if the law took
than actually existed.
and
heretics
cognisance of the existence of a heresy, it could imperially forbid it to continue. But the Jewish community, so long as it avoided contact with Christians, was a lawful commun-
and had even to be protected. Certainly, so far as the fourth century is concerned, it was better to be a Jew than a heretic. Constantine passed a general law reserving the privileges extended to Christianity
ity,
*
to Catholics, that is, adherents of Nicaea. Heretics were diversis muneribus constringi et subici n , an instruction
*
C.T., 16.5.1.
184
which allowed an
infinity of torments to be applied by local spite or enthusiasm. Otherwise little was done to them until the time of Gratian, who simply forbade them to exist1 .
Theodosius, more practically, forbade them to hold any meetings, confiscated all their property, ordered their expulsion from any city in which they tried to teach, forbade them to enter any church of the orthodox, and insisted on their
restoring to the latter any sees
which they held.
Further,
pretend were true 2 There are fourteen other laws affecting heretics which were issued by Theodosius the Great, varying in severity from the comparative mildness with which he treated, for example, the Eunomians, to his application of the death sentence to certain groups of Manichees 3 At times the method of wholesale expulsion was applied to them, either from the capital cities of Constanti4 At other nople or Rome, or from all the cities of the empire
that their views
.
they were not
to call themselves Christians, or to
times a complete system of graduated fines was substituted 5 The repetition of these laws proves their almost complete futility, but at any rate they show the anti- Jewish laws in
.
their true perspective. general conceptions as
They were
by
dictated as
much by
and
even showed the Jew For the heretic was forbidden to hold meetings or to possess property. The Jew enjoyed the right to both. The heretic was frequently exiled. He was forbidden to make a will or to receive a legacy. These were penalties which could only affect the apostate to Judaism. The heretic could be put to death for being a heretic. The Jew could only be executed for some crime in relation to the non- Jewish community. The books of the heretics were burnt. The Torah of the Jew was a sacred book of the Church. In a word, the heretic could be forbidden to exist. The Jew could not.
specific hatred of the Jews, to be less hated than the heretic.
C.T., 16.54 and 5.

Ibid. 16.5.6.
Ibid. 16.5.8.
*Ibid. 16.5.13 and 14.

5
Ibid. 16.5.21.
THE FOURTH CENTURY
185
XL EVENTS IN FOURTH CENTURY HISTORY

But if the Jew could not be forbidden to exist, and if the main purpose of both conciliar and secular legislation was to shut the Jews within the limits of their own community so far as religious matters were affected, and to remove their privileged position in so far as their civic rights and responsibilities were concerned, it was difficult to stop at this point. Inferiority and equality cannot be permanently combined. The equilibrium is bound to change in one direction or the other. Either it returns to equality, or it becomes increasingly
inferior.
Already the descriptions of the Jewish community

c
in the laws betray the desire to punish and humiliate them. ' They are a feralis secta '; the law speaks of turpitudo
sua ', and sua fiagitia '; their meetings are sacrilegi coetus *; to be converted is Judaicis semet polluere con*
'
a Jew is equivalent to adultery, and to indigna servitude '. Moreover, the very inefficacity of the laws compelled the emperors to ever stricter rules and more violent threats. For the Jews did not easily accept this separation and confine themselves within their own community. Nor did the local Christian churches readily break off either social relations with Jews, or theological connections with Judaism. And, on the other hand, the authorities found that it was not easy to persuade minor officials and enthusiastic bishops that these laws did not cover a tacit permission to go a good deal further. At the time of the death of Theodosius it is doubtful if the emperors intended to do more than had already been done. Ambrose might bully Theodosius into an illegal action. For it was an illegal action to deny to the Jews, a recognised religion of the empire, compensation for the attack made upon them. But in his legislation the emperor correctly protected them. Had the Jews shown any sign of accepting Christianity legislation might well have stopped at this point. But this was not even expected by the ecclesiastical leaders, who, in their continual denunciation of Jewish blindness, clearly expected the Jews to continue their flagitious path to destruction. It was, indeed, a theotagiis
'.
To marry
'
serve
them an
logical necessity that they
should do so.
While, therefore,
186
it is

convenient to
make a break
at the
death of Theodosius,
in 395, because the unity of the empire comes to an effective end at that point, and from then onwards legislation in east
and west needs separate consideration, actually the path from Constantine to Justinian is a continuous one, and one marked by ever-increasing severity. This was inevitable, because the combination of pulpit rhetoric with official disapproval was bound gradually to produce an open hostility which could only be repressed by
further legislation, now trying ineffectively to protect the Jews from the violence of the local clergy and officials, now designed to protect the local Christians from the resentment of the Jews. It is not possible to say of the fourth century that hostility was general. Rather the reverse is the case. But an added political or religious opposition might quickly bring it into existence. Later legend describes incidents in the reign of Constantine himself. council is supposed to have been
held before Constantine and Helena between Christian bishops and Jewish scribes and Pharisees from Palestine, which resulted in the discomfiture and condemnation of the latter by Pope Sylvester1 Constantine himself is said to have expelled all the Jews from the empire as a preliminary to the building of Constantinople 2 Actually the first incidents date from the middle of the century, if we exclude the Jewish participation in the riots at Alexandria of the Arians 3 against Athanasius , which was really a political conflict
.
.
religion only played an incidental role. Athanasius, as Patriarch, was almost a sovereign prince, and was in addition an Egyptian Nationalist. The Egyptian party in
where
Alexandria was always in opposition to the Jews and Greeks. Hence the sympathy of the latter with the Arians. Political also was the Jewish share in the persecution under Shapur II which led to the death of Simeon, Archbishop of Ctesiphon, and the trouble in Edessa in the time of Julian4 These two
.
Ep, of Pope Hadrian to Charlemagne, see Mansi, Vol. II, p. 551. *Nestarian History, Ch. xix in P.O., IV, p. 281.
See the vivid account in Athanasius, Ep. Encyc., para. 3 in P.G., p. 228. Similar events accompanied the installation of his successor, Theodoret, EccL Hist., IV, xviii, xix; P.G., LXXXII, pp. 1163 and 1175. * Ckron. of Michael the Syrian, Bk. VII, Ch. v.
XXV,
THE FOURTH CENTURY

are the
first
187
of many incidents which were the natural of the repressive legislation of the Roman consequence empire. The Jews lived at peace under the Sassanids, and the Jews living on the eastern frontiers of the empire were
naturally and inevitably pro-Persian. At Edessa, trusting in the favour of Julian, they planned to rise and kill the Christians. But the latter, being informed of the plan, rose
and massacred the Jews. There was also a serious rising of the Jews of Diocaesarea in Palestine in 355. It came at a period following the repressive legislation of Constantine
first
and Constantius, and may have been its maui cause was a series of local
intensified
by
it,
but
oppressive rule of the Roman tunately for the Jews as did the events at Edessa. Diocaesarea was destroyed, and according to the Chronicle of Eusebttis other cities also 2 Of more sinister import for the future were the attacks made upon the synagogues. The first recorded was made by Innocentius, bishop of Dertona in northern Italy, who died * in 355. Under his rule the Christians together with their bishop destroyed the synagogue, and erected a church on the site >3 They seem also to have confiscated all the property of the Jews in the town. At a somewhat similar period the Christians also seized the Jewish synagogue at Tipasa in North Africa, and consecrated it as a church4 . Thirty years later they did the same at Rome, and Ambrose considers it to have been the cause of the downfall of the usurper Maximius that he compelled the Christians to rebuild it, and thereby forfeited all the sympathy of the Christian inhabitants 5 His own action when a synagogue at CalUnicum on the eastern frontier was destroyed has already been discussed. There is, thus, evidence from Italy, Africa and Asia of these destructions. In addition, Innocentius, who
. . .
incidents due to the 1 governor . It ended as unfor-
seems to have been exceptionally thorough,

1
after destroying
Graetz, Geschichte, Vol. II, p. 575.
2 Socrates, Hist. EccL,II, xxxiii, in P.G.,LXVII; Euseb., AJ>. 356; P.L., XXVII, p. 501.
and Jerome, Chron.

his deacon Celsus,
3 Vita, edited from fragments of the in A.S., April, Vol. II, 483.
life
written
p. 8.
by
4 Passio
*
S. Salsae, in R.E.J., Vol.

t
XLIV,
Ambrose, Ep. Bk.
I, ad,
para. 23;
PX., XVI,
p.
109.
l88

Jews living in Dertona baptism
.
their synagogue, offered the
or expulsion 1
The Jews had a short period in which to take their revenge

Julian. It is difficult to say to what extent they availed themselves of it. That they play little part in the martyrdoms which took place during this time has been already shown. But Ambrose accuses them of having burnt down churches
under
innumerable, two at Damascus, and others at Gaza, Ascalon, Beirut, and elsewhere; and also to have aided the pagans to burn the great church at Alexandria. But other writers do not confirm this accusation. Gregory of Nazianzen, who wrote two lengthy Orations over the heinous offences of the deceased emperor, mentions the church at Gaza, but not the Jewish share in its destruction. He only mentions the taunt flung at the Christians by Julian's encouragement of the re2 building of the Temple He ascribes to the Jews 'inveterate ' does not but hostility specify its expression other than in Theodoret of Cyr is also silent this effort at rebuilding3 4 If Ambrose upon the point as are Socrates and Sozomen was not so obviously arguing an extremely bad, and indeed patently illegal cause, his affirmation would outweigh the silence of the others, but it is quite inadequate to stand alone, and while it is probable, indeed certain, that the Jews would share in the attacks of the pagans upon the Christians, it is difficult to assert that they took the initiative in such attacks. That the violence of the century was mostly on the Christian side is rendered more probable by the contrast between the protective legislation issued by Valentinian and Theodosius, and that issued by their successors in the fifth century. The earlier legislation is direct, and contains no counter charges of Jewish unrighteousness. In fact, none of the laws of the century can be said to refer to actual Jewish misdoings. The law prohibits that which was, up to the time of its passing, legal. It does not repress existing criminal behaviour. Until the end of the reign of Theodosius it would seem all to be directed towards the protection of the
. .
.
1
*
3, page 187. Oratio, iv and v; P.O., Ibid. p. 668.
See note
XXXV.
See especially Chs. Ixxxvi
ff.,
p. 616.
P.O.,
Theodoret, EccL Hist., Bk. Ill; P.O., LXVII; and Sozomen, Bk. V; P.G.,
LXXXII.
Socrates, Bk. Ill;
LXVIL
THE FOURTH CENTURY
189
Jews from the officiousness of particular officials, rather than from the general violence of the Christian population.
Valentinian forbids the billeting of troops in the synagogue 1 Theodosius forbids the Prefect of Egypt to impose special burdens upon the Jews and Samaritans in connection with * the duties of navicularii \ who fulfilled the onerous and not very remunerative function of supplying the capitals with 2 On another occasion he has to insist upon the internal grain of the Jewish community against officials who were liberty 3 His final law, addressed cancelling its excommunications to the governor of the eastern provinces, implies a more general malaise, and is a presage of the continual trouble in the following century which arose especially from the * turbulent Syrian monks. It is sufficiently evident *, writes c the emperor, that the Jewish sect is not prohibited by any
. . .
law. are therefore seriously disquieted to learn that in certain places Jewish meetings have been prohibited. Your Excellency will, on the receipt of this order, restrain with suitable severity the excesses of those who under the name of
We
the Christian religion are committing illegal actions, or 4 attempting to destroy or ruin synagogues .
'
XII.
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN JEWS AND CHRISTIANS
Excellency and His Excellency's successors were to find this particular task an impossible one, and though
Though His
so far this chapter has dealt almost exclusively with official or unofficial manifestations of hostility, it would be a mistake to assume that during this period all Christians and Jews hated each other. The canons of the councils and the violence of such as Chrysostom both have their origin in the
friendly relations between local Jewish and Christian communities. Trouble, when it comes, comes clearly from the ecclesiastical or imperial authorities, and not from the
C.T., 7.8.2. Ibid. 13.5.18. The whole of this section deals with the difficulties encountered in the maintenance of this essential service.
2
1
Ibid.
1 6.8 .8.
*Ibid. 16.8.9.
190
Jewish attacks are due to the particular and populace. general political situation and not to any immediate hatred of their Christian neighbours. Happily, all Christians were not theologians, and in daily life Christianity was a different affair from a theological From this point of view the short reign of controversy. has an interest Julian beyond the number of churches which were burnt by Jews during the period. Though he was violently prejudiced against the Christians, and in the end disliked the Jews almost as much, yet he pays an involuntary
tribute to both religions by his attitude towards paganism. The picture of fourth century Christianity given us in the
polemic writings of the fathers and in their sermons, in the ecclesiastical historians, and in the canons of the councils is a singularly unattractive one. The posts of the empire continually disturbed by travelling bishops, the peace of the cities disturbed by perpetual wars between their rival partisans, mutual intolerance and extreme vindictiveness against individuals, such are the impressions gained by
reading the lives of Athanasius, John Chrysostom and others. That Christianity did not so strike an outsider is shown by the form taken by Julian's effort to revive paganism. He is naturally sarcastic about these excesses, and he has no use for Christian theology, but he was obviously impressed by the moral force of Christianity in the life of the empire, by the charity of the Christians, by their religious devotion, by their 1 orderly services, and by the faithful lives of their priests . For it was just these virtues which he tried vainly to introduce into the dead bones of temple worship in order to make it more attractive than Christianity to the man in the street. As a theological force he could ignore it, as a moral and social force he found it invincible. Some aspects of Jewish
theology also raised his anger, and he disliked their exclusiveBut the straightforward morality of the Jewish idea of God caused him to ask the Jews to pray for his reign, and in Judaism as much as in Christianity he admired their care for the poor 2 Julian, unintentionally, allows us to see what the ordinary Christianity of the time was like, and we cannot be too
ness.
.
See his
Letters.
letters to the different
high priests
I,
whom
Ed. Loeb Classics, Vol.
p. 391,
he created. and Ep. 22.
THE FOURTH CENTURY
igi
grateful to him for the picture. Unfortunately we have little detail for filling in a similar picture of Judaism in the Roman
such different conditions that the Talmudists themselves were more like the Christian theologians than the Christian laity. Their field of action might be different, but their method within the field was very similar to that of the Christians. To draw out of a text a meaning its author never meant to
empire.
reflects
it is difficult
The Talmud
to quote.
And
put into it, to allegorise, to split hairs and to hang interminable arguments from the slenderest thread was as common to the one as to the other 1 But the problems facing the leaders were different from those facing the man in the street ', Jew or Christian, and in daily life the two monotheists must still have found much in common in the face of a not-yetdead pagan world. At this period it is doubtful if the stories of the Sepher Toldoth Jeshu were more believed than the
. *
fantasies of the Christian pulpit.
Naturally the pictures
we
get in Christian writings of
contemporary Jewish life are not complimentary. Jerome denounces them several times for their love of money2 and for their immoderate love of food 3 Chromatius, bishop of 4 and others denounce them for their pessima Aquileia licentia '. But as with the sermons of Chrysostom, so here
.
c
dangerous to take these accusations at their face value. is too often an apposite quotation from the prophets to prove it. Jerome's denunciations rest indeed on considerable knowledge of living Jews, but we need to know what he, with his extreme views of asceticism, would consider
it is
There
couples together the Jews and in the world, whereas the accusation against the Romans is more often In any case, none of his lavish spending than avarice. 5 accusations against either equal his attack on the Syrians * contacts avoid Ambrose warns his people that they must with Gentiles and also with Jews, conversation with whom is
immoderate
eating.
He
Romans
as the
two most avaricious peoples
1 Cf, the description of the principles of eastern monasticism, Ch. VIII, Section II, tnfra. Jerome, On Isaiah y ii, 8. Preface to Hosea, P.L., XXIV, p. 49;
XXV,
*
p. 855.
Ep. CXXI; P.L., XXII, p. 1006. Chromatius, In Evan. S. Matt., Tract X; P.L., XX, 351 * Jerome, On Ezekid, XXVII, 16; PX., XXV, p. 266 ff.
Ibid. y also
192
an extreme pollution. For they insinuate themselves among

people, penetrate houses, get into the courts, disturb the ears of judges and others, and get on all the better for their impudence. Nor is this a recent failing of theirs, but an inveterate and original evil. For of old they persecuted the Lord and Saviour in the Roman Court n As to Jewish occupations, we hear casually that Hilarion in his wanderings was recognised by a Jewish hawker of old clothes 2 hear of Jewish sorcery3 There is in Pusey a the of tombstone House, Oxford, Jewish sausage-seller. References such as these, and the occasional expressions of dislike, would be impressive if they were all we heard of the Jews at this time. They would at least be straws showing the direction of the current, and we might be justified in describing the Jews as a people of hawkers, wandering magicians, and sausage sellers, with the unpleasant personal habits of
.
.
We
gluttony, avarice and pushfulness. But they are not the only references. writer of the century who did not devote
There
is
no single
much of his time to
the Jews and their misdeeds, and in this mass of literature references to living examples are so few, and often so contradictory, as to suggest that there was nothing abnormal in the people referred to. The apt illustration from daily life is too frequently missing. Jerome refers to their avarice, but there is complete silence about the Jews in the many sermons on usury4 striking example is a sermon of He Gaudentius on avarice and the neglect of the poor 5 takes as his text Judas Iscariot: the Jews are frequently
.
6 compared to Judas Iscariot. It is a commonplace to be made still more common in the era of popular religious drama. But in the whole sermon he never connects Judas in this capacity with contemporary Jews. Arguments could be multiplied in this sense to show that it is only by special
,
Ambrose, Sermo VII; P.L., XVII, p. 618. The allusion would be

additional text.
more impressive without the

2 3
Jerome, Vita Hilarionis, xxxviii; P.L., XXIII, p. 48.

Cf. the article in R.E.J., Vol.
XLIV, on
the Jews in Africa.
E.g. Basil, Homily on Ps. xiw> Ambrose, De Tobia-, Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Usurarios; Salvianus of Marseilles, De Avaritia, Libri IV; etc.
6
6
Sermo
xiii,
P.L.,
XX,
933.
E.g. Jerome
On
Ps. cvui; P.L.,
XXVI,
p. 1224.
THE FOURTH CENTURY

pleading that a case can be made out for any characteristics in the Jews of the fourth century.
193
abnormal
in generalisations are singuconditions are being described, larly lacking precise and, on the other hand, the Jews would be an abnormal people if they showed no sign of contemporary vices whatever. They burned down churches during the reign of Julian, according to Ambrose, and were not punished for it. Chris-
Accusations frequently
made
when
tians
They were
burned down synagogues and went equally unpunished. riotous in Alexandria. The Christians, led by
Cyril, in the next century paid them back in their own coin with usurious rates of interest. They were exclusive, and did not mix with people outside their own group. This was abnormal in pagan Rome, but in Christian Rome everyone did the same. Contacts with Jews are not more violently forbidden than contacts with heretics, and it may be added that the crimes alleged against Jews are no greater than those
alleged against heretics. So far as the common people are concerned, it is indeed questionable whether any of these prohibitions succeeded in securing their objects. Their frequent
repetition in the next century suggests their ineffectiveness. In fact, it may well be suggested that in this century alone
the Jew lived in natural contact with his surroundings, neither the abnormal monotheist of pagan days, nor yet the outcast of later generations. picture of continuous local or as the historians Church Fathers might sugsuch hostility, gest, is not borne out by any facts that we know of the lives of ordinary men. Alexander the sausage seller, the unknown 1 rag merchant, Theodosius the local rabbi , probably lived on excellent terms throughout their uneventful lives with Philip the orthodox silversmith, Callistus the Arian, and the rest of their different communities in just the same way as Augustine, Ambrose, and the leaders of Christian orthodoxy seem to have maintained friendly relations with the leaders of pagan Rome, in spite of their religious conviction 2 that the latter would ultimately be damned must have been the situation It is easier to realise that such when we remember that the victories of Rabbinism and
Arabic History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, P.O., I, 122. See Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire, Dill, Bk. II, Ch. iv.
2
194

In the light of
Catholicism were not at that time assured.
accurately state that the events of the fourth these victories inevitable. But, if these two stood over against each other in sharp contrast, they were not the only respectable faiths of their time. Prac-
subsequent history
we can century made
were to be found along the whole of the line from the one to the other, fading into each other by such
tising believers
of metaphysic or similarities of practice that it have been difficult to tell with assurance the dividing lines. There were observing Jews who believed that the Messiah had come in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
subtleties
would
really
There were Gentiles who

*
called themselves not merely but who adopted the title Jew '. There were Christians who observed the Law, even circumcision, and
*
Israelites
',
others whose interpretation of the person of Christ was consistent with the current Gentile interpretation of what the Jew meant by the unity of God. When Theodosius imperially forbade heresy to exist, he had to address
Arians, Macedonians, Pneumatomachi, Apollinarians, Novatians, Sabbatians, Eunomians, Tetradites or Tessarescaedecatites, Valentinians, Papianists, Montanists, Priscillianists, Phrygians, Pepuzites, Marcianists, Borborians, Messalians, Eutychites, Enthusiasts, Donatists, Audians, Hydroparastates, Batrachites, Tascodrogites, Hermeiecians, Photinians, Paulians, Marcellians, Ophites, Encratites, Apotactites, Saccophorians, and the perfectly appalling Manichees '*. And even so he left out the Sampseans, the Ebionites, and the Nazarenes. Conformity did not come about in a single century, and the heretics of the fourth century were probably as respectable as those of the twentieth. In spite of the collapse of the empire, which every
the
decade made more evident, human life must have gone on most people in its daily relations. And it is to be questioned whether the excommunications of individuals or councils really always affected the local respect in which the excommunicated person was held. It was a quick-tempered period, but not necessarily a period in which personal worth, whether in Jew, Christian or heretic, counted for nothing. Literature leaves us only the lives and works of those who were proclaimed right, or those whom it took centuries to
for
i
Cod. Jto.,
I,
5, 5-
THE FOURTH CENTURY

discover
195
us a picture of wrong monks. But and rabid rabbis, disputing travelling bishops, not every man, in the words of Basil, folded up his stomach for want of use ', and in the provinces at least the empire could not afford to forgo the public service of Jews and
such as Origen.
It gives
*
heretics, and make orthodoxy the condition of tax-paying. that period did come, it is to be presumed that the
When
number
of heretics was much fewer, and the standard of statesmanship equally lower. Until then, in all the normal contacts of life, all kinds of opinion lived, ate, paid taxes, and
worked
together.
CHAPTER SIX
THE THEODOSIAN CODE IN THE WEST

Most of the source material for this chapter is adequately This is not the place for a general given in the footnotes. bibliography of the conditions which attended the collapse of the western empire. very extensive bibliography will be found in the work of Lot. Special studies of this period are few. The early chapters of Vogelstein and Rieger naturally contain detailed studies of the letters of Gregory and the attitude of the papacy. For the somewhat lengthy letters of Cassiodorus the work of Hodgkin, half translation and For the letters of Gregory the half resume, is valuable. edition of Ewald and Hartmann in M.G.H. is much better than that of Migne, but the numbering of both are given in the notes.
198
LIST OF BOOKS
DOPSCH, ALFONSO
und Soziale Grundder Europaischen Kulturentwicklung aus der Zeit von Caser bis auf Karl den Grossen. Wien, 1920Wirtschaftliche
lagen
1924.
EWALD, P., and HARTMANN, L. M.

HODGKIN, T.
The Letters of Gregory
the Great.
M.G.H. 4. Ep.
The
1886.
I, i,
1891.
Letters of Cassiodorus.
Frowde,
HOMES-DUDDEN, F.
LOT, FERDINAND
Gregory the Great. Longmans, 1905.
La Fin du Monde
Debuts du
Antique et
les
Moyen Age.
Paris, 1927.
VOGELSTEIN, H., and RIEGER, P.
Geschichte der Juden in 1896.
Rom.
Berlin,

I.
199
THE PROGRESS OF LEGISLATION
With the death of Theodosius the Great the division of the empire became permanent, although there are cases in which laws passed at Constantinople are applied in the west. As time went on the situation in the west clearly differentiated itself from that in the east. The condition of the Jews was sometimes better in the one, and sometimes in the other.
But, strangely enough, the great event of the fifth century them almost entirely untouched. The invasion of Italy, and the overrunning of western Europe by various barbarian peoples did not affect their legal status. They continued to be Roman citizens, and the edicts of the emperors, as embodied in the Theodosian Code, were carried out by the barbarian kings and the episcopal and ecclesiastical authorities. Such was the case when Italy was ruled by the Ostrogoth Theodoric, and it had not altered later in the days of Gregory the Great. For both, the Jews were Roman citizens. In the last shreds of the Theodosian Code, contained in the Lex Romana Raetica Curiensis, they are still included. The period is marked throughout by one consistent characteristic. In so far as popular feelings were concerned there might be ups and downs. In so far as legislation was concerned, a right once lost was never permanently regained.
left
The restrictions were continually reinforced. The path towards their mediaeval position and the mediaeval ghetto was followed relentlessly and without deviation. The Theodosian Code embodied the maximum of their rights. Lawlessness and ecclesiastical enthusiasm from time to time encroached thereon, but it never cancelled any provision in a manner favourable to them. In the end all the different
systems under which they lived finished under the influence of the Church by considering the Jews ethnically as strangers,
(
and
and in this capacity persons * 1 and civil of subject to special restrictions . rights, deprived The same situation existed in the kingdoms of the Franks and Visigoths. Beginning with the Theodosian Code in a shortened adaptation, they added further restrictions of their own. And side by side with the law-makers of Church and
religiously as unbelievers,
J
Juster, op.
cit. t
II, 27.
200
on Jewish obliquity, supported and the prophets rather than

contemporary Jews.
State, the theologians continued their conventional utterances still by references to Moses
to
any actual malignity of
II.
HONORIUS AND VALENTINIAN
III
The successors of Theodosius were his two sons. Arcadms ruled the eastern portion of the empire from Constantinople, and Honorius the western from different centres of northern At first the main problem of the former was the Italy. preservation of the Jews against over-zealous officials, and of the latter the securing of curial service from the Jews. It is clear that Honorius was in need of money, for he com* Jewish citizens of various ranks are plains bitterly that wandering about in southern Italy ', and are under the delusion that by some law or other of the eastern provinces they are freed from the obligation of their public charges '. So far as the western provinces were concerned this law did not exist, for, says Honorius, if it did exist it would be ruinous to public finances 1 . This class was not allowed freedom of movement, and the Jews were consequently ordered to return forthwith to their own cities and to resume their duties. Not content with this, in the following year, 399, he boldly appropriated the whole of the money which was normally sent by the Jews to Jerusalem, and addressed the * Patriarch in opprobrious terms as the ravager of the Jews '. This action, coming from the west, marks clearly the division of the empire. Honorius felt that such sums were being paid to a foreign province, and he expected the Jews of Italy to ' feel the same, for he announced that he had preserved
'
them from
this exaction' 2 .
illusioned, for
we
allowing the sums In this same year appears for the first time a prohibition which extends down to the nineteenth century, and has reappeared in National Socialist Germany in 1933. Anatural
.
In this latter feeling he was disfind him, five years later, in 404, again to be sent3
C.T., 12.1.157 Ibid. 16.8.14.
and 158.
*Ibid. 16.8.17.
2OI
consequence of the abolition of sacrifice on the part of public officials was the entry of Jews into public functions. During the fourth century no objection had been made to this, but the more rigid orthodoxy of the fifth saw in such action on the part of either Jews or heretics an insult to the majesty of the empire. Honorius began with a simple prohibition: Jews and Samaritans who are deluding themselves with the privileges of imperial executive officers are to be den This prohibition prived of all military and court rank a more comprehensive and both unjust, inadequate proving edict was issued some years later. Those who were already to comoccupied with official functions were to be allowed usual the with to retire and service term of plete their to be considered a special privilege, this concession pension and not to be repeated. Nor was it to be applicable to was to be immediately military service. Any Jew in the army the other On hand, they might practise *as lawyers degraded.
' .
and enjoy the doubtful privilege of the honour of curial In words reminiscent of the utterances of responsibility. modern antisemitic polemists, he added these things ought to be enough for them, and they ought not to take their *2 exclusion from government service as a slur Though, then as now, it is difficult to see in what other the way such an exclusion can be taken, it appears from his for Honorius of the of that, legislation general tenor
*
.
the Jews. time, he can only be considered friendly towards One of his motives may well have been his desire to leave his hands free to deal with the barbarians whose invasions of his reign in the capture of Rome. Italy culminated during have been the economic collapse of Italy which Another
may
was proceeding apace, and his unwillingness to forego any whatever possible advantages from Jewish industry. But,
the causes, there is considerably less virulence in his attitude to the Jews than in that of his eastern contemporary Arcadius, and in view of the fact that the western empire was at this time suffering even more than the eastern, it should be
counted to him for righteousness. The attitude which he took is made particularly clear by on the question of sanctuary, which was the
legislation
iC.T., 16.8.16.
*Ibid. 16.8.24.
202 THE CONFLICT OF
passed in both sections of the empire in the beginning of the fifth century. In normal conditions the violation of sanctuary was considered as the crime of lese majeste1 But the reigns of Honorius and Arcadius were not normal. The economic distress of the empire forced Arcadius to permit the violation of sanctuary in the case of Jews who fled thither for the 2 For a short purpose of avoiding their debts or charges from the same Christians even period taking sanctuary motives might meet similar treatment 3 Honorius, while recognising the influence of economic distress on the flight of Jews to sanctuary and to Christianity, allowed them, even when converted, to return without any penalty to Judaism4 , an attitude in extraordinary contrast to the prevailing views of the period, as seen in conciliar and secular legislation. The flight of the Jews to sanctuary and to Christianity is not the only evidence of the difficult economic situation at this period 5 Honorius also took the unique step of revoking the consistent policy of Christian imperial legislaHe allowed them Christian tion in the matter of slaves. slaves provided that the master did not interfere with the slave's religion. This the master was simply forbidden to
-.
.
.
do, no penalty being attached. Any interference in their possession of such slaves, however, was to be severely
punished
6
.
interest for this study are the three laws which were promulgated in Africa in the years 408 and 409. At this period Augustine was engaged in his long battle with the Donatists, a group which, for violence, rivalled the eastern monks. The Jews are only incidental to the imperial attempt to suppress them, but it appears that Jews had taken part in their attacks upon Catholic churches and their services. That this was not a large part is probable. For Augustine devotes a considerable number of his works to his defence against the Donatists, and remains silent on a Jewish
1
Of more
Cf. C.J., I.I2.2.
C.T., 945.2.
/&w?, 16.8.23.
*Ibid. 9-45-44 5
An interesting study of the economic collapse of Rome is to be found in Genseric t Roi des Vandales by E.-F. Gautier, Paris, 1932.
t
C.T., 16.9.3.
203
share in their outrages. But this silence, while it may temper, cannot contradict the positive evidence of a twice 1 Together with the Donatists there appeared repeated law at this time in Africa other heretics who involved the Jews, the Caelicoli '. Beyond the references to them in the law of Honorius, we are entirely ignorant of the nature and * beliefs of this group. They were clearly a Judaising group,
.
'
'
for they
tried to force certain Christians to

'
.
adopt the foul
and degrading name of Jew 2 Possibly they should be connected with two other references. A council of Carthage, possibly the fourth, expelled from the Church those using auguries and incantations, and those clinging to Jewish superstitions and festivals '. The law mentions the second of these crimes, and the name of the sect, Caelicoli ', suggests
'
the The other reference is to be found in a letter of 4 Augustine where he refers to Christians who call themselves Jews ', and says that though Christians are the true Israel ', they should not use this name. Whatever their and tenets, the sect is given one year to cease to exist it it took course of for is the never doing so, apparently unique heard of again, except as part of the title of the chapter of the Theodosian Code dealing with Jews, Samaritans and
,
*
*
first3 .
'
'
Caelicoli
5
.
There is thus certain evidence that the Jews were a social and religious danger to the Christians in Africa. There is even clearer evidence that the Christians were a danger to
the lawlessness of the eastern provinces far as we know, by anything happening in the west, Honorius issued edicts to protect both the 6 7 sanctity of the Sabbath and the security of the synagogues ; a clear sign that both had been violated. possess a lengthy narrative from Severus, bishop of Majorca, describing just such events in the island of Minorca
the Jews.
Though
was not equalled, so
We
C.T., 16.544 and 46.
*Ibid. 16.8.19.
8
Carthage IV, Can. 89, in Mansi, III, p. 958.

Augustine, Ep., 196; P.L.,
4
a
XXXIII,
iii,
p. 894.
For an ingenious theory as to their beliefs see the discussion of Gothofredus on this law in his edition of the Code. C.T., 8.8,8 and 2.8.26.
7
Ibid. 16.8.20.
204

.
in 4I8 1 The narrative is contained in a letter addressed to * their most holy and blessed lordships the bishops, presbyters and deacons of the whole world '. The narrative
has always been taken as a genuine but coloured account of the actual events by the bishop himself, but it would seem c is more extensive than is colouring possible that the The chief convert among the Jews was admitted. usually ' ' Theodoras, who occupied the position of defensor or mayor of Magona in Minorca. The event is supposed to take place in 418, but in 409 an edict was issued in Ravenna ordering that defensores should be chosen by the clergy, and only from the orthodox2 It is, of course, possible that the law had not reached so obscure a city in nine years, but it is also a feature of apocryphal documents to give lofty The narrative also contains a contitles to their actors. siderable amount of that kind of miracle which has neither a psychological nor a moral probability. The other town of the island, for example, had a miraculous divine privilege, by which it was immune from the presence of snakes, wolves, foxes and Jews, and though it had scorpions, these were of a heavenly variety which did not sting. If any Jews entered the town and were removed neither by mysterious sickness nor by the inhabitants, their elimination was undertaken by divine thunderbolts. The first cause of the events which the bishop narrates was the arrival in the island of a deacon from Jerusalem who came with the relics of Saint Stephen which were to be
* *
' .
transported to Spain. But his voyage was interrupted by the invasion of the Vandals into that country. According to the usual accounts, the first translation of Saint Stephen took place in the fourth century, to Byzantium, and there is no record other than this letter of a subsequent translation to Spain, an event in itself exceedingly unlikely in view of the political situation. The presence, however, of these relics stirs up the population to a solution of the Jewish question. The Jews, alarmed,
recall
Theodore from Majorca, whither
affairs
had
called
him.
insist
1
He tries in vain to quiet matters down. The Christians
on a disputation, but when the time comes only accuse Epistola dejfadaeis, P.L., XX, p. 731.
*C.J., 1.55.8.
205
the Jews of piling up weapons in the synagogue. This the Jews deny, and Severus demands ocular proof. Leading his followers to the synagogue, he is the object of a hostile demonstration from some Jewish women. Introducing, perhaps unnecessarily, the miraculous, he explains that no one was hit. The Christians retaliated with similar results, for the Jewish women had, presumably, retired. Arriving at the synagogue, and forgetting the motive which had led
it and destroys everything in it which he returns to the Jews, and the books which he keeps to preserve from Jewish defilement *. The despair and confusion of the Jewish population are painted with considerable power, but consisting as it does largely of dreams and visions, internal feelings and private
him
there,
he
sets fire to
'
except the
silver,
conversations, it is clearly of the romantic rather than of the eye-witness school of writing. In the end all the Jews are baptised, and the letter is written to appraise the world of this example of grace. The victory is due to a combination of miracle with the tactics of the Ephesians, continuous shouting, and is not apparently due to the power of either the While thus the oratory or the lives of the Christians. narrative is clearly unreliable, it is probable that the two main facts, the burning of the synagogue and the forced(?) baptism of the Jews, really took place. For both of these events are in the spirit of the times as also is the inaccurate reporting of them. Valentinian III repeated the law by which Jews could not hold office, and added the reason that he did not wish Christians to serve such persons, lest by their office they found occasion to corrupt the venerable Christian faith >x In addition he enacted one further law which is of con*
.
siderable importance2 :
If the son or daughter or grandchild, singly or together, of a Jew or Samaritan, shall on better thoughts leave the shadows of his own superstition for the light of the Christian religion, it shall not be lawful for his parents or grandparents to disinherit him or to pass him over in their will or to leave him less than he would have received if
:
Const. Sirm.y vi fin. C.T., 16.8.28. Cf. Juster, Vol. II, pp. 90-91.
206
they had died intestate. If they do so, we order that he shall succeed to the inheritance as though it was a case of intestacy, and the will shall be null, except for the manumissions (up to the legal maximum) which it may
and which shall retain their validity. be proved that such children or grandchildren have committed serious offences against their parents or of taking grandparents, while the latter have legal means revenge if the accusation shall have in the meantime been brought to trial, yet they shall in their will both attach credible and clear documentary evidence (of these crimes) and shall leave them only the Falcidian quarter of the succession which should have been theirs. This seems to be due to the children or grandchildren in honour of the religion which they have chosen though, as we have said, they will also be punished if any charge against them be
contain,
If
it
shall
proved.
Such a law is evidence that even when a purely political or social right is in question the influence affecting it is religious. Neither in this case nor in the case of Jewish officials do we
possess any evidence which extraordinary action.
would otherwise
justify
such
III.
THEODORIC THE OSTROGOTH

by the time
of the passage of these laws the
The
fact that
effective rule in Italy had passed to the barbarians did not affect the situation, and in 438 the whole of the Theodosian
valid for the west, and introduced into these laws of Arcadius and Theodosius II, both of the provinces whom had passed more anti-Jewish legislation than their western colleagues 1 . The barbarians themselves, and the
Code became
shadow emperors
introduce
century.
still
ruling at Ravenna,
had
little
time to
new laws; no councils dealt with them; and we know little of how the Jews fared during the rest of the fifth
But in 493 Theodoric the Ostrogoth, an Arian, conquered Italy and extended his dominion over the Visigoths of Provence and Northern Spain.
1
For
this legislation see
Ch. VII.

Theodoric has
left
207
a consistent record behind him of in his treatment of all his Roman subjects. Though justice he was himself an Arian, he would not allow the Jews to encroach on the Catholics. If he never ceased to remind them (though the inspiration may come rather from his minister Cassiodorus than himself) that they had erred from the true religion, yet his real attitude is summed up in his ' determination to preserve the ancient usages: As to the Jews, let the privileges they enjoy be preserved and let them
preserve their
own judges
J1
or unnecessary statement
is
That this was no shown by the actual

.
theoretical
cases with
which he had
which were all connected with violence between kind some of Jews and Christians. Both in Ravenna and Rome synagogues had been burnt, and complaints made to the king, who ordered justice to be done. In Ravenna the trouble had apparently started from some forced baptisms, which had led the Jews into ridiculing Christianity2 The Christians then rose and burnt the synagogue, and the Jews at Verona. Theodoric ordered rapidly complained to the king
to deal,
.
1
*
Edictum, Cap. 143.
Anonymus
Valesianus,
XVI,
80;
M.G Jft., 4to, Vol. IX,
i;
Ckron. Min, t
p. 326.
ship Great, Vol. II, p. 152, by a happy transposition says that the Jews of Ravenna were in the habit of throwing baptised persons into the river, and making a mockery of the Eucharist. M. DemouJin in the Cambridge Modern History , says that it was the Jews who were flung in the river by the Christians (Vol. I, 453). The next stage of the legend should be a complaint from the Congested Rivers Board. The sentence in question runs: quare Judaei baptizatos nolentes dumludunt frequenter oblatam in ' *. The phrase baptizatos nolentes 'for baptiacquam fluminisjactaverunt ' ' zatos esse nolentes or baptizati (os) contra suam voluntatem is almost t J oblatam did then mean not Latin. in late even Moreover, impossible the Eucharist, but the bread which has been blessed but not used for the Eucharist. It would seem necessary to suppose a corruption, either of ' ' baptizari nolentes or baptizati violenter '. The latter is more probobtained access able* for it provides the only explanation of how the Jews * * to the oblata '. It is impossible to consider this a profanation of the Host ', an accusation which does not occur until centuries later, and if this is excluded, there seems no reason for making a special point of * stealing so unimportant a piece of Christian ritual as the oblata '. The
* ' ' '
The possibilities of the growth of legend even in modern scholarare well illustrated by this story. Dr Homes Dudden in Gregory the
* * Eucharist, but baptizatos is never used for ordinary Christians, but only for people like the Jews, who were normally not baptised.
most probable sequence would then be this. The Jews had been baptised against their will. After the ceremony they had received pieces of blessed bread. To show their contempt for the whole proceeding, they marched together (* frequenter *) to the river and threw it in. As against the translation of Dr Dudden, it may be added that not only does oblata not mean
*
'
208
the
Roman population of Ravenna to rebuild the synagogue, and those who were too poor to be flogged instead. The affair at Rome, which also led to the burning of a synagogue, was more complicated. Cassiodorus is not easy to interpret, but slaves had murdered their master, and somehow a riot
followed their condemnation. Presumably, in defiance of the law, the slaves were Christian otherwise it is difficult to see how the crowd came into the matter. Something, however, roused them, and the mob burnt the synagogue. Theodoric * reproved the Senate that in Rome of all places such levitas should take place, and ordered them to make a careful enquiry into both the burning and the alleged malpractices of the
; '
Theodoric also wrote to Rome on Jews, and to do justice a question affecting a Samaritan synagogue. It was alleged that Pope Simplicius had bought a property on which a synagogue had stood, and had thereby deprived them of it. Theodoric again ordered an impartial enquiry to be made, with a view, presumably, to its restoration to the Samaritans, 2 Here if it had contained one of their religious buildings Theodoric was showing himself milder than the Theodosian Code, which neither made reciprocal allowance for the return of buildings of other religions bought by Catholics, nor allowed any toleration to the Samaritans in particular. The Jews of Genoa and Milan also turned to him for protection against the violation of their rights, and again his attitude reveals his veneration for the Romans whose rule he had replaced. To the Jews of Milan he writes that for the * preservation of Civilitas the benefits of justice are not to be denied even to those who are erring from the right way in matters of faith '. He forbids any ecclesiastic to meddle with their rights and, at the same time, forbids them to do * anything incivile against the Church. Then, lest the spirit of Ambrose should rise and haunt him, this Arian monarch adds: But why, O Jew, do you seek in your petition for '3 earthly quiet, when you are not able to find eternal quiet? * To the Jews of Genoa he writes: we gladly accede to your request that all the privileges which the foresight of antiquity conferred upon the Jewish customs shall be renewed to you;
1
.
.
'
Cassiodorus Varia, IV, 43; P.L., *Ibid. Ill, 46; p. 600.
LXIX,
p. 636.

it is our great desire that the laws of the ancients be kept in force, to secure the reverence due to ourselves n But that he did not wish to go beyond the law is shown by the fact that he would not allow this same community to do more than roof in the ruins of their old synagogue, and that he expressly forbade them to enlarge
for in truth
shall
it
2
.
It is in this letter that, after protesting against their
he adds the famous sentence that he grants * we are not able to command permission because a religion, for no one is compelled unwillingly to believe sentiment not always shared by his Catholic contemporaries. Though this reflects truly enough the attitude of the Gothic sovereigns, yet it is possible, even probable, that this mildness is due to the influence of his Catholic secretary Cassiodorus, for it is very similar to that shown in the commentaries of which he was the author3 Not unnaturally the Jews were
errors of faith,
the
'
loyal
to
the
Ostrogoths, and
when
Belisarius
besieged
Naples in 536 the Jews were amongst the firmest opponents

to the idea of surrender, and, last to resist4 .
when
the city was taken, the
IV.
THE LOMBARDS
Of the Jews under the Lombards, who invaded Italy in the second half of the sixth century, little is known. It is probably a case of happy the people that has no history \ though once the Lombards became Catholics, matters may have changed, for there is one record of forced conversion or execution at the end of the seventh century 5 In general they still lived under a rough version of the Theodosian Code, for another edition of that Code was produced at the end of the eighth century, and contains in barbaric Latin a summary of Those who were accustomed to consider themtheir status. * were to keep their internal autonomy, selves Romans
* . *
Cass. Var. t IV, 33; PL.. LXIX., p. 630. Ibid. II, 27; ibid. p. 561. 3 See Cass., Expositio in Psalteriitm, Pss. conclusio. P.L., pp. 357 and 595.
*
49 and 81, in each case the
LXX,
Procopius, History of the Wars, V, 8, 9, 10. Carmen de Synodo Ticmensi, M.G.H., 4to, Scrip. Rerum Langobard., 190.
*
JIO

.
1 liough they were to use Christian judges in mixed cases The old prohibitions with regard to intermarriage and the owning or purchase of Christian slaves were naturally
retained 2 .
V.
THE PAPACY: GREGORY THE GREAT
united kingdom in Italy, and left of Peter Saint ', the nucleus of the papal patrimony The Popes thus became important States, independent. Italian princes. During the earlier centuries it is not to ascribe to them any particular attitude to the possible Jews. If a Pope was a writer, nothing in particular distinguished his views from those of others. In conciliar and
The Lombards formed no

*
the
imperial legislation it is not possible to attribute to them any special role. But a different situation arises once the Popes become secular potentates ruling in Rome over a more or less defined territory. They also stand in a very different position of authority towards the new kingdoms of the west from that which they were able to occupy towards the old empire. As long as the empire lasted they were
occupied with purely religious questions, and, when legislawas necessary, it was the emperor who legislated. But when ecclesiastical councils began to assume the function of legislator, when bishops, by their education and understanding, or by their influence over princelings, came to
tion
exercise authority in their dioceses, it was natural that the papacy also should play a part in the political life of the
west where it touched the interests of the Church. In the period in which most of the barbarians were
Arians,
it
still
is
often said that the Catholics
intolerant, but just as examples of Popes far in
were always mediaeval history shows us many

advance of their clergy in toleration
and humanity, so the first Pope of whose attitude to the Jews we have full information, Gregory the Great, shows an attitude of firmness and, at the same time, justice which, in view of the age in which he lived, is far removed from intolerance. More than eight hundred letters of this Pope still exist, and over twenty deal with matters affecting the
1
*Ibid. 3.1.5
Lex Romano. Raetica Curiensis, and 3.7.2.
2.1.8.
M.G.H.,
folio,
Leg. V, 313.

Jews.
211
At that time (the end of the sixth century) his authority over all the churches of western Christendom was
but vaguely established, but his patriarchal authority over the region which corresponded to the jurisdiction of the former Vicarius Urbis was quite definite. Outside this territory, which included large portions of central and southern Italy, and the islands of Sicily, Corsica and Sardinia, it depended largely on the moral influence of the individual Pope. With Gregory it was naturally considerable. Within his patrimony we find him dealing with every kind of question, not merely ecclesiastical, but economic and military. He lived at a time when Italy was going through a period of acute distress. The Lombards were in possession of large sections of the country, and Gregory will break off another subject in a letter to advise a bishop to look well to the fortifications and provisioning of his town in case there is an attack from these enemies. He negotiates himself for peace with the Lombard kings, and advises the Exarch of Ravenna on the policy to adopt towards them. Gregory was ever ready to listen to just complaints brought to him, and many of his letters on Jewish questions begin
Roman Jews or Jews coming to have brought him a complaint of their treatment in the recipient's city. His main interest on the Papal patrimony was their conversion, and he sends several letters of instruction to his Sicilian representative laying down his views on the subject. Of forced conversion he expresses his strongest disapproval, and he writes to the bishops of Marseilles and Aries, telling them of the complaints he has received from Jewish merchants coming from Marseilles to Rome, that
by
telling the recipient that
Rome
cities are being brought to the font more by force than by persuasion. While Gregory approves of the motive of love for the Lord which had led the bishops to this action, he disapproves of the action itself, and fears that its result is likely to bring more evil than good, for such converts cannot be sincere. It is only by preaching that a sincere He writes in a somewhat conversion can be effected 1 . similar strain to the bishop of Terracina, approving of the bishop *s effort to preach to the Jews, but disapproving of his
Jews in these
use of threats.
1
The terror
I,
of the future judgment should be
Ep.
I,
47, Migne;
45,
Ewald and Hartmann.
212

1
.
enough, and they are more likely to be won by kindness The bishop may well have offered them conversion or expulsion, as had several of his contemporaries under Prankish rule. His own attitude is shown by his letters to the rectors of his patrimony in Sicily. When he hears that there are many Jews on the estates of the Church, he begs them to use
every effort to win them to Christ. They are to be offered a reduction of their rent if they will accept baptism, an offer which is in interesting contrast to his instructions to increase the rent for pagans who refuse to be converted. By this means Gregory hopes that others may be led to follow their example 2 Gregory shows an equal solicitude for the welfare of those who have already accepted conversion. His rector is instructed to make an annual grant out of the Papal funds to a converted widow and her three children3 . On another occasion he directs that converts too poor to provide their own baptismal robe shall be given one from the Papal funds4 In spite of the advantages he offers, a few years later Gregory finds that many on his estates are still refusing conversion. He therefore offers them explicitly a reduction in rent of one-third, unless the rector decides upon another figure. He was under no illusion as to the effect of his offer, but he balances the loss on Church revenue, and the possible insincerity of the actual converts, by the fact that their children will be baptised and receive Christian teaching. Thus the Church will win either one generation or the other 5 Gregory was also disposed to give privileges of a more spiritual kind to possible converts. Hearing from the Abbess of Saint Stephen's in Agrigentum that there are many Jews on her estates who wish to be baptised, he writes at once to Fantinus, the guardian of the Papal estates in Sicily, to make a visit to Agrigentum himself and to give instruction to those Jews seeking baptism. If they wish to be baptised at once, they are to be given forty days' abstinence, and then baptised at the nearest convenient
. .
*Ep. 1,35, M.; 1,34, E. and H. 9 Ep. II, 32, M.; II, 38, E. and H. 3 Ep. IV, 33, M.; IV, 31, E. and H. * Ep. V, 8, M.; V, 7, E. and H. 6 Ep. V, 8, M.; V, 7, E. and H.

feast.
213
If they wish to wait for the usual time, which in that century was Easter, they are to be made catechumens at once (the letter was written in May), and the bishop is to
pay special attention to them in the intervening period. As has been already said, the poor are to have their robes
1 provided for them .
Some of Gregory's
converts turned out
unsatisfactory, for in one case he had to write to his rector to protect the bearer of his letter, a certain Paula, from the
evil intentions
of a converted Jew Theodorus 2 ; and in another he speaks of a certain Peter who, the day after his 3 conversion, proceeded to desecrate his old synagogue That the enmity of the Jews was aroused by this policy is possibly hinted at in a letter of commendation of a convert and his
.
wife, who are to be guarded
from all molestation. This would 4 presumably be from unconverted Jews While thus anxious for their conversion, and prepared to
.
accept possible insincerity in the parents for the sake of the children, Gregory was firm in allowing them exactly the
privileges which they enjoyed under Theodosian Law. In four different places he is told of oppression, Terracina
and Palermo
in Sicily, Caglieri in Sardinia,
and Naples.
In Terracina the Jews possess a synagogue in such close proximity to the church that the singing is said to disturb Christians at worship. If on a careful inspection this disturbance is found to exist, they are to be given another site, where they can live under the protection of Roman Law, and enjoy their observances without hindrance 6 . The complaint was apparently found justified, for a few months later there is a protest from the Jews that they have been given another site and then turned out of it. Gregory orders
c
'
the bishop to abstain from giving them cause of complaint of this kind 6 . In Palermo the trouble comes from an enthusiastic bishop, Victor, to whom Gregory writes that the Jews in Rome complain that he has without any cause confiscated some of their
Ep. VIII, 23, M.; and E. and H. Ep. VII, 44, M.; VII, 41, E. and H. * Ep. IX, 6, M.; DC, 195, E. and H. 4 Ep. I, 71, M.; I, 69, E. and H. 1 Ep. I, 10, M.; II, 6, E. and H.
*
1
Ep.I,35,M.;I,34E.andH.
214
synagogues with their attached guest chambers. Gregory is anxious to do no injustice to the bishop, and expresses
his unwillingness to believe that his action was unprovoked 1 . But finding there is no excuse for it, he writes to his repre-
sentative to see that the bishop
is
made
to
pay for the
buildings, which cannot be returned as they have been consecrated, at a price fixed by reputable persons. He must * If the Jew may return any ornaments which he has taken. not exceed the law, he ought to be allowed peaceably to
2 enjoy what the law permits/ The aged bishop of Caglieri was a perpetual thorn in the side of the Pope. He was violent and incompetent, and, as a result, there was always some trouble in Sardinia. This time a converted Jew, with rash enthusiasm, had immedi-
ately after his baptism collected disorderly persons and seized the synagogue, putting there a cross, an image of the Virgin, and his own baptismal robe. This fact had been confirmed by letters from the secular authorities and
stated that the
Gregory tempers the implied rebuke by adding that they bishop had attempted to restrain him.
Gregory, therefore, orders the bishop to restore their syna-
gogue to the Jews, since they may not build a new one, and In Naples the to attempt also to restore peace in the city 3 with internal affairs and had been Jewish interfering bishop
.
prohibiting certain lawful practices. Gregory forbids this on the grounds that he cannot see that such conduct is in the least likely to lead to their conversion, and that, on the other hand, the prohibited practices were in themselves 4 legal. He recommends the bishop to try kindness . Even in secular matters he is prepared to intervene to
Jamnian Jew complained to him protect Jewish rights. that the Papal Guardian had wrongfully, with other creditors,
seized his ship and property. Gregory orders an immediate 5 full enquiry into the matter, that justice may be done . While he was determined that justice should be done to
them, and every effort be made to win them to Christianity, 1 Had they, for example, been new buildings, this would have justified
their confiscation.
Eps. VIII, 25, and IX, 55 M.; VIII, 25, and IX, 38, E. and H. Ep. IX, 6, M.; IX, 195, E. and H. * Ep. XIII, 12, M.; XIII, 15, E. and H. 6 Ep. IX, 56, M,; IX, 40, E. and H.
3
215
the Pope was quite firm on the question of the limits of their rights. Just as he had refused to allow them to build new synagogues, so also he would not allow them to exceed the Theodosian Code in the matter of Christian slaves. No less than ten letters deal with this question, and he is concerned with the matter outside his own direct jurisdiction as much as within it. His letters cover the possession, the circumcision, and the buying and selling of slaves. He writes to the Prankish sovereigns, Theodoric, Theodobert, and Brunichild, expressing his astonishment that they tolerate this insult to Christ, the Head of the Church,that they allow His members to be * trampled on by His enemies J1 . At the beginning of his reign he even finds this abuse on his own estates in Sicily 2 Other cases are a little more complicated. In Syracuse a Christian boy had served a Samaritan master for eighteen years, and then become free. His master had followed him to the font 5 and then reclaimed him. This 3 In another case he Gregory correctly refuses to allow hears that a Samaritan owner has actually circumcised a pagan slave. Gregory orders the slave to be set free without compensation to his owner, and adds that the latter ought 4 The old bishop of legally to be punished into the bargain in also matter of slaves. causes trouble the Caglieri Gregory Acting on an obsolete statute of Valentinian, he allowed
. .
.
purchase money to be paid to Jews for slaves who to the Church, and announced their desire to Christians. In some cases he had even returned their Jewish masters 5 . In a letter to the bishop of
had fled become them to
Luna
in
6 Etruria, Gregory makes the distinction made by Honorius allowing Jews to retain Christian slaves engaged in agricul-
ture, provided they permit them undisturbed possession of 7 their religion. All others are to be liberated at once .
1 *
Ep. IX, 109 and no, M.; IX, 213 and 215, E. and H. Ep. I, 10, M.; II, 6, E. and H. Ep. VIII, 21, M.; and E. and H. Gregory was acting on Cod. Just.*
i,3>544 Ep. VI, 33, M.; VI, 30, E. and C.T., 16.94. * Ep. IV, 9, M.; and E. and H.
'
7
H.
The
legal position is given in
C.T., 16.9.3-
Ep. IV, 21, M.; and E. and H.
2l6

it is
complicated were questions of the slave trade, in obvious, the Jews took a considerable part. Gregory had at first desired to make the hard-and-fast rule that Jews were not to buy Christian slaves, and that any found in their possession were to be removed without compensation. He shows his essential reasonableness of spirit by listening to a Jewish delegation on the subject. In a letter to the bishop of Naples, which was apparently the great port at which slaves arrived from Gaul, he explains the argument of the Jews, and propounds his solution, which he considers fair alike to the Jewish merchants and the Christian captives. The Jewish traffic in slaves received official recognition in Gaul, and it was at the request of the Gallic In making authorities that the Jews were buying them. such purchases they could not distinguish which were
More
which,
pagans and which Christians. Gregory therefore lays down that once they have discovered any to be Christians, they are either to be handed over at once to those who ordered the purchase (it is not quite clear who these are) or sold to Christian masters within forty days. If the slave is sick a delay is allowed. He is then to be sold as soon as he is well. If the Jew retains a Christian slave more than forty days, this is to be considered evidence that he intends to keep him for his own use. In this case he should be set free and no compensation paid. They are to be given a fair time to dispose of slaves at present in their possession, since it is not fair to penalise them for actions committed in ignorance 1 In a postscript he raises the question of the slaves of a particular Jew, Basilius, who had come with the delegation to Rome. Basilius had sons who were Christians. He wished permission to give some of his slaves to his sons and retain the use of them himself. Gregory provides an ingenious solution. They may not remain in his house, but his sons may offer them to him for the services which it is fitting for sons to render to a father. This postscript is interesting from other points of view than that of the question of the slaves. It is a pity we do not know the motives with which the sons became Christians. At first sight it suggests a business deal and a clever way of keeping the slaves in the family, parallel to that by which in later centuries Jews possessed property
.
Ep. IX, 36, M.; IX, 104, E. and H.
2IJ
under the name of Christians. But it is doubtful if Gregory, with all his practical acuteness, would have tolerated such a collusion between the works of light and darkness. It is more likely that he accepted the conversion of the sons as sincere, and that the incident shows that perfectly good relations could exist between a converted son and an unconverted father. There is a puzzling letter to Candidus our Presbyter in Gaul about four Christian captives in the possession of a Jew in Narbonne. Gregory orders them to be redeemed, and to be provided with adequate funds from the papal chest if they have not enough money to pay for their own redempAs this letter is dated May 597 1 , and the letter just tion. discussed is of February 599, it seems as if there was no excuse for his not ordering them to be immediately set free without compensation paid to their owner. We have not
* *
adequate data for deciding the actual circumstances of the case. That they were not as simple as they sound is shown by the fact that the Presbyter is ordered to make a careful enquiry. The consistency of Gregory's action throughout makes it difficult to accept the story simply on the evidence
given
2.
Finally, there was the question of slaves who were pagans when they were bought, and who declared their desire to become Christians while in the possession of the Jewish slaver. The Jews tried to pretend that the law allowing the pagan slave of a Jew to become free on expressing his
desire to
become a Christian did not apply to
slaves acquired
for the purpose of sale. Gregory will not accept this. Any slave has at any time the right to freedom on expressing this desire. But he recognises that this would be unfair to the slaver, if stated without qualification. He therefore gives him the opportunity of selling him within forty days to a
months, he
1
is still in the Jew's possession after three This decision, to receive his freedom3 . addressed to Naples two years before the general issue had
Christian.
If
he
is
Ep. VII, 24, M.; VII, 21, E. and H. Neither the kings nor the councils in France had accepted the idea that a Jew might not own a Christian slave, but Gregory's letter to the sovereigns clearly shows that he did not accept this situation. On the councils see below, Ch. DC, Section VI. * Ep. VI, 32, M.; VI, 29, E. and H.
*
2l8
to
be decided, probably provided the basis from which the
Pope evolved his later solution. There are three other letters dealing* with Jewish questions which throw some light both on Gregory and on contemporary conditions. Two priests at Venafro had sold church plate to the Jews. Gregory orders it to be immedi-
More interesting is the case of an enterprisbut wicked most Jew who had set up an altar to Elijah, ing and had persuaded many Christians to worship at it. It is a pity we do not know more of this case, for it is impossible to tell whether this was a new Judaistic heresy the Jew being sincere but in error or whether he was an ingenious charlatan producing a miracle-working shrine for the deception of the faithful. The odds are in favour of the former, for if he had been a humbug he was unwise in neglecting the preliminary of a miraculous conversion. Accepting his action as sincere, the most probable explanation seems to be
.
1 ately restored
c
'
Jew saw the reconciliation of Judaism and Christianity in the second coming of the Messiah, and had therefore erected an altar to Elijah who was due to precede Him, and that he had found Christians to share his belief. The fact that he had Christian slaves supports his sincerity, for again, if he were a humbug, he was behaving so foolishly
that the
it is unlikely that his activities would have survived long enough to come to the ears of the Pope. In any case Gregory did not sympathise with his efforts, and he ordered die Prefect of Sicily to confiscate his slaves and
that
The last letter is one which it is probable Gregory would never have written had he seen what was to follow the conversion of the Arian Visigothic kings
of Spain to
Catholicism.
It
is
2 destroy his altar .
a letter congratulating
Reccared on his conversion, and particularly on refusing the offer of a large sum of money from the Jews offered him on condition that he did not put into force the new laws against them 3 As can easily be seen, the letters of Gregory give us a
.
unique picture of Jewish life at the end of the sixth century, and of the relations between Christians and Jews. While
1
2 3
Ep. I, 68, M.; I, 66, E. and H. Ep. Ill, 38, M.; Ill, 37, E. and H. Ep. IX, 122, M.; IX, 228, E. and H.

it is evident that the slave trade formed an important Jewish activity, the number of letters devoted to that question is due as much to the complicated issues involved, and the difficulty of ensuring that Jews did not possess Christian slaves, as it is to the number of Jews possessing slaves or indulging in the traffic. We see also Jewish peasants on the papal estates and Jewish slaves engaged in agriculture in North Italy. We see poor Jews who cannot afford their baptismal robe. We see Jews and Jewish converts to Christianity apparently living in amity, and we see also the reverse, Jewish converts in danger of molestation by Jews. There is the riotousness and oppression of a lawless age, and there is life going on quietly through it all with its manifold practical and missionary
tasks.
Before turning from the picture to the painter it is worth looking at the attitude to the Jews of Gregory as theologian, to see if in it is reflected the practical and sympathetic administrator whom we know from the letters. His writings are voluminous, and as they are mainly biblical commentaries, they offer good ground for the study of his If we had not his letters we attitude to this question. would have absolutely no idea that he had ever had any contacts with Jews, or that he regarded them with anything but the deepest horror and loathing. There is no word of either sympathy or understanding, nor any desire to convert them. As his commentaries present an extreme case of the allegorical method, condemnatory references to the Jews are inevitable. When the Scriptures are divided into black and white in this way, the Jew must perforce be black. It will suffice to give one instance. Job's camels are stolen from him by Chaldeans descending in three hordes from the desert. Who are the three hordes? They are the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Scribes. Who are the camels? They are the Jews, whom these three hordes led away. How do we know that they are the Jews? Because the camel chews the cud, but has an undivided hoof. To chew the cud is clean, and the Law of God on which the Jews ruminate is clean. But the camel has an undivided hoof, and this shows that the Jews do not know how to discriminate what they read. It is a method by
220
which the Jews become in turn wild asses, unicorns, basilisks and serpents. Even Saint Paul is found foreshadowed in a rhinoceros. At the same time he holds firmly that the 1 Jews will ultimately be saved It is extremely difficult for the modern mind, accustomed to an entirely different method in the treatment of historical documents, to understand the way in which patristic writers remained entirely uninfluenced by contemporary relationships in their treatment of the Jews in biblical literature. The burning of a synagogue by a mob is a direct outcome
.
of the intellectual gymnastics of the learned, who themselves rarely have dreamed of committing such violence. The case of Gregory, the wise, sympathetic and practical administrator, is perhaps the most striking example of the situation, and accepting as we are bound to do the deep sincerity of his piety and charity, we cannot but ask ourselves how he could have tolerated anything so diametrically opposed to the rest of his personality, both as a Christian and as a practical statesman. While we cannot hope really to understand a man of the sixth century as one of
would
his contemporaries
might have understood him, we have
already seen some of the reasons. The acceptance of the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures was undoubtedly a reason of extreme importance. The allegorical method of interpreting them, the belief that every verse had by divine action a secret meaning, was a second. But in this The particular instance, we can probably add a third. career of the Jews in its main lines was laid down by Paul. They were to remain unfaithful until the Gentiles were gathered in. Then all Israel was to be saved. This latter fact, as it were, took the edge off the violence of the writer denunciation of their past and present existence. could let himself go to the full in his denunciation, because it only added to the miracle of their ultimate salvation. But even so it is a curious picture to think of Gregory turning from the dictation of one of his more flowery denunciations of their diabolical perversity and detestable characteristics
to deal with his correspondence, and writing to a bishop who has only been carrying these denunciations into logical
1 On Job> Hi, i; P.L., LXXV,p. 636; cf. xlii, ix; P.L.,LXXV,p. On Ezekid, Bk. I, Homily 12; P.L., LXXV, p. 921, etc.
756.

action, to remind him that it is that we can hope to win them,
221
by love and charity alone and that even when they do not wish to be converted they must be treated with justice and allowed the undisturbed use of the rights which
the
Law
allows them.
VI.
THE PAPACY: HONORIUS, GREGORY AND HADRIAN
III,
STEPHEN
next Pope of whom we have information is Honorius, occupied the papal chair in 637. The sixth council of Toledo was informed that he had allowed baptised Jews to return to Judaism, and it expresses its horror at In fact, the Pope was only carrying this permission 1 out the Roman law on the subject2 Whether the information received by the Visigothic bishops was true or not we do not know, nor have we the answer they received from the Pope, but the incident illustrates both the independence of the Pope and the independence of the local churches. For it is evident that Honorius no more succeeded in making the authorities of Spain conform to this wise toleration than Gregory himself was able to impose his will on the Prankish sovereigns. Among the judgments of Gregory III (731) are two In one, dealing with the adultery of a referring to Jews. Christian with a Jewess, Gregory refers to the decision of the council of Elvira3 . The other case is concerned with the date of Easter, and its celebration *cum Judaeis*. Here also Gregory simply conforms to the usual canonical
The who
A letter from Stephen VI (768-772) to Aribert, Arch4 bishop of Narbonne , shows that the Jews in that region still possessed far more rights over Christians than was permitted by either code or council. Both within and without the city they had Christians, both men and women,
to cultivate their fields, and these slaves and servants were
*
prohibition.
R.E.J., Vol. II, 137.
C.T., 16.8.23.
8
Mansiy XII, 294, referring to Elvira, Canon 78. 4 P.L., CXXIX, 857, Aronius 67.
222
compelled to live with them and to share 'all their abominations'. According to Stephen the Jews based their * position on some decree or other of the kings of France'. Septimania had only just returned to French rule. Under the Visigoths, a hundred years earlier, such a situation
But apparcertainly have been legally impossible. had which the rules protested were Gregory ently against still in force in France, and we have no information as to whether they were abolished on the protest of Stephen. Alternatively it is possible that the Franks were merely continuing in the newly acquired territory the favourable treatment which the Jews had received from the Arabs, and that by this time in the rest of the kingdom their privileges were reduced, Hadrian, the successor of Stephen, was requested by Charlemagne to send him an abstract of conciliar law, and in this epitome the laws against the Jews are naturally represented. In particular Hadrian includes the law forbidding the celebration of Easter on the same date as the Jewish Passover, the acceptance of any gift from the Jews from their feasts, the giving of evidence by Jews against Of the clergy, and Judaising by resting on the Sabbath1 these laws Charlemagne only included two in the collection which he issued in the beginning of his reign. He forbade Jews to give evidence against Christians, and Later he superseded Christians to rest on the Sabbath2 the first law by composing a special Jewish oath. Hadrian also corresponded with the Catholic bishops in Spain, where, after the Arab conquest, all sorts of heresies broke out, and where there was apparently some fraternising
would
between Jews and Christians. This was natural, for both were minorities. His letters to them show the attitude typical of the Papacy: surely you are not ignorant of the canons'. He rebukes them for eating, drinking and living with Jews and unbaptised persons. And he reminds them that it is forbidden to do so. He supports his different arguments with patristic quotations, and throughout adopts an air of calmness and authority. His tone is one He cannot understand of surprise rather than abuse.
*
1
2
M.G.H.,
Mansi, XII, pp. 867, 909 and 914. folio, Leg. I, 57 and 61
223
how
they do that which
is
forbidden by the canons and

.
by all the Fathers of the Church 1 That this was their attitude is
fact
also supported by the only conciliar legislation emanating from Rome during this period is a canon amplifying the ancient imperial prohibition either of intermarriage between Jews and Christians, or of selling Christian slaves to Jews 2 Apart from Gregory the Great we have no information as to the conduct of the Popes within the papal patrimony, but from the fact that such information as we have shows the Popes carrying out the measures of the Theodosian Code and the earlier councils, we can assume that such was their general policy, and that they did not indulge either in the spasmodic cruelties of sudden expulsions, or in the determined severity of the Visigothic councils. Their power was not adequate to control their national clergy, but they themselves continued the equable tenor of their ways, showing no special favour to the Jews, but allowing them the rights which were theirs by law.
that the
Mansi, XII, 807 ff. Cone. Romanian, Can.
10;
Manx, XII,
384.
CHAPTER SEVEN
LAW AND HISTORY
IN THE
BYZANTINE EMPIRE
Apart from the inevitable treatment of this period in general terms in Jewish histories, the only special study of the subject is the valuable work by Dr. Krauss, which includes a section on the period covered by this chapter.
material for the study of the legal status of naturally provided by the Codices of Theodosius and Justinian, together with, for the later centuries, the two editions of the Eclogues of Leo. The other Byzantine law books, in particular the Basilica, fall outside the period treated.
The main
is
the Jews
For historical material it is necessary to turn to the host of more or less inaccurate chroniclers. A list of the main works is given below; others are quoted in the relevant footnotes. Further material is from time to time being edited, especially in the Revue de fOrient ckretien, and in the different journals of Byzantine history. In addition special material is occasionally to be found in the Analecta Bollandiana. To these sources must also be added the Syriac and Oriental Patrologies, and the Corpus
Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, collections which
are
still
in process of completion.
Apart from Michael the Syrian the later chroniclers are rarely quoted. Works such as those of Cedrenus add little to the information afforded by their predecessors, and the little needs to be viewed with suspicion. References to the later Byzantine chroniclers need always to be verified by comparison with earlier works: various modern histories quote such sources with unfortunate results. John of Nikious, Joshua the Stylite, or Sebeos, who are almost or quite contemporary with the events which they describe,
226 THE CONFLICT OF
are themselves often inaccurate, but they are preferable to chroniclers such as Cedrenus. Though the actual subject with which he deals is different, of chroniclers, yet for a study of the mind and purpose the introduction to Molinier's Sources de rHistoire de discussion is of considerable interest. France
(Vol.
V)
of most of the writers will also be found in the relevant sections of Vasilief s Histoire de f empire Byzantin.
LAW AND HISTORY
IN BYZANTINE EMPIRE
227
LIST OF BOOKS
A.
KRAUSS, S.
GENERAL
Geschichte.
Studien zur Byzantinisch-Judischen Wien, 1914.

B.
LEGAL
Berlin,
CODEX THEODOSIANUS Ed. Mommsen and Meyer.

1905.
CODEX
JUSTINIANXJS
Corpus Juris
Civilis.
Ed. Krueger
and Mommsen.
SYRISCH-ROMISCHES
Berlin, 1886.
Ed. Bruns und Sachau.

1880.
Leipzig,
RECHTSBUCH
ECLOGA LEONIS ET
CONSTANTESFI
Ed. A. Monferratus.
Athens,
ECLOGA LEONIS ET
CONSTANTINI
Collectio
Librorum luris GraecoRomani.Ed. Zachariae a Lingenthal.

into
Leipzig, 1852.
ECLOGA LEONIS ET
CONSTANTINI
Rendered
English
with
an
introduction
by E. H.
Freshfield.
Cambridge, 1926.
ECLOGA PRIVATA AUCTA

C.
revised
Manual of Roman Law,

Cambridge, 1926.
Ed. Freshfield.
HISTORICAL
Universal History.
AGAPIUS
P.O., Vols. V,
VII and VIII.

BARHADBESABBA
'ARBAIA
Ecclesiastical History.
P.O.,
IV and
IX.
BARHEBRAEUS
Ed. Abbeloos Chronography. Lanuy. Louvain, 1872.
et
228

Chronography.
ford, 1932.
BARHEBRAEUS
A.
W.
Budge, Ox-
BARHEBRAEUS
Chronograpky. C.S.C.O. Scrp. Syr., Series 3, Tom. IV, xiii-xv.

II
CHRON. ANON.
C.S.C.O. Scrp. Syr., Series 3,

IV,
ii.
Tom.
CHRON. EDESSENUM
C.S.C.O. Scrp. Syr., Series IV, i.

P.O., Vol. XCII.
Chronicle, R.O.C., Vol. II,
J.
3,
Tom.
CHRON. PASCALE
DIONYSIUS OF TEL
and Ed.
MAHRE
EUTYCHIUS
B. Chabot. Paris, 1895.

Palestine
tr.
Annals.
Society,
Pilgrims
Text
A. Stewart, 1893, and
P.O., CXI.
EVAGRIUS
Ecclesiastical History. P.G.,
LXXXVI.
GEORGE HAMARTOLUS
Chronicles. P.O.,
CX.
HISTORY OF THE P.O., IV, NESTORIAN CHURCH
V and VII.
R.
JOHN OF EPHESUS
Ed. History. Oxford, 1860.
Payne
Smith.
JOHN OF EPHESUS
JOHN OF Nncious JOHN OF NIKIOUS
JOSHUA STYLITES
Lives of the Eastern Saints.
P.O.
ii.
XVII,
i;
XVIII,
iv;
and XIX,
Chronicle. Ed. Zotenberg in Notices et Extraits, Vol. XXIV.

Chronicle. Ed. R. H. Charles, Text and Translation Society, 1916.
Chronicle. Ed. bridge, 1882.
W.
Wright,
Cam-
LAW AND HISTORY

MALALAS
MICHAEL THE SYRIAN
IN BYZANTINE EMPIRE
229
Chronograpky. P.G., Vol.
XCVIL
Paris,
Chronicle. Ed. J. B. Chabot.
Leroux, 1899.
SEBE6s
History ofHeraclius. Ed. Fr. Macler. Paris, 1904.

Letters.
SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH
Ed. E.
and Translation
SOCRATES
Ecclesiastical
Brooks, Text Society, 1904.

P.G.,
Vol.
W.
LXVIL Tr. in Post Nicene Fathers,

SOZOMEN
Ecclesiastical
History.
History.
P.G.,
Vol.
LXVIIL Tr. in Post Nicene Fathers.

THEOPHANES
ZACHARIAH OF
Chronicle, P.O., Vol. CVIII.
Chronicle. Ed. Hamilton and Brooks. Methuen, 1899.
MITYLENE
LAW AND HISTORY

I.
IN BYZANTINE EMPIRE
23!
THE REIGN OF ARCADIUS
While there are few incidents to relate of Jewish history in the west during the fifth century, and while the legislation affecting them is not conspicuous for violence, the situation in the eastern provinces was very different. Arcadius,
who succeeded to the eastern portion of the dominions of Theodosius the Great, was an inexperienced boy of seventeen. Power lay with a succession of favourites. Such a situation was unfortunate at a time when the empire
was passing through a period of grave internal conflict and external invasion. It is on a troubled background that the legislation affecting the Jews was passed, and the disorders of the time had their natural repercussions on
their situation.
Apart from the evidence provided by the laws themselves little of the relations between Jews and Christians during the reign of Arcadius. But that is enough to revea! that the fiery teaching of such men as Chrysostom at Antioch and Cyril at Jerusalem was bearing its inevitable The Jews had to suffer the attacks of both officials fruit. and ecclesiastics. A petty vexation which was forbidden by a law of 396 was the interference with the Jewish slave This cannot be a question of the sale of Christian markets 1
we know
emperor gives complete protection to the more was, Jews. apparently, mere officiousness. direct consequence of the attitude of the preachers is to be seen in the attacks upon the character and dignity of the 2 Patriarch, despite his very high rank in the official nobility . He was not only insulted, but his rights were questioned and his officials challenged. Nor was this all, for Christians were not confining themselves merely to petty vexations and verbal insults. As in the west, they were attacking and destroying synagogues and assaulting their Jewish occu3 The edict which refers to these outrages is addressed pants specifically to the governor of Illyricum and may imply that the idea came from the west, but it is more probable
slaves, for the
It
1
2
C.T., 16.8.10.
and 15. Ibid. 16.8.12; cf. 16.8.21 addressed to the

Ibid. 16.8.11
same governor.
232 THE CONFLICT OF

that
it was due to the disorder in the province which accompanied the raids of Alaric and the Visigoths into that region. This province was still in disorder fifteen years later. The economic situation of the Jews, which led them in the west to seek sanctuary and conversion to avoid their
debts,
declared itself twenty years earlier
in
the
east,
and such conversions were viewed with the same suspicion. But instead of allowing them to return to Judaism Arcadius permitted the violation of sanctuary, and ordered their 1 His expulsion therefrom until their debts were paid
.
policy with regard to curial responsibilities vacillated. At first he gave them a very broad immunity 2 It was probably this law which so troubled Honorius, and which
.
provinces.
he prophesied would lead to the economic ruin of his Arcadius soon made the same discovery, for this liberal policy only lasted two and a half years, at the end of which time Jews, in the east as in the west, were
all
.
3 compelled to take their share in this office The extent to which Arcadius actually increased the restrictions from which they suffered is uncertain, for the laws of his reign, or of the years immediately following it, He reduced their judicial autonomy4 : are not complete. so much is certain; but he also, apparently, took away from them the right of giving evidence in a Christian court. A law to this effect and of this date is to be found included in the Canons of the African Church 5 and it would hardly be
,
incorporated into an ecclesiastical collection unless it were supported by imperial approval, and therefore by the It would existence of a parallel imperial prohibition. also appear that either he or Theodosius II prohibited the building of further synagogues, for such a law was in force in 415 at the time of the degradation of the Patriarch 6 The sermons of Chrysostom at Antioch would lead one to suspect that these two laws were passed during the period (398-404) of his Patriarchate.
.
C.T., 945.2;
cf. 16.8.23.
*Ibid. 16.8.13.
9
4
8
Ibid. 12.1 .165.
Cf Ch. VI,
.
Section II.
C.T.,2.i.io.
Canon
196, in P.L., Cf. 16.8.22.
LXVII,
p. 959.
LAW AND HISTORY

The
IN
BYZANTINE EMPIRE
233
only evidence which we possess of Jewish retaliation for this increasing oppression is to be found in a life of the brigand monk Barsauma, who, when a young man, visited Palestine (about 400), and was much persecuted by Jews and Samaritans during his visit, for there were few Christians in Palestine, and the Jews and Samaritans who dominated the country persecuted them a Jerome, who was
' '
living at
no
life
at that time, and who was certainly friend of the Jews, relates nothing which could be called
Bethlehem
persecution. In view of the character and subsequent of Barsauma it would be unwise to state that dislike of that individual was evidence of any general condition of affairs.
The reaction of the Jews to the century through which they had passed was more likely bewilderment and fear. hear nothing as yet of revenge apart from the single rising in Samaria in the time of Constantius. But this was the rebellion of a compact population, an easier action than Their reprisals on the part of isolated communities.
We
increasing subjection seems to have inclined them rather to a revival of Messianic speculation, for at this period a Messiah, calling himself Moses, appeared in Crete, and persuaded thousands that he would lead them across the sea to Palestine. In this belief they leapt from the cliffs, and would all have been drowned had not a considerable
number been rescued by Christians whose charity had led them to watch the affair from
curiosity or boats. Not
unnaturally the reaction from the failure led to a of conversions 2 .
number
II.
THEODOSIUS
II
AND THE THEODOSIAN CODE
The reign of Theodosius II introduces a new note into legislation, a note of petulance and undisguised dislike, showing itself in blustering and insulting language, and betraying the weakness and incompetence of parts at The causes for this least of the imperial administration.
intensification of the hostility to the
1
Jews are manifold.
Life of Barsauma y by F, Nau in R.O.C., 1913. Socrates, Hist. Eccl.> VII, mcvfii, in P.G., LXVII, p. 825-
234
The breakdown of society through the presence of the barbarians and the economic collapse were general causes. more specific cause was the emergence of a lawless monasticism, especially in Syria. As the Jewish communities of the eastern half of the Mediterranean were larger and more aggressive than in the west the results are unhappily
easy to foresee.
The legislation of Theodosius opens with a complaint about the Jewish method of celebrating Purim, the feast which commemorates the deliverance of the Jews from Hainan, and at which riotous behaviour was common. The Jews were forbidden to burn the image of Haman or to use the feast for the purpose of mocking the cross. If they continued to commit such unlawful acts they would * 51 This was lose what had so far been lawful privileges
.
no vague complaint, for ten years later an actual case is recorded from Inmestar. There the Jews took a Christian boy and, in drunken revelry, proceeded to hang him on a cross and so used him that he died. There was naturally an outcry at such an action, and the authorities heavily
2 punished the guilty parties
.
The
authenticity
of the
vouched for by the fact that no miracles were worked through the body of the boy victim. A similar example of drunken riotousness in Alexandria is reported only by a late chronicler. There some Jews who had been forcibly baptised took a statue of Christ and crucified it, mocking the Christians and crying 'that is your Messiah'. A riot naturally followed, and many Jews and Christians were killed 3
narrative
is
.
Alexandria
a
is
few years
^.T.,
*
later.
the scene of much more serious trouble As a result of real or fancied provocation
16.8.18.
'
Socrates, Hist. Eccl. y VII, xvi; P.O., LXVII, p. 769. It is a mistake * to call this a case of ritual murder though there is no reason to suspect the authenticity of the narrative, as does Juster (Vol. II, p. 204).
3 Agapius, in the section covering the third to sixth year of Theodosius P.O., VIII, p. 408. Zotenburg, in Notices et Extracts, Vol. XXIV, p. 467, n. i, refers to another Arab chronicler (whom I have not been able to trace) who recounts an event similar to that at Inmestar as having happened at Alexandria. It is probably the incident referred to by Agapius, and both may be a confused memory of the miraculous image of Beirut referred to below, Chap. VIII, Section VI.
j
LAW AND HISTORY

in the theatre, the
IN BYZANTINE EMPIRE
235
Jews entice the Christians into the streets at night on a false alarm that the great church is burning, and proceed to massacre many of them. The
following day, led by Cyril himself, the Christians fall on the Jews, completely pillage the Jewish quarter and expel the Jews from the city, killing many of them in the process 1 . It is a waste of time to attempt to allot blame to one side or the other for events occurring in that city, but it is probable that the events of Inmestar and Alexandria were responsible for the most serious blow the Jews had yet suffered from Roman legislation, the degradation of the Patriarch Gamaliel. It would appear that he himself was also to blame for this step, for he had been assuming powers which the law did not allow him. He had been
building new synagogues. He had been arrogating to himself the right to judge cases in which Christians were
involved. He had been circumcising slaves and possessing Christian slaves 2 . His degradation was equivalent to the abolition of his office, but the funds which the Patriarch had received were still paid by the Jews to their leaders in Palestine, until this also was abolished by Theodosius some years later, and the sums were ordered to be paid to the 3 charities section of the privy purse . Gamaliel was not the only offender against the law relative to slaves, for it was necessary to re-enact it with fresh severity and precision. Jew was not to buy, or acquire as a gift, a Christian slave. If he acquired him as trustee or by inheritance, or if he was a heretical Christian, he might keep him on condition that he did not convert
him
to Judaism.
excessive penalty of capital 4 confiscation was enacted .
For the infringement of the law the punishment and complete
Official hostility was more than equalled by mob violence. In 418 (or 412) the emperor has to refer to the widespread burning of ' synagogues and houses, and the assaults on and to remind the populace that there are individuals law courts in which Jews who commit crimes will be
*
Socrates, Hist. EccL, VII,
xiii;
P.G.,
LXVII,
p. 760.
C.T., 16.8.22.
Ibid. 16.8.29. *Ibid. 16.9.4.
3
236

c
punished. He adds that just as we wish to make provision for the benefit of the Jews, so we consider also that a warning should be addressed to them that they must not presume upon their security to commit outrages against the Christian faith n There is no reason to doubt that this double
.
effect it had on either do not hear much of further Jewish rowdiness, and no law refers to it. In view of their tone and of the venomous language which is used towards the Jews, it is reasonable to assume that fear or prudence secured the "respect of this law on the Jewish side. It had not the same effect on the Christians. The very year following its promulgation the sinister figure of Barsauma again appears in Palestine, accompanied by forty monks. For three years he destroys temples and synagogues in 2 The activity of Barsauma was Palestine, unchecked cases the synagogue buildings in other but purely destructive, were seized and consecrated as churches. This happened 3 at Edessa under Rabbulas, who became bishop in 41 1 In 423 there was a change in policy, which is attributed by Dr. Nau to the marriage of the emperor, in the January of that year, to Eudoxia, who had been a pagan and whose The result uncle was Prefect of the Eastern Provinces 4 is a law which lacks all the offensive language and attempts
rebuke was necessary. side we cannot judge.
How much
We
The emperor orders that to deal firmly with the evil. in future no synagogue in any district is to be pulled down or burnt. If any synagogue has been confiscated it is If it has been consecrated as a church, to be returned. a site of equivalent value is to be given in exchange. If furniture has been taken the same is to happen. The Jews, on the other hand, are not to build new synagogues (except presumably where the old one has been destroyed?) or to
5 enlarge the existing buildings .
The law had no

are
1
effect.
Within two months the Jews
complaining to the emperor and demanding more

C.T., 16.8.21. F. Nau in R.E.J., Vol.
LXXXIII,
p. 184.
i;
Chron. Edess. in C.S.C.O.,S.S. Ill, iv,pt.
and Michael the Syrian,
Bk. VI, x.
R.EJ.,
*
LXXXIII.
C.T., 16.8,25.
LAW AND HISTORY

effective protection.
IN BYZANTINE EMPIRE
237
a full * mildest reprobation of the offenders. Jews must know that to their wretched pleading we grant only this much, that those who are constantly acting illegally under the cloak of Christianity should abstain from outrages and assaults against them. Both now, and for the future, no one is to seize or burn down their synagogues/ It is noticeable that no penalty is attached if they do so, whereas at the tail end of the law Jews are threatened with perpetual exile and confiscation if they circumcise Christian slaves 1 a matter entirely beside the point in a law dealing with the lawlessness of Christians, however serious it might be as a Jewish crime. It was in fact the most difficult of all the enactments against the Jews to enforce, and there was some reason for his indignation, for, a week later, the * matter requires a separate law against the disgrace of servants of strong religious convictions being subjected
' to infidel owners 2 .
This the emperor grants, but with return to the old offensive language and only the
On the same day, in an edict which begins by denouncing with all kinds of threats Manichees, Pepyzites, and Quatuordecimans matters irrelevant to the protection of Jewish * * whether Christians, earnestly requests property he real or pretended *, not to defy religious authority and
c
Laws which indulge in futile abuse of those whom they are meant to protect are not likely to be successful. The obvious reluctance with which they are granted is evidence to the lawless that their infringement will not be taken seriously. Yet it was the only protection which the Jews could obtain. The same method is again repeated * two months later. Jews are not to build new synagogues, but they need not fear the confiscation of their old ones.'
attack Jews or pagans who are living quietly and not offending against the laws. If they seize the goods of such people, they are to pay compensation to the extent of three or four times the value of the stolen article3 . All these laws belonged to the same year, 423, and thereafter he gave up the attempt to protect the Jews. As a result
^.T.,
* *
16.8.26.
Ibid. 16.9.5.
Ibid. 16.8.27,
and 16.10.24.
238
the
violation of synagogues continued, and when the emperor made an attempt to restore to the Jewish community at Antioch the synagogues which the Christians had stolen from them, the intervention of Simeon Stylites was enough to make him humbly apologise to the orthodox He for his action and leave them their stolen property 1
.
himself authorised the confiscation of the Jewish synagogue At the in the Copper Market in Constantinople in 442 2 same period Barsauma made a final appearance on the stage Infuriated by the permission which the of Palestine. empress had granted to the Jews to lament at the Wailing Wall, he instituted a general massacre of them in Jerusalem. In the publication of his third novella Theodosius reverts to the more familiar method of denunciation and contempt. In a long theological exordium he makes a happy confusion
.
between orthodoxy and monotheism, and expresses his wonder that heretics, Jews and Samaritans who contemplate the works of nature have wits so ensnared and souls so
'
the monstrosities of their beastliness that they fail to seek an Author for mysteries so great. But, since * if we take the law as doctor in this are condition, they to recall them to sanity, they themselves are answerable for our harshness, for their obstinacy leaves no room for * whoever builds a synagogue forgiveness '. Therefore, shall know that he has laboured for the Catholic Church;
damned by
whoever has wormed himself into office shall be degraded even if he has received decorations; whoever repairs a synagogue shall be fined fifty pounds; whoever corrupts the faith of a Christian shall be put to death '. However, imperial permission may be obtained for the repair of synagogues in imminent danger of collapse, but they must not be decorated; Jewish courts may deal with private cases between Jews; Jews may bear all the burdensome 3 Here the exclusion offices of the public administration of Jews from all the privileges of public office is made much more definite than it is in any previous legislation
.
Evagrius, Hist. EccL, I, xiii; P.O., LXXXVI, pt. 2, p. 2456; phrastes, Life of Simeon Stylites} P.G., CXIV, p. 381 .
2
MetaI,
Theophanes, anno 442; P.G., CVIII, p. 265. Cf. Juster, Vol.

Novella
3.
p. 470, n. 2.
3
LAW AND HISTORY

that
IN
BYZANTINE EMPIRE 239
lation
is probable that previous legisbeen lost. In the anonymous Altercation between the Church and the Synagogue, which is to be found incorrectly included in the works of Augustine, we find this taunt addressed to the Synagogue: you pay me tribute and cannot obtain authority; you may not possess the Prefecture; a Jew may not be a Count; you may not enter the public services; you may not attain to the tables of the rich; you have lost the right
*
we
But it possess. existed, and has
to the title of Clarissimus n . The dates of these restrictions, and their application to the eastern or western provinces, are unknown, but they apparently precede the publication
of the third novella. In all this novella any pretence that these laws are made necessary by Jewish rowdiness or lawlessness is abandoned; and, indeed, we know of only one case of such violence in the last thirty years of Theodosius. It is said that the Jews ' of Laodicea took the saintly archdeacon and punished him in the theatre2 This incident is related in one of a collection of letters dealing with the Nestorian controversy, and it is possible that it has nothing at all to do with real Jews, but with Nestorians, who are frequently referred to
' .
This would make their adversaries simply as Jews *. the narrative more comprehensible, for while it does not
by
conform to any known Jewish outrages,

parallels
it
in
the
theological
controversies
has a dozen of the fifth
century.
III.
THE TREATMENT OF HERETICS IN THE FIFTH CENTURY
In this century it is even more necessary than in the fourth to study the treatment of heretics and the battles between groups of different theological opinion, if a true perspective of the Jewish situation is to be obtained. In the fourth century the two groups had to bear the burden
is
Altercatio Synagogae et Ecclesiae\ P.L., XLII, p. 1133. This dialogue considered to be a prototype of the mediaeval mystery play. Cf.Juster, Vol. II, p. 245, n. 4. * Ep. of John of Antioch to Proclus of Constantinople in Variorum Episcoparum Ep. t ed. Chr. Lupus, Louvain, 1682.
1
240

upon their civic and religious liberty. and massacres must be added to the The legislation against heretics shows the same
riots
of legal restrictions
In this century
picture.
petulance and narrowness as the legislation against the Jews, but even more weakness and instability. In 395 Arcadius deprived the Eunomians of all testamentary rights and
few months later expelled them from Constantinople. these disabilities were removed and they were allowed But they were still refused permission all their civil rights. This mildness lasted a few months, to hold meetings.
and then they were again expelled 1 this time for three In 395 years, after which the order was again cancelled. all heretics were dismissed from the public services, an expulsion from which the Jews did not suffer until ten years In 396 all their buildings, public and private, were later 2 3 At different periods confiscated to the Catholic Church either all heretics or particular groups, such as the Eunomians, Montanists or Manichees, were expelled either from Constantinople or from all the cities of the empire4 Individual heretics, such as the unhappy Jovianus who was 5 to be sent into exile contusum plumbo, were also pursued arm. Such a the ecclesiastical as well secular as by the to the imperial both was extremely unprofitable policy finances and to the public services, and it is not surprising that such laws alternated with others in which they were
,
. .
'
either restored to their rights or at least driven to their duties 6 .
These laws were less effective than those against the Jews, were continued after the Jewish community was apparently left in peace. Marcian in 455 issued a law in thirteen paragraphs against the Eutychians and Apollinarians in Constantinople and Alexandria which is worth
for they
quoting for
1
its
completeness
7
:
C.T., 16.5.25, 27, 33 and 36.

Ibid. 16.5.29.
Ibid. 16.5.30.
Ibid.
1 6. 5
4 5
6 7
.34
and 66.
Ibid. 16.5.53.
E.g.
Nov. Th.,
3, 6.
C.J.,i. 5 .8.
LAW AND HISTORY
IN
BYZANTINE EMPIRE
241
All existing penalties for heresy are to be enforced against them. They are to have no clergy, and any man found acting as a cleric is to be exiled and his property confiscated. They are to have no right of meeting by day or night. The property of any individual who has allowed them to meet on his estate is to be confiscated to the Catholics. If the owner was not responsible for the invitation
his agent is to be fined and beaten. They are to be expelled entirely
all
from the army and
They
public are to be allowed no opportunity for explaining
office.
their doctrines.
They are not to write or publish anything against the Council of Chalcedon. They are to possess no books. Any one who listens to them is to be fined. The books of the Apollinarians are to be publicly
burnt.
Any
fined.
official
who
'
fails
to carry out these rules is to be
Such was the success of the famous utterance of Theodoomnibus vetitae legibus et divinis et Great: haereses perpetuo quiescant **. But Marcian imperialibus that the great emperor's prodiscover the to first was not Theodosius II had hibition had exceeded his power.
sius the
^
to call themselves pathetically forbidden the Nestorians Christians, in the same spirit as his grandfather had forbidden 2 all heretics to believe that their views were true . Marcian
prosaic, but more practical. His law allows of an interesting comparison with the were Jewish legislation up to the same period. The heretics to have no clergy: this could not be done to the Jew, but the Jewish clergy had been deprived of their immunities from curial service. They were to have no meeting place: as we have seen, anti-Jewish legislation went as near this as possible in forbidding new synagogues to be built or old ones to be repaired. Any property on which they were allowed to meet was to be confiscated to the Catholic
was more
*
*
C.T., 16.5.5Ibid. 16.5.37.
242
confiscated to the
Church: any new synagogues which the Jews built were same body. If any agent allowed their meeting without the knowledge of the owner, he was to be beaten or fined: here the owner fared better than the Jew who allowed his slaves to be circumcised, for he shared the same punishment as if he had circumcised them himself. They were to be expelled from the army and public life: so was the Jew. They were to have no
opportunity of explaining their doctrines: the efforts of the Church were continually directed to preventing the Jews from explaining their doctrines to Christians, but the Codes only recognised the crime of actual secession to Judaism. Heretics were not to write, speak or publish anything against the Chalcedon formula: it was centuries before so direct a prohibition was addressed to Jews, but the thin end of the wedge is the prohibition to the
Jews to celebrate Purim in a manner offensive to Christians; and Gregory the Great acts on a lost law by which they could be prohibited from disturbing a church with the noise of their singing. They were to possess no books: Justinian Jews to use their interpretations (deuterosis) Any who listened to them were to be an apostate to Judaism was always liable to punished: severe punishment. Another set of laws offer a contrast rather than a comparison. It has already been said that the violence of the monks was one of the most unhappy features of the
will forbid the
in the synagogue.
time. Arcadius was compelled on several occasions to forbid them to enter any city, or to leave their deserts 1 . Twice also he had to forbid them to interfere with the course of justice 2 , and to complain that their insolence is such that they behave as if it were a battle in question and not a lawsuit '. These laws were no more effective than those against heretics. Theodosius in 445 was compelled to 3 take steps to keep them out of Constantinople . Leo in
'
459 found them occupying public buildings, and, by introducing into them some sacred object, claiming that they could no longer be used for their original purpose, whether
1
C.T., 16.3.1 and 2.

Ibid.
940.1 6 and 11.30.57 of July 398.
'C.J., 1.3.32.
LAW AND HISTORY

1
.
IN BYZANTINE EMPIRE
'
243
pleasure or business During the period laws had also ' to be passed to prevent the tumultuosa conventicula of religious discussion 2 It particularly distressed Marcian that these disorderly meetings allowed an opportunity for 3 The reality of the disgraceful Jews to mock at Christianity violence against which the emperors legislated in vain is to be seen not merely in the accounts of the writers of the time but in official documents. In the attempt to make peace between the warring theologians the emperor Zeno issued his ill-fated Henoticon ', in which he speaks of the 'thousands who have perished in massacres, so that not only the earth but even the air is contaminated with blood >4 . The histories and chronicles are full of bloody
.
.
battles
and murderous riots between Orthodox, Monophysite and Nestorian; and often it was not even a theological
difference but personal jealousy that resulted in such ( horrors. Michael the Syrian says that when the Chalce" donians stopped persecuting the orthodox ", they began
to attack each other with a violence such as a savage would not use to a pagan, a Jew, or a heretic >5 . Against such a background the Jews seem an absolutely peaceful and favoured people, and if we may legitimately say that this is only one side of the life of the fifth-century Christians, and that there was a more attractive side, then we must in justice say the same of such incidents of Jewish violence
as are reported.
IV.
THE JEWS OF ANTIOCH
In actual fact we only know of one anti-Christian outbreak during the fifth century, apart from the more individual incidents already mentioned. This was a Samaritan rising which took place during the reign of Zeno, and led to con-
^J.,
2
3
1.3.26.
C.T., 16.4.4, 5 and 6.
CJ., 1.14.
*Evagrius, Hist. EccL, III T xiv. P.G., LXXXVI, pt. 2, p. 2621. Michael the Syrian, IX, vi. Cf. Zachariah of Mitylene, III, vi, and Acts of Council of Constantinople in P.O., II, pp. 341 and 353.
5
Op.
cit. t
X,
xiii.
244

.
on both sides before it was suppressed 1 the other hand the Jews of Antioch, who had already lost their synagogues in the time of Theodosius, lost the synagogue of Daphne also, in a riot of the circus faction of the Greens in 489 or 490. This is the first occasion on which the faction of the Greens appears in Jewish 2 history . On hearing that they had also burnt the bones of many Jews, the emperor is said to have remarked that it was a waste of time to burn dead Jews when many were still alive whom they could have better burned. The Jews to have been allowed to rebuild the appear synagogue, for it was again destroyed twenty years later in another riot. This time they lost it permanently, for the Christians immediately built and consecrated a church upon the ruins, dedicated to the Martyr Leontius 3 Antioch at this time seems to have possessed much of the turbulence which was a permanent feature of Alexandria, for order was only restored with great difficulty and a considerable force of
siderable bloodshed
On
'
'
'
soldiers.
should be better informed of the situation if we possessed a larger number of the letters of the monophysite Patriarch Severus. He is said to have published nearly four thousand letters of which only a few hundred have survived. Had we the whole collection we should probably have as good a picture of Antioch in the beginning of the sixth century as we have of Italy at the end of it in the letters of Gregory. For in the little that is left we see several
We
Writing to Theodosius of Alexandria, he ends by saying that the letter has been written under the domination of the fear of the Jews >4 Two letters
references to Jews.
*
.
to the bishop of Berrhoea, a city fifty miles east of Antioch, also refer to Jewish outrages of some kind, which Severus
wishes the bishop to repress with severity. The Patriarch has discussed the matter with the governor, who will support the bishop's action 5 In another letter he refers to some
.
XCVII,
3
Malalas, XV; P.G., XCVII, p. 568; Michael the Syrian, IX, vi; Chron. Pascale^ sub anno 484. * Dionysius of Tel Mahre in R.O.C., II, p. 462; Malalas, XVI; P.O.,
p. 585.
John of Nikious, Ch.
Ixxxix.
*
5
Zachariah of Mitylene, IX, xxiv. Letters, ed. Brooks, Bk. I, Nos. 15 and 16.
LAW AND HISTORY

1
.
IN
BYZANTINE EMPIRE 245
question affecting slaves Unhappily all the references are incomplete, and refer to incidents of which we have no other information; but they show that Antioch was a centre of tension liable at any moment to break into violent
hostility.
century later
it is
again the scene of trouble.
In reaction against the order for their compulsory baptism in the reign of Phocas, the Jews broke into a riot, and seizing the Patriarch Anastasius murdered him with every brutality and dragged his body through the streets. Many other prominent Christians were murdered, and troops had again to be called in to quell the disturbance2 It is not entirely fanciful to connect the long story of disturbance at Antioch with the inflammatory addresses of Chrysostom given half a century before. It may well be that the Jews of Antioch were both powerful and aggressive. If they were so, they shared these characteristics with the Christians of that city. In such a situation it would have better become a priest to have tried to calm tempers rather than to inflame them with as complete an absence of interest in veracity as is shown by Chrysostom. In view of the affection of the people of Antioch for the later Patriarch
.
of Constantinople, and the halo of persecution which surrounds his death in exile, it is to be expected that the Antiochians guarded jealously the copies of the sermons
which he had delivered from
them
their pulpits, his long series directed against the Jews.
and among
V.
THE LEGISLATION OF JUSTINIAN
disturbances at Antioch, and the still graver disturbances of the following centuries, are also largely the consequence of repressive legislation. Though the unity which Justinian restored to the empire proved but transitory,
These
and though his ceaseless wars only resulted in permanently weakening the eastern provinces, on which the power of Byzantium relied, yet in his legislation he left an enduring mark upon the history of the Jews. The eighth century
1 2
Letters, Bk.
I,
No.
52.
Theophanes, sub anno 601; P.G., CVIII, p. 624. Ephraem Mon, Lib. Imp. et Pat. in Cor. Scrip. Byz. XI, p. 62; Michael the Syrian,
X,xxv.
246
Eclogues of Leo, and the Basilica of Basil a century later, are both entirely based upon his work. In western Europe the Theodosian Code and its barbarian recensions were to hold the field for many centuries to come, but in the
Middle Ages the influence of Justinian was

the west also.
to
be
felt in
Justinian found in the Codex of Theodosius over fifty laws dealing with the Jews. Of these he retained a little less than half, discarding the others as superfluous or as no longer applicable. In some cases these omissions, however, meant the abolition of real Jewish privileges. Not only were the laws issued at the beginning of the fifth 1 century for the protection of Jews and Judaism omitted but the formal statement of the legality of Judaism itself, issued by Theodosius the Great 2 found no place in the new statute book. All statements of immunities to be
, ,
granted to synagogue officials were also dropped, especially the law of Arcadius putting them on the same basis as the 3 Neither the Patriarchate clergy of the Christian Church nor the Aurum Coronarium were revived, but this was not to be expected. But there seems no reason why he should have dropped the laws allowing them their right of excommunication 4 or their right to try with their own judges cases affecting their own law 5 In retaining laws of earlier emperors the legal experts of Justinian used a perfect freedom in altering the texts, and in adding, or more usually omitting, paragraphs. The versions in the two texts are very rarely word for word In some cases these omissions concerned simply parallel. the hysterical verbiage with which emperors such as Theodosius II had emphasised their orthodoxy. In other cases parts of a law contradicted other legislation on the same In yet others penalties were made more or less subject.
,
,
severe.
The laws exercising the most important influence on the economic status of the Jews were those which gave or refused
1
C.T., 16.8.2 and 20.

Ibid. 16.8.9. Ibid. 16.8.13.
Ibid. 16.8.8.
2
3
*
5
Ibid. 2. 1. 10,
which Justinian repeats with the omission of the one

Cf. C.J., 1.9.15.
word which excepts these cases from Roman jurisdiction.
LAW AND HISTORY
IN BYZANTINE EMPIRE
247
permission for the unrestricted ownership of slaves. Justinian showed himself more severe than his predecessors in this matter. Christian, that is Catholic, slaves were 1 to be released to but in
according
previous legislation
,
addition
wished to become Catholic he was also to be released and his master could not regain
if
an
heretical slave
2 possession of him by following him to the font . For some reason this law was addressed in the first instance to Africa, where the problem was found to be acute, but its main interest is that for the first time it entrusts the ecclesiastical
authorities as well as the civil magistrates with its enforcement. What penalty Justinian attached to the possession of a Christian slave is not clear. According to the law just
quoted the offender was sentenced to death; but a further law, which may or may not precede it in date, fixes the penalty 3 at a fine of thirty pounds . Justinian also restricted their
right to acquire property, by forbidding them to lease land either from a church or religious order, or from any other owner, if a religious building happened to stand upon
4 Not only the Jew but also the owner part of it suffered severely if he offended against the law. The only cases in which these laws were not valid were those arising out of trusteeship. Jew was compelled to accept trusteeship for a Christian minor, for trusteeship gave him possession of the property only and not the person of the ward 5 . In the Theodosian Code there are two laws affecting
some
Jews who, to avoid their debts, take refuge in the churches. An earlier law of Arcadius ordered them to be refused admission. A later law of Honorius allowed them to return to Judaism unmolested if they had fled to the church for economic and not spiritual reasons. Justinian retained
the former, but omitted the latter 6 . What testamentary Converts to rights the Jew retained is not quite clear. Judaism were deprived of these rights byalawofTheodosius the Great, and though Justinian omits the greater part of
1
C.T., 16.9.1, 2 and 4.

C.J., 1.3.54. paras, viii to xi. Ibid. i. 10.2.
2
3
*
5
Nov. 131. Digest, 27.1.15. vi.
Buckland, Text Bock of Roman Lena, p. 154. C.T., 9-45.2CJ., 1.12.1. The kw omitted is C.T., 16.8.23.
248
such cases are probably covered by the general denial of such rights to all non- Catholics in Novella 118. If the alleged convert was dead his will could be set aside on his conversion being proved1 If the heirs of a Jew became Catholics, then they were still to be entitled to
this law,
.
2 Otherwise it would special privileges in inheritance . seem that the Jews retained normal testamentary rights and were not affected by the general prohibition of the
Novella3
4
The
main
economic
privilege
which
they
retained unchanged was the right to fix their

prices
.
own market
The
hostile influences visible in the regulation of their
economic status are also evident in the attitude taken towards their civic rights. Not only were all the laws granting certain officials immunity from curial service omitted, but the exclusion from the honours of office was If any Jew was found in a position of strengthened. he was not merely to be degraded, over Christians authority 5 as previously, but also to be fined Moreover, the most to be denied him: of rank were elementary privileges immunity from arrest, immunity from transference to other provinces, and all similar immunities. Equally serious was the inclusion of the legal profession among
.
the prohibited honours. As in the laws controlling the possession of slaves, here also the ecclesiastical authorities were given permission to watch over and enforce obedience. The curtailment of their jurisdiction has already been mentioned. But Justinian also curtailed their right to give evidence. So far a Jew, not otherwise disqualified as a criminal, was entitled to give evidence on any question
But now, in two separate laws, this right first place no Jew could give evidence in a suit in which either party was a Catholic He could give evidence only where it was a Christian. matter exclusively affecting Jews or heretics. Even so
and in any suit. was restricted 6
.
In the
^CJ.,
2
3
1.7.2.
Ibid. 1.5.13.
Juster, Vol. II, p. 92.
4
5
CJ.,
1.9.9.
Ibid. 1.9.18. and 1.5.12. * Ibid. 1.5.21 and Nov. 45.
LAW AND HISTORY

he was better
off
IN BYZANTINE EMPIRE
249
than Samaritans and members of certain heretical sects who were not allowed to give evidence in any case whatever. But this rigidity soon proved to be unworkable, and in a Novella certain exceptions are made. Jew is entitled to act as witness to a will or contract by the earlier law. By the Novella he is also allowed to give evidence for the Catholic in a suit between a Catholic and a heretic, and, if one party to the suit be the State, he is allowed to give evidence for the State against a Catholic. This was especially to be allowed when the State was
proceeding against a defaulter from curial duties. There vague evidence that the Jews also suffered another disability, exclusion from the protection afforded by the law limiting the right to bring an action to within thirty years of the event. In certain editions of the Syrian Roman Law book of the fifth century the phrase is used * if a man who
is
a Christian . . .', thereby apparently excluding Jews1 . In the Code of Justinian the law, which was issued by Theodosius II, makes no mention of Christian >2 It is possible, therefore, that either he abolished the restriction, or that it only existed in For the Jews to recover a privilege Syria.
is
*
which they had lost would have been an unusual, almost an unprecedented, event, and the latter alternative is the
more probable one. The different versions of the Eclogues of Leo show that there were often variants in practice
within the empire. It was not to be expected that an emperor who dealt thus hardly with their economic and civic status would
leave their religious position unchallenged. The dropping of the Law which expressly states the right of Judaism to He could exist left the Jews at the mercy of the sovereign. either tolerate or control them as he willed. In theory
they were, with all other heretics including pagans, without any rights whatever. This is laid down in one of the earliest laws of Justinian extant, passed while he was 3 He was therefore within still co-emperor with his father
.
Syrisch-RSnasches Rechtsbuch, ed. Bruns

.
und
Sacher, paragraph
45 in the * Arabic and 53 in the Armenian read only if a man . *.

.
text.
Some texts, however,
C.T., 4.14.1; C.J., 7.39.3.

1.5.13.
*CJ.,
250

he confiscated
all
his legal rights when in Africa, and handed
their synagogues
.
Nor could
the
them over to the Catholic Church1 Jews of Borion make any legal protest when
he forced them, according to Procopius, to accept baptism 2 But these excesses were exceptional. Normally, so long as they remained inoffensive, they were left undisturbed, and he retained on the statute book laws ordering their synagogues to be respected, and protecting them against vexations on the Sabbath 3 But the penalty for stealing their goods was reduced from a triple or quadruple to a
.
left in force the restrictions imposed by previous emperors. The death penalty was imposed on those who attacked Jewish converts to Christianity4 But the convert to Judaism was only punished by exile and the confiscation of his goods 5 The accusation could be made after the death of the apostate. Jewish polygamy and intermarriage with Christians remained prohibited 6 But a Jew could marry a Christian on accepting Christianity.
.
double restitution. In the main Justinian
prohibition of uproarious behaviour at the feast of naturally remained in force, but the privilege of * Christian services up to the missa Catechumenattending ' orum was withdrawn, at least for Africa 7 This reverses a previous ecclesiastical canon of the African Church 8 .
The
Purim
building synagogues and the 9 remained In fact, repairs unchanged it is evident that they were strictly enforced, for the chroniclers have several references to the collapse of synagogues in succeeding centuries. Already before the time of
prohibition
against
restrictions
The
on
Justinian there is record of the collapse of the synagogue of Beirut in an earthquake 10 During his reign all the
.
See Juster, Vol. I, p. 251, on the text of this law. * Procopius, De Aedif., VI, ii. 'C.J., 1.9.4 (C.T., 7.8.2.); C.J., 14.13 (C.T., 2.8.26); C.J., ^9.14 (C.T., 16.8.21); CJ., 1. 1 1.6 (C.T., 16.10.24); see also C.J., 1.9.2.
37.
4
Nov.
C.J., i.o. 3 =C.T., 16.8.1.
C.J., 1.7.1
C.J., i. 9.6
7
and 2=C.T., 16.8.7 and and 7.
16.7.3.
Nov.
37.
Carthage, IV, Can. 84; Mansi, III, p. 958.
CJ.,1.9.18.
10
Joshua
Stylites,
Ch.
xlvii.
LAW AND HISTORY
IN BYZANTINE EMPIRE
251
synagogues of Laodicea collapsed under similar circum1 stances, but the earthquake did not touch a single church . In another earthquake of the eighth century thirty syna2 It is also possible that by gogues of Tiberias collapsed local legislation which has perished, or by the chicanery of local officials, the Jews of Borion were not the only
.
to lose their synagogue altogether, for when during the Monophysite controversy Justinian confiscated c all the Monophysite churches of Alexandria, they took counsel together to build themselves another church, lest they should be like the Jews >3 The last phrase certainly suggests that there were Jewish communities with no place of worship.
community
But the most surprising innovation of Justinian is the attempt in Novella 146 to regulate Jewish beliefs and All such questions as synagogue procedure services. and Jewish belief had been considered to be matters
entirely within Jewish jurisdiction.
The Jews were wrong
in what they held, but, that admitted, how they held it was a matter of little account. Even the writers who included Jewish beliefs in their heresies, such as Epiphanius and
Philastrius, showed extremely little accurate knowledge of the positive content of those beliefs. Mostly like later antisemites they seized on a single point to ridicule, as does Epiphanius when he describes the main doctrine of the Pharisees as astrology. To their minds the denunciations of the prophets provided adequate material for a complete knowledge of what the Jews of the third or fourth
century AJD. actually believed. But in these regulations Justinian or his advisers show that much more accurate
and when needed could be put use conceivable to the Church only authorities, which was to bring the Jews out of their darkness to a true belief in the Incarnation. The occasion of the law was a conflict within the synagogue as to the language in which the Scriptures should be read. An appeal was made to the emperor by the party which did not understand Hebrew, demanding that the
knowledge was
to
available,
use
to the
1 2 3
Malalas, XVIII; P.O., XCVII, p. 652. Michael the Syrian, XI, xxii.
History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, P.O.,
I,
p. 467.
252
Law should be officially read in a language which they could understand. The reply of Justinian goes far beyond the request made to him. Not only does he side with the party making the petition, but he demands the excommunication of certain Jewish sects and forbids certain usual portions of the synagogue service. As to the reading of the Scriptures, he orders that they shall be read in Greek, Latin, or any other language which He then goes on to is understood by the congregation. forbid the explanation which was always given after the
reading the technical question as to what is actually implied in this prohibition is of great importance from the point of view of synagogue worship, but is a side issue for the present study1 Finally he orders the excommunication of those who deny that angels are part of the creation, or who disbelieve in the resurrection and the judgment. Such persons are to be expelled from the synagogue and handed over to execution. Those who contravene the other portions of the law are to be beaten, exiled and their
.
property confiscated. To introduce punishable heretical categories into the already heretical beliefs of Judaism was an extraordinary innovation. For the study of Jewish sects the information which this law affords is of special interest, since it shows the survival of Sadducaic doctrine into the sixth century. But Judaism itself has always been extraordinarily tolerant of differences of belief, and it is difficult to believe that the inspiration of this section of the law was Jewish in Its purpose must be sought not in an attempt of origin. one Jewish party to move the imperial power against the other, but in the Christian intention obvious behind the whole law, and clearly visible in the comments with which
it is
interspersed.
is obviously intended to undermine from within the powers of resistance of Talmudic Judaism to Christian missionary activity. Whatever may be exactly implied in the interpretations which he prohibits, he clearly has in mind the Talmudic method of biblical comment. * He is referring to what later develops into pilpul ', but
For the law
For a discussion of this question see Krauss, op. cit., p. 57ff-> and Juster,
I,
Vol.
p. 369
ff-
LAW AND HISTORY
IN BYZANTINE EMPIRE
253
which was not a specifically Jewish characteristic at this time. Had he demanded that the Christian theologians also abandon interpretations which stray a long way from their text, the body of patristic literature would find itself reduced to a far more manageable size. It is, however, the content of the teaching which he has in mind.
He
is
embodying
and
made by Jerome and

sciously
in legislation the complaint frequently others that the Jewish teachers con-
the deliberately gave teaching which falsified the therefore and of the prevented original text, meaning congregation, which could not itself understand Hebrew, from seeing the continual allusions to the coming of the Messiah in Jesus, and to the passing of the Promises to the Christian Church. From the standpoint of sixth-century and right. To them the his action is
orthodoxy
logical
conventional Christian interpretation of the Scriptures was the only possible and sensible one. It leapt to the must be allowed eye from every text. Therefore the Jew an unrestricted view of the text. To make assurance doubly sure, he not only forbids the giving of rival interpretations, but he lays down which translations are to be used. They must choose between the Septuagint and the version of Aquila, for these two
felt to give the translations which most clearly vindicated the claims of Christian exegesis. These two prohibitions are a logical result of his whole For the entire law is not only unwarrantable, attitude. but also inexplicable, except upon the basis that the Church which were accepted as absolutely true the Scriptures Preachers might and did affirm the read
were
by
Synagogue.
that the Jews neither understood nor appreciated them, but the fact remained that they still possessed them, and could not legally be deprived of their use. Justinian His law is not to the root of the matter. decided to
It is far removed antisemitic '. It is grandmotherly '. from the violent but conventional strictures of the pulpit, or even from other laws contained in the Code of Justinian in far from flattering himself, where the Jews are described terms. It is a serious attempt to make the Jews convert themselves. The method is that adopted by the Protestants
* *
go
at the Reformation, in their belief that the corrupt
power
254
of the mediaeval Church would be best destroyed by putting

into people's hands the actual words of the Bible in the language which they could best understand. So Justinian, instead of the handiwork of man speaking only of earthly
*
things,
and having nothing of the divine

'
in
it
',
offers
them the chance

and
to start afresh to learn the better way, to cease to stray vainly in error upon the fundamental
point of hope in God *. Though the effort was a failure, and mistaken in its hopes, it remains the most interesting attempt of the time to solve the Jewish question. There is a more truly Christian spirit behind it than there is behind most of the contemporary legislation. Toleration could not in that age be expected to go further. As a precedent it was unfortunate, for it opened the door to obvious abuses. That such an effort, made by an outsider in a moment of tension and repression, could succeed was impossible. But in a conglomerate of restrictions, denunciations and sneers, it stands out as the only measure dictated by a sincere attempt to understand why Jew and Christian had drifted so far apart. Its diagnosis of the cause was a mistaken one. But it is surprising that in that age so serious an
attempt at diagnosis should have been made. The work of Justinian is the last Roman attempt at unified Christian legislation affecting the Jews. From tune to time in future centuries the papacy will attempt to recreate this unity, but without success. Already in the west the Jews are suffering in one quarter while they are at peace in another. Their treatment depends on the power of clergy or of kings, on the religious ideas of the age in question, or on the economic importance of the particular
Jewish community. At the same time the seeds of all later legislation are contained in that of Justinian and his predecessors. No fundamentally new step will be taken until France has the
courage to proclaim and put into practice their total equality with other citizens. The right to interfere with their
economic, their juridical status is already conceded. The novella just discussed is the precedent for the burning of the Talmuds by the Sorbonne in the
political, their
thirteenth century.
The temporary
actions of Justinian
LAW AND HISTORY
IN BYZANTINE EMPIRE
255
in Africa are precedents for the forced baptisms operated again and again in Spain and elsewhere. The destruction of synagogues finds its first legal authority in him. Finally, he first invites the ecclesiastical arm to carry out laws The affecting the civil rights and civil status of the Jews. extension of these restrictions ultimately produces the complete exclusion of the Jew from normal life, concentrates him into a few professions in which he may become,
or be thought to become, a menace to the community, and creates the Jewish type, in so far as such a type exists, which is the basis and problem of modern antisemitism. And it is clear from all that has been described that the motive which set going this chain of events was a religious motive, that the Jewish problem to the Christian Roman world was a religious problem, and that so far the Jews
were in no way distinguished from their neighbours by any economic or other characteristic, but only by a religious
difference.
VI.
THE TREATMENT OF HERETICS BY JUSTINIAN
As before, the essentially religious character of the treatment of the Jews is confirmed by the similarities which
it
shows with the treatment of heretics.
Justinian retains the generalisations of earlier legislation, the principle that privileges are for Catholics only, and that rather be given burdens 1 ; he repeats heretics should the optimistic gesture of Theodosius the Great by which they were ordered in all places and at all times to cease to exist2 ; and the prohibition of all their services and the 3 confiscation of all their buildings ordered by Arcadius In addition he retains some of the legislation affecting individual heresies, especially those of the Manichees, Donatists4 , Eutychians and Apollinarians 6 . Justinian also retained the law of Leo by which heretics were forbidden under any pretext to acquire Catholic
.
^CJ.,
1.5.1.
*Ibid. 1.5.2.
4
Ibid. 1.5.3. Ibid. 1.5-4
^d 5and
8.
*Ibid. i. 5 .6
256 THE CONFLICT OF

property.

.
He himself enacted the same against the Jews 1 of his laws that on the holding of office is an many example he classed heretics and Jews together under the same disabilities 2 By two laws heretics were punished with 3 Their exclusion from office was complete intestability enforced in great detail, and they were also forbidden to seek employment in any capacity as teachers, or to receive their share in the distribution of grain 4 From these latter privileges the Jews were not excluded. The parallel to Novella 146 is the complete prohibition of all heretical
In
.
. .
services whatever 5
may still be stated that the Jew fared somewhat better than the heretic, though his disabilities were of the same kind. There is no striking privilege allowed the one and denied the other; and as it would be difficult to distinguish the economic significance of the rejection
In general
it
of the Apollinarian heresy, so with the Jews, other evidence failing, we must accept the legislation affecting them as coming from religious motives.
VII.
THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON

made
it
The
activity of imperial legislation
unnecessary
on Jewish questions, and the only canon of an eastern council which mentions them between the beginning of the fifth and the end of the seventh century is the fourteenth canon of Chalcedon. This prohibits intermarriage between those degrees of the clergy who were still permitted to marry, and heretics, pagans or Jews. They were only to be allowed to contract such
for the councils to take action
marriages if the non-Catholic in Catholic faith.

1
2
question accepted the
C.J., 1.5.10,
and Nov. 131. and 22.

Juster gives convincing reasons for believing that
Ibid. 1.5.12; cf. ibid. 21.
Ibid. 1.5.18
Ibid.
1.5.18.
though professedly dealing with all who are not Catholics, does not apply to Jews. See Vol. I, p. 177, n. 3; and Vol. II, pp. 236 and 255.
this law,
*C.J.,i.5.20.
LAW AND HISTORY

VIII.
It
IN
BYZANTINE EMPIRE
257
THE JEWS AND THE PERSIAN WARS

more
been said that the violence in Antioch serious troubles which followed in the eastern provinces should be closely linked with the rehas
already
still
and the
pressive legislation of Justinian. As long as Rome oppressed the Jews under her sway, and the Persians allowed their Jewish population full liberty, both religious and political, so long were Jewish eyes in the eastern provinces of the empire likely to be turned with longing towards the
frontier.
have already had evidence of this in the events of the fourth century, during the reign of Julian and the persecution under Shapur II. Succeeding centuries which saw Jewish disabilities multiplied by the emperors saw the Jewish sympathy with Persia breaking out into rebellion against Rome and violent attacks upon the Roman population whenever opportunity offered. In the time from Anastasius to Leo the Isaurian, whenever there was war with Persia there was a danger of a Jewish rising. The same was to some extent true, mutatis mutandis, the other side of the frontier. Christians, when persecuted But the in Persia, looked with longing eyes westward. provocation was less, for in general the Persian authorities tolerated Christianity on the same terms as they tolerated Judaism, and there was consequently less temptation for the Christians to betray Persia to Rome when opportunities occurred. The Persian war lasted from the beginning of the fifth century with occasional intermissions until well into the seventh. It was largely a war of small campaigns, guerilla
It was fought operations and frontier engagements. over the area in which the Jews were settled in the largest numbers, and in which, consequently, their actions had the most importance. In the early years of the fifth century the Persians attacked the frontier town of Telia, or ConstanThe Jews were naturally made by the tia, near Edessa. Romans to take part in the defence of the town, and were
We
allotted the section of the wall
was built. under the
plot to surrender the wall, in the synagogue, and
They
on which their synagogue town by digging communicate this
358

It is accidentally
plan to the Persians.

prisoner, They search
who manages
to
communicate
it
overheard by a to the defenders.
and find the tunnel. In spite of the appeals of the governor and bishop, a terrible massacre of the Jewish 1 Similar betrayals will be discussed population follows
.
at later periods also.
The next report of trouble comes from the other end of the frontier. In the south of Arabia there had been for some centuries a Himyarite kingdom whose rulers were either Jews or under Jewish influence. They retaliated for the persecutions which the Jews had to endure under the Byzantines by massacring the Byzantine merchants who 2 In addition to passed through on their way to India a of violent was there this, persecution of the period resident Christians of the area. Either on their appeal, or through the influence of Justinian, the Ethiopians, who were Christians, undertook to avenge them, and the Jewish sovereign was defeated and either was killed or committed suicide3 . While there is no doubt that some incident of this kind occurred, the details and extent of the massacre of the Christians are extremely obscure, and the narratives we possess are not very reliable. More serious was the renewed Samaritan outbreak which took place early in the reign of Justinian. It is one of the few incidents of Byzantine Jewish history to which reference is made in western chroniclers, and seems to have rivalled in savagery the earlier rebellions of Jews and Samaritans. They attempted to set up their own Christians were state, and crowned their own king. murdered and churches were destroyed throughout the country. The rebels hoped to obtain the aid of Persia, and were prepared to offer her a considerable body of troops. The rising was suppressed with considerable difficulty, and the Samaritans thereafter treated with
.
ruthless
1 2
by Justinian. Their synagogues were and they were forbidden to build others. They destroyed
severity
Stylites, Ch. Iviii. John of Nikious, Ch. xc.
Joshua
3 A full discussion of this incident and of the letters of Simeon and Jacob of Serug will be found in R.E.J., Vols. XVIII and XX, and in the Zeitschrift der d. Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft,VoLXXXI,p.36o t and in Atti della Acad. delle Lincei, 3rd Series, Vol. VII.
LAW AND HISTORY
IN BYZANTINE EMPIRE
259
could only leave their property to orthodox Christians. And in addition they were subject to all the disabilities from which the worst kind of heretic suffered; their direct 1 punishment was also considerable . The enduring hatred of the Samaritans for the Byzantines is reflected in the He relates that as travel book of Antoninus Placentius. inhabitants followed them the Samaria they approached and wiped out their foot-prints; and when they tried to
buy anything, they had

water
to
2
.
to
prevent
the
sellers
throw the purchase money into from feeling themselves
polluted
There were two further risings in the sixth century, one at Caesarea, in which the leaders were Jews, and one later, during the reign of Justin II, in which Jews and Samaritans took part. In both cases there were massacres of the Christian population, and churches were destroyed 3 Even if these two risings are in reality a confusion of the same incident, yet it is evident that in Palestine, where the
.
Jews
felt
themselves
at
times at any rate
strong enough
to resist the oppressive legislation
and
hostile
government
of Constantinople, they were prepared to do so. The situation was no different in the seventh century, and the consequences of their policy were even more In the reign of Phocas the Jews fatal to the Byzantines. are said to have meditated a general massacre of the Christians of Mesopotamia and a destruction of the churches. The plot was betrayed, and the Christians fell upon the 4 For this they were Jews instead and killed many of them fine. The incident is only with a Phocas punished by
.
reported by a single chronicler, and

to take
it
it
would be
unjustifiable
the massacre happened, it would still not be proved that the Christian belief in a general plot against them on the part of the Jews was founded on fact. But, on the other hand, it cannot be ruled out in this century as impossible. For the Jews
at its face value.
if
1 Agapius, in P.O., Vol. VIII, p. 427; Zachariah of Mitylene, IX, viii; Malalas, XVIII, p. 656; Ckron.Pasc., P.G., XCII, p. 871; Landolfus, Bk. XVIII, xvi, in M.G.H. 4, Auct. n; C.J., 1.5.17.
Even
*Itineranum, ch. v; P.L.,
LXXII,
p. 897.
'Theophanes, AJX 548; P.G., CVIII, p. 504? Michael the Syrian, IX, xxxi; and John of Ephesus, III, xxvii.
4
Agapius, P.O., Vol. VIII, p. 449-
260
possessed both the provocation and the power for such a reprisal, similar unconfirmed incident at this period is the surrender by the Jews to the Persians of the town of Neocaesarea in Cappadocia during a Persian raid on the
province
1
.
These incidents appear more natural if we realise that the eastern Jews were accustomed to arms, and looked to
Babylon as their spiritual centre. In the Persian forces they were sufficiently numerous for a Persian commander on one
occasion to ask the Byzantine general Belisarius to postpone a battle because it would have taken place during the days ' of unleavened bread, when the Jews and Nazarenes 2 would not willingly fight While there is much confusion and contradiction in the accounts of the Persian invasion of Palestine and the capture of Jerusalem in 614, it is certain that the Jews of Galilee in some numbers joined the Persian army on its passage through the country and assisted in the attack and 3 Of the scenes which followed capture of the Holy City the capture of the city many accounts exist. The popular story, which is repeated in most of the chroniclers, is that the Jews purchased 90,000 Christian prisoners from the TheoPersians for the pleasure of putting them to death4 . the takes of the in incident, precaution reporting phanes, ' c 5 adding the words some say to this extravagant narrative That Jews took part in the attack upon Jerusalem and in the massacres and destruction of churches which followed, it would be difficult to disbelieve. They had every reason to hate the Christians and to exult in the destruction of the Christian buildings of the city. Whether they really expected to be allowed to set up an independent Jewish state under the protection of Persia, and were
* .
1 2
Sebeos,
xxiii, p. 63.
vi.
Zachariah of Mitylene, IX,
Eutychius, P.G., CXI, p. 1083, supported by the Ode of Sophronius in R.O.C., Vol. II, and Sebeos, xxiv, p. 68.
Theophanes, sub anno 606, P.G.,CVIII, p. 632; George Hamartolus, IV, ccxxvii, P.G., CX, p. 829; Michael the Syrian, XI, i (where ithasthe appearance of an interpolation). 5 The English translation of Theophanes carelessly applies as some say to the total of those slain. The Greek quite clearly relates the phrase to the Jews, and it is so understood in the translation in Migne.
' *
LAW AND HISTORY
IN
BYZANTINE EMPIRE
261
therefore expelled from the city, is less certain 1 . As to the story of the purchase of the 90,000 captives, it would seem that its origin was an incident of a very different kind. monk of the monastery of Mar Sabas, who claims
have been an eyewitness of the siege and capture, relates that when the more valuable prisoners had been set aside, the rest, including himself, were imprisoned in a dry cistern. Some Jews approached them while they were in the cistern and offered to pay the ransom of any who would accept Judaism. The Christians refused, and the 2 While the Jews then bought them to massacre them
to
.
narrative of the
monk
contains that
and bias to which one is period, it would appear to contain a central element of truth, and the story that the Jews offered to ransom those who would accept Judaism is not the kind of thing that would be invented. While it would have been, doubtless, more generous to have offered the ransom without the condition, some Jews at least can be given the credit for an action which was rare on either side at such a time. That they purchased 90,000, or any other number, for the purpose of slaughtering them, can be dismissed as myth. Had they
desired, they could have massacred as many as they wished to a few days earlier in the attack and sack of the city, and
amount of miracle accustomed in documents of this
could have done
it
without payment.
Heraclius entered Palestine
When,
fifteen years later,
and recaptured Jerusalem, the Jews met him at Tiberias and begged from him a written guarantee of security, which he gave them. But when he entered the Holy City, and was told by the monks of the destruction which the Jews had wrought, he withdrew the promise and executed 3 many of them Two other incidents are mentioned from the campaigns While he was in Persia the Jews of Edessa of Heraclius.
.
either helped the Persians against him, or refused to admit him after the departure of the Persian army4 On another 1 Michael the Syrian, XI, i. Cf. Chron. Anon, in C.S tC.O., S.S., Ser. Ill, T. iv, p. 23, and Sebeos, rxiv, p. 69.
.
See R.O.C., Vol. II. Theophanes, sub anno 620, P.G., CVIH, p. 675, and Eutychms,
P.O., CXI, p. 1089. 4 Agapius, P.O., VIII, p. 4^6, and Sebe6s, xxx, p. 94-
262
occasion, when all the Roman troops were withdrawn from Syria for the defence of Constantinople, the Jews of Tyre tried to secure the co-operation of the Jews of the surrounding region for an attack upon the Christians of the But again they were betrayed, and when their concity. federates arrived they found the gates barred against them. They began to devastate the surrounding region, but for every church they destroyed the Tyrians executed a number This incident, of Jews, until, discouraged, they retired 1
.
the projected massacre of the Christians of Mesopotamia, may not be historical. Eutychius is not a conspicuously accurate historian, and the narrative has somewhat the air
like
of invention.
The
Byzantines had but a short while in which to enjoy
their possession of Palestine. When, within a few years, it fell before the Moslem invaders, the Jews took their revenge for the executions of Heraclius by taking the part of the
Moslems
against
them 2
At a
later date various versions of
an imaginary treaty of
alliance
between the Moslems and
Christians against the Jews were invented

.
by
Christians
living under Moslem rule, but they have no historical The Jews, however, seem to have had friendly basis 3 relations with the Moslems both in Palestine and Alexandria4 and are said to have surrendered Caesarea to them. But this may be a confusion with the earlier Persian raid 5 At the surrender of upon Neocaesarea in Cappadocia
, .
Alexandria special provision was made for them 6 Finally, they were employed to buy church plate by Abdelas, the Mahometan governor of Syria 7 . But the most mysterious Jew of the time is to be found in the simple statement of John of Nikious that a Jew accompanied the army of the Moslems to Egypt '. On this slender foundation a modern historian makes of him a spy, a guide,
.
'
1
2
Eutychius, P.O., CXI, p. 1084. Michael the Syrian, XI, ix; Sebeos, xxxi.
Cf. the Nestorian History,
cii,
3
4 5 6
P.O., XIII, p. 602
ff.
Maximus
Confessor, Ep. xiv; P.G., Dionysius of Tel Mahre, IV, xxiv.
XCI,
p. 540.
John of Nikious, cxx; the Arab chronicler Tabari, however, does not refer to any provision for the Jews.
7
Theophanes, anno 749, P.G., CVIII, p. 863.
LAW AND HISTORY
IN BYZANTINE EMPIRE
263
a general dealer in prisoners and booty, responsible for the fall of Alexandria, and a companion of those who betrayed
Caesarea 1
This long and massacre,
of betrayals and treason, of hostility attributed by the ancient chroniclers, and at times by modern historians, to the innate malice and inveterate hostility of the Jew to all things Christian.
list
is
more
reason is to be found in the legislation of Justinian, the violence of the Christians themselves towards the Jews, and the general lawlessness of the times.
scientific
IX.
THE DESTRUCTION OF SYNAGOGUES AND

FORCED BAPTISMS
All the tales of violence recounted in the previous section can be definitely related to the political conditions of the time. Apart from the massacre of the Himyarite Christians, which was said to be retaliation for the actions of Justinian,
they were
all
connected with the friendship
felt for Persia.
But on the Christian side there is also evidence of purely religious hostility and violence. John of Ephesus recounts proudly that on his own mission through Asia he had turned no less than seven synagogues into churches an action which was definitely illegal, and could only be carried
He also relates the pious actions of out with violence 2 the monk Sergius at Amida. He had built himself a hut in a village where there were many Jews, in order to dispute * with them. He used to gnash his teeth at them daily ',
.
exclaiming that these crucifiers of the Son of God ought not to be allowed to live at all ', and he was particularly severe with Christians who had any business dealings with them. As these actions produced no effect, he gathered his disciples and burnt down the synagogue. This caused
*
great annoyance to the Christians, who lost a considerable sum thereby3 The Jews went to the nearest town to
.
J. Pargoire, rEglise
cxviii.
Byzantine de 527 a &#, p. 172
ff.,
based on
John of Nikious,
2 Lives of Eastern Saints, P.O., XVIII, p. 681. There is a service for the consecration of a synagogue in the Gelasian Sacramentary Assemani, Vol. IV, pt. 2, p. 90. See Appendix 4. * This sum may have been a kind of blackmail paid by the Jews to be left in peace.
264
complain, and in their absence Sergius and his disciples extinguished the fire and rapidly built and consecrated a chapel on the site. This was completed in a week, and the Jews on their return did not know what to do, as Sergius
was
urging his disciples against them. So they burm the huts of Sergius and his followers. But Sergius easily rebuilt them. Then the Jews built a new synagogue and Sergius pulled it down. Undismayed, they built a third and his disciples burnt it. So the Jews gave up the struggL
still
down
and, victory
years
J1
.
continued his habitua obtained, Sergius practice of love towards God and towards strangers for fort?
it was the monks and not the local Christiai and population which manifested such hostilit the Jew is clear from an incident at Nisibis, where had the support of the Christians of the town in complaint to the bishop about the conduct of the monk and of the head of the monastery, Mar Abraham2 On the other hand we occasionally hear of Jew taking part in mob action against one political or ecclesi
That
clergy
party or another, especially in Constantinople But we hear nothing of purely Jewish rioting, except for th story of a seventh-century Forerunner of the Messiah wh appeared on the Euphrates and, after collecting som four hundred followers, sacked several churches and kille the local governor. He was taken prisoner and crucified Times of persecution have, as we have already seen, produced Messianic effervescence, but the Jews rarely suffered from so complete a scoundrel as the successc This was a Christia to the gentleman from the Euphrates.
astical
in Syria who, having seduced a Jewish girl and incurre the anger of the Jewish community thereby, took to fligl and having studied magic returned and gave himself o' as Moses. Having convinced many of his claims he to< all their money and led them into the wilderness, whe
1 2
John of Ephesus, Life of S. Sergius, P.O., XVII, p. 90. Barhadbesabba 'Arbaia, Ecc. Hist., II, xxxii, in P.O., IX, p. 626.
21
9:
John of Ephesus, History, III, xxxi, ed. Payne Smith, p. Nicephorus of Constantinople, De rebus p. Maur. gestis't P.G., C, p.
Doctrina Jacdbi,
4
bcii.
Ckron. Anon, in C.S.C.O., Script. Syr., Ill, pt.
iv, p. 27.
LAW AND HISTORY
IN BYZANTINE EMPIRE
265
they died of starvation. But enough of them came to their senses in time to seize him and surrender him to the Emir, who allowed them to execute him themselves 1
.
graver attack upon their situation than from such a Messiah came from some of the emperors themselves. It is recorded of Maurice and of his two successors, Phocas and Heraclius, and of Leo the Isaurian, that they ordered the Jews of their dominions to be baptised. In addition to these precise references, Michael the Syrian records at about the date of A.D. 660 that at that time many 2 Jews became converts to Christianity ', without saying why Each of these forced baptisms is related by a different
* .
chronicler, and of each other.
possible that they may be duplicates it is related that to show his orthodoxy at the beginning of his reign he instructed his cousin Domitian to cause all Jews and Samaritans to be
it is
Of Maurice
compulsorily baptised. This was done, and though they turned out very bad Christians, Domitian compelled the clergy to admit them to ecclesiastical functions3 . The
story of Phocas is somewhat similar. The action takes place in Palestine, and the mention of Samaritans in the previous story also suggests Palestine. The Jews try to evade the issue by saying that the time for baptism is past, but the
Prefect, infuriated by this ingenuity, orders and accom4 plishes their immediate immersion . More frequently repeated is the story of Heraclius. This is to be found in western chroniclers also, since he
persuaded Dagobert to follow his example in France. Warned in a dream that his power would be destroyed by he ordered the baptism of all the Jews the circumcised
4 3 ,
in his dominions, and though many fled to Persia, many ' were constrained to cease to be circumcised by the waters '5 of baptism . Actually, the warning applied to the Arabs.
1 Dionysius of Tel Mahre, ed. Chabot, p. 25; Barhebraeus, ed. Budge, p. 109; Agapius, in P.O., VIII, p. 504; Michael the Syrian, XI, xix; Theophanes, anno 715, P.G., CVIII, p. 812.
2 3
Michael the Syrian, XI,
xii.
John of Nikious,
xcix.
4
5
Dionysius of Tel Mahre, for the (Seleucid) year 928. Michael the Syrian, XI, iv; cf. Gesta Dagoberti, xxv, in P.L.,
XCVI,
p. 1405.
266
The forced baptism ordered by Leo was no more effective;

for while disagreeing in detail the chroniclers who relate * the event agree that the Jews unbaptised themselves *,
and then profaned the sacraments by partaking of them 1 While it is possible that in reality there were only three or four instead of five cases of compulsory baptism in the period from Maurice to Leo, yet even these show the gravity of the dropping by Justinian of the fundamental law of Theodosius: Judaeorum sectam nulla lege prohibitam satis constat 2 a law which was itself, by a tragic
.
'
'
coincidence, addressed to
the
eastern
provinces
of the
empire.
X.
THE LEGISLATION OF LEO AND LATER

COUNCILS
the followers of Justinian and the ecclesiastics of the sixth century thus marked their attitude to the Jews by arbitrary acts rather than fresh law-making, neither were completely silent in legislation. It is not always envisaged, easy to be quite sure when Jews are definitely * Christians ', for the laws occasionally refer simply to whereby it is uncertain whether they affect Jews or not. Thus in a local law book of Syria, which actually precedes the reign of Justinian, the statute of limitations is said in * Christians '. In some certain manuscripts to apply to were themselves the cases clearly uncertain. The copyists ' law referred to contains the three versions: when a man . .', * * when a Christian . .', and finally when a man who is In the last case it is fairly evident a Christian . . .'. In the second that the copyist meant to exclude Jews. case he is possibly referring to a Byzantine subject, as
Though
opposed to his Islamic neighbours. The first text may be the original, for neither in Theodosius nor in Justinian 3 is there any mention of religious distinction in the statute ,
1 Theophanes, Chron., year 714; P.G., CVIII, p. 809; Ekkehard, Chron. Univ., year 723, in M.G.H. folio, VI, p. 157; George Hamartolus, Chron., IV, ccl; P.G., CX, p. 928.
*C.T.,
3
16.8.9.
Syrisch-Rdmlsches Rechtsbuch, para. 45 in the Arabic text, and 53 in the Armenian. Two other texts do not mention religion (pp. 107 and See also p. 249, n. i. 76).
LAW AND HISTORY

and Theodoric, writing
IN BYZANTINE EMPIRE
267
Jews of Milan, mentions that the statute of limitations does apply to specifically
to the
them 1
Thus, without new law-making, but by simple copying, the Jews may have lost this right at some period
.
subsequent to Justinian.
full revision of the Code of Justinian was not attempted until the reign of the emperor Basil at the end of the ninth century, but in the meantime certain simplified handbooks known as the * Eclogues ' were issued by Leo the Isaurian.
We possess various versions of different
dates of these laws,
and on the whole they contain nothing fresh. But they illustrate again how one law led to another, and always in the sense of fresh restrictions. Thus a law of Leo allows
up
either Jewish parent to decide that a child shall be brought as a Christian 2 An edition of the end of the eighth
.
century only allows orthodox children to inherit property In this way ancient laws affecting inheritance on the one hand, and mixed marriages on the other, are interpreted in such a way as to go far beyond their original intention. Justinian ordered the children of mixed marriages to be
.
brought up as Christian: Leo encouraged Jewish parents to have their children baptised. Justinian insisted that Christian children of Jews should share in an inheritance: Leo allowed no others any part in it. Similarly the Ectega Privata Aucta ordains that all witnesses shall swear on the gospel before giving evidence 4 and from this it is a natural step explicitly to refuse Jewish
,
evidence altogether 5 or to invent strange and humiliating forms in which alone it could be allowed 8 . One problem still remains permanent with the legislators throughout, the problem of preventing Jews from owning 7 Christian slaves, and from converting them to Judaism It was still necessary to maintain the death penalty for those
,
.
Cassiodorus, Varia > V, 37.

Ecloga, app.
iv, 7.
vii, 18.
Ecloga Privata Aucta,

Ibid, xv, 7.
*
5 *
7
Basilica, 21.145.
Ecloga ad Procheiron Mutata (i2th cent.), rxviii (xxvi), 14.

Ecloga, app. vi, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30; Epanagoge,
xl,
33 and 34,
etc.
268

and the complete
loss of his
.
who
effected the conversion, 1 property for the converted
of the secular and religious power form in the original Ecloga, in that it contains as a supplement Mosaic laws on forty-seven different subjects, simply extracted from the Pentateuch without any effort to cast them into Byzantine shape, or to
The
identification
is
shown
in a curious
2 adapt them to Byzantine penalties The councils of this period have little to say about the Jews, but they reflect the general state of affairs created both by the forced baptisms of various emperors, and by the legislation of the period from Justinian onwards. What is surprising is that they also reveal the existence of Judaising tendencies within the Church, and offer evidence
.
that relations between Jews and Christians were just as close as they had been formerly, in spite of all the laws and
The forced baptisms created a class of Marranos ', and the various disabilities under which the Jews suffered must have tempted others to effect a superficial transference of their allegiance. With this class the second council of Nicaea in 787 tried to cope by prohibiting the admission to Christian rites of Hebrews who hypocritically pretended to be Christian. In particular, baptism was to be refused to their children in which prohibition the fathers at Nicaea showed much less acumen than Gregory the Great3 The council in Trullo ' refers both to the existence of Jewish superstitions in Armenia4 , and in general to close friendship between even the clergy and the Jews. In it is eat that are not to unleavened particular specified they bread with the Jews, accept their hospitality in any form,
canons which had been passed.
c . '
visit
visit
is
them in sickness, receive medicine from them, or the baths with them 5 . Some reflection of the position suggested by this canon to be found in a pastoral letter of Gregory of Nyssa
Ecloga, app.
vi, 16 and 24. Ecloga> ed. Freshfield, pp. 142-144.
s Nicaea, II, Can. 8; different texts of this canon will be found in Harduin, IV, p. 491, and Mansi, XIII, p. 751. * In Trullo, Canons 33 and 99; in Mansi, XI, p. 958. * In Trullo, Canon n; Mansi, XI, p. 946.
LAW AND HISTORY

of the
fifth
IN
BYZANTINE EMPIRE
269
century.
He
refers to Christians
who have
become Jews and on
that they are to be Gregory confirms the fact that there were Christians passing to Judaism, Severus of Antioch reveals in his Catechetical
their death-bed repented, and instructs received back into the Church 1 . If
Addresses that there were Jews listening to Christian teaching. In a most interesting passage he explains that the Trinitarian doctrine contains nothing to offend Jews
and Samaritans who may be listening to him 2 While it will be necessary to postpone a discussion of the general relationships between Jews and Christians
.
in the early Byzantine empire until other aspects of the situation have been considered, it can be suggested already
and events related in this chapter have not yet had the effect of creating an absolute gulf between Jews and Christians, and that the evidence of passage from the one faith to the other is also evidence of the existence of some mutual respect and genuine friendship among ordinary folk. In fact, even the clergy were not unaffected by this feeling, for we find a canon of uncertain date not only forbidding worldly minded clerics to indulge in moneylending and similar occupations, but especially insisting that they shall not take Jews into partnership in such
that the laws
activities3 .
1 2
Gregory of Nyssa, Ep. to the bishop of Melitene,P.G.,XLV, p. 225. Severus of Antioch, Catechetical Address 70, in P.O., XII, pp. 19
Forged Canons of Nicaea, No. 52; Mansi,
II, p.
and 28.
3
969.
CHAPTER EIGHT
THE JEWS IN BYZANTINE LITERATURE

The
source material
for
this
chapter
is
mainly taken
from two collections, the Patrologia Orientalis and the Revue de 1 'Orient Chretien. Other sources are indicated in the footnotes. While the Greek literature of the period has been known for a long time, and some of the works here quoted are to be found in western editions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the general atmosphere of the period can best be gauged from such collections as the eastern synaxaries, the lives of the eastern saints by John of Ephesus, or the history of the patriarchs of Alexandria. And all these are works which have only recently become available to scholars ignorant of the languages of the near east. It is from these sources that the new
is best appreciated. Certain aspects of the subject have been treated in special detail, especially the stories of images; and a good study of the later disputations is to be found in the introduction of Bardy to the Trophies of Damascus.
element in Byzantine literature
272
LIST OF BOOKS
BARDY, G.
Les
Vol.
Trophees de
Damas, in P. O.,
XV.
Jacobi
BONWETSCH, N.
Doctrina
nuper
Abhandlung der Kglch. Ges. tingen, Band XII, 1909-1912.
Baptizati Got-
BUDGE, E. A.
W.
History
of a
Likeness
of Christ
a
which the accursed Jews in the

city of Tiberias
made
mock
of,
Semitic Texts lations, Vol. V, 1899.
Luzac,
and Trans-
CHAINE,
M.
Sermon on Penitence ascribed to in Melanges Cyril of Alexandria; de la Faculte Orientale. Beyrouth, Vol. VI.
Christus-Bilder ;
v.
DOBSCHUTZ, E.
Texte und Unterp.
suchungen,
XVIII,
281**.
KRUMBACHER, K.
Byzantinische Munich, 1897.
Literaturgeschichte.
PARGOIRE,
J.
UEglise Byzantine de 527 a 847.

Paris, Lecoffre, 1905.
PARISOT,
J.
Aphraate, P.S., Vol. I. (The Post Nicene Fathers, Vol. XII I, translates Demonstrations i, v, vi, viii, x,
xvii, xxi, xxii.

I.
273
THE NATURE OF BYZANTINE LITERATURE
The
passage from the Graeco-Roman to the ByzantineOriental world was doubtless a gradual one. The intellectual activity of classical ecclesiastical scholarship did not
disappear all at once, and it was preceded by the collapse of the economic and political stability of society. But when it
disappeared it disappeared for centuries. Byzantine literature presents a sorry spectacle to the
modern
Christian historian. The violence of ecclesiastical passions, the bloodshed of their controversies, found their
counterpart in a literature marked by an almost complete

indifference to ethical and moral values. The fathers of the early centuries may have held
beliefs
we would
many
reject to-day.
But within
their concep-
tions they were intellectually honest. They were prepared to use the law against their opponents, but rarely the
bludgeon and the sword.

their eastern successors
The writings and actions of would have shocked them pro-
foundly. This change maybe partlydueto thegeneral decline of society, but is still more the result of the increasing influence of an oriental civilisation which had never been deeply affected by the intellectual history of Greece or the political history of Rome. The Greek literature of Byzantium is for some centuries merely a pale shadow of the past. The new developments are shown in the writings of Syrian, Coptic, Armenian, In a few centuries these and Ethiopian ecclesiastics.
different groups split into different Churches at war with each other, but in their general conceptions and in the general quality of their literature they remained members
of one family, owing, spiritually at least, allegiance to the most powerful of the eastern Christian communities, the
empire of Byzantium.
The scholarship of recent years has enormously enriched our knowledge of the early literature of these different Churches. To-day we can study the lives of these communities not in a few chroniclers and theologians, but in a mass of hagiological literature, apocryphal gospels and acts, novels, historical romances, controversies, biographies
and
letters.
274
The creation of a theological picture of the Jews has already been traced in the literature of the first four centuries. Now we can see the second stage of the development, the creation of a popular religious picture of them, a picture such as the lower clergy, monks and laity would be likely to obtain in the literature which was meant for their consumption.
II.
PHYSICAL, OCCUPATIONAL
AND MENTAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EASTERN JEWS

There were many reasons why the Jews should present a special interest to the inhabitants of the eastern provinces.
They were naturally more numerous scattered in the east than in the west.
much
tion.
and more widely But also they were

rest of the
less easily distinguishable
from the
popula-
be concentrated geographically and occupationally, no such causes were

in the west to
If events caused
them
operative in the east. As an example of the ease with which they could be confounded with the rest of the population, both in appearance and in occupation, there is the story of S. Simeon the Mountaineer as related by John of Ephesus 1 . Simeon comes upon a large population living isolated in a mountainous region east of the Euphrates, where he expected to find no one. He asks them who they are, and how they are able in their isolation to maintain orthodox
religious
We are Christians; do not us Jews '. Another example of the completeness with which they shared the lives of those surrounding them is the story of Abdul Masih told in The chapter Four. Jewish lad fed his flocks with Christian and Magian children. Moreover, it must be recognised that the ways of thinking
indignant, and they replied:
call
'
profess complete ignorance as to what he is talking about, whereupon Simeon bursts into tears and begs them to tell him the truth: * Tell me, my sons, are * But the question made them you Christians or Jews?
services.
They
of Jew and Christian were very similar. Modern scholars are apt to hold up their hands in horror at the hair-splitting
1
John of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern
Saints, xvi; P.O.,
XVII,
p. 234.
275
described by Dom J. Besse: The whole of Holy Scripture became the real rule of the monks. They were accustomed to look for an allegorical meaning in all the passages of the Bible, and thus it was easy for them to find anywhere,
*
discussions of the Talmud, but the eastern theologians, especially the defenders of monasticism, acted in very similar ways. The referring of all kinds of precepts back to the revelation given to Moses finds its counterpart in the tracing of the monastic rule back to Elijah, Elisha and the sons of the prophets. Their methods are thus
even in most insignificant details, precepts or examples which revealed to them the nature and extent of their obligations '*. But such was exactly the task and method of the Jewish scholar of Babylon, and if the Jew went
further than the Christian in the field of the invention of miracles and incidents in the lives of the respective founders of their faiths, the Christian went a long way beyond the Jew in the exhibition of a complete contempt for the
morality and ethical significance of their inventions. Jewish were often puerile. Christian stories were still more often perverted and diseased. The revolting tortures of the martyrs, their senseless and repulsive miracles, as related in all the eastern Acta, surpass anything related in the Talmud. This is not a study of the relative merits of Judaism and Christianity, and it is not necessary to examine in details these vagaries of the human mind, but it is at least important to realise that the eastern Jew had to do with the eastern Christian, and that the Talmud, if its strength and weakness are to be properly understood, has to be judged in its proper setting and not contrasted with western thought of the modern period. But the Jews were not only physically indistinguishable from, and occupationally mingled with, the general population. They not only thought in ways similar to the rest of the population. There was another reason for the Christians to take a special interest in them. The Jews of the east were in a much more powerful position than their
stories
western brethren for influencing their neighbours. Europe at this period contained no great intellectual Jewish centres.
1
Les Regies Monastiques Orientates in R.O.C., Vol. IV, p. 466.
276

'
'
Jewish scholars were largely concentrated in Palestine and Babylon. Hence disputations were more frequent and more lively. Though the Spain of the Visigoths contained a considerable Jewish population, neither Julian of Toledo nor Isidore of Seville, both of whom wrote against the
Jews, showed the slightest signs of ever having met a Jew. Throughout, Byzantine literature of the same class shows close acquaintance with actual Jewish arguments in defence The Greek and of Judaism and against Christianity. differ in nothing from the many Altercations Latin discourses Contra Judaeos ', except in that they are cast in dialogue form. The Jew has never a leg to stand on. But in the east even those writings which are not in dialogue
*
'
form reproduce definite and plausible Jewish arguments, and are at times hard put to answer them. The steady
increase
of the
miraculous element in the conversions

well
recounted
may
be the psychological compensation
for actual defeats.
III.
EARLY EASTERN CHRISTIAN WRITINGS AGAINST THE JEWS EPHREM, APHRAATES AND JACOB OF SERUG
earliest writing of
class which we possess is 1 Jews of Ephrem the Syrian is a This poetical sermon delivered on Palm Sunday, and its subject is naturally the triumphant entry of Christ into Jerusalem and His subsequent rejection by the Jews. In itself the sermon is not very different from other works
The
this
the
Rhythm
against
the
of the kind. By making the idea of the synagogue as a harlot the theme for his verse, he is able to indulge in many unpleasant allusions suitable to his text, but that is all. * His successor, Aphraates, the Persian Sage', shows much more familiarity with the points at issue. Though his theology would have appalled the Nicene fathers, he gives the impression of an honest shepherd doing his best to defend his flock against the dangers presented by the presence of many Jews among them; and on the whole
1 In the Select Works Oxford, 1847.
'
of Ephrem, translated by J. B. Morris.

.
277
he speaks without bitterness 1 Though he belongs to the

fourth century, the century of Christological controversy, he is content to explain the nature of Christ by pointing out to the Jews that Moses is also called God ', and that
*
Son and Firstborn To this a Jew Have you ever heard of a homoousian controversy among the rabbis as to the nature of Moses? Aphraates is by no means ignorant of rabbinical Judaism, He can quote to the Jews their own interpretations, and is even ready to adopt them himself when he finds them
Israel is called
.
'
'
might well reply,
learned Jewish constantly refers to his opponent , and it is quite evident that this man was a real figure, not a rhetorical creation. He frequently asks him to explain points which he evidently considers un. '
useful 3
He
4
answerable, and though in his
Demonstrations
'
these are
naturally rhetorical questions, it is likely that they represent real questions in some battle of texts which he had had
with actual Jews.
Thus he
ii,
challenges
its
him
to
show
that
Deuteronomy
5 xxxii, 21, is not a reference to the Christians .
He
quotes Jeremiah
8,
with
to
leaders of the Jews, and selves they are inviting
tells
them
that being blind

.
condemnation of the them-
him
.
them
to reconcile their distinctions of

relates that,
be blind also 6 He asks meats with Samson's
7 eating honey from a lion
side, the Jews mocked at the abstinence from marriage. To this Aphraates retorts by a list of the unfortunate marriages of the Old Testament Adam, whose sons were so wicked that the Flood was needed to cleanse the world of them,
He
on their
its
monkish system with
The
article
Aphraates
in
the Jewish Encyclopaedia
is
worth
consulting.
1 3
Aphraates, Demonstration xvii. See introduction to Aphraates by Fr. Parisot, p. xlix
ff.
Dem.
'
x, i; xii, 7; xv, 8, etc.
6 They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities; and I will move them to are not a people; I will provoke them to anger jealousy with those which * with a foolish nation (see Dem. xii, 3). " " * that handle The Where is the Lord? and
they priests said not, the law knew me not: the rulers also transgressed against me, and the do not profit * that after walked and things prophets prophesied by Baal,
(see
7
Dem. xiv, 26). Dem. xv, 2.
278
Eli and his sons, Solomon and his wives and complains that the Jews by their clever casuistry destroy the minds of the simple Christians 1 They mocked at Christian 2 poverty They mocked at the Christian refusal to fight,
.
and their inability to stop persecution 3 And they contrasted the miserable condition of the Christians under Shapur with their own glorious future4 To these last questions the reply of Aphraates is interesting. He shows how even in the Old Testament suffering was a cause of blessing,
. .
and he points them to Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Jephthah, David, Elijah, Elisha, and other heroes of their own. One whole Demonstration is devoted to proving that the Christian belief in the divinity of Christ does not 5 infringe the unity of God has Aphraates evidently to deal not only with the attacks of Jews upon Christian doctrine, but also with the attractive power of Judaism over his own flock. The Jews claimed to have something in the rite of circumcision that the Christians had not got. He replies with unusual calm and weight, and with an absence of invective. Abraham was not circumcised when he received the promises, and the sons of Ishmael, though circumcised, are outside the promises. It is therefore evident that circumcision cannot In equally measured argument of itself be an essential 6 he deals with the case for the Sabbath, showing that the purpose of the Sabbath is not to impose a rule of life and death for its observance, or non-observance, but to secure mankind quiet and recreation 7 In another Demonstration he explains the superiority of the Easter of the Christians over the Passover of the Jews 8 In all these Demonstrations he gives the impression of dealing with an opponent whom he respects, and who demands all his wits and sincerity. But his calm breaks
. .
.
Dem.
Ibid,
xviii.
*
* 4
Ibid, vi, 20.
v and
xxi.
Ibid. xxi.
Ibid. xvii.
*lbid. xi.
7
Ibid. xiii.
xii.
*Ibid.

down
279
in dealing with the question of the restoration of the Jews, obviously a point which troubled his congregation. In one Demonstration, by the familiar method of text
congregations, Israel and and adultery respectively, is the Gentile Church 1 to the return of the Jews
.
arrangement, he reaches the conclusion that there are two Judah, which are of fornication and one true congregation which All the prophecies which refer have been fulfilled in the return
*
from Babylon. There is no further return possible, and he adds, I will now write and prove to you that neither God, nor Moses, nor the prophets were ever well >2 disposed towards the Jews In view of the fact that Aphraates was evidently facing real dangers, his tone with few exceptions is amazingly reasonable. He was not a great theologian, but he had a clear mind, and was a good reasoner. He is one of the
.
best examples in antiquity, not of the great intellectual, but of the first-class parish priest, dealing steadily and to the best of his ability with the problems which confronted his flock, themselves probably relatively simple folk, in the presence of the Jewish intellects of the Talmudic schools. century later we have a third Christian apologist in the same region, Jacob of Serug. From his pen we possess three Homilies against the Jews *, in which he also appears to be dealing with real difficulties raised in the minds of He avoids his congregation by their Jewish neighbours3 the conventional abuse directed against the crucifiers of
'
and reproaches them rather for not subsequently recognising the fulfilment of prophecy in Him. His strong point is that a prophecy cannot be fulfilled twice, and that therefore there is nothing left for which the Jews can wait. Our Lord when He came grasped the totality of prophecy *, and therefore gave no opportunity for another to come4
Christ,
'
1 *
Dem.
xvi.
Hillel had already stated that prophecy could not be twice and that all the Messianic prophecies were fulfilled in the days of Hezekiah (T. B. Sanhedrin, 980) but it is unlikely that Aphraates was aware of this.
Ibid. xix.
fulfilled
3 I am indebted to the Rev. Dr. I. K. Cosgrove for the texts of these homilies, and I hope that his commentary on them will have already appeared by the time this is in print.
4
Horn,
i,
283,
280
In very different tone is the Taunt Song of Jacob against the Himyarite Jews for the persecution of the Christians in southern Arabia 1 This poem is merely a violent diatribe against the Jews as the permanent enemies of the Christians, and the lines of the attack are purely conventional. He adduces no special evidence from Persian or oriental history to support his statements.
.
IV.
EASTERN DISPUTATIONS ANASTASIUS OF

:
SINAI
In many ways these eastern homilies tell us more of the arguments of Jews against Christianity than the dialogues which were composed in large numbers from the earliest times. The most famous of these, Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, has already been extensively quoted. To the same century probably belonged the lost Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus, which formed the foundation of two fourthcentury dialogues, that of Zacchaeus and Athanasius, and that of Timothy and Aquila. In both, and presumably in the original form from which they are drawn, the Jew is little more than a dummy figure, unable to reply to the arguments on the Person of Christ and the reality of the Incarnation which the Christian advances, and in both he ultimately accepts conversion. The same description would also apply to the fifth-century Dialogue of Theophilus and Simon ascribed to a monk Evagrius. Thus though they are of considerable interest from other points of view they add little to the present study. It is significant that in the Disputation of the sixth-century abbot, Anastasius of Sinai, the Jew never appears at all, but is only the passive 2 recipient of the dialectic of the Christian apologist .
1 *Totschreiten Jacobs v. Serug an die himyaritische Christen', by R.SchSter, in the Zeitschrift der d.Morgenl&ndischen GeseIlschaft,XXXX,
p. 3&>.
* The authorship of this work is not certain. Though found among the writings of Anastasius it is ascribed by some to a later epoch because of certain affiliations with other controversial works of the same character. But the detailed study and publication of Jewish-Christian controversies is not yet far enough advanced to take definite decisions, and for our
present purpose the question of authorship and even of date great importance.
is
not of
281
The arguments of Anastasius show a considerable amount of originality. While the questions of the Incarnation and the nature of Christ as proved by prophecy inevitably occupy a large part of the work, other portions are distinctly
The author makes considerable use of the New original. Testament, especially of the epistles to the Romans and to the Hebrews 1 , reproducing the Pauline arguments against the law, and the arguments of the author of the
epistle to the Hebrews that share our nature.
it
was necessary
for Christ to
There
tianity,
is
a long section dealing with the history of Chris-
though the arguments which he there uses in favour of Christianity might with greater justice be repeated to-day in favour of Judaism. For he argues that no faith unless it were true and protected of God could possibly have survived so many centuries, have escaped so many 2 persecutions, and have won so many followers Against the fidelity of the Christians he sets the historic infidelity of the Jews, mingling, as was the custom of the time, incidents from any century together, as though all equally
.
applied to the Jews of the sixth century A.D., who certainly needed more courage to retain their Judaism than did
Anastasius to retain his Christianity3 The earnestness of the eastern discussions as to whether the Messiah had truly come in the person of Jesus is shown by the arguments of which both Jacob of Serug and Anastasius make use in order to point out to the Jews the implications of their rejection of Him. Jacob had pointed out that a prophecy could not be fulfilled twice, so that a Jewish Messiah could not lay claim to any prophecy which Jesus had fulfilled. Anastasius takes another line. He says to the Jews: you will not believe in Jesus because you say He was accursed and a deceiver, who therefore could not be the Messiah. But prophecy clearly says that these statements will be made about the Messiah. Moses says that you will see your life hanging before your eyes, and will not believe4 . Zechariah says that you will look upon Him
.
Disputatio contra Judaeas, *Ibid. i, p. 1224 ff.

Ibid,
ii,
iii;
P.G.,
LXXXIX,
p. 1253
ff.
3 4
p. 1236.
xxviii, 66.
Version of Eteut.
282

,
whom
1 you have pierced and many other prophecies are If therefore you refuse to accept in fulfilled Jesus. clearly Him, you will be in exactly the same dilemma when your Messiah comes. He will be a man accursed, and you will
not believe in
Him 2
never defence, the appears or produces any arguments author gives every appearance of having real Jews in mind in writing. This impression is borne out by a short supplementary dialogue which follows the main work, and which would justify the author in claiming a reputation for wit. It turns on the single question why do the Christians eat pork and the Jews refuse? After an ingenious explanation that pork was eaten by the Egyptians while beef and other meats were sacred, and that therefore Moses forbade pork to make them turn away from the temptations of Egypt, he adds that the real reason is laziness! It has nothing to do with cleanliness, for the Jews will eat chicken, and chickens are disgusting feeders. But they prefer animals from which they get several benefits, such as eggs from the chicken, wool, milk or cheese from other animals, and But the pig, they even keep dogs to guard their houses. which eats exactly the same food as the sheep or goat, they will not eat, for they would have all the trouble of providing it with food during its lifetime without any compensating
Though,
therefore, the
Jew
in the
'
'
Disputation
his
in
benefit3 .
All the material so far considered has this feature in It is composed of serious intellectual argument, devoted either to converting the Jew, or at least to confirming the faith of the Christian. Where the actual form of disputation is used, it is as a discussion between an individual Jew and Christian, even if there is a certain audience. And if the Jew is converted it is by argument. That they represent a genuine tradition is certain. In many of the lives of the saints, and in many remarks made by ecclesiastical writers themselves, we hear of their discussions with Jews. Isidore of Pelusium frequently refers
common.
Zech.
xii,
10.
iii,
Anastasius, Disput., XV, p. 257.

3
p. 1241.
Cf. Trophies of Damascus
P.O.,
Anastasius, Parvus Dialogus, P.G.,
LXXXIX,
p. 1271.
283
to such discussions in his letters 1 , and Theodoret of Cyr, * in the middle of the fifth century, exclaims He who sees all things knows how many conflicts I have had in most of
the cities of the east with pagans and Jews and every heresy '. Similar quotations could be taken from many other writers. But unfortunately we lack entirely the Jewish side of these discussions, except in so far as they are often implied, in the rejection of certain interpretations of texts, in the course of midrashic discussion. In Aphraates especially we may see the attacks which Jews made on Christianity, but nowhere can we find the real Jewish defences against Christian apologetic. Later writers, as we shall see, allowed the Jews to score points with astonishing freedom, and even went so far as to include in their compositions Jewish arguments which they found themselves unable to answer, or Jewish counter-interpretations of the essential texts of the Old Testament.
EASTERN DISPUTATIONS: GREGENTIUS AND HERBANUS THE TEACHING OF JACOB THE TROPHIES OF DAMASCUS; THE CONVERSION OF THE JEWS OF TOMEI THE HISTORY OF THEODOV.
;
;
SIUS
AND
PHILIP
new period opens with the more completely oriental disputations of which some have only recently been made available to western readers. They are written much more * * novels with picturesquely: they have become religious
a mass of stage setting, often quite artistically and realistically arranged: they deal with mass movements; and they make extensive use of miracle. The earliest of the disputations of the new type is that between Herbanus a Jew, and Gregentius, Archbishop of Tephren in Ethiopia. Although the Jews have a single spokesman, all the Jews of the kingdom are summoned to be present at the disputation, and the fate of all of them is made to hang upon its issue. The discussion is lengthy and ranges over all the ground usually treated in such works. The proofs of the doctrine of the Trinity from the Old
1
Ch. V, Section VII.
284
tion
Testament are succeeded by a similar study of the Incarnaand the Cross. The debate then turns to the rejection of Israel, and Herbanus has a good deal to say on the subject, forcing the archbishop to stranger and stranger interpretations of the prophets, coupled with feeble terms of abuse.
These subjects occupy the first two days of the Altercation, and at the end each side retires congratulating itself on its
victory. The third
that
God
detests
day opens with a statement by the archbishop all Jewish observances, and demands of
'
the Jews only baptism, to which Herbanus replies What can I do to you, archbishop, for there is not a word whose meaning you do not pervert, or a prophecy which you do A little later, in a discussion on whether not twist n the Christ has really come, he remarks: 'I see that you have one understanding (gnosis), and we have another. Would it not be better therefore for each to obey his own under.
2 The archbishop becomes standing and to be silent?' abusive again, and the day closes. The Jews gather round Herbanus and congratulate him on the way in which he has put their case, but Herbanus is depressed, and is certain But that he will be unable to overcome the archbishop. the reason is not the argument! ve powers of the prelate, but in the night I saw a vision of Moses the Prophet, and Moses was adoring Jesus and the crucified Jesus and lifting his hands to Him as to the Lord God, and
.
doing Him reverence. And I, as a spectator, suddenly said " lord Moses, is this good what you frankly and openly, * are doing? and he turned on me with great severity and " Be said silent, you impudent fellow, for this is no mistake.
1
My
I do not belong to your party, but I know my maker and God. What have you got to do with this just archbishop whom you are rashly troubling? Wait until the morrow, and you will be overcome and will also worship Whom I worship"'. 3 In spite of this Herbanus fights bravely the during day's discussion, which turns largely on the sufferings of Christ, which he cannot accept. When it passes to the Resurrection, and the archbishop claims that
Disputatio, P.G., *Ibid. p. 740.
3
1
LXXXVI,
i,
p. 728.
Ibid* p. 749.

is still living,
285
Herbanus and all the Jews with him Jesus clamour to be shown Him, and promise to believe if they see Him. The archbishop prays for a revelation. There is a clap of thunder, and the heavens are opened and the wish of the Jews is gratified. Confusion reigns in the Jewish camp, and they are all struck blind. But the head of Herbanus is bloody but unbowed '. Led in his blindness
*
to the archbishop, he exclaims 'When a man beholds his God, he receives a blessing therefrom. But we, when we behold your God, receive evil. If such are the gifts He
undaunted spokes1 you committing us?* * At the font you will receive your sight.' And if we are baptised and remain blind? I will baptise one and he will see; if not, do not believe.' Herbanus accepts. The archbishop succeeds. Herbanus is baptised. The king acts as godfather to him, and presses upon him ecclesiastical and secular titles. All the Jews of the kingdom follow his example. The Church rejoices, and the devil
for evil
4
bestows on those who come to Him, certainly He does not share the goodness of His Father '. It is your blasphemies which have blinded you *, replies the archbishop.
'
If He renders evil man of the Jews,
',
replies the
to
whom
are
repines. The reputation of Gregentius rises higher than ever. General festivities and good works fill the whole
kingdom. *The teaching of Jacob the new convert
'
is
also cast
in novel form. The basis of the story is the forced baptism of the Jews by Heraclius. There was a Jew named Jacob, who, faithful to Jewish traditions ', spent all his youth doing harm to the Christians by one subterfuge after another3 . Subsequently he became a merchant, and to avoid being compelled to be baptised he pretended to be a Christian. But falling down a staircase, he gave himself
'
away by his exclamation, and was then taken and baptised. Having become a Christian he set out to examine his new He therefore assembled other faith, and found it true.
1
Disputatio, P.G.,
LXXXVI,
i,
p. 780.
is
Doctrina JacM nuper baptizati, or Sargis of Aberga, which Ethiopian version thereof.
an
5 Doctrina, para. 53. The Ethiopian version contains fewer details, doubtless as the terms were incomprehensible to the Ethiopian translator.
286

like situation to himself,
Jews in
their
and expounded
to
them
common faith, and cleared up their difficulties. The meetings are held in secret, and only copied down by a hidden scribe unknown to those present. The reason
for this precaution is that the Christians are themselves so learned in their faith, and so severe with those who hold erroneous views, that it would not be safe for simple and ignorant Jews, only just learning it, to commit their views
to writing 1
.
During the
.
first
two assemblies Jacob exposes Christian
doctrine, emphasising naturally the faults and condemnation of the Jews 2 The Jews are much encouraged by these teachings, but their joy changes to grief when a Jew from
the east arrives (this is supposed to pass in Africa) and tells them that they are in error for two reasons whose combination sound strange in the mouth of an orthodox Jew: the Messiah has not yet come, and they have let themselves be baptised at the wrong season 3 Moreover, he knows Jacob of old as a notorious scoundrel and maker of trouble. The Jews beg him to meet Jacob, and after much persuasion he consents.
.
The first meeting is stormy and ends in his trying to strangle Jacob, after which he demands eight days for preparation to achieve the same end by more intellectual means4 . The second meeting, a week later, ends in uproar.
Thereafter he
is
not allowed to speak, and Jacob continues
his exposition, proving that Christ has come and fulfilled all prophecy, that the heroes of the Old Testament are
convinced, themselves who, holding that the Christ has come, believe the Jews have made a great mistake in not accepting Him 6 . He quotes three cases of learned rabbis who have confessed
.
but prototypes of Him 5 and admits that there are
The eastern Jew is many among the Jews
Para. 59.
For the punishment of the Jews see paras. 21, 24, 31, 40, 41; for the uselessness of the Sabbath, 35, 36; for the abolition of Jewish sacrifices, 57; for their unbelief in Christ, 60-62.
3
Para. 63.
Paras. 66-69.
Isaac, Joseph,
4
5
Jeremiah and Daniel (paras. 111-114).
Paras. 82, 91 and 117.

,
287
1 openly or secretly this belief and tells, on the other hand, of an unhappy Christian deacon who, under torture, became a Jew and then committed suicide 2 . He asks Jacob
for baptism, receives it, is instructed, and sets forth to win other Jews to Christianity. Jacob retires to a desert and dies in sanctity.
The date
and
it
of the story
was probably written
the scene is (hence the Ethiopian
the middle of the seventh century, in Syria or Egypt, even though laid in Africa under the governor Sergius
is
name
Sargis
of
Aberga= Sergius
Eparchus) and refers to some twentv years earlier. Half a century later appears another work of similar character, the Trophies of Damascus, also an anonymous work, probably written towards the end of the seventh century in Syria. In this case the Jewish parties to the dispute are not already baptised, as in the last work, but
neither are they definite opponents of Christianity, as is the case in all earlier controversies. group of Jews are much troubled by words of Saint Paul 3 it is already something unexpected that they are familiar with his works and go to a Christian child secretly, asking him to find them someone capable of explaining the verse to them. The child leads them to a monk, who is the Christian spokesman throughout the work. The dialogue opens
in
an admirable atmosphere of intellectual honesty. The asks: On what points are your doubts ? Speak without fear, but also without exaggeration or blasphemy. For those who express themselves with the fear of God before their eyes should use neither exaggeration nor
monk
blasphemy against opposing views,

revealed
*
until
the
truth
is
4.
The
on the
first
discussion, which takes place in private, turns familiar theme of the nature and Incarnation of
Christ. The Jews find themselves unable to answer the stream of texts quoted by the monk, and propose to bring
1
Cf. Arabic History of Patriarchs of Alexandria in P.O., Vol.

Para. 90.
I,
p. 122.
*
3
iii, 13: become a curse for us: for it is written, u Cursed a on tree " *.
Gal.
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having is every one that hangeth
Trophies, P.O., brackets.
XV,
p. 22: the pages are those
marked
in square
288
their intellectual chiefs to continue the argument. The monk expresses his joy, and the rest of the discussion takes
before a large crowd of persons, Jews, place in public Greeks, Samaritans, heretics and Christians '. The new Jewish protagonists succeed in completely
flooring the monk with their first question: us that Isaac engendered two nations and
*
Scripture
tells
which do you belong? n

*
two peoples;
'
to
The monk
takes refuge in a long
declaration setting aside all vain subtilties and appealing for honest and humble search. He then draws a sad picture of the failure of all Jewish hopes, as a proof of their
rejection. tu quoque
.
But the Jew has no
difficulty in
applying the
argument by painting the misery of the Byzantine empire, which itself also has been expelled from the Holy Places 2 He cannot accept the fact that the Messiah has come. For the peace which should accompany His reign is evidently absent. The monk's reply is triple: (a) it may
refer to
inner peace; (ft) the Byzantine empire enjoyed peace until fifty years ago; (c) God often says one thing and does another3 The discussion then returns to the Incarnation, and the monk, after asking various questions in the Socratic manner, succeeds in turning the tables on his adversaries
.
by
a skilful exposition of the suffering servant in Isaiah.
He
succeeds again with the brazen serpent, and the Jews The crowd which now includes Moslems also is delighted, and the Jews ask how they may be converted. The Christian gives a strange reply: I do not
admit defeat.
But make you all do make you bad Jews. For in pursuing your own defeat, you are no longer pure Jews nor fully Christians, but hybrids, even if you do not admit it ?4 It is difficult to understand what is meant by this reply, or why the monk does
wish
I
to, or rather I cannot,
Christians.
not wish, in the spirit of earlier controversialists, to reap the

1
Trophies, P.O.,
XV,
*
p. 46.
*Ibid.,p.$i.
3
Bardy
translates
this astonishing statement.

is a
appears to say *, and thereby somewhat softens But the Greek is <cuvrcu cwroli/ which
strong positive expression, and not <atvT<u ctTreiv, which would remove the contradiction and give the translation of Bardy.
*
Trophies, P.O.,
XV,
p. 63.

fruit of his victory. In this as the end, accept
289
any case his original seekers do not and ask him to discuss also with some Cappadocian Jews who are present, and who have a very high reputation. The monk agrees, and a fourth
interview takes place. They begin again on the point of the origin of the ChrisGod says in Isaiah tians, and this time a reply is found. that He shall call His servants by another name n This is clearly a reference to the Christians, and renders superfluous the question of their origin. The most interesting parts of this section are, however, those dealing with the 2 question of images, and the lack of harmony in the Gospels fourth The assembly deals primarily with the prophecies of Daniel, at the end of which the Jews admit complete
' .
.
defeat. They blushed with shame, were silent and still, were troubled, were agitated, grew sombre and embarrassed, blushed, were astray, ran off without stopping, got up, fled as if a fire pursued them, fell about like drunkards; all their wisdom was consumed, and they all departed,
some
in silence, some grumbling, some groaning, some exclaiming "Adonai, the monk has won", some shaking " their heads and saying to each other, By the Law, I believe we are wrong "; and some of the elder ones made ridiculous remarks such as " Dear! Dear! How much bacon have we been robbed of?" Some instead of enemies became friends of the Christians. Others waited for an opportunity to be baptised, and the dearest of them came to the church in all sincerity and truth and received the seal of
baptism/
fourth seventh-century discussion between Jews and Christians which is worthy of mention is the History of Unthe conversion of the Jews of Tomei in Egypt 4 the in detail follow to it is not possible yet fortunately controversy itself, for the Arabic manuscripts of the Bibliotheque Nationale have not yet been published, and it is only possible to learn the main lines of the discussion from
.
Isaiah, Ixv, 15.
*
*
Trophies, p. 75
Ibid.* p. 105.
ff.
and 87
ff.
Edited by P. Griveau in R.O.C., Vol. XIII, p. 198.
290 THE CONFLICT OF

the
summary of M. Griveau. It is therefore impossible to judge the extent to which the intellectual victory really lay with the Christian protagonists.
The town of Tomei was primarily populated by Jews, the descendants of a settlement of Vespasian. Near to it was a monastery, and the monks used to send two of their number regularly to buy provisions in the town. Arriving one day they find a Jewish festival in progress, and the leader of the Jews, Amran the Levite, is reading and expounding the Law to his companions. The monks want to know what he is reading, to discover whether the worship the favour in His Jews offer on this day to the Lord will find From this they easily involve the Jews in a dissight '. discussion has cussion, and begin with the Trinity. The the interest that Amran is convinced step by step, and not, Convinced of the existence of the as usual, at the end. And as to His humanity. conviction he Word, requires discussion passes through the usual the method this by Amran leads the town to follow range with variations. his example, and finally the whole Jewish population, over three hundred souls, is baptised by the bishop, and
*
the record of the discussion is committed to paper to be read three times a year in all the churches. it does not contain any formal story which, though to be classed with these narratives, disputation, is yet worthy is the history of Theodosius the priest of the Jews in Alexandria. He had a Christian friend, Philip, with whom he held long discussions. In the course of these he told him that he believed in his heart that Jesus was the Messiah, but felt too sinful to be baptised. Moreover, there were
other reasons against baptism, for he would lose his honour and dignity among the Jews without being accepted by the * when a Jew is baptised, Christians, who had a proverb He goes on to ^say that it is as if one baptised an ass '. are but of the most repelled by the sinfulness Jews believe, of the lives of the Christians, and finally he asserts that in
His
lifetime Jesus elders of the Jews.
was accepted
as one of the twenty-two In the end he, and many Jews with him,
are baptised 1
1
The advent of Islam introduced a new kind of controversy,

Arabic History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, P.O., Vol.
I,
p. 122.

in
291
religions took part, and the Christian scored equally off his Jewish and Mohammedan opponents 1 but such fall outside the scope of the present study.
,
which the three
VI.
THE JEWS IN THE ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY
Very comparable
to these stories of Jewish conversions as a result of discussion are the collection of romances
in the the Isaurian emperors. The reaction against images on the part of the eastern provinces owed something certainly to the abuses of Byzantine monasticism, but it also owed a good deal to the neighbouring influences of Judaism and Islam, both of which religions refuse absolutely all such aids to devotion. Nearly all the chroniclers recount in different forms how the controversy originated in the deep-rooted hatred of the Jews for Christ and the Virgin Mary, and ascribe the Mohammedan prohibition of images to the same inhave already seen that the question of fluence 2 in some of the disputations between Jews figures images and Christians. particularly interesting case of this is the record of such a discussion at the fifth actio of the second council of Nicaea, where a Jew is quoted who believed in Christ but who could not accept the images in the Christian churches. The full discussion is read out to the council, together with the way in which he is convinced by the
which accompanied the Iconoclastic controversy

of
time
We
reference to similar worship in Judaism3 .

It
for propaganda purposes y that the Jews were responiconodules any sible for the attacks of the Isaurian emperors upon images, it was an ingenious thought to evolve a series of stories in which Jews were represented as having been converted by the power of those images which the iconoclasts claimed
at
being an accepted view

rate
of the
'
E.g.
La
vie de S.
Michel
le
Sabaite in A.B., Vol.
XLVHI.
E.g. Nicephorus, P. of Constantinople, Antirrheticus, III; P.G., C, p. 528, A.S. for July 8 (July, Vol. II, p. 637) and Aug. 9 (Aug., Vol. II, p. 435); George Hamartolus, IV, ccxlviii; P.G., CX; and in western chroniclers also <?*., Sigbert, Ckron, for 724 in M.G JHL folio, VI, p. 330.
s
SeeMansi,XIH,p.
166.
292
No better way of convincing the faithful could indeed be imagined, for as Theodoret of Cyr remarks on another occasion: When Jews bear witness to Christian 2 miracles, who can remain sceptical?'
to be merely idols 1 .
*
3 general line of these stories is usually the same . To insult Christianity a Jew who has by some means or other become possessed of a Christian image or precious
The
object decides to profane
it.
The
object proves
its
sanctity
and power, and the Jew is usually converted. In one case the Jew steals an image of Christ which he has often seen in a church (one wonders how) in order to destroy the
of the deceiver who has humiliated our people '. it down from the wall but, unobserved, it bleeds, and when he reaches home he is covered with blood. His bloody footsteps next day guide Christians to his house: the picture is found, and he is stoned. With their love of picturesque and apparently convincing detail, the Byzantines embroider the story in various ways. In one story a poor
picture
*
He
pulls
Christian is indignant at being poor while a neighbour, He tries to become a member of the is a Jew, is rich. Jew's household in order to rob him, but the Jew will
who
only accept him if he is converted. To this he agrees, 4 In and, as part of the ritual, is made to stab a crucifix another version Jews rent a house near the synagogue, and the previous Christian tenants have left an image of
.
such stories did not actually originate at this time. in the Glory of the Martyrs of Gregory of Tours, written two centuries earlier, appears a somewhat similar narrative. See note 3, below,
It is possible that
For
2
Theodoret, Religiosa Historia, vi
P.G.,
LXXXII,
p. 1358.
Gloria Martyrorum, I, xxii. I have not been able to discover whether there are any grounds for considering this story to be a later If it were a detached incident, it would certainly be natural addition. to ascribe it to the 8th rather than the 6th century. It is noticeable that in the stories which can be traced to the eighth century, the incidents are often alleged to have taken place some centuries earlier. Thus the famous story of the crucifix of Tiberias is said to have taken place in the time of Zeno (475-491), i.e. before the time of Gregory, so that a later copyist would not think he was committing any anachronism in inserting it into a work of Gregory.
De
Version of the Syn. Ethiop. in P.O., IX, p. 318 ff. The incident takes place in the time of Theophilus, uncle of Cyril of Alexandria, and in a Coptic version the incident is related in a Sermon on Penitence ascribed to Cyril himself. See Melanges de la Faculti Orientate de Beyruth } Vol. VI, where an introduction discusses all the stories.
293
Christ there on vacating it 1 . In another version the image itself is one of particular beauty, which has been specially carved by the Christian who had lived in the house 2 . In yet a fourth variant, which places the scene at Tiberias, it is the Jews who have had the image made, pretending
that they wished to worship was to insult it3 .
it,
when
their only
purpose
The image
effects ensue.
Jews are
filled
having once been stabbed, again various Blood or blood and water flow out, and the with horror at their action. They are struck
with foul diseases (or they bring in those who are possessed of foul diseases), and are only cleansed by the water and blood, or by the water of baptism. They are all converted, and in one case, where the incident takes place in a synagogue, the building is converted into a church. A distinct version is the story of the image in S. Sophia. A Jew who frequently passed through the church had always especially hated one particular image, and waiting for an occasion to be alone he stabbed it, but such quantities of blood and water flowed out that the whole pavement of the church was flooded, and the crime instantly discovered. The Jew and his family were converted4 further variant is told by Agapius, a chronicler of the tenth century. This time the scene is laid at Antioch in the reign of Maurice, the image is one of the Virgin, which the Jews insult in repulsive fashion, and the result is not the conversion but the expulsion of the Jews from
.
that city 5 .
Such is one family of stories dealing with the miraculous conversion of Jews by images. quite different narrative, leading to the same conclusion, is the eighth-century ancestor of the Merchant of Venice^ the history of Theodore the Christian merchant, and Abraham the Jew of Constan-
r john Cassian in S.A., P.O. XXI, p. 104; cf. also Sigbert, Chron. year 765 in M.G.H. folio, VI, p. 333. 2 The sermon of the pseudo-Athanasius in P.G., XXVIII, p. 797. which was read in the 4th Actio of Nicaea II, M., XIII, pp. 24 and 580. See Dobschutz, op. cit., p. 281**.
History of the Likeness of Christ, Budge. Combefis, De maximo miraculo, in Historia Haeresis MonoikeMtarum, Paris, 1648. 5 Agapius in P.O., VIII, p. 439.
4
294
tinople.
Details of the story are strangely reminiscent of Shakespeare though the Jew has a different role to play. Theodore, like Antonio, loses his fortune with the wreck of his fleet. He goes to his Christian friends to raise money. They refuse to lend it, and he remembers Abraham, a Jewish merchant who had frequently desired to share his ventures, and to whom he had consistently refused this participation. Abraham reminds him of this in much the same way as Shylock addresses Antonio and reproaches him for his past insolence, but consents to the loan if surety can be found. Theodore returns to his Christian friends,
who reply: 'Away from me, man, I am so far from consenting to go and see that infamous and unbelieving Jew, that I " " to him '. would not even speak or say good morning
Theodore, depressed, goes and weeps in a church the ancient synagogue which Theodosius II had taken from the Jews in the Copper Market. There an image tells him that it will be guarantor. Abraham, amazed by his faith, accepts the guarantee of the image, and after initial failure his loan leads to the re-establishment of the fortunes of
Theodore.
Impressed
thereby
he
is
converted,
and
identified with a subsequent abbot1 . Another story, tending to the same end, is related by Jew of Alexandria possesses a coffer John of Nikious.
which cannot be opened. One day, while making a special effort to open it, he hears heavenly voices praising Christ, and lightning plays around the box. Alarmed, he goes to
the bishop, who opens it without difficulty. Inside are found the very towels which Christ used in washing the The box is taken to the church, and the disciples' feet.
2 is converted Further research will very likely lead to the discovery of more stories of the same kind, but these are sufficient to show that such inventions were not casual, but were
Jew
armoury of the iconoclastic controversy, and that the varied periods to which they are assigned are merely versions of the opening once upon a time '.
definitely part of the
c
1 Combefis, op. cit.> De Salvatoris Imagine dicta Antiphonetes; see also A.S., Oct., Vol. XII, Auctarium, p. 760.
John of Nikious,
xci.

VII.
295
THE MIRACULOUS CONVERSIONS OF THE

JEWS
all
the easier to gain credence for these stories, in that the lives of the saints and the histories of the time were full of the accounts of the miraculous conversions of
It
was
Jews.
These
fall
into several classes.
At times there
is
merely a short reference that such a saint converted many Jews. At other times a full and circumstantial story is given. The first kind need not detain us, for they present no particular interest, though they are sometimes amusing, as when it is accurately related that on the miraculous conversion of Entawos the Amorean, 10,798 Jews and pagans
followed
him
to the
font 1
The
others are worthy of
some
attention.
First there are the stories and miracles of those who It were themselves converted Jews, such as Epiphanius 2 may be assumed that such stories were a bait to attract Jews to the fold by recording the eminence after conversion
.
of their fellows, just as the leader of the Jews, converted at Tomei, succeeds ultimately the bishop who baptised
him.
Then come
the stories where
Christian
miracles
are
brought into play to prove the superiority of Christianity over Judaism. Such stories we have already encountered in studying the lives of the martyrs 3 An example of the readiness with which the Byzantines allowed the Jews to
.
score points off their Christian antagonists is the story of Donatus, bishop of Istria in Egypt, which has been already quoted. He was a great apologist, and after his defence of the Virgin Birth the Jews professed contempt for the claims of Christ, and when asked the reason pointed out
that Christ
had been living when He performed His miracles, whereas the dead bones of Elisha sufficed to bring a corpse But their triumph was short lived, for they back to life4 An were ultimately confounded by the Resurrection 5
.
Aug. 23, in P.O., IX, p. 343* E.g. in S.AJ- P.O., XVI, p. 1031. 3 Ch. IV, Section IX.
S.E.,
4
II
Kings xiii, 21. Greek Acta in A.S.,
May
22, Vol. V, p. 145.
296

is
Jewish boy in Constantinople partakes of Communion without anyone knowing that he is a Jew. He tells his father, who is a glass blower, and is thrown into the furnace. His mother finds him there later unharmed, and she and the boy are
fire.
extremely popular story of this kind of the three Holy Children in the
based on the incident
baptised
1
.
A third variety is
ticular Christian
devoted to proving the efficacity of parsymbols or sacraments. Thus, in the life
of Basil of Caesarea,a
.
Jew who comes
secretly to
Communion
sees a child in the wafer
and blood in the chalice and is converted 2 Saint Constantine, who became a monk in Bithynia, was converted by observing the marvellous effect
.
3 Many are upon himself of signing himself with a cross the stories in which Jews are cured of diseases by baptism4 . Sometimes the miracle consists in an appeal to a Christian saint and precedes the baptism 5 and in one case a Jew, smearing his eyes with the blood of some monks murdered in the Monophysite controversy, immediately receives his
,
sight
Other stories reflect merely the love of story telling, and have no moral lesson at all. In fact, some of them
exhibit
rather
the
opposite
characteristics.
The many
Epiphanius and his donkey belong to this class. Another, told of at least two saints, is that of the two Jewish beggars, one of whom shammed dead that the other might
stories of
ask the saint to bring him to life. The saint spreads his mantle over him and he is dead 7 A lengthy narrative 1 The story is told of the time of S. Menas, P. of Constantinople (536-552), A.S., Aug. 25; and may for that reason have been inserted into the Miracula of Gregory of Tours (I, x), who was a contemporary.
.
It is also related by Evagrius, IV, xxxvi; P.G., LXXXVI, 2, p. 2769; and by George Hamartolus, Chron., IV, ccxxii; and Nicephorus Callistus, EC. Hist., XVII, xxv.
*De Vitis Patrum, Basil, ii, P.L., LXXIII, p. 301, repeated in S.A. for Jan. i, P.O., XVIII, p. 1538 A.S., Nov., Vol. IV, p. 627. 4 E.g. S. Martyrianus in A.S., Nov., Vol. IV, p. 442; S. Atticus in A.S., Jan., p. 477; Aaron of Serug in P.O., Vol. V, p. 710 etc.
5 6
7
E.g. A.S., April, Vol. Ill, p. 479, and July, Vol. II, p. 226.
Zachariah of Mitylene, III,
vi.
XVIII, p. 47; and of Gregory of Neocaesarea in the works of Barhadbesabba 'Arbaia, P.O., XXIII,
in P.O.,
Told of James of Nisibis
p. 260.
relates
THE JEWS IN BYZANTINE LITERATURE 297 how a Jew named Sakt^r desires to dispute with
the
better
S. Severianus, bishop of Philadelphia, but the saint has a argument than words. He strikes his opponent
1 only removed by baptism But the palm of all such stories must be given to the Jew of Theodore of Mopsuestia. This patient soul listened for long to a daily sermon of the saint, but one day, being prevented from attendance, he fell dead. It was some time before the saint realised his absence, and when he did he was dismayed, for he had made sure of a conversion. He asked an attendant what had happened, and was told of his death. Without a moment's delay he made for the
dumb, and
dumbness
is
cemetery, dug up the
now
decaying gentleman, brought
him back to life again and baptised him. He then asked him whether he would prefer to remain alive or return to the tomb, and when the Jew chose the latter alternative, he pushed him back into his coffin and reburied him
safely baptised
2
.
VIII.
JEWS IN APOCRYPHAL WRITINGS
So far we have been dealing primarily with stories terminating in the conversion of the Jews. There is, however, yet another series of Byzantine romances in which Jews
light.
figure prominently, but almost exclusively in an unfavourable If for conversional purposes the Byzantines invented
such as that of Theodosius the Jewish priest of Alexandria, on the other hand, in their apocryphal gospels and in their lives of the saints of the apostolic and subapostolic ages, they generally represented the Jews as monsters of iniquity. Apocryphal gospels in themselves are a very early invention, but the purpose of the early attempts of this kind was usually to give a particular turn to the teaching of Jesus, and they contained little in themselves that was remarkable. Later ages specialised in the lives of the saints, which offered freer scope for invention than the Yet even here strange details were life of Christ Himself. * added to the gospel narrative. Coptic text of the Gospel
stories
^SAJ.
in P.O., I, p. 241.
*Nestorian History, P.O., V, p. 287.
298

' *
of the Twelve Apostles recounts that after the raising of Lazarus the Jews tried to kill Him, but Caius ', the Roman governor, wished to make Him king in the place of the Tetrarch Philip. The Jews offered him large bribes not to do so, and produced evidence, which was denied
by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, against His whole Caius accepted the bribes and did not make the suggestion to Tiberius. When Pilate appeared on the scene at the time of the trial, he also wanted to make Him The whole responsibility for His condemnation is king. made to lie with the jealousy of Herod1 In the Apocryphal
life.
.
Acts of Pilate, another Coptic version, Pilate throughout the trial treats Jesus as a king 2 In inventing new miracles they naturally had a free hand and used it. The first thing that strikes a modern reader in such collections as the Ethiopian Book of the Miracles of Jesus, is the entire moral worthlessness of most Even the good fairies of of the miracles recounted 3 Grimm's Fairy Tales do not act with such a complete
. .
contempt
for everything except their
own power.
the theological conception of the Jews as heretics, conscious of the truth and rejecting it, are the stories accompanying the Resurrection, or the death of further set of stories the Virgin, already discussed 4 deal with the trial of Peter and Paul at Rome. Pagans and Jews meet together romantically in a temple to discuss how to stop the mouths of the intrepid Apostles in the interests of polytheism! 5
Parallel to
.
Having once begun to compose historical scenes, they did not stop at the Apostolic period. Agapius recounts at immense length a confession of the Jews to Constantine. They admit having falsified the dates in the Torah in order to make it appear that the Messiah had not come, knowing quite well that He had really come in the person of Jesus Other narratives clustered round at the dates foretold 6 .
1
1
3
4
5
See P.O., II, pp. 140 and 152. See P.O., IX, p. 59. P.O., XII, XIV, XVII. See Ch. Ill, Section VIII.
Cf. Syrian Acts, published in R.O.C., Vol. III.
P.O., V, p. 645.

the reign of Julian.
299
Four hundred Jews, all rabbis of Tiberias, are said to have gone to meet him at Constantinople at his accession, and to have offered him a crown of gold, which was fashioned with seven idols as decoration. Julian demanded of them that they should worship the idols and partake of a meal of pork. The Jews hastened to obey both commandments of the emperor, and to prove their 1 This delight repeated their obedience several times
.
unusual conception of the Jews Is parallel to the astonishing statement in the Arabic History of the Patriarchs concerning the rebuilding of the Temple during the same reign. When the building collapses, some Jews of Jerusalem tell the builders that they will never succeed as long as the bones * of the Christians still rest on the site. The Jews therefore dig up and throw out the bones of Elijah and John the
*
Baptist!
IX,
JEWS IN THE THEOLOGIANS
theological views of the period there is little The theoto what has already been developed. first three the of the as in fashioned Jew logical picture centuries remains. Some of the great writers of the period,
Of
the
to
add
such as Theodoret of Cyr and Severus of Antioch, speak with great moderation of the Jews in their sermons 3 Others, and especially the later ones, blend into their sermons the ideas of the Jews created by apocryphal writings. Eusebius of Emesa is fond of coupling together the devil and the Jews, and this trait is even more characteristic of his namesake of Alexandria. The devil refers casually from time to time to his old friends, the Jews '** Eusebius of Alexandria, at least, had no doubt as to their ultimate destination. In his sermon on the Resurrection every * paragraph of the first hah begins with the words: Woe to
.
Nestorian History, P.O., V, p. 238. Arabic History of the Patriarchs, P.O., I, p. 419. 3 Cf. Severus of Antioch, Catechetical Address, No. 70, P.O., XII, pp. 19 and 28; and Theodoret Quaestio in Genesim, xlix, No. no; P.G., UCXX, p. 216. * See the works of these fathers in P.G., LXXXVI, passim, but especially Eusebius of Alexandria, sermo. xv.
*
300
you, wretches, for you follow evil counsels, for you were called sons and became dogs. Woe to you, stiff-necked and uncircumcised, for being the Elect of God you became wolves, and sharpened your teeth upon the Lamb of God. You are estranged from His Glory; woe to you, ungrateful wretches, who have loved Hell and its eternal fires. For when Hell yields up those entrusted to it, it shall receive you in their place. And Hell shall revenge itself upon you for the defeat it received from the Lord, and it shall imn prison you with your father the devil The theologians hi their denunciations of the Jews go back again and again to the accusations contained in the Old Testament. Reflections of the tension in the eastern provinces are not to be found in their works, and if, on the one hand, this silence about facts which we know to have taken place warns us to be cautious in the use of the argumentum e silentio, on the other it shows that the incidents must be taken at their own value only, and not used as an argument of permanent and universal conflict
.
between Jews and Christians.
X.
JEW AS A TERM OF ABUSE IN THE NESTORIANCHALCEDONIAN-MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY

'
'
Loose thinking is more likely to lead to exaggeration than to mitigation, especially on such a subject, and what we have seen in the weaving of romances we find to be confirmed from a different field, that of heresy. Legislation had for some centuries been approximating the lot of the
to
Jew and the heretic, and certain passages have been quoted show that the Jew could himself be regarded as a
Christian
'
'
heretic
'.
But
is
it is
only in the Nestorian con-
troversy that a heretic
for the first time simply called a
Jew
'.
possible influence of the Jews in the formation of heretical doctrine has already been referred to at various times. There are few problems of the period more difficult to solve than that of the extent of Jewish influence over
1 Sermon on the Resurrection ascribed to Eusebius of Alexandria, and included in the works of Chrysostom; P.G., LXI, p. 733.
The
30!
their Christian contemporaries. But nowhere is the accusation more continuously and consistently flung from side to side than in the great Christological controversies of the fifth
and sixth centuries, between the Nestorians, the MonoThe Nestorians saw in physites and the Chalcedonians. Christ two natures mechanically joined together rather than an essential and personal union. This was condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431 and again at Chalcedon in
451. This latter council established the still orthodox * doctrine of the two natures unconfused and unchanged,
united in the Person of Christ, the distinction of the natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved '. This is the doctrine embodied in the * ' Athanasian Creed. This did not satisfy a large portion of the Church, the Monophysites, who professed to believe in one nature in composite form, so that the humanity becomes a mere accident of the divinity. This controversy raged for over a century, accompanied by appalling bloodshed, and ended in a schism still unhealed within the eastern Church. * ' It is evident that there is nothing Jewish about the Monophysites, with their belief in one nature and their small emphasis on the humanity of Christ, but both of the ' ' other two were called Jewish by their opponents. Thus in the controversy between Nestorians and Chalcedonians, * The synod the Nestorians are constantly called Jews '. * to and of Ephesus writes heads its letter: The Nestorius, n Holy Synod to Nestorius the new Jew . The emperor Anastasius, in opening a council to discuss the theology of Macedonius the Nestorian Patriarch of Constantinople some seventy years later, begins his address with the words: * Have you not seen what this Jew who is amongst us did? E, a Two hundred years later, at the Council in Tru$o y reference is made to those who follow the doctrine of Nestorius, * reviving Jewish separating the natures of Christ and '3 impiety . There is thus a consistent tradition that
indivisible
*
'
and inseparable
Ckron. IV, in C.S.C.O. Scrip. Syr., Ill,

Letters of
viii.
iv, p.
161.
Simeon the Presbyter in the Chronicle of Zachariah of

i,
Mitylene, VII,
3
Trullanum, Can,
M., XI,
p. 938.
302 THE CONFLICT OF
Nestorianism owed something to Jewish influence, and trace the working of this tradition in the belief which grew up that Nestorius had actually denied the existence of a divine nature in Christ, an erroneous idea, for Nestorianism was an attempt to interpret the decision of Nicaea. Nestorius never attempted to question the fact that in His divinity Christ was equal to the Father '. But Gregory the Great in a letter to the emperor Maurice and other simply accuses Nestorius of Judaica perfidia * references speak of the Nestorian Christ as merus homo ', and speak of His fear of death 2 That a belief which denied the divinity of Christ might
we can
>:L
We can judge of the Jewish accusation of the only by estimating whether it is justice probable that Jewish controversialists would in reality be likely to influence Christians with whom they came into
chose to characterise as
'
owe something to contemporary Jewish influence is possible, and indeed probable, but it is a different thing to ascribe Jewish influence to a theological idea which its opponents
J
.
contact in the sense of the idea under discussion. And here we have to admit that there is nothing in Nestorian doctrine in the least likely to be due to Jewish influence. Its very point of departure, the Nicaean formula, was the exact antithesis of any possible Jewish conception of the Messiah, and the different interpretations which devolved from that idea were therefore without interest for the
Jews.
This belief, that Nestorianism owed nothing to contemporary Jewish influence, and that the use of the word Jew is merely abusive, is borne out by the fact that the Monophysites, with equal fervour, called the Chalcedonians Jews *. We have already seen that at times it is impossible to tell whether incidents referred to Jews are really caused 3 by them but when it comes to calling the Chalcedonian formula of the nature of Christ Jewish ', we can be in
4 ,
no doubt.
A
1
pleasant story circulated
by the Monophysites was

et
Gregory, Ep. V, xx; cf. XI, Ixvii. Michael the Syrian, XI, xx; and M. Mercator, Diss. I de Haeresi
PJL.,
libris Nestorii;
8
XLVIII,
II.
p. 1124.
See Ch. VII, Section
THE JEWS
IN
BYZANTINE LITERATURE
303
that after the council of Chalcedon the Jews petitioned the emperor Marcian in these terms:
For a long time we were regarded as descendants of those who crucified a God and not a man, but since the Synod of Chalcedon has decided that we crucified a man and not a God, we beg to be forgiven for this offence, and to have our synagogues restored to us.* 1
To Severus of Antioch Nestorians, Chalcedonians and the * Henoticon of Leo, are alike Jewish 2 The successors of Severus, who were Chalcedonians, are likewise called 3 Jews by the Chroniclers The Jacobites in Egypt also used the term Jew * to
'
.
'
cover all sects with whom they disagreed. Thus at the end of the seventh century the Emir of Egypt asked the Bishops of the Melkites (Chalcedonians), Gaianites (extreme
ible),
Monophysites holding the body of Christ to be incorruptBarsanuphians (sect of Eutychians) and Jacobites which of the others they found nearest to their own teaching.
The
first
three
all
replied that the nearest to themselves
was Simon the bishop of the Jacobites, but he being asked as to his view of them, excommunicated them all and condemned them as Jews4 Whatever may have been the situation in earlier centuries,
.
in these controversies we can conclude that the word * * Jew is simply a term of abuse, and that to look for any That there were many contacts real basis for it is futile. and discussions with Jews we know, but that they exercised any influence over Christian doctrine, except in their
disapproval of images,
we cannot
assert.
1 Michael the Syrian, VIII, xii; and the Ecclesiastical History of John of Asia in R.O.C., Vol. II, p. 458. * The Conflict of Severus in P.O., IV, pp. 629, 655, 680; Homily 56 in P.O., IV, p. 80; and Letters, No. 46 in P.O., XII, p. 321. 3 Michael the Syrian, IX, xiv and xxix; and Zachariah of Mitylene, VIII, ii.
History of the Patriarchs,
I, xvi,
Simon
I,
P.O., V, p. 35.
304
XI.
THE RITUAL OF THE CONVERSION OF THE

JEWS
It is equally difficult to assess with any accuracy the extent to which success attended the efforts of Christian preachers to convert actual Jews. For this purpose the know that from existing disputations prove nothing.
We
very early times collections of texts existed whose object was to prove to the Jew from his own scriptures the truth of the Christian gospel. But we do not know with what success they were used. We know that it was lawful for Jews to attend portions of the Christian services, but we do not know how many did so. We have in one or two of the catechetical addresses of Severus of Antioch the suggestion that he is speaking to Jews. But all
this
is
extremely vague and leaves

collection
the
main
is
question
unanswered.
Our
of
early liturgical uses

special ritual
too scanty
for us to
it
know
at
what period
was introduced
Church than for a pagan. He already accepted much of the faith, and the only real question at issue was his acceptance of the claims of Jesus No special problem seems as interpreted by the Church.
to have arisen until the beginning of anti- Jewish legislation introduced a class whose conversions were due to economic
for the conversion of the Jews. was easier for a Jew to enter the
In the very beginning
and
social
1
and not to
already
.
we have
legislation
become
religious motives. With this class familiar in the later Roman
With the emergence of such a class it is natural that the Church proceeded to make it harder, instead of easier, for a Jew to enter her fold, and both in the west and in the east immense and complicated forms of abjuration were devised in the attempt to secure the sincerity of the conversion 2 . The forms themselves exhibit an exquisite ignorance of things Jewish. To assert that the Jew solemnly and with hope awaited the coming of Antichrist was to be expected of Byzantine theologians. But to class together
1
Cf. C.T., 9.45.2 and 16.8.3, laws of Honorius and Arcadius. Oriental and Visigothic forms of abjuration are given in Appendix 3.

fc
305
Sabbaths, superstitions, hymns, chants, observances and indicates a somewhat muddled conception synagogues of Judaism 1
'
.
XII.
RELATIONS BETWEEN JEWS AND CHRISTIANS
early centuries of Byzantine history are of extraordinary interest for the information which they give us of all things Jewish. The picture is full of variety,
These
times astonishingly vivid. It reflects many different and shows the Jews in varying lights. The general trend of the whole is certainly to show a progressively increasing hostility between the Jews and their Christian neighbours. But it is also possible to trace with a certain amount of precision the causes of this change. In the first place must come the increasing severity of Byzantine as we have seen again and again, it is not for, legislation, possible to create an inferior class and then to expect that individual enthusiasm will not overstep the bounds of legal permission. The general validity of this consequence is
at
and
situations,
being abundantly proved in present day Germany. The second cause is the religious fanaticism of the oriental monastic orders, fanaticism from which the Jews were not
the only sufferers. The third cause is the political situation caused by the Persian wars, and the difference of treatment accorded to Jews on the two sides of the eastern frontier of the Byzantine empire. It is also evident that the political cause is secondary and the result of the first two causes, both of which are in their nature religious. And again it is impossible to get behind the religious cause to a secret economic hostility. References to the economic activities of the Jews are practically non-existent, and the fact that a few Jews possessed immense fortunes is not enough to prove that all 2 Jews lived by commerce or that the considerable numbers who did so earned the hostility of their Christian neighbours thereby. It is noticeable that the description which Jacob 1 On the whole subject of Jewish conversions see Juster, op. cit.
,
t
Vol.
1
I,
pp. 102-119.
who was
Cf. Theophanes, anno 620, for the story of a wealthy Jew of Caesarea, filled with hatred for the Christians; and Dionysius of Tel Mahre, ed. Chabot, p. 41, for a Jew of Emesa from whom the Moslems
took 400,000 pieces of gold.
306
gives of his activities as a Jew before his conversion are entirely political, whereas if the Jews were notorious for exhibiting their hostility in business he would more likely
have described his methods of overreaching Christians or them in his commercial activities. But as a merchant he seems to have been above reproach 1 in fact, they took him for a Christian until his unlucky fall down the stairs. The monks of Tomei have no complaint to
harassing
;
of the treatment which they received from the Jews they bought their food. The friends of Theodore objected to the religion and not to the business of Abraham, and as a financier he showed himself far more generous than any of Theodore's Christian friends. Not
make
from
whom
only are there such passages where silence is legitimately used as an argument, but our information in general is too full and varied for the omission of all references to Jewish commercial activity to be an oversight. To these facts must be added the evidence that, where there was no direct reason for the contrary, relations between Jews and Christians were not unfriendly. Local Christians
did not necessarily approve of the doings of the monks, and the councils in the east as well as in the west had to cope with close social relationships between Jews and Christians. All references to Jews are not hostile. Anecdotes are retailed by various chroniclers showing their compassion for Christian suffering 2 , their admiration for Christian 3 4 piety , and their desire to assist Christians in distress If, therefore, there was a class which plagued the Church
.
by fraudulently demanding baptism, and against which it was necessary to adopt severe measures, it does not seem
that the ordinary Jew earned the hostility of the ordinary Christian by his behaviour. Left to themselves, they still
got on well together. In the face of the legal hostility, the violence of the monks, and severe political tension lasting over a century, this could only have been the case
if their daily relations, social
any
1
specific
and commercial, passed without mark of hostility.
Sargis d'Aberga in P.O., III. E.g. History of S. Ahoudemmeh in P.O., Ill, p. 43. E.g. Barhadbesabba 'Arbaia, History of Basil of Caesarea, P.O., XXIII, p. 287; or ibid., Life of Mar Abraham in P.O., IX, p. 621.
* 3
*See Ch. VII, Section VIII.
CHAPTER NINE

Although the histories of the Jews in western Europe mostly begin with the eleventh or twelth centuries, yet
there are a certain number of studies of considerable value for the earlier period. The relevant references are collected, with a few exceptions, in the extracts of Aronius, accompanied in most cases by bibliographical notes. The sources themselves are primarily the History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours, the letters of Sidonius, the poems of Venantius, and certain lives of contemporary ecclesiastics to be found either in the Patrologia Latino? the Acta Sanctorum or the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. The last named also contains all the laws of the period, and the early chroniclers. The canons of the different councils are naturally to be found in the Collection of Mansi. In treating of the Arian period of southern French history, the Breviary of Alaric has been omitted, as it can more easily be considered in the next chapter in relation to the development of Visigothic law. For the general history of the period it is not necessary to quote a long list of books. The history of Lot gives a general picture of conditions and also contains a full
bibliography.
The study of specifically Jewish history in this period begins in the early nineteenth century with the inauguration by the Institut de France in 1821 of a competition for a work on the mediaeval history of the Jews in France, Spain and Italy. This formed the foundation for the books of Depping and Bedarride the latter a work remarkable for the extent of its references and for the fact that the numbers in the text rarely correspond with the numbers in the notes. These two works were followed by two German contributions to the subject, which concentrated specially on the early
308
A more general study is that of Abbott.

dissertation of
laws affecting the Jews, the works of Scherer and Stobbe.
The economic conditions of the Jews at this period have also been the subject of special studies, especially the
Hahn, and the
early chapters of the
monu-
mental work of Caro. But together with these works should be read the article of Brehier on the Syrians if a correct proportion is to be preserved. Finally the religious relations between Jews and Christians are traced by Newman, but he has little to say of the period
preceding the Carolingian Renaissance, the study of which belongs properly to a work on the Middle Ages.
309
LIST OF BOOKS
ABBOTT, G. F.
ARONIUS,
J.
Israel in Europe.
Macmillan, 1907.
Regesten zur Geschichte der Juden im Frdnkischen und Deutschen Reiche bis
zum Jahre 1 273

BEDARRIDE,
I.
B erlin
1 902 .
Les Juifs en France, en Italie Espagne. Paris, 1859.
et
BR&HER, L.
Les Colonies des Orientaux en Occident

in
Byzantinische Zeitschrift,
1903.
CARO, G.
Sozialund der Juden im
Wirtschaftsgeschichte Mittelalter und der
Neuzeit.
Leipzig, 1908.
COCHARD, CANON
Lajuiverie
siecle.
Orleans du Vie an
XVe
Orleans, 1895.
le
DEPPING, G. B.
Les Juifs dans

1834-
Moyen Age.
Paris,
DILL, S.
Roman
of the 1899.
Society in the Last Century
Western Empire.
London,
GREGORY OF TOURS
History of the Franks. Ed. O. Dalton. Oxford, 1927.

Gallia Judaica.
Paris, 1897.
M.
GROSS, H.
HAHN,B.
Die
Wirtschaftliche
Tdtigkeit
der
Juden im Frdnkischen und Deutschen Reich bis zum 2, Kreuzzug. Freiburg,

1911.
310 THE CONFLICT OF

LEVI,
I.
Histoire des Juifs de France au Xe siecle in ; Rapport sur la Seminaire

Israelite.
Paris, 1903.
et
le
LOT, F.
La Fin du Monde Antique Debut du Moyen Age. Paris,

Collectio
1927.
MANSI
Conciliorum
Amplissima,
Vols. VIII,
IX and X.
MONUMENTA GERMANIAE HlSTORICA
Various volumes.
NEWMAN, L.
I.
Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements. Columbia University

Press, 1925.
MGN, J.
Etude sur la Condition des Juifs de Narbonne, du Verne au XlVeme sttcle.
Narbonne, 1912.
SAIGE, G.
Les Juifs de Languedoc anterieurment
au
SCHERER,
J.
XlVe
siecle.
Paris, 1881.
E.
Die Rechtsverhdltnisse der Juden in den deutschosterreichischen Landern.

Leipzig, 1901.
SlDONIUS APOLLINARIUS
STOBBE, 0.
Letters.
0.
M.
Ed. Baret, Paris, 1879, Dalton, Oxford, 1915.

in
Die Juden
Deutschland wdhrend
des MittelalterSj in politischer, sozialer und rechtlicher Beziehung. Berlin,
1923.
VENANTIUS FORTUNATUS
Carmina.
Ed. M.G.H. Scriptores,
quarto, Vol. IV.
GIVES ROMANI, RELIGIONS JUDAEI
I.
THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS
In dealing with the Theodosian Code in the west it has already been necessary to refer to the passage of power from the Roman emperors to their barbarian successors in In that country this passage left Roman law modified Italy. but not superseded. The same thing happened elsewhere. It is fortunately not necessary to trace the waves of invasion which swept over western Europe from the beginning of the fifth century onwards. Many of them passed too fast to have any effect upon the social structure of the society which they ravaged. Those alone which led to permanent settlement had any effect upon the position of the Jewish
population. The taking of Rome by Alaric, the invasion of Attila, the whirlwind march of the Vandals across Europe
into
Africathese events, catastrophic as they may have been, did not affect the Jew as Jew. They affected him as a member of a society in ruins, but they did not alter
his position relative to other members of that society. Four groups alone affected Jewish conditions, the Ostro-
goths, the Visigoths, the Franks and the Burgundians. Of the Jews under the Vandals in Africa and under the
Lombards in Italy we know nothing. The situation of the Jews under Theodoric the Ostrogoth has already been described, and the Visigoths are also treated in a separate chapter. But it is not entirely possible to make definite geographical divisions in treating the subject, for in some cases a situation was common to all western Europe, and in others different groups successively ruled the same Thus the south of France was successively held territory.
by Ostrogoths, Visigoths and Franks. On the other hand, what is said in this chapter of the Syrians in Gaul would apply also to Italy, and possibly to Spain. Thus while primarily treating of the Jews under the Franks and Burgundians, this chapter also includes incidents occurring
in the south of France during the Ostrogothic
and early
Visigothic period.
312
II.
THE POSITION OF THE JEWS IN ROMAN GAUL

the Jews in
sufficiently
Roman Gaul we know very little. They important in Cologne in the fourth century for Constantine to pass a special edict enforcing their
Of
were
1 participation in curial responsibilities . They must also have been numerous farther south, and especially along the Mediterranean coast and in the cities of the Rhone
But all we know of their history is contained in a few anecdotes. The murder of a bishop of Clermont by an infuriated father whose son had become a convert has In addition we are told that in a rising been recounted 2 against Stephen, Bishop of Avignon, at the end of the fourth 3 This is the extent of our precise century Jews took part them for the first few centuries of their of knowledge
valley.
.
settlement.
It is the fashion of many writers to proclaim that in the barbarian invasions the Jew alone made a profit. That he did not suffer exceptionally is perhaps true, though a class with many representatives in the towns and in commercial life is apt to be more affected than country dwellers by such incursions. But neither did he profit exceptionally. The picture of the Jew as a being apart, untouched by the burning of one town, since it meant nothing to him to move to the next ; the conception of him as growing perpetually richer among the impoverished natives on a ceaseless flow through his hands of slaves and church plate, is a
4 mythical one
.
that
he was a
The essential factor about his position was Roman citizen. The main if not the only
distinguishing mark which he possessed was his religion. To go further is to pass into the region of speculation unsupported by evidence.
1
C.T., 16.8.3.
Ch. IV, Section IV. Related from Aimales Avenion. Episcoportan by Leon Bardinet in R.E.J., Vol. I, p. 266. But though he calls them a multitude considerable ', the text as he quotes it says non parva seditiosorum et Judaeorum multitude \ i.e. the whole crowd was considerable, not necessarily the
* *
Jewish section of it.

Cf., for example, Milman, History of the Dill, Roman Society in Gcnd.
4
Jews, Vol. II, Bk. xxi, and

III.
313
THE SYRIANS IN WESTERN EUROPE
Even when the exaggerated picture of the Jew growing

out of the profits of the collapse of Rome is avoided, often assumed that the Jew stood out as the only trader and banker of his time. His uniqueness is attributed to his economic situation, and not to his religion. But this is radically false. All Jews were not traders and the Jews were not the only traders. They were, perhaps, not even the chief traders of the period. Trade itself, naturally, declined enormously during such a period of chaos and poverty. But it still existed, and the aristocracy still
fat
it is
demanded in Spain and Gaul their luxuries from Syria and the east. Bankers were still needed, and slaves were still bought. In all this the Jew had an extremely powerful
rival,
who both
enjoyed the privilege of being a Christian,
and also, if patristic writers are to be trusted, was infinitely more unscrupulous than the Jew is ever accused of being. This rival was the Syrian '. The Syrians have passed almost unnoticed by most historians. Georg Caro,in his Economic 1 Their History of the Jews, scarcely mentions them significance was first fully revealed by a French scholar, Louis Brehier, whose work is copiously supported by references in patristic literature and the evidence of
* .
inscriptions
evidence of patristic literature is of especial importance, for it enables us to weigh together the views of contemporary writers on the Jews and the Syrians, and thereby to correct the perspective of modern authors, who have assumed that what the Jew was in the fifteenth century he must also have been in the fifth. That Jerome was no friend of the Jews we know already. He draws occasional attention not only to their theological errors, but to their unpleasant habits. But his views of them are mild compared with his opinion of the Syrians. Of the latter he remarks that up to the present day they are passionately attached to commerce. They overrun the whole world in their passion for lucre; and such is their mania for business
1
The
Caro, op.
cit.,
Vol.
I,
p. 97.
Byzantinische
Zeitschrift,
1903,
Les Colonies des Orientaux en
Occident.
314
that

now, while the whole Roman world is the theatre of and massacre, their one interest is wealth, and the
>:L
.
battle
sarcastic
one thing they flee is poverty The implications of the remarks of Sidonius Apollinarius on Ravenna imply the same situation when he speaks of the priests practising usury and the Syrians singing hymns, the business men fighting, and the soldiers running business 2 At the
* *
.
same period Salvianus, writing from Marseilles on the

appalling corruption of society, takes as his type of Christian the Syrian, for leaving the rest apart, let us look at the whole crowd of traders and Syrians who occupy the larger part of every city, and we shall see that their life is nothing but the plotting of fraud and the fabrication of lies, and that they think that words are utterly wasted which bring no profit to him who uses them 3 Compared with su~h utterances the occasional references to Jewish wealth are
' ' .
insignificant.
There existed corporations of Syrian merchants in the principal towns of Italy, Gaul, Spain and Africa, and in addition to introducing certain agricultural products they
specialised in the products of Syria glass, silk In the third century there was a corporation of
,
and dyes.
merchants
of Gaza at Ostia4 and of Tyrian merchants at Puzzoli, and the merchants of Damascus possessed a factory at Misenum; ' in 440 Valentinian expelled the graeci negotiatores from Rome, because of their competition with Roman merchants, but was compelled to allow them to return very shortly afterwards. The Syrians possessed a special quarter at Ravenna and another at Naples, and in both were important bankers. In Africa, at the time of the invasion of Belisarius, Gelimar the Vandal threw a large number of them into In prison, suspecting their friendship with the Byzantines. Spain there were two Syrian corporations at Malaga. In Gaul they existed in all parts, passing up the Rhone to Vienne and Lyons; spreading thence into the country regions east of it, they are found down the Seine and Loire,
especially at Paris, Orleans
1
and Tours.
They penetrated
p. 266.
Jerome,
On
Ezeteel, xxvii, 16; P.L.,

i,
XXV,
*
3
Sidonius, Ep.
8.
Salvianus, De Gubemat. Dei, IV, xiv; P.L., LIII, p. 87. For references to inscriptions see Bre*hier, op. cit.
315
the Garonne to Bordeaux. Traces are even found on the Rhine. They were in regular communication from the French ports with Antioch and the east. Moreover, they had one immense advantage over the
Jews.
They were Christians, and their religious penetration, especially in areas influenced from Byzantium, was as great as their commercial. There were various monasteries
following the Syrian rule in Gaul, and numbers in Italy, especially at Rome and Ravenna, and they provided a number of Popes. Brehier sums up their situation in the following words: the occupation of the west by orientals went on without interruption until the eighth century. .
'
" designation of Syrians ", established themselves in the cities of the western empire. Their aim was to wealth and commerce: acquire by industry they never came to the west simply to propagate their ideas. (In the first period) they contented themselves with practising the special industries of Phoenicia, and had to submit to the competition of western industries which possessed a very strong organisation. After the fifth century, in the midst of the barbarians camped in the empire, they preserved the advantage of their ethnic separateness. Instead of mixing with the rest of the population, they formed in each town a distinct group, preserving their Syrian language, and appearing as a corporation in public ceremonies. Their isolation led them to mutual co-operation. Different groups began to act in concert. Meanwhile, the western corporations, so powerful before the third century, had been crushed by state control, and in the fifth century
For more than eight hundred years Syrians, Armenians, Egyptians, Persians and Greeks, all soon included under the
main
disappeared. The Syrians quite naturally took their place. They and the Jews possessed the monopoly of industry and commerce. They profited by this situation to enrich themselves, and in the middle of barbarian society their wealth soon brought them social advancement. If in this society they could not occupy posts of political importance, they tried instead to gain a foothold in the Church. In
Gaul and
Italy they
Rome
in the sixth
sometimes became bishops, and at and seventh century, they had almost
'.
exclusively the privilege of providing Popes
3l6
Br6hier concludes^ by Forgetting the Jews altogether, industrial corporations the of the 'after disappearance saying of the west, it was the Syrians who controlled the whole of economic life. In particular they monopolised the traffic in rare products, and in all the luxuries which the considered indispensable aristocracy of the barbarian period From the fifth to the eighth to their material comfort. of the century the Syrians were almost the only navigators Mediterranean sea, and the only industrialists of the barbarian world 1 . Even if the last paragraph is an exaggeration, yet the with the Jews Syrians were of at least equal importance both as merchants and bankers. It has already been to usury there is pointed out that * in the mass of references * are connected, even no place where Jew and usurer when to make the connection, if it existed, would have seemed obvious; and the only explicit reference to a Jewish
'-
'
'
came to money-lender in the west is to Armentarius, who was and two officials, Tours to collect a debt owed him by
.
murdered instead2 On the other hand there are, naturally, more references to Jewish traders than to Jewish slaves,
all these classes were peasants or landholders, though times and countries. these of the Jews represented among Little is known of Syrian peasants in the west, and this is natural, for they had never had the wholesale expulsions
or captivities to which the Jew had been subject; and Syria was far more fertile than Palestine. It is probable that the Mahometan conquest of Syria contributed to the decline of the Syrians as a separate the fact that they were not entity in western Europe, and them would mean separated by religion from those around
that, cut off
from their base, they would tend to intermarry and so disappear. In any case before the eighth century
we not only cannot speak of the Jew
as the only trader of western Europe, but we have no evidence for assuming his importance to be equal to that of the Syrian. Religious distinction, not commercial aptitude, caused his survival when the Syrian disappeared.
1
Br^Hier, C&Iomes, pp. 18 and 37. Gregory of Tours, Hist . Ecc. Franc. >
vii,
23
IV.
THE SIMPLIFICATION OF ROMAN LAW
the economic situation of the Jew been as exceptional claim, there is no reason why restrictive not have made an early appearance. should legislation There were two forces which remained fairly constant
Had
as
modern authors
and consistent among the warring kings and princelings of the period, the Church and, at its side as the chief secular force, the great landholders. Both had means of its council, and the landlegislation, the Church through holders through the survival of Roman law for Roman But from neither source do we obtain any evidence citizens. of definite economic hostility towards the Jew in the centuries
immediately following the barbarian invasions. mediaeval Ultimately it was from these two forces that which The evolved. they slowly system European society
and duties which grew perfected and the structure of rights

around them, were very different from
Roman
society.
Catholic Christian religion came to be the exclusive basis of membership. As this happened, as Roman law was slowly replaced by feudal and ecclesiastical law, the last of the Roman citizens, the Jew, came to find himself without any whatever, and was forced to depend
The
rights
on the precarious favour of the
different
powers around
As long as Roman law the Jew a normal member of

him.
survived, so long only was resociety, except for the strictions in force in the Roman legislation of the Theodosian Code. The extra laws of Justinian were not valid in the
west, and were not introduced until centuries later than our present period. But various modified and simplified recensions of the Code of Theodosius were circulated in western Europe, and formed the basis of legal authority
the Papacy succeeding This is apparent itself. Code the administered them, simply letters of Gregory the Great and in the in and again again An Arian the edicts and judgments of Theodoric. revision most the issued Alaric complete II, Visigothic king, of the Code which has survived, and it is noticeable that, so far from having to accentuate the legislation affecting
for the indigenous populations. The Ostrogoths in Italy, and
318
the Jews, he omitted most of the more violent outbursts of the beginning of the fifth century. The Franks and Burgundians contented themselves with a general edict that Roman citizens were to continue to live according to Roman law. The general decline in education makes it probable that it was not the full code, together with the great text books of Law, that was used in France and
Burgundy. Here also simplified editions were probably and there is nothing to warrant the supposition that the editions which have perished were more concerned with the Jews than those which have survived. But as society reformed itself into more coherent and definable areas, general Roman law began to give way to different national codes, and the unity of the treatment of the Jew ceased. He might flourish in one country and be
in use,
During the time that the legally oppressed in another. Visigoths of Spain were passing their most repressive laws, the Jews of France were living in comparative tranquillity. But it was also true that treatment might vary in a single country according to the enthusiasm or toleration of local authorities. In the old empire difference of treatment was usually due to violent and illegal action in particular Now a show of legality could be given to treatment places. in one place which differed radically from that in a neighbouring community or city. Thus when Avitus used his
authority as bishop legally to expel them from Clermont, the neighbouring bishops left them in peace.
V.
THE ARIAN PERIOD
The distinction between Goth, Frank or Burgundian and Roman was slow to disappear, and the process was made
still slower by the fact that the conquerors were all Arians, while the Roman population was Catholic. The first of the barbarian conquerors to accept Catholicism was Clovis the Frank in 496. The Burgundians followed after their conquest by the Franks some thirty years later. The Visigoths of Spain remained Arian until the conversion of their king Reccared in 586. The last to surrender were the Lombards, living as neighbours to the Papacy itself.
319
This religious division meant that from the point of view of the central authority, the distinction between Gaul or Goth and Roman was more fundamental than the division between Christian and Jew. In the south of France not only were the Roman titles preserved, but the power was mainly left in the hands of the great Gallo-Roman families,
could wield it either as ecclesiastical or as secular In fact one could pass from one field to the other. Sidonius Apollinaris, the bishop of Clermont, was son-in-law of that emperor Avitus of whom Gregory of Tours charmingly says that the senate finding him somewhat wanton in his habits deposed him from the purple and had him consecrated bishop of Placentia '. Bishopric and Prefecture were parallel roads to the same destination the authority necessary to the maintenance of order. What was happening at the same time in the empire of Justinian happened also in the west. The ecclesiastical
authorities.
*
who
power was being given secular responsibility, situation survived the unification of the different
and
this
kingdoms
under the Catholic Church. Not only did it survive but subsequent centuries saw it considerably increased. The power to protect brought the responsibility to govern, and the bishoprics followed the papacy in assuming territorial jurisdiction. As a natural result we shall find church
councils passing legislation affecting the civil status as well as the religion of their flocks, and prescribing secular as well as ecclesiastical punishments. Of the events of the Arian period little has survived, for it was only as times began to be more settled that literature in any form was likely to flourish, or that church councils were likely to be able to meet. There are several incidents which reveal how much the Arian kings feared to annoy their Catholic subjects. Neither Theodoric nor Alaric thought of altering in favour of their
own Church
into the
the law by which a new synagogue passed Alaric also was compelled hands of the Catholics1 to allow his Catholic subjects to meet in council at Agde, moved, it is suggested, by fear that if he refused they would desert to the Franks, whose king, Clovis, had just accepted the Catholic faith. The council of Agde passed two canons
.
Cf. Ch. VI, Section III, and Breviary of Alaric, Nov. 3.
320 THE CONFLICT OF
In the first, after expressing alarm affecting the Jews. at the number of Jews whose conversion had proved insincere, it laid down an eight months' catechumenate to 1 test their sincerity before their admission to baptism . In the other it repeated a canon of the council of Vannes
canon of Vannes, and extends the prohibition to the laity3 It would be interesting to know the influence of contemporary Jews on Christians who treated Saturday with especial respect. They may simply have acted out of reverence for the Ten Commandments, but references
.
in Brittany. This prohibited the clergy from eating with the Jews on the ground that it was acknowledging an inferior status to accept food from people who considered that the food eaten by Christians was impure, and who therefore would not return the compliment and eat with Christians 2 The council of Agde adds one phrase to the
.
Judaising habit are extremely frequent for several centuries to come. The twelfth canon of Agde prohibits the omission of fasting on the Saturdays of Lent, and 4 The giving and may be a reflection of Jewish influence receiving of invitations to meals show that close relations did exist between Jews and Christians in the country, though the increase of false conversions suggests the beginning of a period in which there were advantages in not being a Jew. There is only one other canon of the Arian Visigothic period which may refer indirectly to Jews, the sixth canon of Orange 5 . This was designed to prevent infuriated owners from claiming the slaves of the clergy when their own had taken refuge in a church and been confiscated. Any slave of a Jew might take refuge in a church and exto this
.
'
press his desire to become a Christian, on which his Jewish master, even if he followed him to baptism, lost all rights over him. But there was no special ground on which a Christian master lost his slaves if they took refuge in a church. Though it is much later, there is legislation of the
1
*
3 *
8
Agde, Canon 34; M., VIII, p. 330. Vannes, Canon 12; M., VII, p. 954. Agde, Canon 40; M., VIII, p. 331. Cf. Orleans III, Canon 28, quoted below, p. 324. Orange, Canon 6; M., VI, p. 437.

away from
321
time of Charlemagne forbidding persons to tempt slaves

their Christian masters, and stating that it the duty of the Christian to impress on the slave his duty to remain loyal to his master. Gregory the Great was also troubled by the idea that Christian slaves might be led away from their masters and induced to enter a monastic life, and with much hesitation expressed his disapproval of it, unless the slave had a very clear call. It seems then likely that the only classes who would be regularly affected by this canon would be pagan or Jewish owners, and the former were probably very few. One interesting event is recorded of the Arian Visigothic period, the part played by the Jews at the siege of Aries 1 by Clovis in 508. According to the Life of Saint Caesarius they attempted to betray the city to the Prankish invaders.
is
The story is, however, extremely suspicious. One day the Arlesians discovered a letter, tied to a stone and thrown from the Jewish section of the wall, which promised to deliver the town in return for the immunity of the Jews and their goods. But on the previous day serious suspicion had been thrown upon the bishop that he intended to do the same thing. An ecclesiastic, who was a near relation of his, deserted to the Franks, and Caesarius, who was already under a cloud because of some previous action, was suspected of being behind this desertion of his relative. An angry crowd confronted the bishop and imprisoned him. On the next day the fortunate discovery of the perfidy of the Jews caused a revulsion of popular opinion in his favour, and he was released. But while it is understandable that a Catholic bishop should have motives for belonging to the realm of the Catholic Clovis, rather than to that of the Arian Alaric, it is extremely difficult to see why a Jew should desire to make this change, since the Arians usually treated them better than the Catholics. The story throws a sidelight on another historical fact, whatever be the truth of the alleged treachery. It is evident that in spite of the law which did not allow the Jews to serve in the army, in case of siege they had their own quarter of the wall allotted them to defend. special Code was given by Gondebaud of Burgundy,
Cyprianus, Vita S. Caesarii y
I, iii,
21, 22
P.L.,
LXVII,
p.
ion.
322 THE CONFLICT OF

as
by the other Arian kings, to his Roman subjects. Only one law refers explicitly to the Jews. It prohibits marriages But Gondebaud also added between Jews and Christians1 In this in his own law a paragraph dealing with them. with Christians to attack were forbidden Jews paragraph
.
fist
or foot or cudgel, or to pull their hair.

.
The
penalty
was the loss of a hand, unless it was redeemed by a payment The council of of 12 and a compensation of 75 solidi 2 Epaone, which was summoned after the conversion of the
Burgundians to Catholicism, dealt only with Christians 3 accepted invitations to Jewish banquets A survey of the Arian barbarian period shows that the But even if age was marked by increasing lawlessness. the that not seem a does it were Jews quietly minority they accepted the attacks of their Christian neighbours. In fact, the law of Gondebaud, and the canon of Orange (if it refers to the Jews), suggest that they were prepared to give back
who
Of their activities in other directions nothing, though it is certain that Marseilles was a great centre of Jewish commerce in the fifth and sixth The council centuries, as was also probably Narbonne. of Epaone shows that their relations with Christians in Burgundy were not entirely those of fisticuffs, and the great outburst of anti- Jewish legislation in Catholic Spain shows that in Arian Spain relations were friendly.
violence for violence.
we know
VI.
THE JEWS AND THE FRANKISH COUNCILS
Our
information on their situation after the conversion of Clovis to Catholicism is much fuller. Councils met with
much greater regularity and reviewed the life of the people in considerable detail. Their canons were many, and were
probably as effective as any legislation at that time. Different still had different usages; the era in which an made to introduce uniformity had not yet was attempt begun collections of canon law were still non-existent, and as a result the treatment of the Jews is not everywhere the same, and laws enacted at one diocesan or provincial council 1 Leges Romanae Burgundionum, M.GJH. folio, Leges, III, p. 609, * M.G.H. folio, Leges, III, p. 573, Law cii. 3 Epaone, Canon 15, M., VIII, p. 561.
dioceses
;

.
323
are not necessarily in force throughout the country 1 In addition to the councils we possess an invaluable source for the general conditions of the time in the History of the Franks of Gregory of Tours, and that author has a number
of explicit references also to Jewish life. These two sources, together with occasional references in chroniclers, enable us to recreate a picture of Jewish life under the Franks more completely than we can for any other western kingdom.
For in Visigothic Spain our immense collection of legal material is unaccompanied by any information on the actual life and conditions of the Spanish Jews of the epoch.
Yet with all our material on the subject the picture is still inevitably indistinct, and the very wealth and variety of the references make generalisations an easy temptation, and one to which most writers have succumbed. Unfortunately
they have used as the basis for their generalisations not the decisions of courts and councils, but the picturesque anecdotes of Gregory and the chroniclers. From the former we can indeed make general deductions, but the latter we can only use legitimately as individual incidents. To generalise from them is merely to exhibit our prejudices. It is easy to say that because Armentarius of Tours was a money-lender this was a common or even universal
trade among Jews. It would be just as scientific to say that there were no Jewish money-lenders in France after the sixth century, for since Armentarius was murdered on the only occasion on which (so far as we know) he collected a debt, therefore all money-lenders were murdered as soon as they tried to collect their debts 2 The conversion of Clovis to Catholicism in 496 did not
.
produce any anti-Jewish movement comparable to that introduced into Spain by the conversion a century later of Reccared. The French councils of Orleans, Clermont and Macon have none of the virulence of the councils of Toledo. The situation with which they deal is one which is well illustrated by two anecdotes of an earlier period, dealing with the two Hilaries. Of Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367) it is ' cautious that he never accepted related that he was so
'
1 On the growth of canon law and uniformity in France see P.Fournier, Histoire des collections canomques en Occident, Paris, 1931-2.
On Armentarius,
see below, p. 341 .
324

*
food from a heretic or from a Jew. Indeed, this most holy man so detested the enemies of the Catholic faith that it is not enough to say that he refused to eat with them, for he refused even to reply to their salutations in the streets.' 1 The author adds of this abstinence from Jewish hospitality that it is something quod inter mortales adhuc valde videtur difficile '. Of Hilary of Aries (d. c. 450) it is said that he was so much beloved by the people of that city
c
waitings of the Jews were heard side by side with those of other citizens 2 The comment of the biographer of Hilary of Poitiers and the situation described by the chronicler of the life of Hilary
that at his funeral
the
Hebrew
'
to reflect a normal state of affairs by the French canon which deals with the Jews is a canon of Vannes prohibiting the acceptance of Jewish 3 This prohibition was hospitality by Christian clerics times than three within the century, and it is no less repeated noticeable that the repetitions come from very different areas, Vannes in Brittany, then Agde on the Mediterranean coast, and finally Orleans in the centre of the country.
of Aries are
shown
fact that the first
the only evidence of the intimacy of relationand Christians at this period. Intermarriage also occupied the attention of the councils, and under grave ecclesiastical penalties three separate canons forbade such an offence to Christian feeling as marriage with 4 Jews or Jewesses It is evident also that these close relationships went further than social intercourse or even marriage. Two canons deal with Jewish religious influence. The third council of Orleans refers to people who have been persuading the Christians that they ought to observe the Lord's day in the Jewish fashion, and abstain from all work upon it 5 . This is one of the many border-line cases which we find all
is this
Nor
ships between Jews
Life of Hilary of Poitiers by Fortunatus), in P.L., IX, p. 187.

2
Venantius
(probably Venantius
Life of Hilary of Aries in P.L., L, p. 1243.
Vannes
(465),
III,
and Orleans
4
Canon 12; this canon Canon 13; M., IX, p.
is
repeated in Agde,
Canon
34,
15.
Canon
P- 15.
5
Orleans II (533), Canon 19; M., VIII, p. 838; Clermont (535), 6; M., VIII, p. 861; and Orleans III (538), Canon 13; M., IX,
Orleans III,
Canon
28;
M., DC, p. 19.
325
through the history of Jewish-Christian relationships, where we cannot say how far it is the influence of living Jews upon their Christian contemporaries, and how far that of the written word of the Torah upon some enthusiastic reader or hearer. In this case it is perhaps more probable that the action was due to the influence of living Jews, for we know of no Judeo-Christian sect in Gaul at this epoch. This is all the more likely in that we know that the Jews were
servants.
making proselytes among various classes of slaves and This question was handled by the following council of Orleans, which decreed that such a convert became free if he was either a foreigner (advena), or a man who had been converted to Christianity (Christianus foetus), or a Christian concubine. But if he was himself a Christian, and had accepted Judaism on condition that he received his freedom if he remained steadfast in his Judaism, then the reverse was to happen. He was to be condemned to
perpetual slavery for his desertion of Christianity, presumably in the service of a Christian master, for his Jewish master lost him for the crime of having converted him 1 In the political situation of the Jews the councils took little interest. The matter did not lie outside their jurisdiction, but either they found Jewish officials tolerable or there were not enough of them to create a serious problem. References to Jewish officials are extremely rare. In fact, apart from the Jewish mayor in the letter of Severus of Majorca, there is only the Jewish judge in the mythical acts of Benedicta of Lyons 2 But that such persons did exist is shown by the canon of Clermont, which repeats the law of Valentinian III issued a century earlier to the Prefects of the Two Gauls 3 As a council would not be likely to deal with a non-existent situation, and as, on the other hand, our information is so scanty, and the conciliar prohibition was never repeated, we may perhaps conclude that Jewish officials were relatively rare, and that they were not dis.
.
.,
tinguished
by any unpleasant
characteristics
them
1
into notice, a situation which general conditions of the times.

2 3
which brought would agree with the
A.S., Oct. 8.
Orleans IV (541), Canon 31; M., IX, p. 118. The Bollandists themselves class the Acta as
(535),
'
fabulosa
'.
Clermont
Canon
9;
M., VIII, p. 861. Cf. Const. Sirm.,
vi t fin.
326
tian slaves.
Of more importance was the Jewish possession of ChrisThe problem was universal and continuous in
the ancient world. But it is interesting to note that nowhere was the situation treated more mildly than in Gaul. No early councils attempted to put into force the full rigour of the Roman Code a refusal which, as we have seen, caused 1 Legally, they great indignation to Gregory the Great all Christian slaves surrender of the demanded have might in Jewish possession, but they never attempted to do so.
.
council of Orleans only considered Christian received particular ill-treatment from Jewish masters. If they were ordered to perform an action which offended religious principles, if they were punished for an action for whose commission the Church had already imposed penance and given absolution, and if in either case they took sanctuary in a church, then the priest should only return them to their master if the value of each slave was
third
slaves
The
who
The deposited as a guarantee for his subsequent treatment next council of Orleans, three years later, decided that under similar conditions the Jew should be forced to sell the slave if a Christian purchaser could be found, and this act of 3 The fifth piety was specially commended to Christians council of Orleans took the matter up for the third time, and extended the scope of the legislation to deal with Christian masters also who ill-treated their slaves. If the slave of such a master took sanctuary in a church, then he was returned by the priest to the master, who had to swear not to ill-treat him. This was considered a sufficient guarantee, as the Church could impose ecclesiastical penalties in case of a renewal of the offence. But if the offender was not a Christian, then he had to produce Catholic guarantors who would undertake that the slave should be made to do
.
4 nothing contrary to his religion It is evident that apart from the purely religious question involved in the conversion of Christian slaves to Judaism,
.
the councils showed no desire to exhibit an unfriendly attitude towards Jewish ownership. This last canon classes
2
3
Ch. VI, p. 215. Orleans III (538), Canon 13; M., IX, p. 15. Orleans IV, Canon 30; M., IX, p. 118. Orleans V, Canon 22; M., IX, p. 134.
327
together Christian and non-Christian owners, and in its recognition that a Jew might persuade practising Christians to act as his sureties, it is an immense advance on
Roman
Jewish.
legislation with its interminable
abuse of everything
Another canon, which introduces a new restriction, is a confirmation of the good relations existing between Jews and Christians at this time. The third council of Orleans forbade Jews to appear in the streets between Maundy Thursday and Easter Monday1 It may seem at first sight strange to quote this canon as evidence of good relations, but, in fact, it can legitimately be so used. We know from a Precept of Childebert that these days were days of particular licence, of drunkenness, and dance and 2 The bishops of the time were in some sense living song in missionary dioceses, weaning the population slowly from heathen practices. Such festivities were probably connected with ancient festivals of spring, and were very likely obscene in their character. That at such a time the bishops should feel that it was well to keep Jewish influence out of the way was natural, but that Jews should participate at all in such popular festivities would at a later date have been
final
.
.
incredible.
From the middle of the sixth century onwards a less friendly attitude prevails in the canons of the councils, and this corresponds to a certain increase of action against the Jews on the part of the secular and individual episcopal
But the kings and even bishops went considermost hostile council would have allowed, and the forced baptisms which began to take place under royal or episcopal authority found no approval in canonical sanction. The subjects of legislation were still the same, with one exception. It was apparently unnecessary to return to the question of mixed marriages, and this may be in itself some sign that the Jewish and Christian population were drawing apart. But legislation was still needed
authorities.
ably farther than even the
against accepting Jewish hospitality

1
2
3.
Orleans III, Canon 30; M., IX, p. 19. See below, Section VIL
Macon
(581),
Canon
15;
M.
IX, p. 934; and Reims (624), Canon
n;
M., IX, p. 596.
328

legislation
The
already recorded
officials,
did not succeed in
become both eliminating Jewish more explicit in their definition of the offenders and more severe in their prescription of the penalties. The council of Macon forbade the appointment of Jews as judges or as
and
later councils
which constituted the main burden of the general population 1 on the grounds that these two positions gave undue authority to Jews over Christians. The addition to this explanation of the words
collectors of those indirect taxes
financial
,
found in Gallic conciliar legislation2 Finding this unavailing, the council of Paris devised a punishment to fit the crime which is almost worthy of Gilbertian opera. Since only a Christian should exercise authority over Christians, if any Jew were found to have assumed, or even to have applied for, an official position, he was to be taken by the bishop of the town where the offence was committed and immediately baptised, together with his whole household. But whether thus safely set on the path of salvation he was to be allowed
.
quod Deus
avertat
'
constitutes the first abusive phrase
Even the council neglected to decide 3 this solution did not remove the difficulty, and the council of Reims ten years later returned to the attack, but lacking the humour of their Parisian colleagues they were content merely to repeat the prohibition and to insist upon its
to
keep his
office
actiones publicae 4 had again to deal with the question of The council of the Jewish holding of Christian slaves.
application to all Later councils
' '
.
Macon
finally
passed a law definitely prohibiting such
That the canon was not effective is clearly shown by the letters of protest on this precise subject addressed by Gregory the Great to the Prankish sovereigns
ownership.
less
their stand
than twenty years later. The bishops at Macon took on previous legislation by which Jews were compelled to sell Christian slaves whom they had illAfter treated, if a Christian purchaser could be found. the to either slaves the of Christian ascribing possession
1
*
Impots indirects ou tonlieux

les taxes
plages et
2
(telonea) comprenant les douanes, les sur les objets vendus aux foires et marches/ Lot,
op. dt. t p. 405.

3
4
Macon, Canon 13; 3VL, IX., p. 934. Paris (614), Canon 15; M., X, p. 542. Reims (624), Canon u; M., X, p. 596.

fortunes of war or to
*
329
Jewish fraud ', they expressed their astonishment at hearing that in some cities the insolence of the Jews was such that they refused to sell their slaves even when Christian purchasers offered the price. Legally, however, the Jew was in his rights in refusing such a sale unless ill-treatment could be proved since it is a fair presumption that later conciliar enactments overrode those of the original Theodosian Code when they dealt with the same subject, and the councils of Orleans only dealt with cases of ill-treatment. But the council of Macon extended this compulsory sale to all cases of Jewish ownership of Christian slaves, fixed a general price of twelve solidi for such a sale, and in case of Jewish refusal to accept the price, allowed the slave to leave his master and to settle where he willed among Christians 1 . It added a further canon to prevent the Jews from evading the laws by converting their Christian slaves to Judaism 2 The council of Reims attempted to get nearer the root of the trouble by preventing Christian slaves from ever Christians were to be sold to falling into Jewish hands. neither Jews nor pagans, and if a Christian master was forced to sell his Christian slaves, he could only do it to another Christian. If he sold them to a Jew or a pagan he was to be himself excommunicated, and the sale was to be considered invalid3 . This was as far as it was possible for the legislation to go at the time, and if it could have been carried out completely it would have solved the whole problem. The difficulty of carrying it out is revealed in the 4 letter of Gregory the Great on the slave trade in Naples. When a batch of slaves was offered for sale, it was impossible to know if among them there were Christians. Finally, the council of Chalons sur Saone forbade all sales of captives outside the kingdom of Clovis, and thereby prevented the sale of slaves to pagan and Jewish masters abroad 5 . After these two canons we hear no more from the councils, and we hear little of Jewish possession of Christian slaves, so
;
.
1
2
Macon, Canon 16; M., DC, p. 935. Macon, Canon 17; M., IX, p. 935. Reims, Canon n; M., X, p. 596.
M., X, p. 1191.
See Ch. VI, p. 216. * Chalons (c. 650), Canon 9;
330
that
it may be considered that by thus attacking the root of the matter, the sale of the slaves, the Gallic bishops had solved the problem which had always beaten Roman
legislators.
Other
legislation of the later councils is of less importance.
Macon, in renewing the law affecting Jewish appearance in the streets over Easter, added a clause forbidding them to sit in the presence of the clergy, and ordered the civil judges to assess their punishment according to the rank of the cleric in whose presence the offender had seated himself1 A local council of Auxerre passed legislation affecting the observance of Sunday which may have been of great importance for the Jews of the diocese, though we have no means of judging. All work, agricultural or other, was completely forbidden, but the law does not specify whether 2 it is to be applied to Jews The almost contemporary canon of Narbonne in Visigothic Spain mentions them expressly, but whether the absence of this explicit reference in the council of Auxerre means that they were not included, or that it was taken for granted that they were included, and therefore not mentioned, is a matter of taste. For the sake
council of
.
.
The
of completeness in this picture of conciliar enactments, it may be added that Jews visiting nunneries on business were forbidden to linger there, to have any private conversations, or to show any familiarity to the inmates 3 But this matter concerns rather the morality of nuns than the disabilities of
.
Jews.
VII.
THE JEWS AND THE PRANKISH KINGS
Fortunately for the Jews it was more customary for the kings of the sixth century to ratify the canons of the councils than for the councils to ratify the edicts of the kings. In fact, it is only on the Easter question that the councils refer to the kings at all, and in this matter they might equally well have referred to the council of Orleans. It must be admitted * that there is not the air of impartiality and in gravity
'
1 *
3
Macon, Canon
14; M., IX, p. 934, Auxerre (578 or 582), Canon 16; M., DC, p. 913. Macon, Canon 2 ; M., IX, p. 934.

royal and episcopal action that there
is
33!
able decisions of the councils.
most unfavourThat the disabilities under

in the
which the Jews suffered should increase rather than diminish was unfortunately to be expected, for such is always the case when discrimination against a group begins and nothing occurs definitely to swing the pendulum in the opposite direction. But the councils can fairly be said to have been behind and not ahead of others in imposing them, and when they did act they may have acted with severity, but they certainly cannot be said to have acted with either violence or spite, and they were no harder on Jews than on the
sinners of their
own
flocks.
We
do not hear anything in France of the Jews being
forbidden to build new synagogues until the council of Meaux in the ninth century when Agobard, bishop of Lyons, had already inflamed opinion against them. And
on only two occasions do we know of synagogues being We are told that the destroyed by popular violence. synagogue of Tours was destroyed a short time before the visit of King Guntram in 58s 1 The Jews obviously intended to petition him for its reconstruction out of admirabili prudentia public funds, but this the king absolutely refused to allow. But there is no statement that they were not to be allowed to rebuild it themselves. It may or may not be significant that the same passage of Gregory speaks of the welcome given to the king by the population, including Syrians, Romans, and even Jews '. Syria was the home of synagogue destruction in this century, and the penetration of the Syrians into France was a penetration of monks as well as of traders. This excep.
'
tional incident
may, therefore, owe
its
origin to external
persuasion rather than to local hostility. Such a suggestion is not entirely without support, for we know of no popular molestation of the Jews at this period except under the inspiration of some particular provocation. For the other case was at Clermont in the time of Avitus. With an active episcopacy and an effective system of councils, it is natural that there was little direct royal action concerning the Jews. Such precepts and instructions as there are cover the same ground as that covered
*Hist. Franc., Bk. VIII,
i.
332

Childebert
I
in confirmarepeated the conciliar canon forbidding the Jews to appear in the streets at Easter, and added a clause that they only did so to mock at the Christians. The necessity for this action is revealed in a general precept of his about the disgraceful conduct of Christians at these seasons: We have received a complaint that many sacrilegious actions take place among the people, whence God is injured, and the people commit mortal sin: we hear of nights spent in drunkenness, scurrility and singing, and even on the sacred days of Easter, Christmas and the other feasts of the Church and on Sundays " villas ".' It can well be dancers (?) circulate in the that such occasions gave opportunities for Jews imagined to poke fun at the ceremonies involved 1 Both Guntram and Childebert II issued orders forbidding all work on Sunday, but again there is no direct mention There is no trace of any royal enactment of the Jews 2 following the letters of Gregory the Great to Theodoric, Theodobert and Brunhild, expressing his horror at theii allowing Jews to possess Christian slaves. The sovereigns seem to have been content to follow Gallic tradition, and tc prohibit only conversion. Clothaire II in 614 renewed the exclusion of the Jews from all public services. He added 2 further clause forbidding them to associate themselves witr someone for some purpose, but unfortunately the manu3 script has a tear at this point, and exists in only one copy Two royal edicts for compulsory baptism will be considerec No Prankish Breviary of the Theodosian Code later. survives, though the councils frequently refer to th< paragraphs of the Code, and Clothaire II about 560 issuec a general order that Romans were to live according t< Roman Law4 This general statement would have includec
by the councils and are generally issued
tion of them.
is
Epistola data per ecclesias vel omrd populo. The passage, however a restoration from the canon. M.G.H., Leges, I, i, and Preceptun Ckttdeberti in M.G.H. quarto, Leg. II, Vol. i. ^Guntram, M.GJH. quarto, Leg. II, Vol. i, n. Childebert, ibid,
1
p. 17.
Clothaire II, Oct. 18, 614, M.G.H. quarto, Leg, II, Vol. i, p. 22 * defective passage runs: Quicumque se . tuos . . . dine sociar presumpserit, severissimam legem ex canonica sententia incurrat '.
The
*
M.GJH.
quarto, Leg. II, Vol.
i,
p. 19.
333
the Jews, except in so far as their position had been modified by royal or conciliar enactment not a very serious addition, for it amounted only to their exclusion from the streets at Easter and the warning not to dally in nunneries.
VIII.
COMPULSORY BAPTISMS IN FRANCE
If the kings spent little time on the Jews in their legislation, yet from the middle of the sixth century onwards there are a number of cases of extra-legal action towards them for which sometimes the sovereigns, and sometimes the bishops,
were responsible.
These actions generally took the form of
baptisms or expulsions. From the point of view of Code and council such actions were clearly illegal; but the increasing frequency with which they occurred shows that the law was becoming an ever slenderer reed for the support of Jewish it is needless to say that it would have been useless rights. For for the Jews to have appealed either to Roman or to ecclesiastical law for protection against the personal action of king or bishop. Their only possible protector would be the Pope himself, and we do not know of any papal intervention Most in their favour except from Gregory the Great. ecclesiastical authorities would follow the line taken by the chronicler of the forced baptisms of Sisebut, that it was not
*
. but, as it was written, by according to knowledge, or Christ is preached n and would truth, by opportunity certainly not carry their disagreement to the length of open
.
.
protection of the Jews.
The
first
recorded example of compulsory baptism took
place at the instance of Childebert I in the diocese of Ferreol of Uzes in 558. His biographer relates that he was solicitous
for the conversion of the numerous Jews in Uzes, and often invited them to his table and made them presents. He tried to urge them to baptism in friendly conversation. Unfor-
tunately this was misrepresented at Paris, and the bishop was accused of holding this close intercourse with them for treasonable purposes. (Uzes lying in the hills above Nimes was not far from the Visigothic frontier.) He was summoned to Paris and kept there until after three years his innocency
1
Isidore, Hist. Goth.
Anno DCL.,M.G.H. quarto, Chron. Min., II, 291.
334
was admitted.
his return he changed his tactics, and, after holding a council of his diocese to secure approval for his action, he forced them to accept either baptism or numbers were baptised 1 . The rest mi-
On
expulsion. Large Twenty years later, in 576, Bishop grated elsewhere. Avitus of Clermont succeeded (after lengthy preaching) in converting one Jew, but as his convert was passing through the gate in a procession of catechumens, an unconverted Jew poured rancid oil all over him. The people, infuriated, tried to stone the offender, but the bishop intervened. On Ascension Day the mob rushed and burnt the synagogue. After some hesitation the bishop offered baptism or exile, and, after deliberation, Jews to the numbe rof five hundred were baptised. The rest went to Marseilles 2 The event inspired one of the poems of Venantius Fortunatus.
.
He describes it In graphic detail, and with no sympathy for the Jews. His poem is notable as containing the earliest known reference to a familiar mediaeval legend, that of the
smell of the
Venantius
Jew and its immediate change on baptism. may have meant it to be taken metaphorically,
easily its direct applica-
though the wealth of detail suggests He begins by explaining: tion.

'
Christicolis
Judaeus odor resilibat amarus, Obstabatque piis impia turba sacris.'
But
after
'
baptism
abluitur Judaeus odor baptismate divo, Aspersusque sacro fit gregis alter odor.'
.
An
it
One may doubt ambrosian aroma filled the air. was entirely metaphorical in the mind of Venantius 3
. .
.
if
In 582 Chilperic ordered the baptism of a large number of Jews, probably in or around Paris, and himself acted as 4 Here the events of Clermont godfather to many of them were reversed. Instead of the Jew insulting the convert,
.
Priscus, the king's jeweller,

1
who was on intimate terms with him, evaded the baptism and was murdered by one of
2
3
Gallia Christiana, 1739, Vol. VI, p. 613. Gregory of Tours, Hist . Franc., Bk. V, vi
(xi).
Carmina, V,
5. (xvii).
Gregory of Tours, Hist . Franc., Bk. VI, x

.
335
the newly baptised 1 Gregory of Tours remarks that many of the converts continued to observe Jewish customs. In 591 Gregory the Great writes to the bishops of Aries and Marseilles, reasoning with them gently for having followed the same policy of forced baptisms in their dioceses. In 624(?) Dagobert, at the request of the Emperor Heraclius, who had received a warning that he would be overthrown by the circumcised, is said to have baptised or expelled all the Jews of his kingdom summo studio >2 The last recorded victims of compulsory baptism in this period were the Jews of Bourges, at the hands of the bishop Sulpicius, some time between 620 and 644?. It is possible, and perhaps even probable, that other cases occurred, and that they were either not recorded, or else the records have perished. The history of the Jews in France in the seventh and eighth centuries is completely obscure. But by these seven cases we can see that we are entering already into the transition from a situation in which Jewish rights were firmly based on the common law of the Roman Codes, governing all the citizens alike, to the mediaeval position where the Jews existed only by toleration, and were outside the normal operation of the law. So far they were * still technically cives Romani *, and on the whole this
* ' ' .
them adequate protection; but can only have been because there was no general ill-feeling between them and the rest of the population, for we can see
position seems to have given
it
already how slight is their security when anything occurs to challenge it. The Codes protected them only so long as it was not necessary to appeal to them. If an appeal had to be made, then the appeal of bribery or flattery was more powerful, and from the entry of Guntram into Tours onwards for many centuries bribery and flattery were frequently their only protection.
Gregory of Tours, Hist. Franc., Bk. VI, v. Fredegarius Chron. 65, Gesta Dagoberti, xxv; P.L., XCVI, p. 1405. It is possible that the absence of all data on Jewish life in France for one hundred and fifty years after this event is due to this expulsion. But our general information for this period is also slight, and it is likely that considerable numbers of Jews fled from Spain to France during this century. A lengthy and relatively complete absence of Jews from France during the period of silence seems to me, therefore, improbable.
2
Vita Sulpicn,
i,
14; P.L.,
LXXX,
p. 573-
336

IX.
THE JEWS IN LITERATURE
In the west as in the east it became the fashion of religious romancers to embroider their legends with stories of the
superiority of Christianity over Judaism. Belief in improbable miracles increased as the intellectual level of the In the early days there was often population decreased.
colouring and exaggeration, but there is less evidence of pure imagination. The stories follow in the main the line of eastern literature, but they exhibit less literary power and imagination. Two stories are told of the power of Germanus, bishop of Paris, over the Jews. On one occasion he met a young slave, presumably a Christian, being led along the road in chains by some Jews. The boy states that he is thus chained because he has refused to accept Judaism. The bishop makes the sign of the cross over the chains, and they fall On another occasion he miraculously heals the wife of off1 a Jew who accepts baptism with her husband. As a result a large number of other Jews accept baptism 2 Gregory of Tours relates a story of a certain archdeacon of Bourges, Leunast, which has a clear didactic purpose. The archdeacon lost his sight, and had it restored by touching the relics of S. Martin of Tours. But, not completely satisfied with the cure, he went to a Jewish doctor on his return, and, very properly to the mind of Gregory, immediately became 3 Such a story would serve as an completely blind again admirable warning against the use of Jewish doctors. story with a doctrinal purpose is related in the Chronicle of blind Jew of Rome disputed the doctrine of the Bernold. Virginity of the Virgin Mary. As a proof of her power he received his sight but, oddly enough, neither he nor the 4 Jews with him were converted . Gradually it became the fashion to attribute some miraculous contact with Jews to every well-known saint, and to make use in the west as in the east of Jewish anecdotes, or
.
. .
1 *
Vita S. Germam, Ixv; P.L., LXXII, p. 74. Venantius Fortunatus, Vita S. Germani, Ixii, in
M.G.H.
Script, II,
p. 24. 3 Hist. Franc., Bk. V, iv (vi).

*
Bernoldi Chron. anno 609,
M.G.H.
Script, Vol. V, p. 414.

supposed Jewish
actions, to confirm disputed doctrines,
337
and
to enforce rules of conduct. To look to the literature of the period for any fresh views of the Jews and Judaism is useless. Literature and theology were at a very low ebb, and remained so until the renascence
under Charlemagne. But the writers of his epoch belong not to the old Roman world, but to the beginnings of mediaeval Europe. It is necessary to consider the Carolingian
legislation in this chapter, but to treat of its literature be to trespass on the second period of Jewish
would
relationships with Christianity, a subject outside the scope of the present
volume.
X.
THE LAWS OF CHARLEMAGNE
the time of Sulpicius of Bourges (644) to the time of Charlemagne there is complete silence as to the history of the Jews in France, but with the latter our information, though still scanty, is enough to give us some picture of their situation. The great emperor was no enemy of the Jews, and even employed a Jew on a diplomatic mission to Haroun
al
From
Rashid1 , and
is
said to have requested
Haroun to send him
a learned
Jew in order to establish a Jewish seminary in Narbonne. This only rests on later information, and is less likely to be true. It would probably have stirred up so much
feeling among the clergy that we should have tion from a contemporary on the subject2
.
some informa-
There are five genuine laws of Charlemagne affecting the Jews, and two whose authenticity is suspect. In 806 he issued a stern order to the ecclesiastical authorities that they were not on any account to sell any of their church treasures to merchants, Jews or others, and he added that both Jews and other merchants were boasting that they had no difficulty in buying anything that they wanted from the churches 3
.
4 The Eight years later he issued four ordinances together 1 Einhardi Artnales 801; M.G.H. Chron., Vol. I, 190. Aronius, 68
.
and
2
71.
See Aronius, 70.
On the
various stories of Charlemagne and the Jews
of Narbonne see
3
Re*gne", p. 13 ff.
Capitulare Duplex ad Niumagen;
M.G JL folio, Leg.

Leg.
I,
I,
144. Aronius,
724
Capitula dejudaeis;
M.G Ji. folio,
194. Aronius, 76, 77.
338
first
repeated the previous prohibition and extended it to receiving church property in pawn. But, whereas the previous law had only punished the clergy who sold, this punished He suffered the loss of his severely the Jew who bought. the and possessions amputation of his right hand. By the second, no Jew was allowed to take the person of a Christian in pledge either from another Jew or from a Christian, lest If he did so he lost the his honour should be insulted. was the pledge. Christian which the and debt of the pledge * By the third the Jews were forbidden to have money in their houses ', and to sell wine and corn or other things. The meaning of this prohibition is obscure. Among the Jews were certainly merchants in considerable numbers. It is possible, and in fact probable, that the emphasis is on in their houses ', and that the meaning is that the Jews may only carry on their businesses in the recognised markets, to whose organisation Charlemagne paid considerable attention. The fourth ordinance deals with the form of oath to be taken by Jews in a suit with a Christian. Having crowned and surrounded himself with sorrel, and having taken in his right hand the Pentateuch in Hebrew, or in Latin if the Hebrew were not available, he swore as follows: 'As God is my help, God who gave the law to Moses on Mount Sinai, and as the leprosy of Naaman the Syrian may not come upon me as it came upon him, and as the earth may not swallow me as it
c
swallowed Dathan and Abiron, have I in this case planned no evil against you.' A further law is much more explicit, but its authenticity is doubtful 1 According to it a Jew in a case with another Jew used his own law, but against a Christian he had to submit to the trial by ordeal, either by swearing upon a reliquary, or by holding red-hot iron or by other specified methods. A Jew convicted of an offence
.
against a Christian
parricide.
was
tied in a sack
It is unlikely that
and drowned like a such a law dates from the time
of Charlemagne. Finally, if a Jew wished to give evidence against a Christian he had to produce either three Christian witnesses, or four, seven or nine Jewish witnesses according to circumstances. If the Jew were summoned by the Christian, then three witnesses on either side sufficed. This was an advance on
1
Aronius, 78.
339
the previous law by which they were not allowed to give evidence against a Christian at all. In this form it had been of his published by Charlemagne himself in the beginning the from received he which the of canons collection reign in 1 of be not therefore law The new Hadrian may pope of the The the Pious. of but Louis legislation Charlemagne, latter was much fuller, and indeed constituted the basis of the mediaeval status of the Jews. Charlemagne himself
.
unchanged, and only legislated on he marks the particular issues that needed settlement. Thus end of the old period, and the transition to the new. Techin that nically, perhaps, the Jews were still cives Romani ', with times Roman in held had they enjoyed the position they But the modifications had become so modifications.
left their basic status
*
extensive that it was necessary to time of his successor.
make a
fresh start in the
XI.
THE ECONOMIC POSITION OF THE JEWS
have seen that on the whole it was a period in which there was no evidence of extensive hostility between Jews and Christians. Incidents there were, and outbreaks at for believing in anything approaching the times, but
We
grounds mediaeval situation there are none.
The
councils
show
peaceably
in friendliness as they follow each other in the sixth century. But in the ninth century we shall still find plenty of evidence that the general population lived showed no together, or that, at least, Christians
some decrease
special hostility to the Jews. So many modern theories of antisemitism attempt to economic terms, that in the
it is
purely phenomenon wise to review the evidence already given, and to study such references to the economic life of the Jews as survive,
explain
to see if they support the supposition that such hostility as there was at that time had its root in their economic Was the Jew of Milman a real person? position. The main charge of the modern writer is always the slave of trade, and it was also one of the main preoccupations ancient Christian legislators. It is often assumed that the
1
Cap. Aquisgran., 45; M.GJH.
folio,
Leg.
I,
61.
34
Jews possessed a monopoly of this unpleasant traffic. All our references to slave traders are to Jews. But it is also true that all our references to Jewish slavers are to the religious question involved in the possession of a Christian by a Jew. Only one canon deals with slaves in general, and it does not mention Jews except as one of the alternative fates of a captive sold out of the country. And its objection to such a sale is religious. We can do more than hint at the probability of slave traders who, being Christians, raised no issue which needed legislation. For, as the century absolutely accepted slavery, it could not have prohibited Jews engaging in the traffic without recognising that, the Jews excluded, there were other sources from which slaves could be obtained 1 That they were the main slavers at the end of the period under discussion is probable, and their preponderance in the traffic is likely to have increased with the Mahometan conquests, for it was easier for them to penetrate into Mahometan countries. But though we may reprobate them altogether for indulging in a trade against which we revolt, we must realise that the sixth century saw only a religious issue, the exclusive possession of one whom Christ had redeemed by one of those who had slain Him 2
.
.
They
certainly also dealt in the trade in precious objects.
Priscus,the friend of Chilperic, has already been mentioned. It is even possible that he had the right of coining gold coins3 Cautinus, the wicked bishop of Clermont, was a familiar friend of Jewish merchants, whom he invited to dinner; and when they had adroitly flattered him, they sold him objects for more than their worth the only accusation of dishonesty in the records of the period, and a slender peg ' on which to hang the conventional as usual 4 Eufrasius
.
'
by buying costly objects from Outside France there was their the Jews to bribe the king 5 6 attempt, recorded by Gregory the Great , to buy the church
tried to obtain the
same
see
.
Reims, Canon
1 1
Macon, Canon
16.
3 Description Raisonie des Monnaies Merovingiennes by the Vicomte P. d'Ame'court, quoted in R.E.J., Vol. X, p. 237. 4 Gregory of Tours, Hist. Franc ., Bk. IV, viii (xiii).
5 6
Ibid.,
Bk. IV, xxxv.
See p. 218.
34!
plate of Venafro, and in one of the edicts of Charlemagne * ' Jews and others also were accused of doing the same 1 . thing Apart from these references, we have notices of
Jewish merchants and shipowners, but no statement about

their particular traffic. Evidence of hostility to the Jews on this score there is none, and a rascally bishop overreached
after a
good dinner is small evidence on which to indict a nation '. We have frequent references to business dis-
among the Jews. money-lending. We know of one money-lender. But the only time that we know that he tried to collect a debt, he and his companions were all murdered by the debtors 2 Armentarius came to Tours to collect a debt owed by the ex-vicarius Injuriosus and the excomes Eunomius; and he was accompanied cum uno sectae suae satellite et duobus Christianis '. It is generally assumed,
among
honesty, but
the Syrians, not

is
The
third charge
'
as the narrative
is
mostly in the singular, that the Christians

'
were in a subordinate position, and that the only moneylender was Armentarius. But after their murder, parentes
vicarius
attempted to bring the murderers, that is the exand ex-comes, to trial, but failed for lack of witnesses. It does not seem likely that if the Christians were only servants, and not living in Tours, their relations would have been able to attempt to bring two such powerful
to
eorum
'
trial. It is more fitting to the facts as we have assume the Christians to have been business associates of Armentarius. This is all the more likely in that we know that the main money-lenders of the time were Syrians, and that almost every council had to prohibit 3 The forged canons money-lending on the part of clerics of Nicaea, which are an oriental collection of about this
persons to
them
period, specifically forbid Christians to go into partnership with Jews for business purposes4 : the obliterated charter of Childebert refers to some kind of Jewish association with others: there is thus no reason to assume it to be impossible that a Jew should be in association with two Christians in such a business. Our evidence for Jewish money-lenders is
Capitulare Duplex ad Nmmagen; M.G.H., Leg. I, 144. Gregory of Tours, Hist. Franc., Bk. VII, xxiii. 9 E.g. Aries II, 14; Tours, 13; Orleans III, 27. 4 Canon 52, to be found with the Canons of Nicaea in Harduin, Vol. I.
2
1
342

is
thus extremely slight, and

that Charlemagne
made
still
more so by the
fact
two centuries
later,
when
.
the Syrians
had become
less important in western Europe, legislated on 1 lending without any mention of Jews at all Two interesting indirect allusions confirm this impression that the Jew was not noticeable economically in the community. Julian of Toledo expressed his violent dislike of France in an account of the unsuccessful rebellion of Paul, governor of Narbonne, against Wamba, the Visigothic king of Spain. He described France as a country of lack of faith (or perfidy), of obscene works, of fraudulent business, of venal judges, and, what is worst of all, a brothel of Jews and Lord >2 In a Defiance against blaspheming our Saviour * the Tyrant of Gaul appended to the work by his own or another's hand, there is a somewhat similar picture of the 3 But in neither case friendship existing in France with Jews are the Jews considered anything but a religious menace. It is the Franks, not the Jews, who are dishonest, a charac' '
.
.
teristic
*
collection of national attributes,

' 4
repeated in an amusing ninth-century which gives to the Franks commercia Gallorum or gula Gallorum ', while to the
is
it
which
Jews
ascribes
*
invidia
'
4
. *
perfidia ', and only real crime of the Jews was perfidia means want of faith ', and not moral worthlessness.
The
XII.
RELATIONS BETWEEN JEWS AND CHRISTIANS
from the variety of the references to Jews that were they widely scattered throughout the country. They were to be found not only in the Rhone valley and the south-west, but also on the Loire and Seine. The Visigothic persecutions caused an immigration into France, and it is possible that throughout the period there was also an immigration from other Mediterranean countries. Early mediaeval records show them to be living in almost every
It is clear
1
2
3 4
Capitula, M.G.H., Leg. 1, 144. Hist. reb. adv. Warn bam, v; P.L.,
Insullatio,
i
and
ii;
De
Proprietatibus
XCVI, p. 766. XCVI, p. 797. Gentium in M.G.H. quarto, Chron. Min.,

P.L.,
Vol. II,
p. 389.
343
important centre in the north as well as in the south of the country, and it is probable that many of these settlements existed long before the time of our present records. can safely say that the Jew was not a rare and abnormal feature in the life of the towns of the Merovingian period, and that relations between Jews and Christians must have been frequent and have touched many aspects of life.
We
This being
so,
we can
clearly
assume that throughout
the country as a whole the relations between the two peoples were not bad. Since all our records are written by churchmen, and since what hostility there was came on every occasion from the clergy, it is not surprising that we do not actually find complimentary reference to Jewish life and qualities. And yet even these are not completely lacking. The letters of Sidonius Apollinarius, written in the second half of the fifth century, contain several kindly references to Jews. On two occasions he sends a letter by a Jew who would be dear to my heart if it were not for his abominable ?1 In one of his letters he recommends a Jew to the religion offices of Bishop Eleutherius. After expressing his good regret for the error which is causing his involuntary * destruction, he adds that it is wrong to condemn any man alive, since as long as he lives he has a chance of conversion *. But in any case, whatever his theology, in matters of earthly * affairs and business he considers them honestas habere causas *, and therefore to be worthy of episcopal support 2 If it is difficult to give direct evidence of the attitude of individual Christians to the Jews, it is still more difficult to give direct evidence of the attitude of individual Jews to can only say that since the general evidence Christians. is that the Christians were friendly to the Jews, the reverse must hold good, and that the individual Jews must have enjoyed friendly contacts with their Christian neighbours. It is no bad record of Jewish conduct throughout these centuries which is presented to us. Two murders, a pail of slops, the outwitting of a rascally bishop, this is the tale of Jewish misdeeds over several centuries. It is not impressive when compared with the number of references to them. Nor does it gain additional weight from a number of general
'
We
1 1
Ep. Ill, iv; IV, v. Ep. to Bp. Eleutherius.
Ep. VI,
xi.
344

upon their character
as a people, for
attacks
such are entirely
absent.
period was not Elysian. Security was by no means Violent outbreaks occurred. Even the right of religious freedom as guaranteed by the law was occasionally violated. But robbery and violence were in the spirit of the times, and it was not to be expected that the Jew alone should escape. Even the particular disabilities from which he suffered as a Jew were not extensive. And other classes also had their particular disabilities. The cumulative effect through the centuries of actions which at this time were spasmodic, and of attitudes which were still but half expressed and rarely practised, created in the end sinister results which it is easy but inaccurate to anticipate. While he lived with the substantial background of the Roman Codes, and while he was distinguished by few characteristics from the rest of the population so far as daily
perfect.
life
life,
The
was concerned,
his situation
was
easily tolerable,
and
his
considering the period, can legitimately be called normal and agreeable. To shed tears over his sufferings or to grind one's teeth over his iniquities is to ignore all the evidence and it is considerable which we possess.
CHAPTER TEN
THE JEWS
IN VISIGOTHIC SPAIN
It is an extraordinary fact that in spite of the immense collection of legislation, Arian and Catholic, secular and conciliar, which the Visigothic period has bequeathed to us, we are almost entirely without knowledge of the condiis
tions of the Jews of the time. The anecdotal side of history entirely untreated, and of the three apologists who wrote against the Jews not one shows the slightest sign of any knowledge of contemporary Jewish conditions. Chroniclers and historians alike are lacking, and all that we possess is a certain knowledge of the behaviour of the Jews during the rebellion against Wamba, and an ex parte statement of their responsibility for the final downfall of the kingdom. In these conditions the different modern studies of the subject are inevitably merely a rechauffee of the same meagre source material dressed according to the views of the author. It is best, therefore, to go to the most modern, the works of Dubnow and Juster, since Bedarride or Graetz had no different material on which to work, and Dubnow and Juster add only a more modern approach, and no new material.
The
question which has been
much
interesting
modern
scholars, the relationship
between custom and law in the
evolving Teutonic societies brought into contact with the formal nature of Roman law, does not touch the situation of * * the Jews, since no Teutonic customs governed Jewish of the legislative In the whole behaviour. consequence activity of the Visigoths on Jewish questions owes its inspiration to the traditions of the Roman Church and State and not to the fastnesses of Teutonic barbarism. NonRoman influence can at most be traced in their affection for pulling out the hair of offenders.
346
The relative weight of responsibility to be laid on the Church and the Monarchy forms the main point around which controversy can turn. All that can be said for the Church will be found in the work of Ziegler, a book which impresses the more in that it does not attempt to disprove too much.
LIST OF BOOKS
LEX ROMANA VisiGOTHORUM (The
Breviary of Alaric)
Ed. G. Haenel. Leipzig, 1849.
LEGES VlSIGOTHORUM
Ed. K. Zeumer, in M.G.H. quarto,

Leges, Sect, i, Leipzig, 1902.
i.
Hanover and
ACTA CONCILIORUM
AMPLISSIMA
JUSTER, J.
Ed. Mansi, Vols. IX to XII.
La
Condition legate des Juifs sous Rois Visigoths. Paris,
les
LUKYN WILLIAMS, A.
The Jews and Christian Apologists
in
Early Spain, in the Church Quarterly Review, 1925.
MELICHER, T.
Der Kampf zwischen Gesetzes- und Gewohnheitsrecht im Westgotenreich. Weimar, 1930.

Church and State in Visigothic Spain. Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., 1930.
ZIEGLER, A.
THE JEWS IN VISIGOTHIC SPAIN

I.
347
THE VISIGOTHIC PERIOD
After their various wanderings across Europe the Visigoths finally settled in Spain, and succeeded in conquering the
greater part of the country by the second half of the fifth Their territory extended across the Pyrenees century. to the rich province of Narbonne, whose possession involved
them
in constant wars with the Franks. But for more than a century their history is relatively unimportant for two reasons. They were Arians, and living as a small military minority in the midst of a large and apparently fanatically Catholic population. Real unity and development were therefore impossible. Secondly, the royal line of the Baits was extinguished in the person of Alaric II in 507, and thereafter the throne was held by a succession of usurping nobles who enjoyed none of the prestige of the old and semi-divine ruling house. The few incidents of this period have already been related in the previous chapter. The only other event of importance to record is the publication by Alaric II, a year before his death, of the shortened edition of the Code of Theodosius known as the Breviary of Alaric. The succession of royal nonentities came to an end in 570, when a king arose capable of consolidating the royal power; but the real change came when his son Reccared accepted Catholicism. Acting from motives of statesmanship rather
than religious fervour, he succeeded in doing it in such a way that the majority of the Visigothic nobility followed in his footsteps. Those who resisted were easily crushed. The conversion of the king and aristocracy completely changed the balance of the different parties of the kingdom. The king could now choose his allies. He could appeal to the nobles
against the bishops, or to the bishops against the nobles, or
he could side with the people against both bishop and noble. As the kingship was still in itself weak (for it was still elective, and only eight of the twenty-three Visigothic monarchs were sons of their predecessors), it was nearly always necessary for the king to rely on one or other of these groups. The other group naturally went into opposition, so that in the hundred and twenty years which preceded the Moorish conquest history was largely made up of an unedifying series of internal intrigues and murders.
348
As the succession mostly went by usurpation, and as the usurper had to collect forces to support his pretensions, it is natural that there was a fairly regular pendulum movement of alliances between the bishops, the nobles and the people. For a usurper would look to the opposition to secure his
It is perhaps significant that almost all the legislation affecting the Jews comes from those kings who were in close alliance with, or the tools of, the clerical party Reccared,
election.
Sisebut, Chintila, Recceswinth, Erwig and Egica. This unhappy situation inevitably ruined the country, and the last quarter of the seventh century presents a miserable
The class of small free proprietors had almost completely disappeared before the encroachments of those who needed to be rewarded for their support of royal claimants, whether bishops or nobles; the trade of the country was in ruins, and the Church in a state of collapse; and it is not surprising that a single battle, and an army of less than twenty thousand Arabs, sufficed for the complete overthrow of the Visigothic power.
picture.
II.
CONDITIONS OF THE JEWS IN SPAIN
Although no other country provides us with anything like so complete a legislative array as does Visigothic Spain through both the royal and the ecclesiastical laws, we remain extremely ignorant of the state of life and the general condihave nothing to compare with the tions of the country. fulness of the chronicles of Gregory of Tours, and we have practically no correspondence or other contemporary literature. The only names to be recalled are Isidore of Seville and Julian of Toledo, but the information which they give us is extremely scanty. Particularly is this so with regard to Jewish affairs, for though anecdotes in themselves are dangerous as a basis for generalisations, a code which by its excess and its repetition reflects rather the enthusiasm of the legislators than any particular qualities in its objects, presents practically no concrete picture of conditions whatsoever. And this is the situation with regard to the Jews in
We
Spain. They were numerous, they were powerful, they were wealthy. They indulged in all pursuits, agriculture as well

as trade.
349
They were to be found in all classes. So much we can deduce, and we can safely add that they bewildered the simple Visigoth by the wiliness with which they evaded his ponderous legislative efforts. From the success with which they secured the help for these evasions from bishops, clergy and nobility we can deduce at will either that their power of bribery was incredibly vast or that they were not
generally unpopular. If we incline to the
first
view,
we must
regretfully accept a very low standard of morality among the clergy, for bishops themselves were suspected by pious kings
of favouring the Jews; but the very extent of the royal suspicion would, perhaps, justify a Jew in parodying the words of Burke, and professing his inability to bribe a whole people. The improbability that the Jews could have been wealthy enough to indulge in all the bribery with which they are credited, together with the fact that there is absolutely no record of any popular movement against them, make the second alternative more probable, that the Jews were not necessarily unpopular with the rank and file of the population, or with the ordinary provincial and ecclesiastical authorities. This view finds some support in the fact that it was those who were popular with the common people who passed no measures against the Jews, or allowed them to evade the restrictions of their predecessors; whereas it was those who were allied to the ecclesiastical and noble parties who most violently oppressed them. To attack the Jews was not, therefore, an accepted method of securing popular favour. Our ignorance of life in Visigothic Spain is nowhere more unfortunate than in the realm of commerce. The immense mass of Visigothic Law pays practically no attention to commercial life. Apart from a small section, entirely comlaws1 , and dealing with posed of reproductions of ancient y c foreign trade, neither the word negotiator nor the word ' ' mercator occurs in the Code. On the other hand Roman Spain was a wealthy province, and the Visigoths must have found an ancient and well-established commercial life in
operation. It is unlikely that this entirely disappeared under their rule, though the descriptions of Egica suggest that at the end of the seventh century the country was in a desolate
1
Bk. XI,
tit.
3.
350

As we
condition.
are ignorant of the general economic still more ignorant of the role of the The section dealing with international In the Book trade makes no special mention of them.
conditions, so are we Jews in economic life.
devoted to them economic
affairs
come
and
indirectly,
and always
in the
form of the
in only occasionally restriction of
the trading privileges of Jews
who
refused baptism, or,
being baptised, lapsed. 1 It has already been suggested that in Gaul a large part of the trade was in the hands of the Syrians. We have references to Syrians in Septimania, and it is a reasonable
presumption that there were also many of them in Spain. It would be very surprising if it were not so, since we know them to be scattered in every other commercial centre of western Europe. But of the division of trade between them, the Jews, and the rest of the population we know absolutely nothing, and we have no real data for forming a valid judgment. We cannot go beyond the statement already made that the Jews were clearly both wealthy and powerful. The absence of reference to the Syrians or other traders, since they were Christians, does not prove that other groups were not
equally wealthy and powerful. are on safer ground in presuming that the Jews were numerous. It is improbable that a small group would either have attracted so much legislative attention or have been so competent to evade its results. Their settlement in Spain was also an ancient one, and many Jews are said to have gone there after the destruction of the Temple. The fact that Paul proposed to visit it suggests the existence of large
We
Jewish communities. Moreover, they were very numerous in Arab Spain after the conquest of the country. Allowing for some considerable reduction of their population through voluntary or compulsory exile during the Visigothic Catholic period, we can assume that they formed a considerable proportion of the total population in the fifth and sixth and probably also the seventh centuries. Any study of their relations with the rest of the population is confused by the fact that so many Jews were nominally Christians, that prohibition of intercourse, or of Judaising, has not the same significance as it would have elsewhere.
1
Ch. IX, Section
III.
351
cannot say if the frequent denunciation of people who corrupt the faith has any reference to Gentile Christians, for it has such an obvious significance if applied to Jews who had accepted baptism, and whom their still unconverted relations tried to draw back to the Jewish fold. There is one law of Chindaswinth on Judaising Christians, prohibiting the sons of Christian parents from being circumcised. But here again it is far more likely that the Christian parents were of Jewish stock than that they were pure Gentiles. Forced baptisms had begun at least thirty years earlier, so that this interpretation is the natural one. We are thus left entirely to the laws for our picture of the life of a people, and no situation could be more unsatisfactory. The deduction that the normal relations between Jews and Christians were not unfriendly is the one which corresponds most to the facts we possess. It is certainly true for the earlier period. That relations deteriorated in the second hah of the century is probable, and if we believe that the Jews were responsible for the Arab invasion which put
We
an end
to Visigothic power, it is certain. But it is equally certain that the violence of the laws did not reflect any
universal reprobation of the Jews
by the general public.
III.
THE BREVIARY OF ALARIC
Being Romans the Jews of the Visigothic dominions lived under the Code of Theodosius, supplemented by conciliar
enactments, until the time of Alaric II. Owing to the decline in the intellectual level of even the Roman section of the population, Alaric found it necessary to issue a simplified version of the Roman Code, eliminating laws which were redundant, inconsistent, or made unnecessary by the change of circumstances. The laws affecting the Jews were reduced from over fifty to ten, to which must be added the third Novella of Theodosius and two Sentences of Paul. In the main these left the Jewish position unchanged.
fied
1
Intermarriage between Jews and Christians was still identiwith adultery, and information could be laid by anyone1 . Lawsuits which did not affect religious questions were to be
Breviary, 3.7*2 and
352 THE CONFLICT OF

dealt with in the
to
Roman courts, unless both parties agreed submit to a Jewish judge as arbitrator. On the other hand, no actions were to be brought against Jews on their
religious holidays
While all the abusive and petulant II on relations between Jews and of Theodosius phraseology Christians was omitted, the actual content of his laws remained. Jews were not to build new synagogues, and if they did, they were, strangely enough, to be handed over to
.
the Catholic authorities 2 That it was not the Arians who received them suggests that Alaric employed Roman, and therefore Catholic, lawyers to compose the Breviary, and that they saw no reason to change the terms of the Theodo.
sian edition.
If
Jews tried
to convert others to their
own
faith the penalty was intestability 3 . The apostate forfeited his property4 . But if a Jew became a Christian, then the
5 Jews were not to molest him remained in force. Jews could
some
They
exclusion from office only fulfil the burdenportions of the decurionate, and the duties of guard. were excluded from all honours 6 They were particu.
The
still
7 larly excluded from prison governorship They were not allowed to buy or acquire a Christian slave as a gift, but
.
8 If they might inherit him or possess him as trustee The slave was circumcised him, they were put to death 9 to be set free 10 It is not possible to say whether in all circumstances the slave was set free without compensation to the owner, for the Breviary contains two contradictory laws on this subject 11 It will be seen from this summary that there are only a few important modifications of their position under Theodosian law. No privileges were given to Jewish clergy. The privilege of fixing their own market prices was withdrawn.
.
Breviary, 2.1.10 and 2.8.3.
2 3
Novella 3, paras. 3 Breviary, 16.2.1.

16.3.2.
and
5.
*Ibid.,
c
7 8 9
*lbid.y 16.3.1.
Novella 3,2.
Ibid.y para. 7.
Breviary, 3.1.5.
Ibid.y
1
6.4.2
and Nov.
3, 4.
10
11
Breviary, 16.4.1. Ibid n 16.4.2 and 3.1.5.
353
Jews forcibly baptised were not allowed to return to Judaism. But, on the other hand, the diversion of the aurum coronarium to the treasury ceased, and though the Patriarchate no longer existed, Jews could presumably, if they wished, remit money to Palestine. The restrictions on their movements during Easter also disappeared, and there were no
1 The best expressed limitations to the right of sanctuary tribute to the efficiency of the government of Alaric is that all the laws forbidding violence against the Jews were omitted.
.
is sufficient for us to say an anti- Jewish bias on the part of the Visigoths, but to the fact that under a strong government such violence did not need special legislation. Had there been any special oppression during this time we should certainly have had a hint of it from some document. The only other events of the Arian period of Visigothic history which are of importance have already been referred
The
little
we know
of the period
to
that this
was not due
to in the previous chapter 2
Of
events in Spain
itself at this
time we have no knowledge.
IV.
LAWS AND COUNCILS OF THE FIRST HALF OF THE SEVENTH CENTURY
It has already been indicated how the advent of Reccared changed the whole situation, and it is natural that this new alliance between king and people was the signal for a great increase in the legislation affecting the Jews. Their main of privileges continued to be those granted by the Breviary Alaric, but royal decree and ecclesiastical council alike co-operated to circumscribe and finally nullify such status as they possessed, until, when finally the Breviary was revoked by Recceswinth, they had little to trust in except the fact that they had been cives Romani '. Of the legislation of Reccared himself we have no complete record. One law only is preserved, in which the ancient
*
of Christian slaves is prohibition against the ownership 3 the third Council of confirmed was This by repeated 1 Cf. Leges Visigoth., 9.3.1, which is called Antiqua ', i.e. dating from the period before the composition of the Code of Recceswinth. * Ch. IX, Section V.
.
Leg. Vis., 12.2.12.
354 THE CONFLICT OF

do not completely correspond.
Toledo1
If a
The two
editions
Jew buys or receives a Christian servant as a gift, he loses him without compensation. If he circumcises him, he Thus far the law. The council forfeits also his property.
is
milder and only prescribes liberation in cases of circum-
Each has also a special cision or perversion to Judaism. clause. The council deals with all relations between Jews and
Christian women, and prohibits such, ordering the children of such unions to be baptised. It also forbids Jews (or the children above mentioned) to hold any public office over
Christians.
The
of Jews,
who
dom.
We
law, on the other hand, allows all servants declare they are not Jews, to obtain their freerelics
have here, probably, only the
of a
more
complete legislation, for there is a letter to Reccared from ' 2 Gregory the Great , in which he congratulates him Constitu-
tionem quandam contra Judeorum perfidiam dedisse', and the existing laws are neither very new nor sufficiently exceptional to explain why the Jews, to avoid them, offered the king
a large bribe, which Gregory congratulates him on refusing. The decision of a combined ecclesiastical and secular council under Sisebut3 also refers to the Constitutio of Reccared,
though the precise reference is to this law. In the same year as that of the third council of Toledo, there was a council at Narbonne, which also dealt with various Jewish matters, but on questions of detail rather than principle. The Jews were strictly forbidden to work on Sunday. They were prohibited from singing psalms at their funerals, and they were punished if they harboured or
consulted any kind of sorcerer or fortune teller4
that there
is still
.
It is
evident
a distinction between Septimania
and the
part of the
such
trifling
attacks
kingdom beyond the Pyrenees. Legislation upon details is very different from the sweeping upon vital points which began to emanate from
In the seventh century, however,
it is
Toledo.
probable
that the status of the

at Toledo,
1
Jews was similar on both sides of the
mountains, for Visigothic councils are held almost exclusively and bishops from Septimania occasionally attend.
2
3
Toledo III, Canon 14. Ed. Hartmann, ix, 228.
L<.
Vis., 12.2.13.
Narbonne, Canons
4, 9, 14.
355
Selva, Metropolitan of Narbonne, appears to have been Vice-President of the important fourth council of Toledo, and he presided over the sixth. The next king to take action affecting his Jewish subjects
first year of his reign measures against the Jewish possession of Christian slaves and servants. Apparently the law of Reccared had, as one might expect, been evaded, and some Jews claimed written authority for their continued possession of Christian slaves. This is the first sign of the conflict between royal and episcopal authority on the one hand, and
was Sisebut (612-620), who in the

passed
still
stricter
an
intelligent group, aided

all
sympathy of local
Jews
laid claim,
authorities,
the cancellation of
by the open or purchaseable on the other. Sisebut ordered the written authorisations to which the
laid down that all Christian slaves so held, together with all those since acquired, should be set at liberty with suitable gratuities, or sold within six months.
and
The sales themselves were strictly controlled. The purchaser

had to be a Christian, and the slave could not be sold away from the district in which he lived. Irregular sales were heavily punished, in order to prevent the Jew going through
a formal transaction with a dummy Christian, which left the effective ownership of the servant. Various other crimes and penalties were added, and the death sentence was enforced against proselytising either a man or a woman1 . learn from a law of Recceswinth that Sisebut was compelled to issue a decree against those Christians who in any way defended the Jews from the operation of the laws or assisted them in their evasion2 . As these measures failed to suppress them, the king cut
him
We
the Gordian knot by ordering all Jews within his kingdom to accept baptism or to depart. Many, as a result, fled to 3 Isidore France, and waited for a turn of the tide in Spain that considered this of Seville, while condemning action, yet those who had become Christian should remain so, and applied to the situation the remark of Paul to the Philippians that whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is proclaimed ', and rejoiced thereat. It is, however, certain from the
.
1
*
Leg. Vis., 12.2.13 and 14.

Ibid., 12.2.15.
Isidore, Hist. Goth,
anno
DCL.
in
M.GJH., Chron. Min.,
ii,
p. 291.
356
which future law-makers encountered with lapsed Christians that a very large number accepted nominal The period of conversion and remained Jews at heart. oppression did not on this occasion last for long. In 621 a king of a very different character mounted the throne in the person of Swinthila, and proceeded to recall the Jews from 1 exile, and to allow those who had relapsed to do so openly . Such a permission was inevitably disagreeable to the
difficulties
Church party, and under his successor, Sisinand (631-636), the fourth council of Toledo devoted considerable attention, and no less than ten canons, to the Jews. Meeting under the presidency of Isidore of Seville, it began by affirming its disapproval of forced baptism. But it insisted that those who had received the Christian sacraments must not be allowed
to dishonour them by reverting to unbelief. Those who had remained Jews were to be led to the Christian faith of their own free will. It then concentrated most of its attention on the punishments to be meted out to those who had been baptised and lapsed. Any Christian, from the bishop downwards, who had connived at these lapses was to be severely pun-
The punishment of the lapsed themselves was entrusted to the bishops and not to the magistrates. The children of the lapsed, if they had been circumcised, were to be taken away from their parents and handed over to genuine If they had remained Christian families for education. Christian they were not to be disinherited. If lapsed Christians had circumcised their slaves, the latter were to be set free. They were not to frequent unconverted Jewish friends. If they did they were to be reduced to slavery, and the unconverted friend was to be publicly flogged. In a mixed marriage the non- Christian partner must accept Christianity or be separated. The children were to be brought up as Christians. The lapsed might not give evidence. They might not hold office. In comparison with this the lot of those who had managed to evade the formality of baptism was comparatively light. They also might not hold office, and they might neither buy nor possess Christian servants. But the really severe attack upon them (and, indeed, if it was carried out it was a mortal one), was that they were to be deprived of their
ished.
1
Joseph Hacohen, quoted in Juster, op.
cit.>
p. 6, n. 2.

1
.
.
357
These were to be brought up in a monastery or children a Christian home, as Christians 2 While thus avoiding the shameful guilt of forcing conversion, the council provided a happy lesson of what might be done, which Recceswinth, a generation later, was to show that he had aptly studied. The Christian theologians, accustomed as they were to a particular method of biblical exegesis, were in a certain dilemma in regard to the Jews, a dilemma which we have already noted, but which comes out very clearly in the book which Isidore of Seville wrote for the benefit of his sister, an Abbess3 It was perhaps meant to aid her in the bringing up of Jewish children. The dilemma was a simple one. It was clearly stated in Scripture that the Jews would not be converted until the end of the world, and it was pleasantly easy to infer that even then but few of them would be benefited 4 by the occasion offered There was, therefore, no hope that success would really crown their efforts to keep those Jews who had accepted baptism in the narrow paths of Christian orthodoxy (and, indeed, scripture made it quite clear that
.
they were exceptionally hard-hearted and would always backslide). Unless, therefore, the end of the world was at hand, there was little scriptural reason for expecting success to crown their efforts to baptise those who had so far eluded
them. Moreover, it is evident from Isidore that the Jews were efficient defenders of their position, and knew how to
parry many of the quotations produced for their discomfiture. He mentions specifically that they parried the blessing of Judah in Genesis xlix with the statement that they still had a king of the tribe of Judah reigning in Babylon, and that they insisted on translating the passage of Isaiah in support of the Virgin Birth with the word young woman *. After extensive proofs from the Old Testament that Jesus was the Messiah, Isidore devoted most of his time to proving that all the Jewish ceremonies were superseded, and that the
'
1 The Canon (60) refers to Judaei, to baptised Jews.

2
but
it is
just possible that
it
refers
Toledo IV, Canons 57-66.
De Fido
Catholica ex vetere et novo Testamento, contra Judaeos,
Migne, P.L., LXXXIII, p. 419. 4 Op. dt.y Bk. II, v and vii.
35$
Christian sacraments were alone efficacious for salvation. is of some importance, for it not only probably influenced Recceswinth, but it was also early translated into various Germanic languages and seems to have had a wide circulation in western Europe, taking the place of the collec-
The book
tions of proof texts in use in the earlier Church 1 Chintila, the successor of Sisinand, reverted to the c solution of Sisebut, and would allow no one to remain in
.
his kingdom who was not a Catholic *. This was confirmed 2 There exists in the by the sixth council of Toledo in 63 8 archives of Leon a Placitum or declaration of faith which he exacted from the Jews of Toledo, in which they
.
'
'
'
undertake to be sincere in their Christian

all
faith, to
forswear
Jewish
rites
and observances, to
eat everything
which
is
eaten by Christians, except when a physical and not a religious repugnance prevents them, to have no relations with and not to marry unbaptised Jews, to hand over all Jewish books in their possession, including the Talmud and Apocrypha, to denounce to the king, Church or magistrates any of their own number who transgresses his declaration, and to stone him themselves if he is guilty. The council passed a canon that every king on ascending the throne should first swear to enforce all the laws in operation against the Jews, and itself confirmed all those passed by previous councils 3 At the conclusion of the council the bishops assembled wrote to the Pope Honorius, and expressed their grave concern at hearing that he was allowing lapsed Jewish Christians to remain in their Jewish ways, and protested that they would not do so in Spain4 . Such is the shortness of human permanence that the very successor of Chintila, the aged and competent general Chindaswinth (641-649) apparently allowed the Jewish Christians to revert, and the unbaptised to return from exile. In the one council held in his reign, Toledo VII, there is no mention of the Jews. All that he insisted on was that those who were born Christians should, if they practised
.
See the edition of Weinhold, Paderborn, 1874.
Canon
3.
*Ibid.
*The
letter is
quoted in the R.E.J., Vol.
II, 137.
It is
not in the
collection of Mansi.

c
.
359
circumcision, be put to death, conspiratione et zelo catholicorum novis et atrocioribus poenis adflicti' 1 It is not likely that this is a law against the Judaising of Gentile Christians, as Juster takes it, for by 640 it is perfectly natural that a
generation should be growing up who were technically, at born the Christian children of Christian parents, least parents who had been forcibly baptised by Sisebut or who
had accepted Christianity even
earlier.
V.
LAWS AND COUNCILS OF RECCESWINTH
If Chindaswinth was independent of the Church, his son, Recceswinth, was the exact opposite. Moved by the legal disorder which existed, he issued a completely new and comprehensive Code for all his subjects, whereby the Jews, if they had not already ceased to be Roman citizens in the lost constitution of Reccared, forfeited all privileges which were not allowed in the new Code. This new law considerIt dealt ably increased the powers given to the clergy. of its laws with the and eleven Jewish exhaustively question,
survive.
The main problem

situation of those Jews
who had
confronting Recceswinth was the so far evaded baptism, for
theoretically all the Jews in his dominions were baptised Christians, unless they had gone into exile in the time of
and only returned with the permission of Chindashe did not in so many words order their violent baptism. Graetz has held that he allowed Jews who professed to be Jews to practise their religion openly, and he secures this result by always taking the word
Chintila
winth.
It is certain that
Judaeus
in his laws to apply exclusively to baptised Jews.
Juster, on the other hand, states that he allowed Jews to remain Jews provided they did not follow the practices of 2 In fact, it appears as if the dilemma of Isidore of Judaism
.
The Seville is reproduced in the laws of Recceswinth. * purpose of his legislation was: ut fideles in religionis pace possederim, atque infideles ad concordiam religiosae pacis
Leg. Vts.y 12.2.16. of Juster and a summary of those of Graetz wiil be found in the former, op. dt. y pp. 10 if.
2
1
The arguments
360

.
adduxerim1 To this the eighth council of Toledo, to which he had appealed for severity against the Jews, added that it was wrong for an orthodox prince to rule over blasphemers and to pollute his faithful subjects with the society of unbelievers 2 It is clear then that the intention of king and council was to get rid of the Jews in one way or another. The council actually did not do more than confirm the canons of the fourth council of Toledo, but the king was much more explicit. The argument that he only allowed Jews to remain Jews at the cost of exile rests upon the following points from
.
the actual laws:

12.2.2. No one is even in his heart to have the slightest doubts about the Catholic faith. If he has, he is to go
into exile until

12.2.3
he thinks differently. All the laws in force against the Jews are to be observed. (Does this not include that of Chintila that no one was to remain in the country who was not a Catholic?)
*
No unbaptised Jew may remain 12.2.15. observationis detestanda fide et consuetudine\

To
these explicit points
is
in
suae
may be added the query: What is who does not observe the Sabbath, who eats pork, who celebrates marriage in Christian fashion, who observes no Jewish feasts and who believes
a
Jew who
uncircumcised,
explicitly in the Christian gospel in his heart?
It is
evident
and that in the last phrase Recceswinth had evolved an early form of the psychological tests beloved of American colleges for limiting the numbers of their Jewish students. Without saying so in so many words, Recceswinth forced all Jews who remained in Spain to accept conversion. In his laws, however, there is one
that such a
'
Jew does not
exist,
'
Jews, explicit reference to rights of unbaptised Jews. whether baptised or unbaptised, are not allowed to give evidence3 against Christians, but are allowed to go to law 4 among themselves If it be thought necessary to defend the absolute consistency of a Visigothic prince, then the only solution is that such persons were foreign Jews with whom
.
1 1
Leg. Vis., 12.2.1. Toledo VIII, Canon 12.

12.2. 10.
8 *
12.2.9.
361
Spanish Jews were in contact, and this explanation is not in itself extravagant. In any case, the right to go to law with another Jew is not one of the essentials of Judaism, so that it still remained true that it was impossible fora Jew, as such, to remain in the country. The purpose of Recceswinth was, then, to force baptised Jews to remain faithful to their Christian profession, and unbaptised ones to leave the country. This purpose is carried out in very great detail. No baptised Jew may openly
or secretly
flight to
impugn the
.
Christian faith.
evade his Christian duties.
He shall not try by He shall not conceal
Similarly, no Christian, of whatever rank, ecclesiastical or official, shall attempt to get any special indulgence for any Jew, or protect him in any way. This
2 applies to bishops and the highest dignitaries . That such a law was necessary is again an indication of the actual
1 any other transgressor
Moreover, the law is ordained for all time, and future monarchs are forbidden to weaken it. Every Jew was required to sign &placitum of enormous length, swearing to forsake all Jewish observances3 . This itself is reinforced by 4 explicit laws forbidding every kind of Jewish observance Finally, if any Jewish Christian did revert to Jewish observances, the other Jewish Christians pledged themselves to stone the offender. It is evident that such a law could only be very imperfectly carried out, and it is not surprising to find that a year later, in 655, the ninth council of Toledo was irresistibly impelled to go into still more extravagant detail in the attempt to make it workable. All baptised Jews were ordered to spend in the actual presence of the bishops all Jewish and Christian feast days. The bishop could thus see for himself that they did not observe the one and did observe the other 5 . When the last opportunity for evasion seemed finally removed, the council of the following year was not unnaturally horrified to find that on such important points as the ownership of slaves, and marriage with
situation.
.
12.24.
12.2.15.
12.2.17.
3 *
5
See Appendix Three.

17.
12.2.5-8.
Toledo IX, Canon
362
Christians, the Jews were not only evading the law, but actually finding priests and ecclesiastics who were willing to sell them Christian slaves with complete indifference as
to whether such slaves subsequently were converted to 1 Such an admission on the part of the council Judaism throws doubt on the success of the whole of the scheme of the king and bishops, and makes one wonder whether, except in the immediate surroundings of some enthusiast, the law was ever anything more than a dead letter. Even so its very existence was enough to inconvenience the Jews to a serious extent, for so long as it existed, and so long as the king who promulgated it was reigning, there was always the danger that it would be applied to catch this or
.
that individual. Further, it gave every unscrupulous official the opportunity to extract blackmail from a Jew under threat of carrying out the law against him. It is not, then, surprising to find that when under Wamba, the successor of Recceswinth, there was a rebellion in Septimania, the Jews were easily won over to the side of the rebels by the promise of freedom to follow their own observances. How large a part the Jews played in the rebellion we have no means of knowing, but when it was crushed by Wamba, who was an
energetic ruler, they
were expelled from Narbonne 2
VI.
LAWS AND COUNCILS OF ERWIG
Wamba
of the
Code of Laws
was succeeded by Erwig, who issued a new revision left by Recceswinth. This involved,
naturally, a rewriting of the laws affecting the Jews. Having completed his task, he submitted the Code to the bishops in council at Toledo, and secured their approval of the work 3 .
less scrupulous than his predecessors on the of subject compulsory baptism. Having studied the text * the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the that violent take it by force ', he came to the conclusion that if
Erwig was
take
1 *
they refused to do so they might legitimately be forced to it by violence. He refused even to allow them the
Toledo X, Canon
7.
Julian of Toledo, History of the Rebellion against xxviii; M.GJH. quarto, SS. Mer., v.
a
Wamba, Chs. v and
Toledo XII, Canon
9.

Those who refused straight alternative of exile. for themselves or for their households were to be
363
baptism
publicly
flogged and to have their hair pulled out, before they were even permitted to tread the stony path of exile. The utmost concession he would allow was a year's grace to make up their minds as to the alternative to choose 1
.
He made two
important modifications in the laws in force
at his accession. He refused to allow Jews to give up their Christian slaves to do so
who were
forced
For he considered it an insult to a Christian to receive even his liberty at the hands of a Jew. Such slaves were to be sold, and sold under the eye of clergy who would watch to see there was neither evasion nor
injustice.
by setting them free.
Sixty days
from the proclamation of the edict were allowed for this sale, and during that time the Jew could, if he wished, make a claim to the retention of his slaves, on the ground that his conversion to Christianity had been a sincere conversion. If he succeeded in convincing the bishop that he had really been baptised, and that since his baptism he had not lapsed, then upon his signing zplacitum before a bishop and a magistrate, and swearing to it on oath, he was allowed to retain his slaves. If the owner- in question was a Christian who had lapsed, or a Jew who had never been baptised, then he was compelled to proceed to the sale within the statutory sixty days. If he failed to sell them within this period they were to be confiscated 2 Harsh penalties were imposed for any infraction of the law, especially in the case where a Jew made the declaration and then lapsed. If a Christian slave neglected to declare his Christianity he was also exposed to severe punishment3 The second modification was the abolition of the death sentence for any Jewish offences. This he supported by both legal and scriptural argument. The laws abrogated are those imposing the death sentence on any who circumcise Christians, passed by Chindaswinth, and that compelling Jews to stone any member of their community who transgressed his placitum, passed by Recceswinth*. Extravagant
. .
1 *
Ibid.,
Leg. Vis., 12.3.3. 12.3.1, 12 and 13.
Ibid., 12.3.13
Ibid., 12.2.16
and 16. and 12.2.11.
364 THE CONFLICT OF

as is
much of the legislation of Erwig, he is entitled to some respect for this action. His religious reasons appear sincere, and his legal argument, that it ignores the relative severity of
is a sound one. Having ordered all unbaptised Jews to leave his kingdom, he was presumably referring to Christians of Jewish origin
different offences,
in speaking of Judaei in the rest of his Code. In the main, the laws followed the preceding series. His favourite penalty was the lash, and the plucking out of the hair. To this in any serious offence was added the confiscation of the offender's property, and exile, either permanent or till the offender repented. There is the usual series of prohibitions against 1 Jewish customs, meats and feasts Insulting the Christian its or to evade faith, discipline or even being cogniseeking sant of the commission of such offences by others, was
.
'
2 Working on punished by confiscation and banishment Christian feast days was punished with flogging or a fine. This law is mainly interesting in that it specifies especially agricultural work, showing that a considerable proportion of the Jews must have been on the land 3
. .
Then follows a series of laws regulating the position of the Hebrew Christians in the general community. It has already
been said that they might only hold Christian servants if they had an absolutely blameless past, The same also applied to pagan or Jewish servants who wished to become Christians 4 This is somewhat inconsistent with the order that must have his whole household baptised. It is Jew every
.
presumably a reference to all future acquisitions. No Jew was to hold any kind of office without special royal consent 5 He was not to be bailiff of any Christian property 6 A rigorous system governed his right to travel. He had to set out armed with a passport of orthodoxy given by his local priest, and with a letter of introduction to the clergy of all places he was going to visit. Each had to endorse this letter with the
. .
Leg. Vis., 12.3.4 7, meats; 8, marriage;

2 3 4
5 6
an d
n,
5 passover, other feasts and circumcision; use of Jewish books.
12.3.2
12.3.6.
and
9.
12.3.18.
12.3.17.
12.3.19.
365
time of his arrival and departure, and a statement of his orthodoxy during his stay. All Jewish or Christian feast days he had to pass in the presence of the clergy. He was liable to severe punishment if he altered his route 1 Not travellers but all to certain were only Jews compelled pass days in the presence of the bishop or his representative, and this they had to do not only washed but in a suitable frame of mind '. Even with this guarantee it must have been rather trying for the bishop. If there were no ecclesiastic in the
.
'
neighbourhood, they were imposed upon some Christian indisputable. This is in itself a surprisingly stiff piece of legislation, but the difficulties which beset the royal path in dealing with Jews were apparently as nothing compared with the problem set by Jewesses, who were strictly forbidden to come into the presence of the lest he be tempted to commit misconduct with them! priest were to spend the same day in the presence of reputable They Dorcases 2 Christian laymen who had Jews in their employ-
whose orthodoxy was
responsible for seeing that their attendance at the bishop's was strictly carried out3 . Erwig, like his predecessors, was justifiably afraid that local authorities would not carry all these laws into execution, and that the Jews would find means of evading them, or would plead ignorance of their scope. To prevent the latter, he had all Jews brought together to hear the laws read to them, after which a written copy was to be given to the Jewish community, so that no one could plead that he was ignorant of them through not being present at the reading. Further, the declaration of faith which every Jew had to sign was to be carefully conserved in the ecclesiastical archives4 To compel the authorities to carry out the law,
.
ment were
not only were heavy penalties imposed for any connivance with its evasion, but every official was in some sense made a spy over the others. A higher official could only escape if a lower one had not reported to him a case with which he had not dealt himself. The king showed clearly that he had no real confidence in the integrity even of his bishops and
1
2
12.3.20. 12.3.21. 12.3.22.
3
*
12.3.28.
366 THE CONFLICT OF
higher magistrates. Bishops were allowed to confiscate each other's sees if they could detect each other in indifference. Fines and excommunications menaced offenders high and low 1 That he was more suspicious of the secular authorities was not only to be expected, but is shown by a special law which allows a secular judge to try cases under these laws only in the presence of the bishop or someone directly deputed by him. He could only act on his own in districts where no clergy were available 2 Even to himself Erwig only allows the prerogative of pardon for first offences. No second condemnation could avoid the full rigour of the law3 Such is the Code of Erwig, and it carries the seal of its impracticability in its violence against those whose duty it was to enforce it. The royal power was far too weak, and local feeling far too strong, for such legislation to have any chance of success unless the local authorities themselves really wished to carry it out, and Erwig admitted that he knew that this was not the case. Moreover there were far too many pressing problems in existence for a conscientious magistrate to be able to spend his time on such unprofitable nonsense. By the end of the seventh century the whole kingdom was falling into decay. The incompetence of the kings and the rapacity of the bishops and nobility had combined to destroy it, and it is highly probable that this perpetual harassing of the Jews had much to do with the
.
. .
decline.
VII.
LAWS AND COUNCILS OF EGICA
General conditions had been steadily going from bad to worse. They came to a crisis in the reign of Egica, the successor of Erwig. According to his own statements he had done all that he could to alleviate the lot of the Jews, and had allowed them even to possess Christian slaves4
.
There were, officially, no Jews still living in Spain at this time, and it would seem, therefore, that he was speaking
1 2
12.3.10, 23, 24
12.3.25.
and 26.
12.3.27.
Toledo XVII, Royal Opening Address; M., XII, p. 94.
THE JEWS IN VISIGOTHIC SPAIN 367 of those who had lapsed from the Christian faith and had repented, or who had in some other way transgressed the laws of Erwig. This permission may well have had a
genuine economic motive, for in the collapse of Rome Honorius followed the same course 1 Similar economic necessity may also have been the basis for his gentleness and kindness in urging them into the Christian fold 2
.
* '
.
Unhappily for his reputation, these expressions of generosity have left no trace in the records of history. Nor can we be certain of his motives, for if he were moved by a desire to restore the prosperity of his kingdom by encouraging
the economic activities of the Jews, something or someone must have succeeded in effecting a complete change in his opinions. For he followed these actions with the promulgation of a law which could only have led to the complete economic ruin of the Jews. By this law no one but a true Christian was to carry on any commerce whatever or to travel for any purposes of trade 3 By Christian must again be meant Gentile Christians or Jews whose Christian record was without blemish. But it gave the latter no more security
.
than Marranos were to enjoy a thousand years later. It was possible for any Gentile to impugn the sincerity of the conversion of a Jew, and it was practically impossible for the Jew to prove it unless the court was disposed in his favour. Moreover, as it would clearly be to the interest of the Christian rival to make such an accusation, this law can be fairly considered a fundamental attack upon the commercial section of the Jewish population in its entirety. Any unknown Christian arriving in a place for trading purposes was to
open the proceedings by reciting the Lord's Prayer or the Apostles' Creed before witnesses, and by eating a dish of Jews were only allowed to trade with other pork. Jews, and within the kingdom: they might not travel abroad. All their property which had once been in Christian possession, real estate and otherwise, was to be
therefor.
turned into the treasury, and compensation would be given The compensation, unless the royal treasury was a very unusual one, could not with the best will in the world
*C.T.,
2 3
16.9.3.
ibid.
Toledo XVII,
Leg. Vis., 12.2.18. Cf. Toledo
XVI, Royal Address.
368
out.

if
have been very extensive
Any
Christian trading with a
the confiscation was really carried Jew was to be suitably
punished.
Within a year this law bore fruit. The Jews were convinced that the situation was intolerable, and prepared for desperate measures. Correspondence was discovered which seemed to the authorities to reveal the preparation of a plot to overthrow the Visigothic power. The Jews were alleged to be in communication with the Moors and to be inviting them to invade the country. The treason was said to have been confirmed by confessions of the guilty parties. The king brought the question before the seventeenth council of Toledo, contrasted the ingratitude of the Jews with his own
and implored the council to take stern measures against them. How much truth there was in the accusation it is impossible for us to know. That desperate men should revolt against their persecutors is human nature. That the Visigothic kingdom lay an obvious prey to Moorish conquerors without the need for any invitation or treason is
great generosity,
also obvious.
In any case, the council considered that violent measures would be justified, and by a single act all the Jews of the kingdom were reduced to the status of slaves. Their property was confiscated and handed over to one of their Chrislearn indirectly that there special Jewish tax in existence, since the administrator had to continue its payment to the treasury. Their children, from the age of seven, were taken from them and placed in Christian families, and subsequently married to
tian slaves to administer.
We
was a
Christians.
Such was the end of the first Spanish Jewish community, a foreshadowing of the greater tragedy which was to befall their successors nearly eight hundred years later. For some peculiar reason Spain has always been the European land of the greatest Jewish prosperity and the deepest Jewish tragedy. The Marranos of the later mediaeval period and after had their prototypes in the Jews of the Visigothic times. Both seem to have shown an equal fidelity to their traditions, and an equal skill in evading the measures destined for their extermination. That in the end the Visigothic Jew welcomed the Arab invader, and perhaps even

invited
that
*
369
him 1 was but

,
the natural consequence of the treat-
S. Chamberlain under the rule of that thoroughly Western Gothic king (Egica), who had showered benefits upon them, they invite their kinsmen the Arabs to come over from Africa, and, not out of any ill-feeling, but simply because they hope to profit thereby, they betray their noble protector >2 is to distort the whole of the facts which are contained not in
,
ment which he had received. To say with H.
tian councils
documents of Jewish propaganda, but in the pages of Chrisand Visigothic laws themselves.
VIII.
REASONS FOR THE PERSECUTION OF THE JEWS IN SPAIN

*
'
There is no evidence that the Jews were inspired by such motives in calling in their kinsmen against the noblehearted Aryan, but is there any evidence that the motive which had actuated their persecution during a century was itself based on economic grounds? There is a certain class
if a rich group is persecuted, will immedieconomic jealousy as the cause, and it is a reasonable presumption that some Jews were rich. In the absence of ail the anecdotal side of the history of the Jews under the Visigoths, it is extremely difficult to know what were the relations between the Jews and the average Christian, though reasons have already been given for believing they were not unfriendly. But now that we have considered the laws themselves, we can go a little further. N'ot only do they not in the least suggest an attack on Jewish wealth, but if such was their motive, they were even more A law which inefficient than they appear at first sight. its taken in when curious apparent sense, might appeared reveal its true purpose if we applied the economic motive to it, but here, if we take that as the true objective, the laws make no sense at all. Firstly, apart from the eternal question of slaves, there is no reference whatever to economics and economic disabilities until the very end, the time of Erwig
of historian who,
ately see only
'
1 For a discussion on the extent to which this was so, see Juster, op* p. 24, where all the sources are quoted. 2 English Trans., VoL I, p. 342.
cit.,
370

But secondly, even when there were economic
and Egica.
issues at stake, the law says explicitly 1 that if their Christian faith be beyond reproach they are to enjoy all the privileges of other Christians in the carrying on of business. Persecu-
tion from jealousy of their wealth would have left them Jews and restrained their activities, as was done in later ages. It would certainly never have forced their conversion and
left
them
in the
enjoyment of
all
their
supposed wealth.
Thirdly, it is to be noted that no special Jewish tax appears to exist before the time of Egica, although the Theodosian Code gave admirable precedent for such a tax. Alaric omitted it in the Breviary, but the persecuting kings could
easily have restored it. Lastly, if we have no anecdotes, we have an unrivalled collection of abusive terms, both in the councils and in the laws, but above all in the royal addresses In all the rich variety of epithet which to the councils. enlivened Visigothic oratory, there is no single term which Not even such a suggests other than religious hostility.
phrase as exploiters of Christians ', or vaunters in the goods of this world slips in by accident in the rounded phrases so dear to their hearts. Jealousy is supposed to develop a certain low cunning. If it were jealousy which animated the Visigoths, it produced the unusual phenomenon of religious mania.
5 ,
'
*Leg.
Vis., 12.2.18.
CHAPTER ELEVEN

In the passage of the eight centuries reviewed in the previous chapters of this book we have seen the laying of the foundations of modern antisemitism. At times the ancient legislation itself has an appallingly modern ring in its very phraseology. With Leo and Charlemagne the curtain rings down upon the first act. The second act takes us up to the Reformation: the third act is still upon the stage. But it is an act of the same play, and can be explained only in the light of what has preceded it. Our interpretation of the first act is, therefore, no academic question, but the means by which we can understand what is passing before our eyes. To some the interpretation begins with the formation of the Jewish people themselves. They point to the troubles of the Jews in Egypt and in the Roman Empire before the coming of Christianity into power, and find there the exIt is racial. It is some quality in Jewish blood strengthened by the inhuman provisions of the Jewish law. Here it has been necessary to treat somewhat summarily the history of the relations between the Jews and the various peoples of the Graeco-Roman world, but enough has
planation.
been said to show that this first interpretation is false. Without reverting to the plagues of Egypt, we can see that such hostility as existed in the Graeco-Roman world, especially at Alexandria, had reasonable historical causes, and needs no semi-mystic explanation. The adjustment of a monotheistic people to a polytheistic world was not an easy one. It is hard to blame the Jew for his monotheism. Nor will a modern patriot find anything criminal or abnormal in the revolts of the Jews against Rome. What trouble there was came from one of these two causes, monotheism or the
harshness of the
Roman
is
domination.
that
The
significant fact
for subsequent history
when
these two causes were

Christianity
removed, the problem remained.
When
became
372
the religion of the state, monotheism was no longer abnormal. scattering of the Jews from Palestine in the second century, Jewish rebellions came to an end. But the Jewish problem remained. Either we are forced to revert to the
With the
explanation already rejected, and find some mystical racial reason, or we must find a new cause for its survival. The most popular cause for modern scholars is an econ-
omic one, and they have sought to interpret Jewish relationships with their neighbours in economic terms. To-day, and indeed in the later Middle Ages, economic questions play a large role in the Jewish problem, but all the documents of the centuries reviewed in this work fail to find a single genuine economic cause for the phenomenon. Apart from the famous Alexandrian letter with its warning to keep clear of the Jews ', it is impossible to find a single
'
reference to, or sign of interest in, the economic position of the Jews, whether in Rome, Byzantium or in western Europe. There are indeed references to single wealthy Jews, to particular Jewish traders, but nowhere is the general term * Jew coupled with any term of economic significance, and nowhere do we find cases of economic hostility or maladjustment between the Jews of a locality and their neighbours. Even if considerable numbers of Jews were traders yet Jews were also represented in every class of society from slave to
J
And
to
millionaire, from soldier to official, from artisan to peasant. in the east as well as in the west our evidence all tends
show
that they lived
on good terms with
their neigh-
bours.
It is true that it
was not an age which attributed events
easily to economic causes, but that is not to say that it was find plenty of abuse of this ignorant of economic facts.
We
or that class or people. Greeks are called traders, Syrians are called worse, Egyptians are called soothsayers. But no one name covers the Jews. Emperors legislated to deal with the economic menace of particular groups. They never so dealt with the Jews, though frequently occupied with them. Even on the question of slavery it is solely the question of the ownership of a Christian by a Jew which moved them to pass laws. And if we review our documents impartially, the only possible conclusion is that there is no reference to, or interest in, the economic situation of the Jews, because in
373
actual fact there was nothing of any interest or significance in that situation. They were neither a menace nor even a
problem.
They were a normal portion of society. The new factor was not economic. It was
Its original
religious.
Christianity began as a Jewish sect.
adherents
were loyal Jews, observing the whole Law. But when after twenty years a considerable number of Gentiles joined the new sect the question of their relation to the Jewish Law became acute. But the points at issue were connected with the ceremonial law, and not with the fundamentals of Judaism, fundamentals which lay behind the teaching of Jesus, and were shared by all His Jewish followers. But at the same time Jesus had added something new to their experience. They found in Him something they lacked in Judaism, the grace \ which forms so large a part of Paul's message, and which he contrasts with the powerlessness of the Law to do more than convict him of sin. Jewish scholars have rightly pointed out that there is a doctrine of grace in Judaism, a doctrine of repentance, and of reception back into the covenant of God. But whatever his attitude to this doctrine, Paul found something in his Christian experience which he personally had not found in Judaism. Such is the historical setting for what followed. At the end of the
*
'
'
century the leadership of the Church was already passing into Gentile hands. Gentile congregations were powerful and numerous. Any compromise on the ceremo_nial law had
been completely rejected. Had this been all, Judaism and Christianity might still have come together again after There were liberals among the a period of tension. who been would have Jews ready to discuss the question
*
of Gentile observance of the ceremonial law. The hardening of Judaism is a result, not a cause, of the separation. But, whether through the influence of Paul, or, more likely, through the misunderstanding of him by Gentile successors, the issue had gone much deeper, and the entirety of the religious conceptions of Judaism as proclaimed in the Old Testament was rejected as superseded by the Church. Such a claim made the acceptance of Jesus by the Jews impossible, and there follows the bitter period of hostility at the end of the first and the beginning of the second
centuries which has been related.
374

conflict
It is in this
and
its
issue that
modern
anti-
semitism finds its roots. For the Gentile Church the Old Testament no longer meant a way of life, a conception of the relation of a whole community to God, but a mine from which proof texts could be extracted. Instead of being the
history of a single community, and the record of its successes failures, it became the record of two communities, the Hebrews ', pre-Incarnation Church symbolised by the
and
rejected people of the Jews. Out separation of history into two parts, on the simple principle that what was good belonged to one group and what was bad to the other, grew the caricature of the
and the temporary and

of this
artificial
Jew with which
patristic literature is filled.
Christian theologian did not set out deliberately to blacken the character of his Jewish opponent, nor did he He cannot be said deliberately misrepresent his history.
to have been actuated simply by hatred and contempt. His mistake was due to his belief in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures which he read on the basis of the two
The
This is apparent in the whole separate communities. volume of the literature of the time, with its complete silence about contemporary Jewish life. It is always the historical picture of the Jews in the Old Testament which moves the eloquence of the writers, never the misdoings of their living Jewish neighbours. After the period of violence at the end of the first century we have no evidence of any intensive have, on the campaign of Judaism against Christianity. contrary, copious records of the friendship between the two Not only were there sects representing every peoples. shade of religious belief from orthodox Judaism to orthodox
We
is full
Christianity, but conciliar legislation in east and west alike of prohibitions of close social intercourse and even
of participation in Jewish religious observances. There is nothing abnormal hi such conflicts as did occur. The Jews were an ordinary group of human beings with all the failings of humanity, and the Christians were the same. Each at times provoked the other, though the battle was unequal, for Judaism soon numbered fewer adherents than her rival. Occasional outbursts, caused by sudden or political disagreements, are religious inflammation normal in the life of a people. They form in themselves no
375
explanation of a problem which has lasted nearly two thousand years. Moreover, if we had to explain events on the basis of casual happenings alone, we should be forced to the conclusion that there was far more reason for the Jew to hate the Christian than for the Christian to hate the Jew and this on the evidence of Christian sources alone. There is no other adequate foundation than the theological But conceptions built up in the first three centuries. upon these foundations an awful superstructure has been reared, and the first stones of that superstructure were laid, the very moment the Church had power to do so, in the If we leave legislation of Constantine and his successors. out ecclesiastical and secular legislation in the history of Jewish-Christian relations up to the eighth century there
is
almost nothing
left.
And
if
we add
to legislation acts
baptisms or of riotous observaand Christians, burnings synagogues by tion of Purim or sudden acts of violence by Jews then we have nothing left at all except the incidents accompanying the Persian wars, which have their own evident political
clearly
to
religious
due
fanaticism
forced
explanation.
Jewish association with certain heresies have added somewhat to the vigour of the picture of may the Old Testament Jew, but the evidence therefor is
It is possible that
exceedingly slight. It is possible again that memories of the Jewish wars disposed the Roman population to believe ill of the Jew. It is possible even that a certain resentment of the old pagan population against this new Jewish religion, which was so much more of a menace than Judaism itself, may have turned to dislike of the Jews as the original authors of it. But all these three factors are at best minor, and the main responsibility must rest upon the theological picture created in patristic literature of the Jew as a being
perpetually betraying
God and
ultimately abandoned by
Him.
Jew
to the end of the period reviewed in this book the himself shows no signs of the abnormalities which are noticeable in the later mediaeval period, and which are still evident to-day. By adopting the principle of using are legislation to coerce a religious opposition, the first steps which will in west the and in east taken both the already
Up
376
ultimately
make those abnormalities inevitable. In the Byzantine empire, in France, and in the rest of Christendom it has become impossible for him to hold public offices. Other careers are also slowly being closed to him. Certain
on
his liberty
restrictions
have been enacted.
It is
still
only the beginning. There is as yet no ghetto, no Jewish badge, no concentration into one or two professions, but the beginning has been made. More sinister for the future than the restrictions in force in the eighth century was the immunity enjoyed by those who violated such rights as Theodoric and a Gregory the Jew officially possessed. his not ignored, but usually that were see might rights
bishops, kings and barons were free to do what they willed.
There was no appeal against them.
The ninth century begins a new act in both east and west. The Basilica of Basil the Macedonian contain the laws governing Jewish life in eastern Europe down to the present
and in the west the charters of Louis and the fulminations of Agobard begin the story of the Middle Ages. But the new act follows directly from the first, and is rooted in the same causes. Fresh crimes were added to the historic crimes of the Old Testament. Ritual murder, the poisoning of wells, the profanation of the Host, all these are natural growths from the picture created by a Chrysostom or a And the old falsification of Jewish history itself Cyril. persisted, and has persisted up to the present time in popular teaching. Scholars may know to-day of the beauty and profundity of the Jewish conception of life. They may know that * some Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. ButtheChristianpublicasawhole,the great and overwhelming majority of the hundreds of millions of nominal Christians in the world, still believe that the Jews killed
century,
' '
'
Jesus, that they are a people rejected by their God, that all the beauty of their Bible belongs to the Christian Church and not to those by whom it was written; and if on this ground, so carefully prepared, modern antisemites have reared a structure of racial and economic propaganda, the final responsibility still rests with those who prepared the soil, created the deformation of the people, and so made these ineptitudes credible.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX ONE
LEGISLATION AFFECTING THE JEWS FROM
LAWS OF THE UNDIVIDED EMPIRE
Laws
of Constantine
A.D.
300 to 800
C.T., 16.8.1; to Evagrius, 18^.315. On converts to Judaism and to Christianity. C.T., 16.8,3; to the Officials at Cologne, n.xii.32i. With certain exceptions Jews are to be called to the Decurionate. C.T., 16.8.2; to Ablavius the Pretorian Prefect, 2Q.xi.330. On the relation of Jews to the Decurionate. C.T., 16.8.4; to the Jewish Priests, Rabbis, Elders and other authorities,
Immunities of synagogue authorities. C.T., 16.8.5; to Felix, P.P., 22.X.335. On molesting Jewish converts to Christianity. C.T., 16.9.1; to Felix, P.P., 22.X.335. Circumcision of non-Jewish slaves.
Laws
of Constantius
C.T., 16.9.2; to Evagrius, I3.viii.339. Purchase and circumcision of non-Jewish or Christian slaves. C.T., 16.8.6; to Evagrius, I3.viii.339. Marriage between Jews and members of the imperial factories. C.T., 16.8.7; to Thalassius, PJP., 3^.352 or 357. Apostasy to Judaism.
Laws
of Valentinian C.T., 7.8.2; to Remigius Mag. Off., 6.V/J68, 370 or 373. Violation of synagogues.
Laws of Gratian
C.T., 12.1.99; to Hypatius, P.P., 18.^.383. On the relation of Jews to the Decurionate. C.T., 16.7.3; to Hypatius, P.P., 21^.383. Intestability for apostates to Judaism. C.T., 3.1.5; to Cynegius, P.P., 22.ix.384. Possession or purchase of Christian slaves.
Laws
of Theodosius the Great
C.T., 3.7.2 or 9.7.5; to Cynegius, P.P., 14.1^.388. Intermarriage between Jews and Christians. C.T., 13.5.18; to Alexander, Prefect of Egypt, 18.11.390. Questions of maritime transport. C.T., 16.8.8; to Tatianus, P.P., 17.^.392. Jewish right of excommunication. C.T., 16.8.9; to Addeus, Cornmander-in-Chief of the Eastern Command, 29JX.393. Judaism is a lawful sect. 1 CJ., 1.9.7; to Infantius, Governor of the Eastern Provinces, 30. xii. 3 93. Jews may only marry according to Christian table of affinity.
1
The
text of this
law
is
not to be found in the Codex Theodosianus.
380
APPENDIX
LAWS OF THE WESTERN PROVINCES OF THE EMPIRE
Laws of Honorius
C.T., 12.1.157; to Theodorus, P.P., is.ii or iK.^gS. Jewish duty in the Decurionate. C.T., 12.1.158; ditto. C.T., 16.8.14; to Messala, P.P., 11.^.399. Confiscation of the aurum coronariwn. C.T., 16.8.16; to Romulianus, P.P., 22.^.404. Exclusion of Jews from military and court functions. C.T., 16.8.17; to Hadrian, P.P., 25/^404. Permission to send aurum coronarium restored. C.T., 16.544; to Donatus (in Africa), 24^.408. Jews and heretics must not disturb sacraments. C.T., 16.5.46; to Theodore, P.P., 15^.409. Laws against Jews and heretics to be strictly enforced. to Jovius, P.P., i.iv.409. C.T., 16.8.19; The * Caelicoli ' are to be suppressed. C.T., 8.8.8 or 2.8.26; to Johannes, P.P., 26^1409 or 412. Jews to be left undisturbed on Sabbaths and Feast Days. C.T., 16.8.20; to Johannes, P.P., 26.vii.4i2. Synagogues and Sabbaths to be left undisturbed. C.T., 16.9.3; to Annatus Didascalus and the Elders of the Jews, Jews may own Christian servants if they do not convert them. C.T., 16.8.23; to Annatus Didascalus and the Elders of the Jews, 24.1x4.1 6. Jewish converts to Christianity may revert to Judaism. C.T., 16.8.24; to Palladius, P.P., io.iii.4i8. Jews may not enter government service or army. They may follow law, liberal professions and decurionate.
Laws
of Valentiman III
Const. Sirm. 6 fin. to Amatius, Governor of Gaul, 9^425. Jews to be excluded from government service. C.T., 16.8.28; to Bassus, P.P., 8.^426. Converted children of Jews to inherit from their parents.
LAWS OF THE EASTERN PROVINCES OF THE EMPIRE UP TO THE PUBLICATION OF THE THEODOSIAN CODE
Laws of Arcadius
C.T., 16.8.10; to the Jews, 27.11.396.
Jews to
fix their
C,T., 16.8.11; to
own prices. ClaucU'anus,
Governor of the Eastern Provinces,
The Patriarch not to be insulted. C.T., 945.2; to Archelaus, Prefect of Egypt, 17^.397. Jews not to become Christians from economic motives. C.T., 16.8.12; to Anatolius, Prefect of Illyricum, 17.^.397. Jews and their synagogues are to be protected. C.T., 16.8.13; to Caesarius, P.P., i.vii.397. Jewish clergy to have the same privileges as Christian clergy. C.T., 2.1.10; to Eutychianus, P.P., 3.11.398. Jews to follow Roman Law except on religious questions.
APPENDIX
C.T., 12.1.165; to Eutychianus, P.P., 3O.xii.3Q9. Jews to serve in Decurionate. C.T., 16.8.15; to Eutychianus, P.P., 3.11.404.
381
The
Patriarch to retain his privileges.
Laws of Theodosius II
C.T., 16.8.18; to Anthemius, P.P., 29^.408. Jews not to mock the Cross at Purim. C.T., 16.8.22; to Aurelian, PP., 20^^.15. Degradation of the Patriarch. C.T., 16.9.4; to Monaxius, P.P., 10.^.417. Various regulations on the possession of Christian slaves. C.T., 16.8.21; to Philip, Governor of Illyricum, 6.viii^j.i2. Jews are not to be attacked or synagogues burnt, but they must not outrage Christianity. C.T., 16.8.25; to Asclepiodotus, P.P., 15.11.423. Synagogues not to be pulled down or confiscated. New ones not to
be
built.
C.T., 16.8.26; to Asclepiodotus, P.P., 9.^.423. Laws to be enforced, synagogues not to be pulled down, Jews to be exiled for circumcising non-Jews. C.T., 16.9.5; to Asclepiodotus, P.P., 9.^.423. Jews not to purchase Christian slaves. C.T., 16.8.27; to Asclepiodotus, P.P., 8.^.423. New synagogues not to be built, old ones not to be confiscated. C.T., 16.10.24; to Asclepiodotus, P.P., 8.^.423. Peaceable Jews not to be offended. C.T., 15.5.5; to Asclepiodotus, P.P., 1.11.425. Jews to observe seasons of fast and feast. C.T., 16.8.29; to John, Count of the Sacred Largesse, 30^.429. All special Jewish taxes to be confiscated to Charity Fund. Novella 3; to Florentius, P.P., 31^.438. No Jew to hold office; new synagogues not to be built; proselytising to be punished with death; new synagogues to be confiscated; burdensome public office to be undertaken; Jewish law to be followed in
private cases only.
COUNCILS OF THE EMPIRE UP TO THE TIME OF THE PUBLICATION OF THE THEODOSIAN CODE
Elvira (Spain),
c.
300
Canon
16.
49. 50. 78.
Intermarriage with Jews. Blessing of fields by Jews. Sharing feasts with Jews. Adultery with Jewesses.
Antioch, 341
Canon
Eating Passover with the Jews.
Laodicea, 360
Canon
16.
29. 37.
38.
Gospels to be read on Saturday. Christians to work on Sabbath. Gifts for feasts from Jews, and sharing feasts with Jews, prohibited. Unleavened bread not to be accepted from Jews, and Jewish feasts to be avoided.
382
Canon
APPENDIX
The Apostolic Canons 61. Denying Christianity through fear of Jews. 63. Entering a synagogue prohibited. Feasting or fasting with Jews prohibited. 69. Oil not to be taken into synagogue for feasts. 70.
BARBARIAN RECENSIONS OF THE THEODOSIAN CODE
The Breviary of Alaric

2.1.10; Jews to use Roman courts except on religious questions or by agreement. 2.8.3 = C.T., 2.8.26; Sabbath not to be disturbed. 3.1.5= C.T., 3.1.5; Jews not to possess Christian slaves. 3.7.2 and 9.44= C.T., 3.7.2 and 9.7.5; intermarriage. i6.2.i C.T. 16.7.3; apostates to be punished with intestability. 16.8.5; converts to Christianity not to be molested. 16.3.2= C.T. 16.8,7; apostates to Judaism. C.T. 16.9.1; circumcised slaves. 16.4.1 164.2= C.T. 16.9.4; possession of Christian slaves. Novella 3= Novella 3, public office, building of synagogues, perversion
2.i.io=C.T.,
of Christians.
Roman Law Roman Law
of the Burgundians
Law of Gondebaud,
194. Intermarriage.
of the Franks Clothaire II, Constitutio Generalis 4. Lawsuits between conducted according to Roman Law.
of the Ostrogoths
Romans
to be
Roman Law
Theodoric, Cap. 143. Jews to retain privileges allowed by Law.
judicial 3.1.5; purchase of Christian slaves. 3.7.2; intermarriage.
Lex Romana Raetica Curiensis 2.1.8; extent and limitations of
autonomy.
Law
of the Lombards
2.56.1;
Roman citizens to
live
according to
Roman Law.
LEGISLATION OF THE WESTERN KINGDOMS: THE VISIGOTHS
Laws of Reccared I of 588

12.2. 12.
Purchase, possession and circumcision of non-Jewish slaves.

Sisebut
Laws of
12.2.13.
0/612
12.2.14.
Christian slaves of Jews to be freed; converts to Christianity to inherit; other legislation affecting slaves. Liberation of Christian slaves; mixed marriages; irrevocability of this law.
Laws of Chindaswinth of between 641 and 652

1 2 .2 .1 6.
Christians Judaising.
APPENDIX
Laws
383
of Recceswinth of c. 652 12.2.2. Christian doctrine not to be criticised. Laws are to be considered irrevocable and strictly enforced. 12.2.3. 12.2.4. Apostasy not to be permitted. Passover and Jewish feasts not to be observed. 12.2.5. 12.2.6. Marriage only by Christian tables of affinity. Circumcision prohibited. 12.2.7. 12.2.8. Distinctions of foods prohibited. Actions or evidence against Christians prohibited. 12.2.9. 1 2. 2.10. Evidence against Christians prohibited. 1 2. 2.1 1. Lawbreakers to be stoned or enslaved. 12.2.15. Jews on no account to be protected by clergy.
Laws
12.3.1.
of Erwig of c. 680 Owing to Jewish evasions all laws to be re-enacted, except those concerning manumission and capital punishment. 12.3.2. Blasphemy against Christian doctrine to be punished. All Jews to submit to baptism. 12.3.3. Practice of Jewish customs to be punished. 12.3.4. 1 2.3 .5 Celebration of Jewish feasts to be punished. Work on Sunday to be punished, and special feasts to be 12.3.6. observed. Distinctions of meats prohibited, except for those physically 12.3.7. unable to eat pork. 12.3.8. Marriage to be according to Christian customs. 12.3.9. Blasphemers and apostates to be punished. 12.3.10. Jewish bribes not to be accepted. 12.3.11. Jewish books and teaching to be suppressed. 12.3.12. Jews not to own Christian slaves. 1 2 .3 1 3 . Jews to sell their Christian slaves or prove their own orthodoxy. 12.3.16. Treatment of apostate slaves. 12.3.17. No Jew to exercise authority over Christians. Slaves desiring to become Christians to be free to do so. 12.3.18. 12.3.19. No Jew to be appointed bailiff of Christian property.
.
.
12.3.20. 12.3.21.
Regulations affecting Jewish travellers. Feast days to be spent in presence of bishop, or suitable
Christian.
12.3.22. 13-3 -23 . 12.3.24. 12.3.25. 12.3.26. 12.3.27. 12.3.28.
Jewish employees to be obliged to obey regulations. Clergy to see to carrying out of these laws.
Penalties for corruption or laxity. Lay judges not to act without ecclesiastical supervision. Local religious authorities responsible for strict enforcement.
Method of
c.
Limitation of royal prerogative of pardon. publication of this legislation.
Laws
of Egica of
690
1 2.2. 1 8
Regulations of Jewish traders, Jewish taxes, and Jewish leases of Christian property,
COUNCILS OF THE VISIGOTHS

Agde> 506
1
Canon
12.
34. 40.
Fasting in Lent on Saturdays. Special conditions for Jewish catechumens. Clergy and laity to avoid Jewish feasts.
1 These councils were held by the Cathotics (i*. time when their Visigothic masters were Arians.
Roman
citizens} at
384
Valencia, 524*
APPENDIX
16.
Canon
Jews, heretics and pagans to be allowed in church up to the missa catechumenonim.
Capit. 14.
Toledo HI, 589 Intermarriage; Christian slaves; children of mixed marriages; public office; proselytising, and circumcision.
Narbonne, 589
Canon
4. 9. 14.
Jews not to work on Sunday. Psalms not to be sung during Jewish funerals. Jewish fortune-tellers not to be consulted.
Jews not to be compelled to be baptised. Jewish bribes not to be accepted by Christians. Apostates to be punished. Children of Jews to be brought up by Christians. Children of apostates to inherit. No communication to be allowed between baptised and unbaptised Jews. In mixed marriages unconverted partner must be baptised and children brought up Christians. Apostates not to be allowed as witnesses. Jews and Jewish Christians to be excluded from public office. Jews not to own Christian slaves. Jews remaining in Spain must be baptised.
Toledo IV, 633
Canon
57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62.
63
64.
65
66.
Toledo VI, 638
Canon
3.
Toledo VIII, 653
Canon
King's Speech (Recces winth). Denunciation of apostates. 10. Future sovereigns must be orthodox. 12. Jews remaining in Spain must be baptised. Included in this council is a Placitum. See Appendix 3, A.i.
Toledo IX, 655
Canon
Toledo
Capit.
17.
Jews to pass Jewish and Christian

ecclesiastical authorities.
festivals in
presence of
X, 656
i.
7.
Easter must be celebrated uniformly. Christian slaves not to be sold to Jews.
Toledo XII, 681
King's Speech (Erwig). Implores action on Jewish apostasy and delinquency. Canon 9. Confirmation of the Laws of Erwig. (See above.)
Toledo XVI, 693 King's Speech (Egica). Appeal for confirmation of all previous laws, together with prohibition of unconverted Jews trading, and converted Jews being taxed specially. Capit. i. Confirmation of King's Speech. 1 These councils were held by the CathoUcs (i,e* Roman citizens) at a time when their Visigotkic masters were Arians.
APPENDIX
Toledo
385
XVII, 694
King's Speech (Egica). Jewish plot against Spanish security. All Jews except those of Septimania to be reduced to slavery. Canon 8. Confirms King's request.
LEGISLATION OF THE WESTERN KINGDOMS: THE BURGUNDIANS
Gondebaud
Law
102.
Punishment of Jewish
Attendance
at
assault
on
Christians.
Council of Epaone, 517
Canon
15.
Jewish banquets prohibited.
LEGISLATION OF THE WESTERN KINGDOMS: THE FRANKS

Childebert, c. 554 Letter to clergy and people. Thursday and Easter.
Jews not allowed
in street
between Holy
Clothaire II y 614 Edict. Jews not to hold office.
Charlemagne Cap. Acquisgran. 15 (=Laodicea, Canon 29) 789.
Christians to
work
on Sabbath,
Cap. Acquisgran. 45 (= Carthage IV, Canon 196) 789. Jews not to give evidence. Cap. dup. ad Niumagen, 806. Clergy not to allow sale of church plate to Jews or others. Cap. de Jud. 1,814. Jews not to receive Church property in pledge. Cap. de Jud. 2, 814. Christians not to be taken in pledge. Cap. de Jud. 3, 814. Jews not to mint or trade privately. Cap. de Jud. 814. 4a. Oath to be taken by Jew in giving evidence. 4b. Oath to be taken in pleading not guilty.
COUNCILS OF THE FRANKS

Vannesy 465
Canon Canon
12.
Clergy to avoid Jewish feasts.
Orleans II, 533

19.
Intermarriage.
Clermont, 535 Canon 6. Intercourse between Christian and Jew. Jewish judges. 9.
Orleans III, 538
Canon
13.
28.
30.
Regulations for Christian servants of Jews; intermarriage; attending Jewish festivities. Sunday not to be observed in Jewish fashion. Jews not to mix with Christians between Holy Thursday
and Easter.
386
Canon
APPENDIX
Orleans IV, 541 Christian slaves of Jews to be redeemed on request. 30, Conversion of servants to Judaism prohibited. 31, Orleans V, 548 22. Conditions to be observed churches.
2.
Canon
when
slaves
take refuge in
Macon, 581
Canon
13. 14.
15. 16.
17.
Jewish conversation with nuns. Jews not to be judges or tax collectors. Jews not to mix with Christians between Holy Thursday and Easter. Christians not to take part in Jewish festivities. Christian slaves to be redeemed. Attempted conversion of slave to Judaism to be punished.
Paris , 614
Canon
15.
Jews seeking positions of authority to be baptised.
Reims(?), 624 Canon n. Christians not to be sold to Jews; Jews not to hold office. 1 Jewish slanders against Christianity to be refuted.
Canon
*
Chalons sur Saone, 650 Slaves not to be sold beyond frontiers, so as not to 9. hands of Jews.
t
fall
into
Canon
Canons of Carthage \ or of the African Church 84. Jews, heathen and heretics to be allowed into church up to the missa catechumenorum. 89. Judaising to be suppressed. 196. Jews and others not to give evidence.
'
COUNCILS OF THE PAPACY

Rome, 743
Canon
10.
Intermarriage.
LEGISLATION OF THE EASTERN EMPIRE
The Code
Theodosius. they were unchanged.
of Justinian contained certain laws from the Code of These are marked with an asterisk. Except where noted,
*Laws of Constantine
C.T., i6.8.i
= CJ.,
1.9.3.
*Laws
of Constantius
C.T., i6.8.7~CJ., 1.7.1. C.T., 1 6.8 .6 is combined with 16.9.1 (of Constantine), 16.9.2 (of Constantius) and 16.9.4 (f Theodosius II) and ascribed to Constantius,
as C.J., 1. 10. i.
1 This last may be a scribe's error for: 'Jewish banquets not to be attended *, ' * reading convivia 'for convicia '. It is so given in Concilium Clippiacense in M.GJH. quarto, Cone. I, p. 199.
APPENDIX
*Laws of Valentinian
C.T., 7.8.2 = CJ.,
1.9.4.
387
*Law$ of Gratian
C.T., i2.i. 99 = CJ., 1.9.5. C.T., 16.7.3 = CJ., 1.7.2.
*Lazus of Theodosius the Great
C.T., 3.7*2= C.J., 1.9.6. C.J., 1.9.7 has no counterpart in the Theodosian Code.
*Laws of Honorius
C.T., i2.i.i57=C.J., 10.3249. C.T., i6.8.i9=CJ., 1.9.12. C.T., 8.8.8 = C.J., 1.9.13, adding that on Jewish feasts Jews shall not be
entitled to
summon
Christians.
*Latos of Arcadius
C.T., C.T., C.T., C.T.,
9.45.2
= CJ., I.I2.I. 2.i.io=CJ., 1.9.8. i2.i.i65 = CJ., 1.9.10.
i6.8.io=C.J., 1.9.9.
*Laws of Theodosius II
C.T., i6.8.i8=CJ., 1.9.11. C.T., i6.8.22=CJ., 1.9.15, including only the paragraph dealing with Jewish juridical competence. C.T., i6.94=CJ., i.io.i. C.T., 16.8.21 = CJ., 1.9.14. C.T., i6.8.26=CJ., 1.9.16. C.T., i6.io.24=CJ., i.n.6. C.T., i5-5-5 = CJ., 3.12.6. C.T., i6.8.29=CJ., 1.9.17. Novella 3 C.J., 1.5.7, *7*5 an <i 1.9.18.
Laws of Marctan
C.J., 1.1-4; to PaUadius, P.P., 7-ii452-
Christianity not to be discussed in public.
Laws of Justin and

C.J., 1.5-12 of 527.
*
Justinian
'
Heretics are all such as do not belong to the Catholic faith including Jews. They are not to hold any office; or follow profession of law. Heavy penalties for connivance with evasion.
Laws of Justinian
C.J., 1.5.13,
no date or address. Orthodox children not to be disinherited by Jewish parents. C.J., 1.5.17, no date or address. Complete destruction of Samaritan synagogues ordered. C.J., 1.3.54, no date or address.
to possess Christian slaves, or slaves desiring to Christian. C.J., 1. 10.2, no date or address. No Jew to own a Christian slave.
No Jew
become
388
C.J., 1.9.2,
APPENDIX
no
date, (?) addressed to the Jews.
Sabbath not to be disturbed. CJ., 1.5.21, to Johannes, P.P., 28.vii.53i. Jews may not give evidence against orthodox, but may do so against each other. They may witness documents. Nov. 37, to Salomon, Governor of Africa, i.viii.535. Jews not to be allowed to attend church services; or to own Christian slaves. Their synagogues are to be turned into churches.
Nov. 45, to Johannes, P.P., i.ix.537. Jews are to perform decurionate without
state.
its
honours;
may,
involving orthodox persons, only give evidence for
them or
in a suit for the
Nov. 131, to Peter, P.P., 545. Jews may not lease orthodox property; they may not build new
synagogues.
Nov. 146, to Areobindus, (Owing to its importance
P.P., 8.11.553.
the text
is
given in full as Appendix 2.)
Laws of Leo
the Isaurian
Ecloga, App. 4.6.
Jews to hold no public office. Ecloga, App. 4.7. Either Jewish parent may desire the children to be educated as
Christians.
Ecloga, App. 4.13.
Samaritan synagogues to be destroyed.

Ecloga, App. 4.16.
Apostasy to Judaism to be punished.

Ecloga, App. 4.24.
Proselytising to Judaism to be punished. Ecloga, App. 6.26. Jews neither to possess nor circumcise Christian slaves. Ecloga, App. 6.27. No Jew to possess Christian slave. Ecloga, App. 6.28. Slave of Jew desiring to become Christian to be freed.
Ecloga,
App.
6.30.
Circumcision of Christian to be punished.
COUNCILS OF THE EASTERN EMPIRE

Chalcedon t 451
Canon
14.
Marriageable
members of
clergy not to
wed Jew.
Jew, use them
Trullanum, 692
Canon
1 1. Christian to eat unleavened bread with as doctors or bathe with them.
No
Nicaea JIt 787
Canon
f
8.
*
Baptised Jews
who
lapse are to be treated as Jews.
Forged
Canons of Nicaea
(56).
Canon 52
Jews.
Clergy are not to eat or have business associations with
APPENDIX
APPENDIX ONE, PART
389
TWO
LAWS AFFECTING THE JEWS

ACCORDING TO THEIR SUBJECT
Admission to Church,
C.J., Nov. 37; Carthage IV, 84; Nicaea II, 8; Valencia, 16. Adultery with Jews, Clermont, 6; Elvira, 78; Orleans IV, 31. Apostasy of converted Jews, L.V., 12.2.4; L.V., 12.2.11; L.V., 12.2.16; L.V., 12.3.9; L.V., 12.3.11; L.V., 12.3.15; Agde, 34; Nicaea II, 8;
Toledo IV, 57; Toledo VIII, King's Speech. Attacks on Christianity, C.T., 16.8.21; C.J., 1.1.4; L.V., 12.2.2.; L.V., 12.3.2; L.V., 12.3.9; Reims, u. Attacks on Christians, C.T., 16.8.1; C.T., 16.8.5; C.T., 16.5.44; C.T., 16.5.46; Gondebaud, 102; Can. Apost., 61. Attacks on Jews, C.T., 16.8.26; C.T., 16.10.24. Aurum Coronarium, C.T., 16.8.14; C.T., 16.8.17; C.T., 16.8.29.
Burial, ceremonies of Jewish,
Narbonne,
9.
Caelicoli, C.T., 16.8.19; C.J., 1.9.12.
Children of Jewish marriages, EC. Leo. App. 4, 7; Toledo IV, 60. Children of mixed marriages, L.V., 12.2.14; Toledo III, 14; Toledo IV,
63-
Church property, Jewish possession
of, Charlemagne, Cap. dup., Charlemagne, Cap. Jud. Circumcision (see also Slaves), C.T., 16.8.26; L.V., 12.2.7; L.V., 12.3.4; Toledo XII, 9.
Clergy, respect for, Macon, 14. Clergy, responsibility of, C.J., 1.5.12, xii; C.J., I.3-54J L.V., 12.3.20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28; Toledo XII, 9. Confirmatory Laws, C.T., 16.546; C.T., 16.8.26; C.T., 16.8.27; C.J., 1.5.12; L.V., 12.2.14; L.V., 12.2.3; L.V., 12.2.11; L.V., 12.3.1; L.V., 12.3.23; L.V., 12.3.26; Toledo VIII, 12; Toledo XII, King's Speech. Connivance in Jewish evasions, C.T., 16.546; C.J., i .3-54* xi ; CJ- *-5- 12 ; L.V., 12.2.15; L.V., 12.3.1; L.V., 12.3.9, 10; L.V., 12.3.22, 23, 24, 25; Toledo IV, 58; Toledo IV, 65; Toledo VI, 3; Toledo VIII, 10; Toledo
XII, 9. Converts to Christianity (voluntary), C.T., 16.8.1; C.T., 16.8.5; C.T., 16.8.28; Brev., 16.3.1; L.V., 12.2.14; Agde, 34. Converts to Christianity (compulsory), L.V., 12.2.15; L.V., 12.3.3; Toledo IV, 57; Toledo VI, 3. Converts to Christianity (false), C.T., 945-2*, C.T., 16.8.23; Nicaea II, 8. Converts to Christianity (evasion of), L.V., 12.2.15; L.V., 12.3.3; L.V., 12.3.10; L.V., 12.3.16; L.V., 12.3.22; Toledo XII, 9XT Converts to Judaism, C.T., 16.8.1; C.T., 16.8.7; C.T., 16.7.3; Nov. T., 3; Nov. 3; Ecloga,4.i6; Ecloga, 4.24; Brev., 16.2.1; Brev., 16.3.2; Brev., L.V., 12.2.14; L-v 12.34; Orleans IV, 31 ; Toledo XII, 9. Curial Responsibility, C.T., 16.8.3, 2, 4; C.T., 12.1.99; C.T., 16.8.13; C.T., 12.1.157, 158, 165; C.T., 16.8.24; Nov. T., 3; CJ., 1.5.12;
Nov.
J.,
45.
Doctors, Trullanum,
n.
3QO
APPENDIX
Easter, celebration of, C.T., 16.10,24; L.V., 12.2.5; Antioch, i; Can. Apost., 69; Carthage IV, 89; Toledo X, I. Easter, appearance of Jews during, Childebert, epist.; Macon, 14; Orleans II, 30. Evidence, right of Jews to give, C.J., 1.5.21; Nov. J., 45; EC. Priv. Auct., xv, 7; L,V., 12.2.9, 10; Charlemagne, Cap. Acg. 45; Carthage IV, 196; Carthage VII, 2; Toledo IV, 64. Excommunication, right of Jewish, C.T., 16.8.8; C.J., Nov. 146, ii.
Feasts (Jewish), C.T., 16.8.18; C.T., 15.5.5; L/V., 12.3.1, 4, 5, 20, 21;
Toledo XII,
Toledo X,
9.
Feasts (Christian), attendance at of Jews, L.V., 12.3.6; Toledo IX, 17;

i;
Toledo XII,
9.
Feasts (Jewish), attendance at of Christians, Antioch, i; Laodicea, 37, 38; Can. Apost., 69; Agde, 40. Fields, blessing of, Elvira, 49. Foods, distinction of, L.V., 12.2.8; L.V., 12.3.7; Toledo XII, 9. Fortune Tellers, Carthage IV, 89; Narbonne, 14.
Gifts, acceptance of, L.V., 12.3.10;
Can. Apost., 69; Laodicea, 37, 38.
Heresy, defence of, C.J., 1.1.4; L.V., 12.2.2; L.V., 12.3.1, 2. Hospitality accepted, Agde, 40; Elvira, 50; Epaone, 15; Macon, 15; Orleans III, 13, ii; Trulknum, n; Vannes, 12. Hospitality of Jews accepted by converted Jews, Toledo IV, 62.
Inheritance, C.T., 16.8.28; C.J., 1.5.13; EC. Priv. Auct., 12.2.13; L.V., 12.3.8; Toledo IV, 61.
vii, 18;
L.V.,
Intermarriage with Jews, C.T., 16.8.6; C.T., 3.7.2; C.T., 9.7.5; Brev., 3.7.2.; Brev., 94.4.; L.V., 12.2.14; L.R. Burg., 19.4; L.R.R.C., 3.7.2; Chalcedon, 14; Elvira, 16; Orleans II, 19; Orleans III, 13, ii; Rome, 10; Toledo III, 14; Toledo IV, 63; Toledo X, 7.
Judaising, L.V., 12.2.16; Toledo IV, 59. (See also Easter, Sabbath.) Judaism, legality and protection of, C.T., 16.8.9, 12, 13, 20, 24; Theodoric, Cap. 143; L.R.R.C., 2.1.8. Judicial autonomy, C.T., 2,1.10; C.T., 16.8.22; Nov. T., 3; Brev., 2.1.10; L.V., 12.2.9; L.R.R.C., 2.1.8; Theodoric, Cap. 143; Clothaire II, Const. Gen., 4.
Lawsuits against Christians, C.J., 1.9.5; L.V., 12.2.9. Legal Profession, C.T., 16.8.24; C.J., 15.5.12.
Maritime Duties, C.T., 13.5.18. Marriage by Jewish Law, C.J., 1.9.7; L.V., XII, 9.
12.2.6; L.V., 12.3.8;
Toledo
Nuns, conversation with, Macon,
2.
Oath, Jewish, Charlemagne, Cap. de Jud., 4a. Official and military positions, C.T., 16.8.16; C.T., 16.8.24; Const. Sirm., 6; Nov. T., 3; C.J., 1.5.12; Nov. J., 36; Ecloga, 4.6; Brev., Nov. 3; L.V., 12.3.17; Clothaire II, Edict; Clermont, 9; Macon, 13; Paris, 15; Reims, ii; Toledo III, 14; Toledo IV, 65; Toledo XII, 9.
Partnership with Jews, Forged Nicaea, 52. Patriarch, The, C.T., 16.8.11, 14, 15, 17, 22. Placita, L.V., 12.24; L.V., 12.2.11; L.V., 12.3.12; L.V., 12.3.13; L.V.,
12.3.28;
Toledo XII,
9.
APPENDIX
391
Pledges, Christians not to be taken as, Charlemagne, Cap. Jud., 2. Pork, L.V., 12.3.7. Property, Jewish Occupation of Christian, Nov. J., 131; Toledo XII, 9.
Sabbath, Observation of by Christians, L.V., 12.2.5; L.V., 12.3.20, 21; Charlemagne, Cap. Acg., 15; Agde, 12; Carthage IV, 89; Laodicea, 16; Laodicea, 29; Orleans III, 28; Toledo XII, 9.
,
Sabbath, Protection of, C.T., 2.8.26; C.T., 8.8.8; C.T., 16.8.20; C.J.,
1.9.2; Brev., 2.8.3.
Samaritans, C.T., 16.8.16; C.J., 1.5.17; Ecloga, 4,13. Slaves, not to be sold abroad, L.V., 12.2.14; Chalons, 9. Slaves, Jews reduced to, L.V., 12.2.11; Toledo XVII, 8. Slaves, Christian, acquisition of, C.T., 16.9.2; C.T., 3.1.5; C.T., 16.94, 5; C.J., z.io.i; Ecloga, 6.26; Ecloga, 6.27; Brev., 3.1.5; Brev., 16.4.2; L.V., 12.2. 12, 13; L.R.R.C., 3.1.5. Slaves, apostasy of, C.T., 16.94; C.T., 12.2.13, 14; Ecloga, 4.16; L.V., 12.3.16; Orleans IV, 31; Toledo XII, 9. Slaves, circumcision of, C.T., 16.9.1; C.T., 3.1.5; C.T., 16.8.22; C.T., 16.8.26; Nov. T., 3; C.J., i.io.i; Ecloga, 6.26; Ecloga, 6.30; L.V., 12.2. 12, 13,14; Macon, 17; Orleans IV, 31; Reims, n; Toledo III, 14. Slaves, liberation of, C.T., 3.1.5.; Ecloga, 6.28; L.V., 12.2. 14; L.V., 12.3.1; L.V., 12.3.12; Macon, 16; Orleans IV, 30, Slaves, possession of, prohibited, C.T., 3.1.5; C.J., 1.3.54; CJ., 1.10.2; Ecloga,6.26; Ecloga, 6.27; Brev., 3. 1.5; L.V.,i2.2.i2.;L.V., 12.2.13,14; L.V., 12.3.1; L.V., 12.3.13; Orleans III, 13, i; Toledo IV, 66;
Toledo XII,
9.
Slaves, possession of, allowed, C.T., 16.9.3; Toledo XVI, King's Speech. Slaves, Christian, concealment of their Christianity by, C.T., 16.94; L.V., 12.3.16. Slaves, Christian, sale of, to Jews, L.R.R.C., 3.1 .5; Reims, 1 1 ; Toledo X, 7. Slaves, non-Jewish, acquisition of, C.T., 16.9.1, 2. Slaves, circumcision of, C/F., 16.9.1, 2; C.T., 16.8.22; Brev., 164.1;
Orleans IV, 31. Slaves seeking baptism, possession of, C.J., 1.3.54; Ecloga, 6.28; L.V., 12.2.13; L.V., 12.3.18; Toledo XII, 9. Sunday, observance of, by Jews, L.V., 12.3.6; Narbonne, 4. Synagogue, building and repair of, C.T., 16.8.22; C.T., 16.8.25; C.T., 16.8.27; Nov. T., 3; Nov. J., 131; Brev., Nov. 3.
Synagogue, Synagogue, Synagogue, Synagogue,
confiscation of,
Nov.
J.,
37,
viii.
entering of, by Christians, Can. Apost., 63; Can. Apost., 70. services of, Nov. J., 146. violation of, C.T., 7.8.2; C.T., 16.8.12; C.T., 16.8.20, 21;
C.T., 16.8.25, 26, 27.
Talmud, suppression of (deuterosis), Nov.

XII,
9.
J.,
146; L.V., 12.3.11;
Toledo
Taxation, Jewish (see also aurum coronarium), Toledo XVI, King's Speech. Testamentary rights (see also inheritance), C.T., 16.7.3. Trade right of (see also travel), C.T., 16.8.10; L.V., 12.2.18; Charlemagne, Cap. Jud., 3; Toledo XVI, King's Speech. Travel, regulation of, L.V., 12.3.20; L.V., 12.2.18; Toledo XII, 9.
APPENDIX TWO
NOVELLA
146
OF JUSTINIAN
8.11.553. Nov. 146. Justinian to Areobindas, P.P. Permission granted to the Hebrews to read the Sacred Scriptures according to Tradition, in Greek, Latin or any other Language, and an Order to expel from their community those who do not believe in the Judgment, the Resurrection, and the Creation of Angels. Preface. Necessity dictates that when the Hebrews listen to their sacred texts they should not confine themselves to the meaning of the letter, but should also devote their attention to those sacred prophecies
which are hidden from them, and which announce the mighty Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. And though, by surrendering themselves to senseless that interpretations, they still err from the true doctrine, yet, learning
they disagree among themselves, we have not permitted this disagreement to continue without a ruling on our part. From their own complaints which have been brought to us, we have understood that some only speak Hebrew, and wish to use it for the sacred books, and others think that a Greek translation should be added, and that they have been disputing about this for a long time. Being apprised of the matter at issue, we give judgment in favour of those who wish to use Greek also for the reading of the sacred scriptures, or any other tongue which in any district allows the hearers better to understand the text. Ch. I. We therefore sanction that, wherever there is a Hebrew congregation, those who wish it may, in their synagogues, read the sacred books to those who are present in Greek, or even Latin, or any other tongue. For the language changes in different places, and the reading changes with it, so that all present may understand, and live and act according to what they hear. Thus there shall be no opportunity for their interpreters, who make use only of the Hebrew, to corrupt it in any way they like, since the ignorance of the public conceals their depravity. We make this proviso that those who use Greek shall use the text of the seventy interpreters, which is the most accurate translation, and the one most highly approved, since it happened that the translators, divided
two groups, and working in different places, all produced exactly the same text. i. Moreover who can fail to admire those men, who, writing long before the saving revelation of our mighty Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, yet as though they saw its coming with their eyes completed the translation of the sacred books as if the prophetic grace was illuminating them. This therefore they shall primarily use, but that we may not seem to be forbidding all other texts we allow the use of that of Aquila, though he was not of their people, and his translation differs not slightly from that of the Septuagint. ii. But the Mishnah, or as they call it the second tradition, we prohibit entirely. For it is not part of the sacred books, nor is it handed down by divine inspiration through the prophets, but the handiwork of man, speaking only of earthly things, and having nothing of the divine in it. But let them read the holy words themselves, rejecting the commentaries, and not concealing what is said in the sacred writings, and disregarding the vain writings which do not form a part of them, which have been devised by them themselves for the destruction of the simple. By these instructions we ensure that no one shall be penalised or prohibited who reads the Greek or any other language. And their elders,
into
APPENDIX
393
Archiphencitae and presbyters, and those called magistrates, shall not by any machinations or anathemas have power to refuse this right, unless by chance they wish to suffer corporal punishment and the confiscation of their goods before they yield to our will and to the commands which
,
are better and dearer to
God which we
enjoin.
Ch. II. If any among them seek to introduce impious vanities, denying the resurrection or the judgment, or the work of God, or that angels are part of creation, we require them everywhere to be expelled forthwith; that no backslider raise his impious voice to contradict the evident purpose of God. Those who utter such sentiments shall be put to death, and thereby the Jewish people shall be purged of the errors which they introduced. Ch. III. We pray that when they hear the reading of the books in one or the other language, they may guard themselves against the depravity of the interpreters, and, not clinging to the literal words, come to the point of the matter, and perceive their diviner meaning, so that they may start afresh to learn the better way, and may cease to stray vainly, and to err in that which is most essential, we mean hope in God. For this reason we have opened the door for the reading of the scriptures in every language, that all may henceforth receive its teaching, and become fitter for learning better things. For it is acknowledged that he, who is nourished upon the sacred scriptures and has little need of direction, is much readier to discern the truth, and to choose the better path, than he who understands nothing of them, but clings to the name of his faith alone, and is held by it as by a sacred anchor, and believes that what can be called heresy in its purest form is divine teaching. Epilogue. This is our sacred will and pleasure, and your Excellency and your present colleague and your staff shall see that it is carried out, and shall not allow the Hebrews to contravene it. Those who resist it or try to put any obstruction in its way, shall first suffer corporal punishment, and then be compelled to live in exile, forfeiting also their property, that they flaunt not their impudence against God and the empire. You shall also circulate our law to the provincial governors, that they learning its contents may enforce it in their several cities, knowing that it is to be strictly carried out under pain of our displeasure.
APPENDIX THREE
PROFESSIONS OF FAITH EXTRACTED FROM JEWS ON BAPTISM
(A)
VISIGOTHIC PROFESSIONS
i.
Of Recceswmth,/nwz
L.
Vis. 12.2.17.
our most merciful and tranquil lord Recceswinth the King, from us the Jews of Toledo as witnessed or signed below. We well remember how we were long and rightly constrained to sign this Declaration promising in the name of King Chinthila's holy memory to support the Catholic faith; and we have done so. However, because our pertinacious lack of faith and the ancient errors of our fathers held us back from
believing wholly in Our Lord Jesus Christ or accepting the Catholic truth with all our hearts, we therefore make these promises to your greater glory, on behalf both of ourselves and our wives and children, through this our Declaration, undertaking for the future not to become involved in any Jewish rites or customs nor to associate with the accursed will not follow our habit of contracting Jews who remain unbaptised. incestuous unions or practising fornication with our own relatives to the will not on any pretext, either ourselves, our children sixth degree. or our descendants, choose wives from our own race; but in the case of both sexes we will always link ourselves in matrimony with Christians. will not practise carnal circumcision, or celebrate the Passover, the Sabbath or the other feast days connected with the Jewish religion. will not keep to our old habit of discrimination in the matter of food. will do none of the things which the evil tradition of long custom and intercourse urges upon us as Jews. Instead, with utter faith and grace
To
We
We
We
We
We
and with complete devotion towards Christ the Son of the Living God, as the apostolic tradition enjoins, shall we believe on Him and confess Him. Every custom of the holy Christian religion, feast days, marriage, and what is lawful to eat, indeed every ceremony thereof, we shall faithfully hold and embrace with all our hearts, reserving nohint within ourselves of resistance, no suspicion of deception, whereby we may come to repeat those errors we now deny, or fulfil with little or no sincerity that which we now promise to do. With regard to s wines' flesh we promise to observe this rule, that if through long custom we are hardly able to eat it, we shall not through fastidiousness or error refuse the things that are cooked with it. And if in all the matters touched on above
in our hearts,
are found in any way to transgress, either presuming to work against the Christian Faith, or promising in words to perform actions suitable to the Catholic religion, and in our deeds deferring their performance,, we swear by that same Father, Son and Holy Ghost, who is One God in Three, that whoever of us is found to transgress shall either perish by the hands of our fellows, by burning or stoning, or if your splendid piety
shall
we
have spared our lives, we shall at once lose our liberty and you shall give us along with all our property to whomever you please into perpetual slavery, or dispose of us in any other manner that seems good to you. To this end you have free authority, not only on account of your royal power, but also arising out of the stipulations of this our guarantee. This Declaration is given at Toledo in the name of the Lord, on the i8th of February in the sixth year of your glorious reign.
APPENDIX
ii.
395
rite and observance of the Jewish most solemn ceremonies and tenets that in former days I kept and held. In future I will practise no rite or celebration connected with it, nor any custom of my past error, promising neither to seek it out nor to perform it. Further do I renounce all things forbidden
Of Erwig, from Leg. Vis. 12.3.14. I do here and now renounce every
religion, detesting all its
or detested by Christian teaching; and, (Here follows the Nicene Creed) In the name of this Creed, which I truly believe and hold with all my heart, I promise that I will never return to the vomit of Jewish superstition. Never again will I fulfil any of the offices of Jewish ceremonies to which I was addicted, nor ever more hold them dear. I altogether deny and reject the errors of the Jewish religion, casting forth whatever conflicts with the Christian Faith, and affirming that my belief in the Holy Trinity is strong enough to make me live the truly Christian life, shun all intercourse with other Jews and have the circle of my friends only among honest Christians. With them or apart from them I must always eat Christian food, and as a genuinely devout Christian go often and reverently to Church. I promise also to maintain and embrace with due love and reverence the observance of all the Lord's days or feasts for martyrs as declared by the piety of the Church, and upon those days to consort always with sincere Christians, as it behoves a pious and sincere Christian to do. Herewith is my profession of faith and belief as given by me on this
date.
iii.
swear, and ye shall not take the Name of the Lord your God in vain, Who made Heaven and earth, the sea and all things in them *, and set bounds to the ocean, saying So far shalt thou come and here shall thy proud waves be stayed % Who said, * Heaven is my home, the earth my footstool ': Who first cast forth from Heaven the Archangel in his overweening pride, before Whose sight the host of Angels stand in fear, Whose gaze lays bare the abyss and Whose anger wastes away mountains: Who put the first man Adam in Paradise, giving him the law that he should not eat of the forbidden apple tree. He ate of it and was cast forth from Paradise, and bound himself, together with the human race, in the chains of error. And by Him Who gladly received the offerings of Abel and justly rejected the unworthy Cain; Who, when they were about to die, took Enoch and Elijah to Paradise in the body of this life, and shall bring them back to the world at the end of this age; Who thought fit to save Noah with his wife and three sons and their wives and all the animals, birds and reptiles in the Ark at the time of the Flood, whereby every species was preserved; Who from Shem the son of Noah saw fit to give issue in Abraham, and from him the people of Israel; Who chose Patriarchs and Prophets, and blessed the Patriarchs of Abraham's line, Isaac * and Jacob; Who promised holy Abraham, saying, In your seed shall all mankind be blessed % giving him the sign of circumcision as the seal of His promise for ever. I swear by Him Who overthrew Sodom and turned Lot's wife, when she looked back, into a statue of salt; and by Him Who wrestled with Jacob, and touching a sinew made him lame, saying, Thou shalt be called not Jacob but Israel '. I swear also by Him who freed Moses from the waters, and appeared to him in a flaming bush, and by his hand brought ten plagues upon the Egyptians, and freed the people of Israel from the Egyptian slavery, making them to cross dry through the
c *
Of Erwig, from Leg. Vis. 12.3.15. swear first by God the Father Almighty, Who
'
said,
By
Me shall ye
396
Red
I
APPENDIX
Sea, where against natural law the water stood up in a solid wall. swear by Him Who drowned Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea. I swear by Him Who led the people of Israel by a pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night. I swear by Him Who gave to Moses on Mount Sinai the law written by His own fingers on tables of stone. I swear by Him Who made that mountain to smoke in the sight of all Israel. I swear by Him Who chose Aaron for His first priest and consumed his sons by fire in their tent, because they had dared to offer strange fire before the Lord. I swear by Him Who in His justice ordered Dathan and Abiram to be swallowed alive by the earth. I swear by Him Who changed the bitter waters into sweet by the casting in of the trunk of a tree. I swear by Him Who, when the people of Israel thirsted in Horeb, caused Moses to smite the rock with his rod and bring forth great streams of water. I swear by Him Who for forty years fed the people of Israel in the wilderness, and preserved their garments so that they wore not out with use; and kept them safe in every way. I swear by Him Who decreed once and for all that no Israelite should enter the Promised Land, because they had doubted the Lord's word, excepting only Joshua and Caleb, whom He promised should enter. I swear by Him Who told Moses that if he raised his hands on high, the people of Israel should be victors against the Amalekites. I swear by Him Who ordered our Fathers by the hand of Joshua to cross the Jordan and raise twelve stones from that river in witness thereof. I swear by Him Who enjoined upon all Israel that having crossed the river Jordan they should circumcise themselves with stone knives; and by Him Who overturned the walls of Jericho. I swear by Him Who adorned David with the glory of kingship, and saved him from the hands of Saul and of his son Absalom. I swear by Him Who at the prayer of Solomon filled the Temple with cloud, and poured His blessing therein. I swear by Him Who, raising the Prophet Elijah through a whirlwind in a chariot of fire, brought him from earth to the seats of Heaven; and by Him Who, at the prayer of Elisha, divided the waters of Jordan when Elisha smote them with the robe of Elijah. I swear by Him Who filled all His Prophets with the Holy Spirit, and freed Daniel from hungry and monstrous lions. I swear by Him Who saw fit to preserve three boys in the fiery furnace, under the eyes of a hostile king; and by Him Who keeps the key of David, closing what no man has opened, opening what no man has closed '. I swear by Him Who brings about all wonders, virtues and signs to Israel and other peoples. I swear also by the Ten Commandments. I swear also by Jesus Christ, His ascent to Heaven, His glorious and terrible coming, when He shall come to judge the living and the dead, showing Himself gentle to the just and terrible to sinners; and by the revered Body and precious Blood of Him Who opens the eyes of the blind, makes the deaf to hear and brings back the paralysed to the use of their limbs: Who loosens the tongues of
'
the dumb, cleanses the devil-ridden, makes the lame to run, and rouses the dead: Who walked over the waters, and brought back Lazarus, freed from death, when his flesh was already in corruption, to life and safety, changing grief to joy: Who is the Creator of time, the Principle of life, the Author of salvation: Who illumined the world with His rising, and redeemed it by His Passion: Who alone among the dead was free, and death could not hold Him: Who undermines the gates of Hell, and by the majesty of His power draws the souls of the blessed up from the shades: Who having vanquished death has taken the body which He assumed upon earth into Heaven with Him after His victory over the world, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, receiving from Him the power of eternal sway. I swear also by all the heavenly virtues, and
APPENDIX
by
the relics of
all
397
the Saints and Apostles, and also by the four holy Gospels, on which I lay this Declaration upon the sacred altar which I hold with my hands. Since I have taken care to note well everything in my profession of Faith, and have been able to put it together, I give my signature to you, my Lord Bishop, and affirm everything in all sincerity, with no reservations or deception as to what is meant. With absolute sincerity, as I have said in my profession, I have abjured all Jewish rites and observances, and with my whole heart shall believe in the Holy Trinity, never returning in any way to the vomit of my former error, or associating with the wicked Jews. In every respect will I lead the Christian life and associate with Christians. The meaning which I have discerned in what I have signed concerning the observance of the holy Faith I will guard with all the purity of my faith, so that I shall live from now henceforth according to the Apostolic tradition and the law of the holy Creed. If I wander from the straight path in any way and defile the holy Faith, and try to observe any rites of the Jewish sect, or if I shall delude you in any way in the swearing of this oath, so that I appear to swear sincerely, yet do not perform my promises in the spirit in which I have heard and understood them from you while I made my profession; then may all the curses of the law fall upon me as they are promulgated by the lips of the Lord against those who despise the commandments of God. May there fall upon me and upon my house and all my children all the plagues which smote Egypt, and to the horror of others may I suffer in addition the fate of Dathan and Abiram, so that the earth shall swallow me alive, and after I am deprived of this life I shall be handed over to the eternal fire, in the company of the Devil and his Angels, sharing with the dwellers in Sodom and with Judas the punishment of burning; and when I arrive before the tribunal of the fearful and glorious Judge, Our Lord Jesus Christ, may I be numbered in that company to whom the glorious and terrible Judge with * threatening mien will say, Depart from Me, evil-doers, into the eternal fire that is prepared for the Devil and his Angels '.
(B)
PROFESSION OF FAITH, FROM THE CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE

t
as a catechumen, a Jew must confess and denounce verbally the whole Hebrew people, and forthwith declare that with a whole heart and sincere faith he desires to be received among the Christians. Then he must renounce openly in the church all Jewish superstition, the priest saying, and he, or his sponsor if he is a child, replying in these words: 'I renounce all customs, rites, legalisms, unleavened breads and sacrifices of lambs of the Hebrews, and all the other feasts of the Hebrews,
sacrifices, prayers, aspersions, purifications, sanctifications and propitiations, and fasts, and new moons, and Sabbaths, and superstitions, and
From Assemani, Cod. Lit. /, p. 105. As a preliminary to his acceptance
chants and observances and synagogues, and the food and drink of the Hebrews; in one word, I renounce absolutely everything Jewish, every law, rite and custom, and above all I renounce Antichrist, whom all the Jews await in the figure and form of Christ; and I join myself to the true Christ and God. And I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Holy, Consubstantial and Indivisible Trinity, and the dispensation in the flesh and the descent to men of the Word of God, of the one person of the Holy Trinity, and I confess that he was truly made man, and I believe and proclaim that after the flesh in very
hymns and
398
APPENDIX
truth the Blessed Virgin Mary bore him the son of God; and I believe in, receive, venerate and embrace the adorable Cross of Christ, and the holy whole heart, and soul, and with a true faith images; and thus, with I come to the Christian Faith. But if it be with deceit and with hypocrisy, and not with a sincere and perfect faith and a genuine love of Christ, but with a pretence to a be Christian that I come, and if afterwards I shall wish to deny and return to Jewish superstition, or shall be found eating with Jews, or feasting with them, or secretly conversing and condemning the Christian religion instead of openly confuting them and condemning their vain faith, then let the trembling of Cam and the leprosy of Gehazi cleave to me, as well as the legal punishments to which I acknowledge myself liable. And may I be anathema in the world to come, and may my soul be set down with Satan and the devils/
my
(c)
PROFESSION OF FAITH OF UNCERTAIN EASTERN ORIGIN, ATTACHED TO
THE CLEMENTINE RECOGNITIONS
From P.O.,
It is
faith.
I
/, p. 1456.
my
desire to-day to
come from
the
Hebrews
to the Christian
have not been brought by any force, necessity, fear, annoyance or poverty; nor because of a debt, or of an accusation lodged against me; nor for the sake of worldly honours, of advantages, of money or property which has been promised me by anyone; nor for the sake of its useful consequences, nor to obtain human patronage; nor because of any quarrel or dispute which I have had with people of my own religion; nor for secret purposes of revenge on the Christians, by a feigned admiration for their law, nor because I have been wronged by them; but I have been brought by a whole-hearted love of Christ and of faith in Him. I renounce the whole worship of the Hebrews, circumcision, all its legalisms, unleavened bread, Passover, the sacrificing of lambs, the feasts of Weeks, Jubilees, Trumpets, Atonement, Tabernacles, and all
the other
lutely
new moons, foods and drinks. And I absorenounce every custom and institution of the Jewish laws. Moreover, I place under anathema the heresies among the Jews, and the heretics themselves. I anathematise the Sadducees, who are called just, who blaspheme the Holy Spirit, who attack the resurrection of the dead, and deny the existence of angels. I anathematise the Pharisees, the separate ones, who fast on the second and fifth days, who pretend to
expiations, fasts, Sabbaths,
Hebrew feasts, their sacrifices, prayers, aspersions, purifications,
sexual abstinence at definite times, and afterwards despise all continence, who foretell the future, and waste their time on astrology. I anathematise the Nazareans, the stubborn ones, who deny that the law of sacrifices was given by Moses, who abstain from eating living things, and who never offer sacrifice: I anathematise the Osseans, the blindest of all men, who use other scriptures than the Law, and reject most of the prophets, and who boast in a man as master, one Ebcai,that is * the hidden virtue', and who worship, as Gods, two women of his offspring, Marthonis and Marthana: I anathematise the Herodians, who worship as Christ a
foreign king of the Jews, Herod, who was eaten of worms. I anathematise the Hemerobaptists, who believe as do the Pharisees, but also teach that a man cannot be saved without daily washing. I anathematise the scribes, or doctors of the Law, who are not content to live according to the Law, but of their own free will perform more than is prescribed in the Law, and devising washing of vessels and cups and platters and other articles of furniture, and frequently wash their hands and their pots;
APPENDIX
and who
'
399
added to the Law many Deuteroses ', as though they were a second series of Divine Laws, and they falsely ascribe the first to Moses, and the second to Rabbi Akiba, and the third to Annas who is also called Judas, and the fourth to the sons of the Hasmoneans who even violated the Sabbath in battle. Together with all these Jewish heresies and heresiarchs, deuteroses and givers thereof, I anathematise those who celebrate the feast of Mordecai on the first Sabbath of the Christian fast, hanging the effigy of Haman on a gibbet, and mingling the sign of the cross therewith, and burning all together, and subjecting the Christians to every kind of curse and anathema. II. Together with the ancients, I anathematise also the Chief Rabbis and new evil doctors of the Jews, to wit, Lazarus the inventor of the abominable feast which they call Monopodaria, and Elijah who was no less impious, and Benjamin, Zebedee, Abraham, Symbatius and the rest of them. Further I invoke every curse and anathema on him whose coming is expected by the Jews as the Christ or Anointed, but is rather Anti-Christ, and I renounce him and commit myself to the only true Christ and God. And I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Consubstantial and Indivisible Trinity; I confess the Incarnation and the coming to man of one of the Holy Trinity, to wit, the only begotten Son and Word of God, begotten of the Father before all the centuries, through Whom all things were made. I believe Him to be the Messiah foretold by the Law and the prophets; and I am convinced that He has already come into the world for the salvation of mankind; that He was truly made man, and did not surrender His Divinity, that He is truly God and truly man, without confusion, change or alteration, of one person and two natures. I believe that He suffered all things of His own will, and was crucified in the flesh, while His Divinity remained impassable, and was buried, and rose again on the third day, and ascended into heaven, and shall come again in glory to judge both the living and the dead. Aiid I believe and profess the Blessed Virgin Mary, who bore Him according to the flesh, and who remained a virgin, to be truly and actually the Mother of God, and I venerate and honour her truly as the Mother of God Incarnate, and as the Lady and mistress thereby of all
call all
these
traditions they have
creation.
convinced and confess and believe that the bread and the wine mystically consecrated among Christians, and which they take in their sacred rites, is the very body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, transmuted by His Divine power reasonably and invisibly, in His own way beyond all natural understanding, and I confess that in taking the sacrament I am taking His very body and blood, to the gaining of life eternal and the inheritance of the Kingdom of Heaven which belongs to those who receive them in perfect faith. Finally, I beg for Christian baptism, out of a pure and spotless heart and mind, and a sincere faith, truly persuaded that it is the true spiritual washing, and the regeneration of soul and body. III. I receive, honour and accept as symbols and indications of their prototypes, the venerable Cross of the true Christ and God, no longer the instrument of death and crime, but of liberty and eternal life, and the sign of victory over death and Satan; likewise I receive the hitherto venerated images both of the Word of God according to the flesh among men, and likewise of the most pure and ineffable Mother of God, of the
I
am
which
is
holy angels, and

I
finally
of
all
the saints.
honour and venerate with the honour due to them the blessed angels
400
and
all
APPENDIX
the saints, not only the patriarchs and prophets, but the apostles, martyrs, confessors, doctors, saints, all indeed who pleased Christ when He came, as His servants and faithful followers. Wherefore with my whole heart and mind and with deliberate choice I come to the Christian faith. But if I make this statement falsely and deceitfully, and not on the witness of my whole conviction and in love for the Christ who has already come, but because of some compulsion, necessity, fear, loss, poverty, debt, accusation brought against me, worldly honour, dignity of any kind, money, promised gifts, or to serve some end, or for human protection, or because of dispute and quarrel with some of my own faith, or to revenge myself thus on the Christians, feigning respect for their law, or if I pretend to become a Christian because of some injuries suffered from them, and then revert to Judaism, or be found eating with the Jews, or observing their feasts and fasts, or speaking secretly with them, or defaming the Christian faith, or visiting their synagogues or oratories, or taking them under my protection, and do not rather confute the said Jews and their acts openly, and revile their empty faith, then may there come upon me all the curses which Moses wrote in Deuteronomy, and the trembling of Cain, and the leprosy of Gehazi, in addition to the penalties by law established, and may I be without any hope of pardon, and in the age to come may I be anathema and doubly anathema, and may my soul be set down with Satan and his demons.
APPENDIX FOUR
SPECIAL PRAYERS TO BE ADDED IN THE DEDICATION OF A CHURCH, WHEN THE BUILDING HAS BEEN A SYNAGOGUE
From
Lt.
the Liber Sacramentorum

.
Romanae
Ecclesiae,
Assemam, Cod.
et Preces in Dedicatione loci illius ubi prius fuit synagoga. Deus qui absque ulla temporis mutabilitate cuncta disponis; et ad meliorandum perducis quae eligis esse mutanda: respice super hanc Basilicam in honore Beati Illius nomini tuo dicatam: ut, vetustate ludaici erroris expulsa, huic loco Sancti Spiritus novitate Ecclesiae conferas veritatem: per Dominum Nostrum. Ornnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui hunc locum, Judaicae supers titionis foeditate detersa, in honore Beati Illius Ecclesiae tuae dignatus es pulchritudine decorare, Per Dominum. Praesta, quaesumus, Domine, ut ilia fides hie fulgeat quae signo Crucis erecta, mortem subegit, et salutem nobis contulit et triumphum.
IV, ii, p. 91 XCIII. Oratio
Per Dominum,
Secreta* Deus vita credentium et origo virtutum, reple, quaesumus, hoc templum tuae gloria maiestatis in honore Beati Illius\ fiat domus prationis quod perditum fuerat ante latibulum; et quia infidelium turba in isto loco conveniebat adversa, populus tuus oblationibus suis te hie semper mereatur invenire propitium. Per Dominum. Post Cornm. Gratias tibi, referimus, Domine, sacro munere vegetati, tuam misericordiarn deprecantes; ut dignos eius nos participatione
perficias.
Per
Dominum.
Populum. A plebe tua, quaesumus, Domine, spiritales nequitiae repellantur, et aerearum discedat malignitas Potestatum. Per Dominum.
Ad
APPENDIX FIVE
MARTYRDOMS OF THE FIRST CENTURY ASCRIBED TO JEWS
(To
These cases
illustrate
Ch. IV)
illustrate that there
was a common tradition of Jewish
responsibility in the persecution of individual Christians during the first century of Christianity, but that there was no precise knowledge of the actual fate of the individual concerned. In some cases the person concerned is historical, but various fates are ascribed to him, in others the person himself is imaginary, or only known to us as a name in some
chance reference.
Agabus, the prophet referred to in Acts xxi, 10, was seized by the Jews miracle accompanying his death led to the of Jerusalem and stoned. conversion of a woman who was standing by. She was stoned also. (SA.J., Jan. 29.) Alternatively, he was killed by Jews and Greeks, at
a place unmentioned, together with another preacher, Rufus. (S.C., April 8.)
Eleutheropolis.
Ananias, bishop of Damascus, converted many Jews and Greeks at The governor had him stoned. (S.A.J., June 21 and 28.)
25.)
(Greek MSS., Jan.

the Jews.
Alternatively, he
was stoned at Damascus by
(S.A., April 9.)
Ananias, a Jew who recognised Christ on the Cross, was immediately stoned and afterwards burnt by the chief priests. (Coptic Gospel of
Twelve Apostles, P.O., ii, 167.) Andrew the Apostle, was executed by Herod
at
to western tradition. (A.S., Feb. 10.) Alternatively, heathen priests at Patras. (S.E. in P.O., xv, 583.)
Aristobulus, the brother of Barnabas,
Bethlehem according he was killed by
and one of the seventy, suffered Greeks, and was finally stoned by them. (S.AJ., March 15.) Alternatively, he died in peace. (S.A., same date.) According to A.S. (same date) he was the first bishop in Britain, and died there.
much from Jews and
Barnabas was, according to

tion of the Jews,
all
and
in
some accounts by them
accounts, killed in Cyprus, at the instigaalso. (A.S., June n;
SAJ., Dec.
17; S.A.,
June n.)
Bartholomew, after a life of preaching among the Copts, is killed by King Agrippa. (S.A.J., Aug. 29.) Alternatively, he is crucified in eastern
Armenia by the
natives. (S.A., Aug. 24, and A.S., Aug. 25.) Carpus, with whom Paul left his cloak at Troas, after a life of preaching to the Jews, was mercilessly slain by them. (S.C., May 26.) Cleophas, the friend of Christ, was murdered by the Jews, (A.S., Sept. 25, embodying various ancient martyrologies.)
Eutychus, a disciple of Saint John, is successful in converting many Jews and Greeks, and is finally killed by the latter. (SA.J., Aug. 24; S.E., Sept. 7.) This is one of the few cases where a man is said to have converted many Jews and Greeks *, but where his death is so definitely ascribed to the Greeks. A.S. records a number of different traditions.
'
Fouros, one of the seventy, was much persecuted by Jews but died peacefully. (S.A.J., May 25.)
and
Greeks,
APPENDIX
403
Herodion, a cousin or follower of Paul, was taken by the Jews and pagans, and blinded, lynched and beheaded. (S.C., March 27; A.S., April 8.) His martyrdom is not definitely implied by S.A. (March 29).
James, the son of Alphaeus, who, according to the Acts of the Apostles, killed by Herod (xii, i), is accused of preaching another king to Claudius the governor, and stoned by his orders. (S.AJ., Feb. 4.) Alternatively, he is stoned by the Jews (S.C., Oct. 9) or stoned together with the scribe Hosiah, who first accused and afterwards was converted by him. (S.A., April 30.) Or, again, he is caught by the Jews just before he should have left for Spain, and they make Herod kill him. (Also S A., but Feb. 21.)
was
James, the
first
.
bishop of Jerusalem,
is
similarly described in all the

left to
marty rologies Joseph of Arimathea was immured by the Jews in prison, and
is
die of starvation. He is found, in perfect health, forty years later by Titus on the capture of Jerusalem. (A.S., March 17.) Alternatively, he
released by Christ Himself, and continues preaching. (S.E., August 7.) S A. does not know of his imprisonment, but in one account states that
the Jews tried to poison him. (S.A., Feb. 24.) Judas Cyriacus, the last Jewish bishop of Jerusalem, was killed by the Jews in the war with Hadrian. (A.S., May i.) Alternatively, he was
martyred by Julian. (A.S., same
date.)
Longinus, the centurion present at the Crucifixion, is a popular figure with all the martyrologies. According to one account he was bribed by the Jews to make sure that Christ was killed on the cross, and therefore pierced His side with a spear. Pilate finds out that he has become a Christian, and informs Tiberius, who orders his execution. (SAJ., July 1 8, and S.E., July 30.) Alternatively, the Jews bribe Pilate to kill Longinus because he has become a Christian, and his head is brought to Jerusalem as proof of his death. (A.S., March 15, and SA., Oct. 16.) The two stories are also blended by making Pilate show his head to the Jews in order to please them, although they had not asked him to secure his death. (SAJ., second version, Nov. i.)
Luke, after the death of Paul, preached in Rome, and a crowd of Jews and idolaters complained of him to Nero, who sentenced him to death. (SAJ., Oct. 19.) A number of variations are given in A.S., Oct. 18. Manean> foster brother of Herod, preached to Jews and Gentiles, and was martyred by them. (S A., April 9.) Marcian, first bishop of Cyprus, was killed by the Jews through jealousy. (S .C., Oct. 31.) Alternatively, he was thrown from a tower. (A.S., June 14.) Mary, the mother of Jesus, was much persecuted by Annas and
Caiaphas, but when they tried to bum down her house, they were themselves burnt. At the Ascension the Jews tried to stone her, but they killed fifty of each other instead. (SA., Aug. 15, and various apocryphal works.) Mary, Martha and Lazarus (and sometimes some others) were put in a boat at Jaffa, in order to drown them. (A.S., various dates, but see Aug., Vol. iv, 592; SA., April 9.)
Mary Magdalen suffered many outrages from the Jews but finally died in peace. (SAJ., July 22; S.E.,Aug. 4.) Alternatively, she followed Saint John to Ephesus, and was buried outside the cave of the seven (SA., July 22.) sleepers.
404
APPENDIX
*
Matthew, after escaping from the cannibals to whom he had been died a beautiful death', which, preaching, returned to Palestine and apparently, does not mean martyrdom. (S.A.J., March 6.)^ The same collection on a different date (Oct. 9) says that he was beheaded by Festus. Alternatively, the Jews secured two witnesses against him, and condemned and stoned him. (A.S., Feb. 22.) Nathanael, after drawing from the Law and the prophets grave reproaches against the Jews, died at their hands. (S.A., April 9.) A.S. considers him to be probably the same as Bartholomew. (A.S., Jan. 10.) Nicanor, the deacon, was killed by Vespasian, or alternatively with many thousand others at the same time as Stephen. (S.A., July 29.) Nicodemus was much persecuted by the Jews, but finally died in peace and was buried with Stephen and Gamaliel. (S.A., April 9.) Parmenas, with two thousand Christians, was killed on that occasion.
have implored Nero to send a letter to all his dominions ordering him to be executed wherever found. (S. Georgian, P.O., xix, 734.) Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem, was according to Eusebius, betrayed by heretics as a Christian, and put to death by Domitian (Hist, Ecc. in, 32), by Hadrian (S.A.J., July 3) or Trajan (S.E., July 9). Alternatively, Domitian released him, and on his return to Jerusalem the Jews strangled him. (S.A., April 17.) Simon of Cyrene believes in Jesus and is forthwith crucified by the
,
(Also S.A., but Aug. 2.) Paul is warned by the Christians of
Rome
that the chiefs of the
Jews
Jews. (S.A., March i.) Temedrius, a deacon, one of the seventy, was stoned by the Jews for Christ. (S.A., April 9.) He is probably the same as Demetrius, in A.S. for the same date, who was a deacon, but of unknown century, and no
details are
known
of his death.
many torments from Gentiles (S.E., July 9), or Jews and Gentiles (S.A.J., June 26), died in peace. Alternatively, he is martyred in Persia. (A.S., Oct. 28.)
Thaddeus, after suffering
Timothy
is finally
killed
by a
mob
of Jews and Greeks at Ephesus.
(S.A.J., Jan. 1 8.) Alternatively, he is killed by the worshippers of Diana. (A.S., Jan. 24.) Urbanus, a disciple of Andrew, is murdered in Macedonia, by Jews and Greeks, together with many others. (S.C., Oct. 30; A.S., Oct. 31.)
INDICES
I.
II.
BIBLICAL QUOTATIONS PATRISTIC LITERATURE
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
CHRONICLERS AND HISTORIANS SECULAR LEGISLATION CHURCH COUNCILS GENERAL INDEX
INDEX ONE
BIBLICAL QUOTATIONS
408
INDEX
page
INDEX TWO
REFERENCES TO AND QUOTATIONS FROM PATRISTIC LITERATURE
page
page
Altercations (anonymous)
Athanasius
Encyclical Epistle >
iii
. .
Athanasius and Zacchaeus 118 Doctrinajacobi nuperBaptizati (Sargis ofAbergd) 264, 285, 286, 287, 306
,
186
Athanasius-Ps. Sermon read at Cone. NIC.
Gregentius and Herbanus
284,
The Trophies of Damascus
285
II Athenagoras Plea for the Christians

i.
293
Ambrose
Epistles, I xl and xli
282, 287, 288, 289
"
157
xxxii
in in
Augustine
. .
. .
^23 Sermo
De
vtt
.
.
. .
.
.
Tobia
. .
Ambrose-Ps. Commentary on Romans, 27
166 187 192 192 102
De
Catechezandis, . xxv, xxvii
vii,
.
xx,
.
172
Epistclae, xxviii, Ixxxii . .

Epistola, cxcvi
xl,
. .
Ixxv,
.
. .
96 203
239
....
ix, ..
Augustine-Ps.
Altercatio Synagogae Ecclesiae . . Barnabas, Epistle o/, iv Basil
et
. . . .
Anastasius of Sinai
Disputatio contra Judaeos
i
ii
281 281
. .
.
84
192
iti.
..
. .
Paruus Dialogus
281,282 . 282
.
Homily on Psalm Cassiodorus
sciv
Anonymous
Ep.
to
.
Diognetus
.
Expositio in Psalterium Ps. xlix . . . . Ps. Lxxxi . .
.
.
209 209
iii..
.
.
. . . .
101
Varia
II, xxvii
. .
. .
,
iv . xi..
84, 101
97
Didascalia Apostolorum II, and
IV, xxxiii IV, xliii ,
. .
.
82
Aphraates Demonstratio
VI, xx
X,
XI
XII
XII, XII,
iii
vii
. .
. .
278 278 277 278 278 277 277
. V, xxxvii Chromatius In Evan. Matt., Tract. Chrysostom
209 209 208 208, 267

. .
.
. .
X
..
191
Aduersus Judaeos
164, 165
165
i,
ii,
6
3
164, 165
.. .. .. .. .. ..
164
165 165 165 165
XIII
..
..
. .
..278
277 277 . 277 279 277,278
. .
ui, 5 iv, 6
XIV, xxvi XV, u
v,
XVI
XVII
XVIII
..
XV,
viii
. .
. .
vi, i vi, 2
164
165 165 166 166
vi, 3
164, 165
.. .. .. ..
..
XIX XXI
278 279 278
^'S vi, 8
vii, i
viii,
410
Clement
Epistle, I, vi
.
INDEX
page
page
.
.
Pedagogue, I, v .. Stromata, II, v Clementine Recognitions,

.
88 117
..117
I, Kii
94
99
106
Cyprian
Testimonies against the Jews
Cyprian-Ps. Adversus Judaeos Cyril of Jerusalem

2 x, 2
iv,
.
.
IX, IX, IX, IX, IX, IX, IX, IX,
vi (IX, cxcv) 213, .. xxxvi (IX, civ) iv (IX, xxxviii) cxxii (IX, ccxxviii)
.
Ivi
(IX, xl)
. .
cix (IX, ccxiii) ex (IX, ccxv)

cxxii (IX, ccxxviii)
Ixvii
..
214 216 214 354 214 215

218 302 214
..215
.
.
..
. .
Catechetical Addresses
(XI, Hi) XIII, xii (XIII, xv) Commentary on Ezekiel,
XI,
..
I,
. .
......
. , .
172 172
Horn,
iii, i
xii
220
220 220
188
Commentary on Job
. .
.
Cyril-Ps.
. .
. .
Sermon on Penitence
. .
292 276
xiii,
ii..
Ephrem
the Syrian
against the Jews
. .
Rhythm
Epiphanius Adversus Haereses 102, 169 Eusebius of Alexandria Sermon on the Resurrection 300 Sermon ocv 299 Eusebius of Caesarea (see also Index of Chroniclers) 80 On Isaiah, xviii, i
.
.
Gregory of Nazianzen Sermon iv. and v. Gregory of Nyssa

.
Catechetical Address
. .
Sermon
Epistle
against the to
Usury Bishop
.
.
172 192
of
.
Melitene Hadrian, Pope

Epistle
269
Preparatio Evangetica
I, ii-v
XII, i Eusebius of Caesarea Demonstratio EvangeUca

I, ii
. . . .
...... ......
. . . . . .
161
f.
97
118
f.
161
162, 172
Gaudentius In Laudem Philastrii Sermon iv . Sermon xiii Gregory the Great

>
171
132 192
to the Bishops of Spain .. Canons sent to Charlemagne Epistle to Charlemagne Hilary of Poitiers Commentary on Psalms, Ii, 6, Commentary on Matthew, xiii, 22 . 160, Life of Hippolytus . Adversus Judaeos ..
.
.
223 222
186
161
. .
160
324
101
.. 104 and v .. Commentary on Genesis, xlix 101

i
. .
Epistles
,
..
I,
xxxv
(I,
xxxiv)
..
213, 215 212, 213

..
1, xlvii (I, xlv) I, Ixviii (I, Ixvi) I, Ixxi (I, Ixix)
..
.
. .
.
II, xxxii (II, xxxviii) III, xxxviii (III, xxxvii) IV, ix

. IV, xxi . . IV, xxxiii (IV, xxxi) . V, viii (V, vii) V, xx (V, xxxvii) VI, xxxii (VI, xxix) VI, xxxiii (VI, xxx)
. .
......
. .
.
.
. .
2ii 218 213 212 218 215 215 212
Refutation of All Heresies, . . . . IV, xiii ff. Hippolytus-Ps. Discourse on Last Things,
xxviii
.
99
99
Ignatius
Epistle to the Ephesians, xii . . Philadelphians, vi, i
88 84
Irenaeus Contra Haereses III, xxi

.. IV, v Isai the Doctor
..
106
. .
..
.
.
VII,xxiv(VII,xxi) VII, xliv (VII, xli)

VIII, xxi VIII, xxiii VIII, xxv
..
. . .
.
.. .. ..
. . . .
212 302 217 215 217 213 215 213 214
84,117
143
Treatise on the Martyrs Isidore of Pelusium

Epistles,
I,
cxli;
III, xciv;
,
.
IV, xvii Isidore of Seville De Fide CathoUca

II,
. .
172
. .
v and
vii
. .
. .
357 357
INDEX
Jacob of Serug
bc^cxix
.
4"
page
xcii
Homily against
1,283
.-
the
Taunt Song Jerome Commentary on Psalms

. .
Jews 108, 279 -. 99,279 258, 280
xciv
xcv
cviii
98 99 99 So So
100
cxxiii
..
192
cxxxiii
So 98
262
Commentary on Isaiah
>
2 v, 18
iii>
vi,
10 78 159 159 154
Lactantius Divine Institutions; IV, x . Maximus Confessor . . Epistle, xiv

.
Mercator,
M.
302
On
the heresy and books of . . . . Nestorius, I
. . XVUl, 2 xxvi, ii..
xlviii,
22
..
xlix, i
lyiii lix, 19
..
Ixv, 13
077
..
80 159 159 159 154 159 159

159 16
191,
..
Nicetas of Aquileia Explanation of the
Creed,
..
V,
Nilus
ix
..
..
172
Epistles, Ivii
. .
172
117 115 148 155
109
148
Origen
Jeremiah
xviii
.
.
xxviii
xxvii,
on Ezekiel
16
Commentary on Genesis, viii on Numbers, x, 2 . on Ptalms, xxxvi 126, on Ezekiel, Horn, vii , Contra Celsttm
.
314
173
I, xxxii; xxxviii; Ixii
xxxvii, i xxxviii. .
VI, xxvii.
80,
on Amos, i, 22 .. on Hosea, Preface .. 191 on Matthew, xxiii, 6 119 Contra Rufinum, III, xxv 154, 173 Translation of Origen, on . Ezekiel, vii 155
.
154 132
Exhortation to Martyrdom Paulinus of Nola . . Epistle, xxix, 9

Philastrius On Heresies
.
117 102
. .
Salviamis On Avarice, Bks, I-IV
. .
On
192
the
Government of God,
, .
Epistles
cxii
cxxi
154 101, 154, 191
Epistle of the
. .
Synod ofJeru.
. . IV, xiv Severus of Majorca on the 'Jews .. Epistle Severus of Antioch
314
204
269,
, ,
salem John of Antioch Epistle to Proclus Justin Martyr

First Apology
.
. .
173
Catechetical Address* Ixx
239
Homily
Epistles
Ivi
299 303
xv and xvi
93, 126
. .
. .
xxxi . . . Dialogue with Trypho

viii
.
xlvi Hi
. .
101
Conflict of Severus.
in
80, 84, 119, 126
. .
244 303 245 303
Sidonius Appolinaris
Epistles
I, viii
xyi
xix-xxii
101
xxix
xxxviii
xliii
III, iv; IV, v;
VI, xi
..
314 343
Simeon
109 . . IOI 70, 80, 96 .. 109
..
xlvi
xlvii
on the Himyarite Jews Sophronius

Epistle
258
Ixxi Ixxiii
Ode
260
412
Stephen VI, Pope
Epistle to Aribert
INDEX
page
page
To
qfNarbonne
2 221
On On
the Nations, I, xiv the Scorpion's Bite, theatrical Displays,
no, 150
x xxx
. .
126
no
Tatian Address
Theodoret
xxxi
Questions on Genesis xlix, ex 299
to the Greeks, and xxxvi xl

to the
98
Theophilus
Epistle
to
Tertullian
Autolycus,
II,
.
Answers
iiL
.
.
Jews
104 117 85 99
xxxiii,
and
III, lv
..
98
Venantius Fortunatus
xiii
Carmina,V,v Zeno
Tractate xiv
..
334
182
Apology, xxi
INDEX THREE
BIOGRAPHERS, CHRONICLERS
referred to in brackets after the
page
AND HISTORIANS
to the
title
(Page references preceded by an asterisk are
pages of the edition of the work}

page
Acts of the Council of Constantinople

. .
.
.
243
Barhebraeus Ckronography,
. .
265
Agapius
Universal History (P.O.) Constantine, *V, 645
Justinian, *VIII, 427
.
Bemoldus
.
Thepdosius, *VHI, 408

.
.
. .
Maurice, *VIII, 439 Phocas, *VIII, 449 Mahomet, *VIII, 466 Yezid ibn 'Abd el Malik .. VIII, 504 .265 Annales Avenionensium Episcoporum, I, ii, 138 312
.
.
298 234 259 293 259 261
Chronicon, anno 609 Carmen de Synodo Ticinensi
. .
336 209
Celsus Vita Innocentii .. Chronicon Anonymum (C.S.C.O., S.S., III, *23
187,188
iv, 2)
261
*27 (C.S.C.O.,S.S,,III,iv,4)
264
Anonymous
lives of the Fathers

vii
.
.
.. .. 301 ^161 .. Chronicon Edessenum, anno 723 236 Chronicon Pascale
Ahoudemmeh,
Basil of Caesarea, ii . . Germanics of Paris, Ixv .. . . Hilary of Aries Sulpicius of BourgeSj I, xiv
. .
306 296 336 324 335
anno 484 anno 530

Cyprian
. . . .
. . . .
. . .
.
244 259
Life of S. Caesarius,
I,
Hi,
21,22
Dionysius of Tel Mahre
Chronicle
Anonymous
Christ
321
stories
.
.
.
History of the Likeness of

.
De maximo miraculo De Salvatoris Imagine

Antiphonetes Passio S. Salsae
. . . .
. .
293 293
dicta
. . .
.
294 187
Anonymous
Ixxx
De Proprietatibus Gentium 342 Anonymus Valesianus, XVI,

. .
.
. . 928 265 . . . 262 1040 . . 1046 265 . 1057 305 Chronicle, R.O.C., *II, 462 244 Einhard Annales , anno 80 1 . . 337
. . .
.
anno anno anno anno
Ekkehard
Universal
Chronicle,
. .
207
anno
266
Antoninus Placentius . Itinerarium, v 259 Arabic History of the Patriarchs

. . .
723
Ephraem
the
Monk
of Alexandria (P.O.) 4th Preface, *I, 122 103, 193, 287, 290
Liber Imperatontm et Patrum 245 Eusebius . . Chronicle, anno 356 187

Ecclesiastical History . . . . I, iv . . . . I, ix xxiii . . . . II,
. .
. .
419 .. *I, 467 I, xvi, *V, 35 Barhadbesabba 'Arbaia

I, viii, *I,
. . . .
103, 299
100
..251
. .
no
129 127 126 145 135
303
. .
V,
i
.
Ecclesiastical History (P.O.)
Life of
Mar Abraham,
..
. .
. . *IX, 626 264, 306 Life of Basil of Caesarea,
. V, xvi, 2 VI, xii Martyrs of Palestine,

. . . .
. .
viii
. .
*XXIII, 287
caesarea,
306
Life of Gregory of Neo-
*XXIII, 260 296
Eutychius Annals (P.G., CXI) *io83 1084
260 262
4H
page
INDEX
page
Eutychius, contd.
Annals (P.G., CXI), contd. #1089

Evagrius
Ecclesiastical History
I, xiii
261
Julian of Toledo History of the Rebellion against Waniba . . . . v 342, 362

xxviii
.
3^2
III, xiv
IV, xxxvi
238 243 296

335
Defiance of the Tyrant of 342 Gaul, i and ii

. .
Landolfus
Chronicle,
XVIII, xvi
259
Fredegarius
Chronicle, Ixv
. .
George Hamartolus
Chronicle
. . 296 IV, ccxxii 260 IV, ccxxvii . ccxlviii 291 IV, 266 IV, ccl Gesta Dagoberti, xxiv (xxv) 265 ,335 Gregory of Tours Glory of the Martyrs, I, xxii 292 History of the Franks . 34 IV, viii (xiii) . . 34 IV, xxxv . 336 V, iv (vi)
. . . . .
Malalas Chronography (P.G.,XCVII) .. ..244 XV, *5*8
XVI,*s85
XVIII, *652 XVIII, *6s6
-.
-
-.244
251
..
-.259
. .
Mar
Sabas,
monk
.
of
.
Letter on Capture of Jeru-
salem Metaphrastes Life of Simeon Stylites Michael the Syrian

.
.
261
238
Chronicle
V, vi(xi) VI, v VI,x(xvii)

VII,
xxiii
,
..
..
..
334 335 334
Miracles of the Saints, I, x 296 Isidore of Seville History of the Goths, sub . anno 650 333, 355 John of Asia Ecclesiastical History (R.O .C .. ..303 II),* 45 8 John of Ephesus History
.
. ,
VI, x VII, v VII, vii VIII, xii IX, vi IX, xiv IX, xxix IX, xxxi
236 186
181
303
..
..
243,244
33
303 259 243 245 261 260, 265 262 265 265 302 251
X, xiii X, xxv
XI, i XI, iv XI, ix XI, xii XI, xix XI, xx XI, xxii
. .
. .
. . . III, xxvii III, xxxi Lives of the Eastern Saints
v
xvi
xlvii
...... ...... ......

. .
259 264 264 274 263
Nestorian History xix

xxvii
. . . . .
.186
.
. .
xxxiv
liii
. .
. .
John of Nikious
Chronicle Ixxxix
. .
cii
. .
. .
I4 2 299 297 262
xc
xci xcix
cxviii
cxx Joshua Stylites

Chronicle
xlvii
Iviii
...... ...... ...... ......

. .
'.
. .
244
258 294 265 263 262
Nicephorus of Constantinople De Rebus post Mauricium . 264 gestis, P.G., C, *925

.
. Antirrhetus, iii Nicephorus Callistus
291
. .
Ecclesiastical History,
XVII,
.
.
xxv
Procopius
. .
296
De
. .
Aedificiis,
ff
VI,
ii
250
209
......
. .
. .
250 258
History of the Wars, V,
viii,
INDEX FOUR
CODES AND SECULAR LAWS
418
INDEX
page
INDEX FIVE
CANONS OF THE CHURCH COUNCILS
GENERAL INDEX
Names
in italics are those of authors whose works are discussed in the text or chapter bibliographies
gardens
at,
Abbot, G. F., Abdul Masih,
xvii,
308
125, 144,
274
image at, Chrysostom
181; profanation of sermons of 293; at, see Chrysostom
Abraham,
as Christian, 162
/.,
pre-incarnation
Antisemitism, in
Roman
world,
i,
Abrahams,
137
Acts of the Apostles, 27, 47, 128 Acts of Heathen Martyrs, 2 Africa, Councils in, 175 f.; Jews in, 202 f., 250 African Church, Canons of, 232 Agabus, 402 Agapius, 293, 298 Agatha of Catania, 145 Agde, Council of, 319 Agricola and Vitalis, 145 n. 6 Alaric II, Breviary of, 307, 317, 347> 35 1 Alexandria, Jews of, in Ptolemaic
times, 15, 17; in Roman times, i, 13, 18; confiscation of synain, 251;
371; lack of economic causes for, theo26, 256, 339, 369, 372; 26, logical origin of, 95 ff., ff. 158 ff., 305, 372 attitude of also Jews, (see Christians to)
Aphraates,
Demonstrations
ff.;
of,
117, 154, 276
on persecution
of Christians, 142
Apion, 25 Apocryphal New Testament, Jews in, 102, 114, 94 ff., 2975.;
Miracles of Jesus, 298;
Hebrew
gogues
at, 294;
miraculous box
crucifix at,
mockery of
Gospel of Matthew, 114; Acts of Peter, 95; Gospel of Peter, 102; Preaching of Peter, 102; Acts of Philip, 94, 103; Acts of Pilate, 103, 298; Gospel of Twelve
Apostles, 103, 298; of the Virgin, 103
234, 292; persecution of Christians at, 147; relations with Moslems in, 262; riots in time of Athanasius in, 147, 186; riots
Assumption
Apollonius Molon, 16 Apologies for Christianity,
92,
in time of Cyril in, 193, 235; source of hostile stories of the
no.
Apostasy, see conversion Apostolic Canons, 176 Aqiba, 78, 93 Arcadius, legislation of, 200, 231, 240, 242 Arians in western Europe, 318, 347; attitude to Catholics of, 319, 352; attitude to Jews of,
Jews, 15, 371 Allard, P., 122, 125, 149 Alphius of Leontini, 134 Altercations, Christian reports of,
x, 112, 239, 276 ff., 280 ff.; Jewish reports of, x, 113, 283 Ambrose, 153, 166 ff. 185, 188,
}
192
M7> 321
Aribert of Narbonne, 221 Aristobulus, 129, 402 Aries, forced baptism at, 211,335; Jews during siege of, 321 Armentarius of Tours, 323, 341 Aronius, 307
Asceticism,
Ananias, Bp. of Damascus, 402 Ananias, a Jew, 402 Anastasius, P. of Antioch, 245 Anastasius of Sinai, 281 f.
Andrew,
An therms,
99> 304
129, 402
Bp. of Chersonese, 133 Antichrist expected by the Jews,

Antioch,
anti-Christian
excesses
155
Assemani, 122
Athanasius, 171, 186
at, 243, 245; anti- Jewish excesses at, 238, 244; Council of, 176;
disputations at, 113; expulsion of Jews from, 293; Jewish
Athanasius and Zacchaeus, Dialogue of, x, 118, 280 Augustine, 96, 153, 171, 202 Augustine- Ps., Dialogue of, xi, 239
INDEX
Aurum
Coronarium,
10, 19, 200,
421
legislation of, 318, 321
Burgundy,
235> 246, 353
Austremonius, 133 Auxerre, Council of, 330

Avengillayon, 109
Burkitt, F. C., 27 Buxdorf family, xvii
Byzantine literature, 273
Avignon, riot at, 312 Avitus of Clermont, Avitus, Emp., 319
C
134,
534
Caelicoli,
203
Caesarea,
at,
martyrdom
reported
139;
of Carterius betrayal to
Baptism, forced, in Antioch, 245; Aries, 335; Borion, 250; Bourges, 335; Chersonese, 133; Clermont,
X
34>
334
Dertona,
188;
Mar-
seilles,
211, 335; Minorca, 205; Ravenna, 207; Terracina, 211;
Uzes, 333 ordered by
20 Caesarea in Cappadotia, 262 Caesarius of Aries, 321 Caglieri, synagogue of, 214 Callinicum, synagogue of, i66ff. Caro, G., 308, 313 Carpus, 402
of, 260; riots in,
Moslems
Chilperic, 334; Chintila, 358; Dagobert, 265, 335; Erwig, 362; Heraclius, 265, 285; 250; Justinian, Leo the Isaurian, 265; LomMaurice, 265; bards, 209; ReccesPhocas, 245, 265; win th, 359; Sisebut, 355 disapproval of, 211, 327, 333,
Carterius, 139 Carthage, Councils of, 203; Jewish insult in, 150 Cassiodorus, 207, 209 Catechumens, explanation of creed
to, 172; Jewish 95> 172, 3<>3
influence
on,
355 Barbarian invasions, 199,201,311,

312
Barcochbar, 78, 93, 126 Bardy, G., 271 Barnabas, 129, 402
Cautinus of Clermont, 340 Cedrenus, 225 Chalcedon, Council of, 256 Chalons, Council of, 329 Chamberlain, H. S., xiii, 158, 369 Charlemagne, attitude to Jews of,
337;
legislation
I,
of,
321,
337,
Barnabasf Epistle of, 84, 97 Barsauma, 233, 236, 238 Bartholomew, 402
Basil of Caesarea, 195 Basil of Cheronese, 133 Basilica, The, 225, 246, 267, 376
542 371 Childebert Childebert
327, 332
II,
332
Chilperic, 334
Basnage, J. C., xiv Beaulieu, A. Leroy, xvii Bedarride, I., xvi, 307, 345 Beirut, synagogues collapse in, 250; miraculous image of, 293 Benedicta of Lyons, 140 Berrhoea, Jewish outrages at, 244 Billerbeck, P., 29 Birkath-ha-Minim, 77, 80, 91, 93 Bischoff, E., 29 Bishops, civil authority of, 247, 254, 319; conduct of, 156 Boleslav of Kalish, 120
Bollandists, The, 121, 128
Chindaswinth, 351, 358 Chintila, 358 Christianity, antiquity of, 77, 97 ff.; 161; attitude of Roman authorities to, 85 ff.; charges of
effect of
immorality against, 80, iiof.; admission of Gentiles to, 49; Jewish view of, 79, 106 ff.; a religio illicita, 89; seperation
from Judaism
149;
of,
47, 61,
fourth century, 153 ff., 157^; the True of sects Israel, 84, 100; variety in, 94, 183, 194, 374 Christians, the new nation, 288,
77
ff.,
task
of
in
Bonosus and Maximilian, 140 Borion, Jews of, 250

Bourges, blind archdeacon forced baptism at, 335 Branscomb, B. H., xvi, 29 Brehier, L., 313
at, 336;
289 Chromatius, 191 Chrysostom, sermons of at Antioch, 79, 119, 157, 163 ff., 231, 232, 245; attitude of Epiphanius to, 168
Church
plate, 218, 262, 337
bought by Jews,
422
INDEX
33 f., 45, 69; gibes on offering vinegar at, 104; Gospel accounts of, 42, 45 f.; impossible death for Messiah, 98; Jewish
petition
to
Chwolson, D. A. xvii Circumcision, Christian gibes at, 83, 104, 278; prohibition of, 24, 62 (see also Conversions to Judaism, and A pp. I, it) Clearchus, 14 Clemens and Domitilla, 87,90,91 Clement, Epistle of, 88, 90 Clementine Recognitions, 71, 94 Cleophas, 402 Clermont, Council of, 323, 324,
325
(see also Avitus, Austremonius, Cautinus and Ubricius)
Marcian on,
303;
Jewish story of, 46; Peter's account of, 47; Paul's account of, 50, 52, 69; Stephen's view of, 48
Cumberland^ R., xv
Curial responsibilities, 177, 181, 200, 232, 248, 352
(see also 178,
App.
I, ii)
Cyprian, 72, 99 Cyril of Alexandria, 193, 235 Cyril of Jerusalem, 157, 231
Clothaire II, 332 Clovis, conversion of, 321, 323 Codex Justinianus, 225, 246, 317 Codex Theodosianus, 177, 199, 214, 225, 246, 317
D
Dagobert, 265, 335 Decurionate, see curial responsibilities
Cohen,
].,
xv
legis-
Cologne, Jews in, 312 Constantine, legends of, 186;

lation of, 178
ft.
Delehaye, H.,
2,
122
Demetrius of Thessalonica, 144

Democritus, 16
Constantine the monk, 296 of confiscation Constantinople, synagogue in, 238, 294; miracle of glass-blower's son at, 296; miracle in S. Sophia at, 293; rioting in, 264
Constantius, legislation
of,
Depping, G.
Deuterosis,
C.,
B., xvi, 307
154,
252
xv Dickens, Didascalia Apostolorum, 71, 82
Dio
Cassius, 87, 90, 91
179
ff.
Conversion to Christianity,
xvii,
17 1 > 213, 214, 216; *33> *34 ritual for, , 304; stories of, 291 ft.,
336 Conversion to Judaism,

107,
Diocaesarea, attempted rising at, 187; martyrs of, 135 Diogenes Laertius, 14 Disputations, see altercations Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati, 2855., 306
25, 62, 81, 154, 171, 287, 325; prohibited, 179, 180, 181, 182, 247,
Dohm,
C. W., xiv
xii
267, 355 (see also

to
App.
/, it)
Dominicans in Middle Ages, Donatists, The, 202 Donatus of Istria, 112, 295 Drumont, Ed., xiii, 158
Converts to Christianity, allowed

return, 202, 221, 356, 358; attitude of Gregory to, zioff.; forced to remain Christians,
Dubnow,
S.,
xvi; 345
be 353> 355> 35 6 36 ff - not l molested, 179, 213, 219; suspected, 268, 304, 319, 334, 356 (see also App. I, it)
Converts to Judaism, death-bed repentance of, 176, 269 Corban, discussion of, 44
Corluy, ]., 125, 149 Councils, attitude to Jews of, 174, !77 325> 327 33i Crete, false Messiah of, 233 Crucifixion, apocryphal stories of, 103; not cause of seperation,
Easter, celebration with Jews of, 119, 175, 221, 222; date of, 119; exclusion of Jews from streets during, 327, 330, 332 (see also App. I, ii)
Easton, B. S., 29 Eclogues, see Leo the Isaurian
Edersheim, A., xviii Edessa, attempted rising of Jews

at,
186;
at,
confiscation
of
syna-
gogue
236;
Jews refuse to
receive Heraclius at, 261

Egica, 366 Egyptian story of Exodus, 15
INDEX
Eisenmenger, Elijah, bones
Eliphius, 140 Elisha, bones
Elliot,
J.
423
A., xii
of,
299 295
Genizeh fragments, 113 Genoa, Jews of, 208
Germanus
of,
of Paris, 336
George, xv
Germany, National-Socialist policy

in,
200
Elvira, Council of, 174, 221 Emancipation of the Jews, xiii
Entawos the Amorean, 295 Epaone, Council of, 322
Ephrem
Epiphanius,
the Syrian, 117, 276 conversion of,
168,
295, 296; writings on heresy of, 168 ff., 251 Erwig, abolition of death sentence
by, 363; legislation of, 362 Eucharist, Jews converted by, 296
Gospels, synoptic, attitude to Jews in, ix, 33 Gothofredus, 203 n. 5 Graetz, H., xvi, 345, 359 Gratian, legislation of, 180, 181, 184 'Greens, The' 244
Gregentius and Herbanus, Dialogue of, 283 ff. Gregory the Great, attitude to
Jews
of,
2 10
ff.;
attitude
to
Euphrasius, 340 Eusebius of Alexandria, 299 Eusebius of Caesarea, 80, no, 118, 126, 160 ff. Eusebius of Emesa, 299 Eutychus, 402 Evidence, right of Jews to give, 176, 222, 232, 248, 267, 338, 360
(see also
of, 62,
slave-owning of, 2158:., 321; as a Biblical commentator, 219; interest in conversion of Jews of, 210, 335; letters to Frankish
kings
of,
215,
222,
326,
332;
App.
I, it)
Excommunication,
189 Expulsion of Jews,
64,
Jewish
right
334; 358; 363; 355;
by Avitus, Constantine, 186; Chintila, Dagobert, 335; Erwig, Recceswinth, 360; Sisebut,
Reccared of, 218, 354 Gregory of Nazianzen, 188 Gregory of Neocaesarea, 296 Gregory of Nyssa, 268 Gregory of Tours, History of, 3<>7 323; story of miraculous image in, 292 n. 2 Gregory III, Pope, 221
letters to
Guntram,
legislation
of,
332
Wamba,
362 from Antioch, 293; Clermont, 188; France, 334; Dertona,

2;
H
Habib
of Edessa,
145
Narbonne,
358,
tn. 334
*
n,
355>
360,
362; 363^
Hadrian, Emp., 13, 19 Hadrian, Pope, 222, 339
Hagada
108,
in
Church
Fathers,
xi,
117, 154, 277

B., 308 A., xvi,
Hahn
Feasts to be spent in presence of Bishop, 361, 365 Ferreol of Uzes, 333 Fields, not to be blessed by Jews,
Hagadists, The, 108
Fiscus Judaicus, 62
Foakes Jackson, F. Fouros, 402
J.,
69
of,
125, 149 Harris, Rendell, 71, 99 n. Hebrews, distinct from Jews, 161, 374 Hebrews, Epistle to the, 52, 58 ff. Hecataeus, 15 Helbo, R., 107
Harnack,
Franks, character of, 342; laws
Hemerobaptists, 169! Heraclius, 261, 265 Heretics, Epiphanius' description

of,
Friedldnder, M., 2
i68ff.;
Jews treated
300;
list
as,
102,
G
Gamaliel, defence of Peter by, 48 Gamaliel, Patriarch, 235 Gaudentius, 192
Generalisations,
249,
256,
of,
treatment of, 155, 183, ff., 255 ff. Herford, R. T., xvi, 29, 37, 57
239
194; 190,
danger
of,
312,
Hermes, Aggaeus and Caius, 145 n. Hermippus, 14

Herodians, 156, 169
339
424
Herodion, 403
Hilarion, 192 Hilary of Aries, 324 Hilary of Poitiers, 160 ff., 323 Hild, J. A., 2 Himyarite Jews, 258 Hippolytus, 72, 99, 104
INDEX
sermons in, 173; massacre of Christians in, 260 ff.; massacre of Jews in, 238, 261 Jesus, apocryphal miracles of, 298; attitude to Torah of, 38 ff.; conflict with Pharisees of, 34 ff.,
at
37,
of,
38
ff.;
Hodgkin,
T,, 197
Jewish
claims
stories
attitude
historicity of, 97; to Messianic
Honorius, Emp., Legislation 200, 232 Honorius, Pope, 221, 358 Hoshaye, R., 113
of, 45, 80, 114; Jewish of life of, see Sepher Toldoth Jeshu; Jewish view of
resurrection of, 80;
as
one of
teach-
Hospitality, Jewish, 174, 268, 320, 322, 324, 327 (see also App. I, ) Host, profanation of, 207 n. 2
twenty- two elders, ing of, 34 ff., 373

Jewesses,
clergy,
290;
to
danger of
365
Spanish
Jews:
I. History of the Jews Entry into Palestine, 5 Greco-Roman with Relations
Iconoclastic controversy, 291 ff. Ignatius, 84 Images, Jews converted by, 292 ff. Inmestar, crucifixion of boy at,
world, 8, 19, 371 Contacts with Rome,
The Jews
199,
as
Roman
7,
20, 22
10,
citizens,
234 Innocentius of Dertona, 187 Intermarriage with Jews, 174, 180,

182,
223,
250,
256,
322,
324,
312, 317, 332, 335, 339 344* 353' 359 The Jews in Persia, 141, 257 The Jews in the fourth century,
157,
tine,
208,
35*>
354
177
ff.
(see also App. I, ) Irenaeus, 106, 117 Isaac, as alternative to Jesus,
The Jews
233
116
in fifth-century Pales-
Isaac of Troki, Isai the Doctor,

Isbozetas,
x
142
The Jews under
the Byzantines,
143
348,
Isidore of Pelusium, 283 Isidore of Seville, x, 276,

355>
257, 274; the Franks, 199, 222, 335, 342; the 312, 318, 323, Lombards, 209; the Moslems, 262; the Ostogroths, 199, 206 ff., 317; the Visigoths,, 199, 222,
356,
357> 359
345
350
in the Middle Ages, i99 254- 376 Perversions of Jewish history in

patristic
158,
The Jews
Jacob of Serug, 99, 279 Jacobs, Joseph, xvi James, Epistle of, 58 James, son of Alphaeus, 403 James the brother of John, 130
literature,
96
ff.,
105,
160
ff.;
II. Occupations of the Jews Occupations in Alexandria, 17
in
192;
175,
eastern
James the Just, 129, 403 James of Nisibis, 296

Jamnia, a Jew of, 214 Jason and Papiscus, Dialogue of, x, 71, 280 Jerome, 78, 80, 96, 108, 117, 119,
!53> *59 i73> 233, 253, 3*3 Jerusalem, bishops of, 93; capture of by Heraclius, 261; capture of by Moslems, 262; capture of by Persians, 260; capture of by
Roman
339
provinces,
12
ff.,
274;
in
empire,
in Persia, 274; 348 ff., 369; in
ngff., in Spain, the west,
Doctors, 336; Farmers,

219, 221,
6, 12, 175, 348, 364; Financiers, 13, 192, 316, 323, 341, Jewellers, 340; Lawyers, 201, 248; Officials, 140, 204, 325; Slave-trad-
ers, 216, 219, 329, 340; Soldiers, 6, 10, 201, 260; Traders, 12, 17,
Titus, 77, 82, 149; Jews present
305- 3*3> 338'
34L
348. 372
INDEX
Missionary activity of the Jews,
6, 23, 62,
4*5
Mesopotamia, 259; PalesTyre,
238;
107,
120
tine, 236, 238; Telia, 258;
III.
Relations of Jews with
262 see also Synagogues, destruction

of
non-Jews
Relations with the general population,
20,
118
Friendly relations with Christians, 118 ff., 164, 189, 269, 305 ff., 322, 324, 339, 342, 349, 369 Business relations with Christians,
269, 332, 341 Relations with Christian scholars, ii7ff., 277
VII. Jewish attitude to Christianity Jewish attitude to Peter, 48; to Paul, 64 ff.; in Jerusalem, 77; in the first century, 48, 61, 69; at the time of separation, 48, 61, 81, 149; in the second century, 108, 149; in the fourth
century, 156 f.; to crucifixion, 46; to doctrine of Trinity, 108,
IV.
as as as as as
Pagan view
ass worshippers,
of the 16
Jews
269
Power of Jews over

63 Defamation
early church,
beggars, 23
20, 23 23 worshippers of Sabarius, 21 Egyptian view of the Jews, 15
misanthropes,
14,
philosophers,
14,
of Christianity by Jews, 79, 125, 150, 243 Influence of Jews on catechumens,

ff.
V. Christian view of the Jews Christian view based on Matt. xv, and not on crucifixion,
45, 69; at time of destruc33 tion of Temple, 77; at time of separation, 45, 69, 81, 83, 149;
f.,
95 172, 3<>3 Influence on heretics, 95, 324, 375 Jewish reply to Christian claims,
80, 108, 277,
357
for
Christianity,
Secret
respect 115, 287, 290
as apostates, 102 ff., 298; as devils, 164; as frivolous or repulsive, 101, 153, 191; as hated by God, 101 n. 4, 165, 279; as heretics, 102, 249, 256, 300; as idolators, 164, 299; as ignorant of God, 102; as litigious, 192; as possessing special smell, 334; as responsible for crucifixion, 33 ff ., 45, 69 Epithets applied to the Jews in
The Jews
in fourth century, 158
VIII. Jewish attacks on the Christians Jews accused of betraying Aries, 321; Caesarea,, 260; Diocaesarea,, Telia, 262; 257; Visigothic Spain, 368 in Alexattack Christians Jews andria, 147, 186, 235; Africa, 202; Antioch, 243 f.; Arabia, 258, 263; Avignon, 312; Berrhoea, 244; Caesarea, 259; Diocaesarea, 187; Edessa, 187, 261;
laws, 185, 237 f., 370 The restoration of the Jews, 77, 165, 279, 284, 288 The ultimate destination of the Jews, 54, 159, 185, 220, 300,
Jerusalem, 93, 260 ff.; Mesopotamia, 259; Palestine, 233, 259; Tyre, 262; in time of Julian,
167, 188 Jews, converts to conversion
'Jews',
and from,
see
as a term of abuse, 239,
357
Admission to church
176, 269,
services, 173,
300
ff.
304
For the Christian view of Jewish history, see History of the Jews
VI. Christian attacks on the Jews The Jews attacked in Antioch, 238;
Illyricum, 231; Jerusalem, 236,
'Jews', Christians selves, 194, 203
calling
them-
Jochanan, R. John, Gospel

82
ff.
109, 116 of> ix, 28,
33,
60,
of,
John the
43;
Baptist, preaching bones of, 299 John of Ephesus, 263, 271
426
INDEX
Klausner, /., xvi Krauss, S., 225
osephus, no [oshua the Stylite, 225
ohn of Nikious, 225, 262, 294 oseph of Arimathea, 298, 403
ovian, 181 Judaising, in Africa and the east, 175, 203, 278; in Armenia, 268; in Byzantine empire, 268; in Gaul, 222, 320, 324; in Visi-
Labourt,
M.
J.,
122
Lactantius, 97
gothic Spain, 350, 359
Judaism, Alexandrian view of, 15; Christian view of, loofL, 373; view of Recceswinth of, 360 f. Judaism, antiquity of, 98; early history of, $f.; dispersion of, 25; in first century, 34, 81; in second century, 115; in fourth
century, 1535. Roman toleration of, 25; legality of, 8, 62, 181, 183, 189, 246, 249, 266; situation of as monotheism, 9, 24, 25, 155,
Lake, Kirsopp, 28 Laodicea, murder of acrh-deacon of, 239; synagogues collapse in, 251; Council of, 175
Law, The,
see
Torah
Lazare, B., xvii Leclercq, H., 125
Legal profession, Jews and, 201, 248 Legislation, purpose of, 155, 185 Lemann, Abbe" J., xiii Lenz, H, K., 151
Leo the Isaurian, forced baptism

ordered by, 265;
225, 246, 267, 371
Eclogues
of,
Judaism, asceticism in, 155; doctrine of mediator in, 116;
Judaism, attitude of Jesus
doctrine of forgiveness in, 115 to, 38 ff.; Gentiles of, to attitude 6, 23, 24, 62, 107, 120; causes of Christian separation from, 34
Leo of Patara, 139 Leontini, Jews of, 134 Lessing, T., xiv Letters to the synagogues, The,
79 ff' L&ueque, N.f xvii
Levi, Israel, 107
199,
Lex Romana Raetica

209
Curiensis,
Judas Cyriacus, 403 Judas Iscariot, 192

Judeo-Christians, 56, 58, 72, 77, 78, 92 ff., 106, no, 154, 169 ff. Judicial autonomy, 8, 232, 352 Julian, attitude of Jews to, 298; attitude to Jews of, 20, 188, 190; frees Jews from decurionate, 180; Jews offer crown of
to, 299; reign of, 181, 190 Julian of Toledo, 276, 342, 348 Julius Caesar, 8, 10, 21, 24 Juster, J., xvi, i, 345, 359 72, 96, Justin Martyr, 117;
Liturgy, attitude to Jews in, 173,
34
Lombards, Jews under the, 209 Longinus the Centurion, 130, 403
Lot, F., 197, 307 Louis the Pious, laws of, 339, 376 Lucas, L., 151 Luke, Gospel of, 42; story of crucifixion in, 47; story of death
idols
Lukyn
403 Williams, Canon, xi Lyons, martyrs, of, 127 Lysimachus, 16

of,
Dialogue with Trypho

82, 98, 99
ff.,
M
Macon, Council Mancius, 134 Manean, 403 Manetho, 15, 25
Marcian,
of,
of, 71, 111; accuses Jews
of
responsibility
for
323
ff.
persecu-
tion, 79, 126, 132; attitude of to
Christians
who keep Law,
70
n.,
96
abolishes legality of Judaism, 249, 266; legislation of, 245 ff., 254; regulation of synagogue services by, 251 ff. Juvenal, 21, 23
Justinian,
Mar Kadagh, 142 Mar Maris, 112
Emj>., Jewish petition t, 303; legislation of, 240 Marcian, Bp. of Cyprus, 403 Marciana, 144
INDEX
Mark, Gospel
in,
427
controversy,
296,
38
ff.,
82;
of, attitude to Jews historicity of, 27,
Monophysite
42; story of crucifixion in, 47 Marmorstein, Dr., 113, 115
Marr, W.,
xiii
Marseilles, forced baptism at, 211; Jewish trade at, 322; refugees
300 Montanists, not persecuted Jews, 126 Montefiore, C., xvi, 29, 57 n. Moore, G. F., 29
by
Moslems, relations with Jews

291
of,
from
334
Clermont
received
at,
262; Christian altercations with,
Martial, 23 Martyrs, burial in Jewish cemeteries of, 145; collections of lives of, 121, 127; eastern Acta
f> 2 75 Jewish hostility to, see Ch. IV; Jews prayed for by, i35>" Jewish sympathy with,
Murawski, Bp.,
151, 166-
N
85, 86, 88 Naples, interference with Jews
'Name, The',
214;
of,
144, 306; tradition of in century, 130, 402 Mary, Martha and Lazarus, 403
139,
Jews during siege of, 209; Jewish slave trade at, 216, 217,
329
first
Mary Magdalen, 403 Mary the Virgin, 403,' Assumption

of,
Narbonne, Council of, 330, 354; Jews in, 217, 221; Jews expelled against
from,
Wamba
362;
in,
rebellion
342, 362
103
Matrona, 134 Matthew, death of, 404 Matthew, Gospel of, attitude to Jews in, 33, 41, 43, 60; story of crucifixion in, 45 Maurice, Emp., orders baptism
of Jews, 265 Meaux, Council of, 331 Meir of Jabne, R., 109 Mellito of Sardis, 90 Mendelssohn, M., xiv
Nau,
Nathanael, 404 Dr., 236
Navicularii, 189
Merchant
of Venice, eighth century version of, 293 E. T., 88 ff. Merrill, Messiah, Jewish refusal of, 281 Messianism, in first century, 22, 25; in Crete, 233; in Mesopotamia, 264; in Sicily, 218; in Syria, 264
of Christians by, 86, 89, 91, 125, 146 Nestorian controversy, 239, 241, 243, 300! Neumann, T., xvii Newman, L. I., 308 Nicaea, second council of, 268, 291; forged canons of, 269
Nazareans, 169 f. Nazarenes, 78 Nero, persecution
Nicanor, 404
Nisibis,
Nicodemus, 404 Nicpmedia, martyrs of, 143 Jews of, 264

ff.,
Novella, 146, 251
392
in,
Nunneries, behaviour
330
Metuentes Deum, The, see Conversion to Judaism Michael of Saba, 291 Michael the Syrian, 225, 265
Mieses, M., xvii
Oath, Jewish, 222, 238

Official positions, exclusion from, 201, 204, 205, 238, 248, 325, 328, 332, 352, 364 (see also App. I, it)
Milan, Jews
of,
208
Minim, The,
Minorca, Miracle Plays, xi
78, Jews in, 203
no
ff.
Old Testament, adoption of by

Christians, 96
ff.,
Miracles, conflict for superiority in, 112, 295; practical and theological use of, 295 ff., 336
Jewish
2
falsification
5&
298;
method
of,
104 f.; alleged of 118, of inter-
Mnaseas, 16 Molinier, 226 Monasticism, oriental, 189, 234, 242, 263 f., 275, 305, 331
98 ff., 149, 158, 251, 275, 281, 374; promises of cannot be fulfilled twice, 279 (see also Torah and Promises)
pretation
173,
200,
428
INDEX
Peter, Epistle of, 58, 87, 89 Peter, Gospel of, 102 Pfefferkorn, xii Pharisees, attitude to Rome of, 22; conflicts with Jesus of, 38 ff.; friendship with Jesus of, 43, 44; not mentioned in crucifixion narratives, 45; support Paul,
56; teaching of, 35, 38, 40, 49, 54, 169; warn Jesus of danger,
Orange, Council of, 320 Origen, 71, 72, 105, 117; accuses Jews of responsibility for persecution,
no,
126,
of,
147
Orleans, Council Ossenes, 169 f.
323
P
of
syna-
Palermo, gogues
Palestine,
confiscation
in, 213
religions allowed in, 5; few Christians in fifth century in, 233; Jewish settlement in, 5 Papacy, attitude to Jews of, xiv, 210, 223, 254, 317, 333
different
43
Philastrius, 171, 251
Philip of Alexandria, 290 Philip of Heraclea, 127, 139 Philip, Acts of, 94, 103
Philo, 18, 154 Phocas, baptism of Jews ordered by, 245, 265 Phylacteries, use of by Christians,
X1 9
Council Parmenas, 404

Paris,
165, *75> !7 6
of,
328
Passover, Christian attendance at,

Patriarch,
231^ 235 Patriarchs,
104, 162
The
Jewish, 10, 11, 62,

as
The,
Christians,
Pilate, 46, 102 ff. Pionius, 127, 137, 144, 147 Placita, 304, 358, 361, 363,
365,
Paul, at Corinth, 65 ff.; at Rome, 68; attitude of Jews to, 56, 64, 77, 92; attitude to Law of, 28, 51 ff., 55, 57, 69, 373; attitude to the Promises of, 54 .; career
of,
394
Polycarp, 127, 136, 147
Polygamy,
182,
250
50
ff.,
55, 63, 64;
death
of,
404; preaches in synagogues, 50, 52; remains a Jew, 5 1 * 55 Paul, Epistles of, 28, 58 Paul, Valentinian and Thea, 135 Christians Persecution, accept shelter of synagogue during,
298,
Pompey, 21 Pontius, 127, 143 Pork, necessity of in commercial transactions, 367; readiness to eat, 299; reasons for non-use of, 282; regret for failure to
eat,
289
Portugal, slave martyred in, 134 Poseidonius, 16

Priscus, 334,
340
144
f.
Jewish share
lic
age, century,
in, during aposto128 ff.; in first 64, 128, 149; from the
to fourth centuries, under Julian, 140; 133 ff.; in Persia, 140 ff., 186; in Vandal Africa, 147; in Moslem Spain, 147; according to
second
Promises, The, Christian attitude to, 57, 58 ff., 84, 96, 253; Pauline attitude to, 53; Pharisaic attitude to, 54; not to be shared with Jews, 84 Psychological tests, Visigothic substitute for, 360 Purim, regulations
for, 234, 250; Christian boy killed during, 234
patristic literature,
126,
148;
according to
modern scholars,
responsibility for, 133 Persia, persecution under Shapur in, 140, 186; war with Byzantium of, 257, 305 Peter, attitude to Jewish authorities of, 47;
Roman
122, 125, 150
298;
betrayal of by Jews, reception of Gentiles by,
Rabbulas, 236 Radin, Max, xvi, i Ramsay, Sir W., 85 ff. Raven, C. E., 28, 29 Rawlinson, A. E. J., 27 conversion Reccared, of, 347; legislation of, 353 ff.; letter of to, 218, Gregory 354 Recceswinth, definition of Judaism
by,
360;
ff-
49
Peter, Acts of, 95
legislation
of,
358,
359
INDEX
Reims, Council Reuchlin, xii
of, 327,
4*9
ff.
328
Severus of Majorca, 203
Revelation, Book of, 57, 88, 89 Ritual Murder, xiii, 16; 234 n. 2 Rohling, A., xii, xiii, xvi Roman Law, of the Burgundians, 318; of the Franks, 318; of the Lombards, 209; of the Ostrogoths, 207; of the Raetians, 209; of the Visigoths, 317 Romanus of Antioch, 112 Rome, attitude to Judaism of, 21, 25; blind Jew at, 336; Council of, 223; expulsion of Jews from, 21, 24; knowledge of Christianity of Jews in, 68; persecution of Church by, 855., 91; state of Empire in fourth century, 177 Rosel, G., 122 Ruinartf 121
Shammai, R., 107 Shapur II, 140 ff.

Sidonius Apollinaris, 307, 314, 3*9 343 Simeon bar Sabbae, 141 Simeon, Bp. of Jerusalem, 404 Simeon Stylites, 238 Simeon the Mountainer, 274 Simlai, R., 113 Simon of Gyrene, 404 Sira, the Persian martyr, 142 Sisebut, 354, 355 Sisinand, 356 Slave trade, 216, 219, 231, 329, 340 Slaves, martyrs among, 134; number of Christians from, 180;
right to possess Christian, 202, 215, 3^7 (for all legal questions affecting slaves see App. I, ii)
S
Sabbath, Christians to work on, 175, 222, 320; Gospels to be read on, 175; Jesus' attitude to, 39; Jews not to be disturbed on, 203, 250, 352; Jews not to be served on, 176; Pharisaic
attitude to, 40 Sadducees, 169, 252 Salvador, /., xv Salvianus of Marseilles, 314 Samaritans, hatred of Christians
Smyrna, 136 Sombart, W., xiv Spain, commercial situation

349
f.;
in,
correspondence of Pope
Hadrian with, 222; situation of Jews in, 276, 348

Stahelin, F., 2
laws affecting, 258; of, 243, risings 233,

of,
258; 258;
synagogue of at Rome, 208 Sanctuary, exclusion from, 201,

232, 247. 353 Sargis of Abergra, see
Stephen, relics of in Minorca, 204; speech of, 48, 61 Stephen VI, Pope, 221 Stobbe, O.} 308 Strack, H.f xvi, 29 Sulpitius of Bourges, 335 Sunday, no work to be done on, 330. 332 Swintila, 356 Synagogue, collapse of buildings of, 238, 250; regulations of
services
of,
Doctrina
251;
ritual
for
Jacobi
Scherer, J. E., 308 Schurer, E.f xvi, i Scribes, 36, 169 Sebeds, 225 Seneca, 23, 25 Sepher Toldoth Jeshu, xi, 80, 109, 114, 191 Septimania, rising in, 362 Sergius of Amida, 263 Severianus of Philadelphus,
consecration of, 401
46,
me-
thod of argument of, 297 Severus of Antioch, catechetical

addresses of, 269, 304; Letters
moderation of, oft 244; view of Nestorius of, 303
29;
Synagogues, confiscation of, in Africa, 250; at Alexandria, 251; at Antioch, 238; at Borion, 250; at Caglieri, 214; at Constantinople, 238, 294, 303; at Edessa, 236; at Palermo, 213; at Terracina, 213; at Tipasa, 187 by John of Ephesus, 263; by Sergius of Amida, 263 Synagogues, destruction of, at Amida, 263; at Callinicum, 166 ff., 187; at Clermont, 331, 334; at Daphne, 244; at Dertona, 187; in Eastern Empire, 235; in Illyricum, 231; in Min-
430
INDEX
Toledo, Councils
of:
orca, 2041.; in Palestine, 236; at Ravenna, 207; at Rome, 187, 207; in Syria, 235; at Tours, 331
Illrd,
354;
Synagogues,
laws
affecting,
see
249,
App.
Syrian
i,
Roman Law Book,

The,
191,
IVth, 355, 356, 360; Vlth, 221, 358; Vllth, 358; Vlllth, 360; IXth, 361; Xth, 361 f.; Xllth, XVIIth, 366 ,562; Tomei, Conversion of Jews of,
266
Syrians,
313, 341,
289
350
f.,
306
Torah, attitude of Peter to, 50; attitude of Paul to, 50 ff., 69; Christian view of, 37, 50, 57, 96,
162;
meaning
of,
33,
35,
37;
Tacitus,
15,
Talmud,
16, 20, 23, 25, 86, 89 attacks on, xii, 78, 253,
254; compilation of, 191, 275; references to Jesus in, 109; references to Christianity in,
106, 108, 171;
surrender
of, xii,
358
(see fixion,
also
Isaac,
Altercations, Jesus,
Cruci-
Minim,
Paul) Tarbula, 142
observation of by Christians, 49 50> 92 Toussenel, A., xiii Trade restrictions, 367 Travel, control of, 364 Trinity, Doctrine of, 108, 155, 172, 269, 278 Trophies of Damascus, 287 Trullanum, Council, 268 Trusteeship, 247 Tyre, plot of Jews in, 262
Tarphon,
R., 109
Taxes, Jewish, 368, 370 (see also aurum coronarium) Telia, betrayal of, 257 Temedrius, 404 Terracina, Jews in, 211; synagogue at, 213 TertuUian, 72, 99, 104, 117, 150; accuses Jews of responsibility
persecution, 85, 111, 126, 147 Testimonies, ix, 71, 99; Teutonic edition of, x, 358
for
U
Ubricius of Clermont, 133
Uhlmann,
and,
F.,
122
Urbanus, 404 Usury, canons on, 269, 341; Jews

13, 192;
Laws on,
at,
192, 342;
sermons on, 192 Uzes, forced baptism
333
Valentinian and Valens, legislation of, 181
Thaddeus, 404 Theodoret of Cyr,
188, 283, 292,
299 Theodoric, 206 ff., 267 Theodoras of Alexandria, 147 n. Theodoras of Gyrene, 145 Theodoras of Mopsuestia, 297
Theodosius I, 166, 185, 199, 241 Theodosius II, 233, 236, 242 Theodosius the priest of the Jews,
9
Valentinian III, legislation of, 205 Vannes, Council of, 320, 324 Vasilief, A. A., 226 Venantius of Aries, 145 Venantius Fortunatus, 334 Vincent and Orantius, 145 n.Visigoths, in Illyricum, 232; in conception of Spain, 347 ff.; kingship among, 347
297
Theophilus and Simon, Dialogue of, 280 Tiberias, collapse of synagogues

in,
Wamba,
251;
story
of
image
at,
Wagenseil, J. S., xi 362 Wilcken, U., 2 Willrich, H., i
292 n. 5
Timothy, 404 Timothy and Aquila, Dialogue

of, x,
280
before
Titus, circumcision of, 51 Titus, Emp., council of Jerusalem, 87, 91
Zeno, Emp. Henoticon views on Jews of, 244 Zeno of Verona, 182 Ziegler, A., 346 Zionism, xiv
of,
243;
ftfi
cz CD?
30648

Conflict of The Church and The Synagogue, James Parkes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conflict of The Church and The Synagogue, James Parkes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conflict of The Church and The Synagogue, James Parkes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the book about?

What is the book about?

Who wrote the book?

Who wrote the book?

65-11548 296 P24c Parkes The conflict of the church* and aynagogue

KANSAS CITY MO PUBLIC LIBRARY

THE CONFLICT OF THE CHURCH AND THE SYNAGOGUE

THE WORLD PUBLISHING COMPANY

THE JEWISH PUBLICATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA

JAMES PARKES James Parkes, a British clergyman and

of the People: Antisemitism,

History of the Synagogue.

Meridian printing October 1961. Second printing June 1964.

THE LITERARY MATERIAL FOR THE STUDY OF JEWISH-CHRISTIAN

THE CLASH WITH CHRISTIANITY

Judaism and the Law

Jewish relationships with

THE PARTING OF THE WAYS

Paz* 1 uwu.) PUBLIC LiBKAHY T in and Christians separation, Jews

on Judaism relations Jews and Christians.

THE PART PLAYED BY THE JEWS THE PERSECUTIONS Page 121

authority in Patristic literature nature of available evidence Jews in the Acta of

THE FOURTH CENTURY

Jews and Christians.

THE THEODOSIAN CODE IN THE WEST Page 197

LAW AND HISTORY IN THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE Page 225

Theodosius II and reign of Arcadius Theodosian Code the treatment of

heretics in the fifth century

THE JEWS IN BYZANTINE LITERATURE Page 271

The nature of Byzantine literature

between Jews and Christians.

GIVES ROMANI, RELIGIONE JUDAEI

Charlemagne economic position of Jews relations between Jews and Christians.

THE FOUNDATIONS OF ANTISEMITISM

THE JEWS FROM Page 379

NOVELLA OF JUSTINIAN Page 392

PROFESSIONS OF FAITH JEWS ON BAPTISM

CENTURY ASCRIBED Page 402

to attempt to present all, not a selection, facts of Jewish- Christian relations. To do

give references for

my argument. And it was necessary to my quotations, so that scholars might

fear that there will

designed to confute rather than to convince.

produced a number of Christian rejoinders, the

work of Canon Lukyn Williams,

Christian Evidences for

A popularised form of this literature was the miracle play,

Testament, the Evangelists, the Apostles

and the Christian

to the Jews. The literature

the Mosaic Law.

great philosopher of toleration,

by Hermann Strack of The Jew

Europe some ten years

nineteenth century, in the

work of Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus

be said that the popular view of the

Analecta Bottandiana, periodical publication of the Bollandists.