Chapter Three. The Early Church Councils and the ...

Chapter Three. The Early Church Councils and the Separation of
Christians from Jews.

The first church councils originated in the east, towards the end of the second
century, in areas in the east where the Jewish population was more numerous than in
the west. By the second half of the second century, the church had gained sufficient
numerical strength and geographical dispersion in the east, at least, to sustain
episcopal reunions.

Besides, throughout the provinces of Greece there are held in definite
localities those councils gathered out of the universal churches, by
whose means not only all the deeper questions are handled for the
common benefit, but the actual representation of the whole Christian
name is celebrated with great veneration. (Tertullian, De Ieiunio
Adversus Psychicos, 13).1

While it is clear that though the focus of episcopal synods and councils was on the
definition of christological doctrines, as well as areas of church discipline and
essential questions, the church’s definition of its stance as regards contacts with Jews
is a constant theme of such gatherings. Various councils deemed it necessary to
continue to comment on Jews, suggesting a desire for separation from Jewish praxis
and a lack of success in the enforcement of such separation. Statements preserved
concerning the Jews, which appear in the council documents, though not numerous,
show that in some areas of the Roman Empire, social contacts with Jews were
sufficiently close to merit constant specific mention in local synods and general
church councils. However, though canons on the church’s relations with Judaism
form but a small part of the overall legislation of the early councils and synods, and
only date from the fourth century, they are an indication of some areas where
separation from Judaism still had not taken place by this time, and of growing
hostility towards Jews, as Christianity became more powerful. The question studied
here concerns the struggle to root out judaising practices, rather than a chronological
treatment of the moving apart from Judaism. The problem about judaising reflects

1 The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, Alexander Roberts and
James Donaldson (eds), (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1870), vol. 18, 147.

61

not merely the origins of the church in Judaism, but also the claim by the church that
it was the New Israel, that the law had been fulfilled in Christ, and that its selective
retention of some elements did not preclude the practice of some Jewish rituals. In
addition, judaising in the church during the early centuries reflects the struggle for
the preservation of elements of Judaism within the church among Christians who
experienced confusion.

Again, it is clear that the spread of the bishops did not happen at the same rate
everywhere, but depended on the degree of evangelisation. In the earlier period, the
councils were limited mainly to the east, to Anatolia, Syria and Palestine and to Italy.
In the case of Egypt, the Bishop of Alexandria governed the affairs of the churches of
his own province,2 and his power also extended to those of the Libyan Pentapolis,
which was under the administration of the island of Crete.3 African Councils began
in the third century, while Gaul did not participate till the fourth century.4 Spain also
remained quite isolated for the time being.5 Ecumenical Councils were only possible
from the fourth century, when the church had imperial protection. In the fourth and
fifth centuries they were held at Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon,
where again mostly bishops from the east, where the Jewish population was greater,
were present.6 However, anti-Jewish canons do not appear to have been formulated
until early in the fourth century, when they emerged firstly in the west.

Decrees on Judaism were reiterated from the fourth century, from the time
Christianity came under the protection of the emperor until several centuries later.

2 See Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7.24 (which mentions Arsinöe). See also D. Botte et al., Le Concile et
les Conciles: Contribution à l’Histoire de la Vie conciliare de l’Eglise (Paris, Chevotogne, 1960),
22, 24.

3 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7.68.

4 Evidence from Tertullian’s De Ieiunio indicates that at the time of writing in the third century CE
councils were unknown in Africa. Agrippinus, Donatus and Cyprian, the bishops of Carthage,
gathered the bishops of all the African provinces, which did not yet include Mauritania
(Numidia). See L. Duchesne, Christian Worship, Its Origin and Evolution: A Study of the Latin
Liturgy to the Time of Charlemagne, tr. M. L. McClure (London, SPCK, 1904), 18.

5 Botte, Le Concile, 24.

6 See Jean Gaudemet, L' Eglise dans l'Empire romain (iv–v siècles), in Gabriel Le Bras (ed.),
Histoire du Droit et des Institutions de l'Église 3 (5 vols, Paris, Sirey, 1958), 452.

62

The struggle to separate from practices that were considered specifically Jewish
reflects the ambiguous nature of Christianity. On the one hand, Christianity was
styling itself as the fulfilment of Judaism, so that the retention of Jewish terms for
liturgy, for example, was evidently not a problem. On the other hand, there was little
tolerance for Jewish praxis, such as circumcision, or participation in the Sabbath or
Jewish feasts.

Church Councils

Though church councils do not belong to the earliest period of church history, an
exception could be made for the so called Council of Jerusalem, which, though seen
by some exegetes as ‘an imaginary construction answering no historical reality’, it
may indicate the kind of questions regarding separation from Judaism which
preoccupied the early church.7 The period reflected in the text from Acts belongs to
the time when the Temple still stood, when Christianity was very new, and still
attached to the mother religion, as a schismatic movement. The council of the
apostles and the elders described in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 15:6–29) was seen
as the prototype of the assemblies of bishops, which met to regulate matters of
discipline, and to define doctrines in the face of external threats against orthodoxy
from competing ideologies.8

The specific questions to which the text of Acts 15 alludes were of relevance, it
seems, before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, but apparently soon became of lesser
importance, after the destruction of the Temple and the collapse of the centrality and
influence of the Jerusalem priesthood.9 The question of Jewish law, however, was
one that was not easily dismissed. Did gentile converts retain certain elements of
Jewish law partly out of consideration for the Jewish sensibilities of Christians of
Jewish origin, or was it because they found some practices of Judaism attractive?

7 See Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Oxford, Blackwell, 1971), 463.
8 See Hubert Jedin, Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: An Historical Outline

(Edinburgh, Nelson, 1960), 17.
9 See F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary

London, Tyndale, 1951), 12.

63

A controversy broke out concerning gentile admission to the new faith and revolved
around the separation from and the degree of attachment to Jewish law as defined by
the Books of Moses to be maintained by these converts. The controversy is
enlightening, for it implies a definite policy towards separation in the nascent church
from this time, and the direction away from being a movement within Judaism.

There appear to have been two controversies raised in Acts 15. The first issue
concerned the obligations of non-Jewish converts to observe the Law,10 and the
second, the controversy about social relations between the two groups of Christian
converts, those of Jewish origin and those who were non-Jews.11 According to Acts,
the decision was reached that non-Jews who adopted belief in Jesus were not
required to obey the Mosaic law (Acts 15:9-11). This included circumcision.

Circumcision

The importance of circumcision to Jewish identity is well documented, being
regarded from the biblical period as a sine qua non for Israelite males and for male
slaves.12 Jewish sources about proselytes emphasise further the importance of
circumcision to Jewish identity.13 In Acts 15, circumcision is the matter that brings
Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, and is the immediate issue that gathers the apostles

10 Gen 17:9–14 shows that the covenant made with Abraham was a covenant of circumcision (Gen
17:11), which was an everlasting covenant in the flesh (Gen 17:3). See also Gen 7:10,12–14.

11 See also Gal 2:11–14.
12 See Gen 17:23–27; Lev 12:3. Although circumcision was practised in many areas, as for example

in Egypt, Syria and various parts of Asia Minor (Herodotos 2:104 and see Jer 9, Edomites,
Amonites, Moabites), circumcision came to be recognised by gentiles as the sign of the Jew–
Judith 14:10; Jub 15:33; I Macc 1:60–64.
13 See for example Ex. Rab. 30.12 where Aquila, who wishes to convert to Judaism, tells Hadrian
that unless he is circumcised he cannot study Torah. See also Robert Wilken, ‘The Christians as
the Romans (and Greeks) Saw Them,’ in E. P Sanders et al., (eds), Jewish and Christian Self-
Definition: The Shaping of Christianity in the Second and Third Centuries (3 vols, Philadelphia,
Fortress, 1981), vol. 1, 103ff. See also t. Abod. Zar. 3.12 where a Jew may circumcise a gentile
for the purpose of conversion to Judaism, but a gentile may not circumcise a Jew. Circumcision
divided Jews from gentiles–Gen. Rab. 46.9.

64

and elders (Acts 15:6).14 The fact that circumcision is singled out as the primary issue
for the convocation of the first meeting where decisions for the future direction of the
church are to be taken, underlines its importance. Whether or not the Council is
actually historical does not alter the fact that it seems that it was the Pauline view
that prevailed.

Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break
the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So, if those
who are uncircumcised keep the requirement of the law, will not their
uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then those who are
physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you that
have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For a
person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision
something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one
inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart – it is spiritual
and not literal (Rom 2:25–29).15

Romans expresses a view that is Jewish in essence, being an interpretation that is
liberal and inclusive, in contrast to strict and exclusive halakhah found in Qumran
documents. Thus Paul, in liberalising the ritual requirements of Jewish law, paved
the way for the entry of non-Jewish converts.

That the Pauline view prevailed is indicated further by the fact that circumcision
appears not to have been mentioned in church council complaints against judaising
Christians,16 though circumcision as a non religious practice continues to be practised
today.

The Graeco-Roman writers are consistent in mentioning circumcision as a
distinguishing feature of Judaism, whereas they do not link it to Christian practice. 17

14 See also Gal 2:1–10, and Acts 7:8. Circumcision also is an issue in Stephen’s speech. (Acts
10:45; 11:2–3).

15 For circumcision of the heart see Jer 4:4 and 6:10.

16 See Epiphanius and Novella 6 of Justinian. See Jean Juster, Les Juifs dans l'Empire romain: Leur
Condition juridique, économique et sociale (2 vols, New York, Burt Franklin, 1914), vol. 1, 269–
271, n. 6.

17 See Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem, Academy of
Sciences and Humanities, 1974), vol. 1, 69ff (no. 55 Diodorus, Bibliotheca Historica, I.28.1–3–
Vogel = F33r), 225 (no. 81 Josephus, Ant. 13.319 Niese), 300 (no. 115, Strabo, Geographica
16,2:37), 312 (no. 118 Strabo, Geographica 16.4.9), 315 (no. 124 Geographica 17.2.5, but he is
incorrect about Jews practising female circumcision), 325 (no. 129 Horace, Sermones (1.60–78),

65

In the second century, Hadrian outlawed circumcision and showed intolerance for the
rituals of Judaism, apparently wishing to obliterate all traces of Judaism from
Jerusalem. During the period of Hadrian’s attack on Jerusalem (132–5 CE) many
sought to hide their circumcision, but after the Bar Kochba rebellion, when no longer
under Roman control, many of these Jews were circumcised again.18

The Christian anti-Jewish polemicists did not hesitate to point out circumcision as a
distinguishing feature of Judaism, whilst negatively contrasting physical
circumcision to circumcision of the heart.19 The Church Fathers wrote consistently
about the futility of circumcision, arguing that this was a rite the Jews shared with
other peoples, thus proving it was not a privilege.20 In addition, its value as a sign
was questioned for it was argued that it was a male prerogative.

Moreover, the fact that females cannot receive circumcision of
the flesh shows that circumcision was given as a sign, not as
an act of justification (Justin, Dial. 23.5)21

The Christian polemicists usually make a distinction between circumcision which
was required of Abraham when already justified by faith, and point out that the older
patriarchs from Adam to Enoch, and then Melchizedek were uncircumcised.22

356 (no. 146 Ptolemy, Historia Herodis, apud Ammonius, De Adfinium Vocabulorum
Differentia, no 243–Nickau), 415 (no. 176 Josephus, Contra Apionem 2.137–Niese) 436 (no.
190 Saturae, 5.176-184–Clausen) 442–444 (nos. 194–195 Satyricon, 64.4–8; 102.13–14;
Fragmenta no. 37–Ernout), 525f (no. 240 Martial, Epigrammata, 7.30–Lindsay), 528 (no. 246
Martial, Epigrammata 12.57.1–14–Lindsay) 2:19–26 (no. 281 Tacitus, Historiae 5:1,
Koestermann, ‘They adopted circumcision to distinguish themselves from other people by their
difference’). Juster also gives an exhaustive list of sources. See Juster, Les Juifs, 263–71ff.

18 See Hist. Aug. Hadrian, 14; Dio Cassius 69.12.1; t. Shab. 15.9 and Lawrence H. Schiffman, ‘At
the Crossroads: Tannaitic Perspectives on the Jewish-Christian Schism’, in Sanders, Jewish and
Christian, vol. 2, 125–7.

19 See Aphrates, Hom 11.1.3.7. Zeno of Verona devoted an entire sermon to circumcision,
summarising the arguments Christians had devised against physical circumcision in contrast to
circumcision of the heart. See Tract 13 (PL 11.2:345ff).

20 See Barn. 9:6; Justin, Dial. 16.2–3; Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 3. See also Justin, Dial. 28.4.

21 See Writings of Justin Martyr: Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Ludwig Schopp (ed),
New York, Christian Heritage, 1948,183.

22 Justin, Dial. 19.4; 23.4; 33.2; 46.3; 92.3. For a fuller discussion see Marcel Simon, Verus Israel:
A Study of the Relations Between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (135–425), tr. H.
McKeating (Oxford University Press for Littman Library, 1986), 164–6.

66

Circumcision, Immersion and Baptism

In Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians, Christian baptism was seen as the fulfilment and
replacement of circumcision (Col 2;11). In Acts, baptism was portrayed as washing
away sins if one had true repentance. (Acts 2:38; 3:19). The Septuagint translates the

Hebrew verb kcy as β£πτω, a term expressing the removal of ritual impurity.23 In

the New Testament, the verb (β£πτω) ‘to dip or immerse’ is used also in the literal
sense, the term ‘baptism’ (β£πτισµα) being derived from this verb.

An extension of the general custom of ritual lustration in Judaism was proselyte
baptism, which was used for gentile converts to Judaism. Proselytism appears to
have been practised in the first century CE. Different approaches were evident, as
indicated by the differing attitudes of Shammai and Hillel to the request of a
prospective proselyte to be taught the principles of Judaism.24

When the Temple stood, a proselyte was required to sacrifice a burnt offering either
of cattle or two young pigeons, as well as undergo circumcision and then ritual
immersion. However, R. Yohanan ben Zakkai is said to have ruled that in those
times when sacrifice was no longer possible, a proselyte was not obliged to set aside
money for the sacrifice. Thus, of the three rituals connected with conversion, only
circumcision and ritual immersion remained after the fall of the Temple.25 Yet there
were differing opinions: R. Eliezer and R. Joshua are reported as disagreeing as to
whether someone who immersed himself but was not circumcised or vice versa
could be considered a proselyte.26 Thus, in the first century when Paul was active, he
took the view that gentile converts were not required to undergo circumcision, but
ritual immersion or baptism was a requirement for entry into Christianity. Both

23 Matt 23:15. Contra Ap. 2.39 relates that the inhabitants of both the Greek and barbarian cities
showed a great zeal for Judaism.

24 b. Shab. 31a.
25 See b. Ker. 9a.
26 See b. Yeb. 46b–47a. On the other hand, the Talmud prescribes that a woman proselyte is

required to sit in water up to her neck while two learned men stand outside and give her
instructions in some of the major and minor commandments.

67

circumcision and ritual immersion for converts were to become mandatory in
Judaism after the fall of the Temple and the codification of the Mishnah.

This data indicates that, in fact, non-circumcision for gentile converts was an issue
over which early Christianity began to separate from Judaism.27 This step towards
separation had occurred already in the first century and possibly before 70 CE.
Christianity was to take a different path from Judaism by the spiritualisation of
circumcision28 and the abolition of physical circumcision with the substitution of
baptism in Christ for ritual immersion.

A further parallel with baptism and ritual immersion is indicated in the talmudic text
which declares that a proselyte ends all family ties upon conversion and is considered
to be as a newly born child.29

Dietary Regulations

In ruling that gentile converts were not required to keep the ritual prescriptions of
Jewish law exception was made for abstaining from food polluted by idols,30 from
πορνειαj – sexual immorality,31 from the meat of strangled animals32 and the blood.

27 Jewish Christians such as Ebionites and Elkasaites were distinguished by their respect for ritual
observance, especially the rite of circumcision. (Epiphanius, Haer.19.3.5ff.), and followed
Christian observances as well as Jewish observances (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.27.5).

28 Justin speaks of the eighth day in connection with circumcision, and says this day also does not
cease to be called the first. See Justin, Dial. 41:4. See also Enoch 33:2. Later in the third century
Cyprian speaks of the eighth day, calling it the day after the Sabbath, the day of resurrection
when the Lord gives spiritual circumcision. See Cyprian, Epistula 64:4. Ambrose develops the
thought of Cyprian in the fourth century, calling the eighth day the day of the perfect
circumcision that is passed down to all humankind. See Ambrose, Epistula 31(44) ad
Orontianum. In his commentary on the Psalms 43:62 Ambrose introduces other biblical
witnesses for the number eight: Hosea 3:1–2; and Micah 5:4–5.

29 b. Yeb 22a.
30 The flesh of animals slain for non-Jewish sacrifices. See Lev 17:8–9. See also Acts 15:29; 21:25,

I Cor 8:10 and b. Hul. 6:2.
31 This word appears to refer to the irregular unions listed in Lev 18. Such practices involved legal

impurity. In some manuscripts, porneias changes place with haimatos (the blood) and is placed
first. The Western text omits the word porneias. Porneia was used of incest and homosexuality
(Lev 18:22); T. Benj. 9:1; Jubilees 20:5.

68

(Acts 15:20; 27–29). Verse 20 of Acts 15 appears in two different forms in the
Western and Alexandrian families of manuscripts.

Codex D of the Western text (as is the case in 15:29 and 21:25) omits ‘the meat of
strangled animals’, and adds ‘after the blood’ and ‘do not do to others what one
would not have done to oneself’, the negative form of the Golden Rule.33 These
changes make the list an ethical one: ‘Abstain from idolatry, from fornication, from
bloodshed and do not do to others what one would not have done to oneself’. The
uncials ‘B’ and aleph (of the Alexandrian manuscripts) omit the Golden Rule:
‘Abstain from things polluted by idols, from fornication, from what has been
strangled and from blood’ but include ‘the meat of strangled animals’. Talbert
comments that the second is more likely to have been the original text.34

The severity with which the law forbids blood (Lev 1:5f; Gen 9:4; Lev 3:17; 17:10–
14), explains James’ unwillingness to dispense gentiles from this prohibition. Again,
as blood remains in strangled animals, this is part of the previous prohibition. James’
prescription may be understood against the background of Lev 17–18, if one accepts
that James considered the converted gentiles as analogous to the foreigners of
Leviticus.35 These ritual exceptions announced by James indicate that the question at
issue concerned practices Hellenistic Christians should follow, so that Christians of
Jewish origin could mix with them without incurring legal impurity.36

While the observance of Christian abstinence from meat sacrificed to idols and from
strangled animals retained the force of church law in the east, some vestiges
remained in the western church.37 In the middle of the fourth century, the Council of

32 See Lev 17:13–14; Philo Spec. Leg 4.122. See also Clem. Hom. 7.8; 8.19. Clem. Rec. 4: 36
shows the obligations were enforced for Jewish-Christians.

33 Also v. 29.
34 See Charles H. Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of

the Apostles (New York, Crossroad, 1997), 141–142.
35 See Talbert, Reading Acts, 141.
36 See Simon, Verus Israel, 334ff.
37 See PL 42: 504. Augustine, Contra Faust 32.13.

69

Gangra, the metropolis of Paphlagonia in Asia Minor, asserted the obligation of
avoiding strangled meat and meat offered to idols.38 Sacrifices to idols were
widespread in fifth century Asia Minor, although Christianisation had begun to take
hold. In some areas, though very little had changed in rural religious practices since
the pre-Christian period, by the time of the Council of Nicaea in 325, there were
bishops in most of the cities of Asia Minor.39 However, the literary sources indicate
that the local cultures of Asia Minor adapted slowly to the new religion.40 The synod
met to rectify several misdemeanours arising from the ascetic teachings of
Eustathius, whose errors included the forbidding of all animal food.41 Canon two
reads:

Si quis eum qui carnem praeter sanguinem, et idolothytum, et
sussocatum, cum pietate et fide comedit, condemnat, tamquam eo
quod ea vescatur, spem non habeat, sit anathema.

If anyone condemns one who eats meat, though that person abstains
from blood, sacrifices offered to idols and strangled animals, and is
devout and faithful, as if in doing so had no hope of salvation, let (the
one who condemns) be anathema.42

The form Si quis appears to indicate a legal innovation. Again, these measures did
not require authorisation from secular powers.43

38 The exact date is unknown, and the identity of Bishop Eusebius, mentioned by the text, is also
uncertain.

39 Hefele adds the comment that the Greeks, being very pedantic, were attempting to make a
temporary prescription of the apostolic times, then necessary to unite Jewish and gentile
Christians, into a rule of perpetual validity. See Karle Joseph von Hefele, History of the Councils
of the Church from the Original Documents, tr. William R Clark, reprint (5 vols, New York, AMS

Press, 1972), vol. 5, 232–3. Trombley’s work makes it evident that Christianity was still but a

facade to Hellenic religion in some areas. Frank R. Trombley, Hellenic Religions and
Christianisation c.370-539 (Leiden, Brill, 1995), vol. 2, 75.

40 See Trombley, Hellenic Religions, 2, 75.

41 See J. D. Mansi, Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, reprint (Graz, Akademische Druck-
U. Verlagsanstalt, 1960), vol. 2, 1095 and Hefele, vol. 2, 326ff.

42 See Mansi, vol. 2, 1099 and Hefele, vol. 2, 328.

43 See Walter Pakter, ‘Early Western Church Law and the Jews’, in Harold W. Attridge and Gohei
Hata (eds), Eusebius,Christianity and Judaism (Detroit, Wayne State University, 1992), 717.

70

Several centuries later, there still are echoes of this prohibition.44 Trombley adds the
comment: ‘A deep sense of insecurity toiled beneath the public facade of
Christianisation, a feeling that would prevail well into the early medieval period’.
There was a strong pre-Christian stratum of religious belief and behaviour in the less
accessible parts of Asia Minor that lasted at least into the seventh century.45 This is
illustrated by the canons of the Council of 691–692 in Trullo, which addressed the
question of the survival of Hellenic cult practices. However, as is clear from the
evidence in canonical decrees, though early church councils deplored social contact
with Jews, the church possessed no legal power to inflict punishment on them. Any
moral punishment was confined to Christian offenders.

Anti-Jewish Canons

Leaving aside the Council of Jerusalem, it appears that it was not until early in the
fourth century that the first known anti-Jewish canons from a church council
appeared, not in the east in Asia Minor, where the Jewish population was the most
concentrated, but at the Council of Elvira in Spain about the year 305, where there
was a sizeable Jewish population. This emerged, despite the fact that in the west, the
density of the Jewish population was perceptibly less than in the east.46 The canons
suggest that Jews were numerous in Spain, and the fact that most of the canons
regarding Jews are repressive indicates that Jews were seen as a threat to
Christianity. Juster’s list of established Jewish settlements in Visigothic times,47
indicates that a large proportion of the Jewish population was concentrated in
northern Baetica, Cordova, Tucci and Elvira, while other nearby cities possessed

44 See Canon 2, in Mansi, vol 2, 1099. See also Hefele, vol. 2, 328. Canon 67 of the Trullo Synod
expressly renews the prohibition of blood. (692 CE). See Mansi, vol. 11, 974. In the eighth
century, Gregory the Third imposed forty days penance on those who broke the rule of blood.
See Simon, Verus Israel, 336, n. 147 and Trombley, Hellenic Religions, 2, 82.

45 See Trombley, Hellenic Religions, 1, 182.
46 See Simon, Verus Israel, 296.
47 Juster, Les Juifs, vol. 1, 183–184. Jewish inscriptions have been found at Villamesias (north of

Merida), Tortosa (Dertosa), Tarragona (Tarraco), Majorca, Ibiza, Elche (Klici) and Adra
(Abdera). See also D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe (Cambridge University Press,
1993), 238–63.

71

strong Jewish populations, making it feasible that the anti-Jewish canons were
proposed by Baetician bishops.48 The Council of Elvira followed in the wake of
Diocletian’s persecutions, the latter abdicating on 1 May 305, a fact which also
indicates a feeling of vulnerability in the church. 49 However, the councils of Gaul
were apparently less developed than in the east, there being little Spanish conciliar
activity from the time of Elvira till the councils of Toledo.50

Feldman comments that the fact that the interdictions concern specific practices
could indicate that these were the very practices the church feared would lead
Christians to apostasy or heresy, through their socialising with Jews.51 Shortly
afterwards, these anti-Jewish measures from Elvira were taken up by the emperor
Constantine,52 and adopted, with many variations, especially in Gaul, by many later
councils.53 This fact demonstrates that without the help of the emperor, the church
would have been considerably less effective in enforcing such measures. The
assistance of the emperor meant that the church could incorporate imperial laws into
its canonical legislation, and add laws of its own, especially in the areas of social
relations, religious fraternising and sexual relations. Further, it seems evident that the
Councils of Gaul maintained the anti-Jewish measures voiced at Elvira until the
decisive victory of the Catholic Church over Arianism.54

According to the nineteenth century commentator on the Council of Elvira, Alfred

48 See Victor de Clerq, Ossius of Cordova: A Contribution to the History of the Constantinian
Period (Washington, Catholic University of America, 1954), 42.

49 See Timothy D. Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (Cambridge, Harvard
University Press, 1982), 197.

50 See Gaudemet, L' Eglise, vol. 3, 36.
51 See L. H. Feldman, ‘Proselytism by Jews in the Third, Fourth and Fifth Centuries’, in JSJ, 24:1

(1993), 23.
52 See C. Th. 3.7.2; 9.7.5.
53 Specifically these were the first Council of Vannes (465 CE), Mansi, vol. 7, 954; Council of

Epaon (517 CE), Mansi, vol. 8, 561; Council of Arles (533 CE), Mansi, vol. 8, 838, and the
Council of Orleans (558 CE), Mansi, vol. 9, 2. See Albert Bat-Ševa, ‘Un nouvel examen de la
politique anti-juive: A propos d’un article récent’, REJ, 135:1 (1975), 6, n. 14.
54 Albert Bat-Ševa, ‘Un nouvel examen’, 6.

72

Winterslow Dale, ‘the true aim of the Council of Elvira was to base the social life of
the community upon principles which without revolutionising the actual condition
and organisation of the social fabric, would yet secure its members against the
special entanglements which would draw them away from their faith and from their
friends’.55 Whatever the motives for the Council, it appears evident that intermarriage
and sexual relations between Jews and Christians from the time of the Council of
Elvira were the subject of continual ecclesiastical prohibition, indicating that these
problems occured.56 Again, the Canons from the Council of Elvira indicate that the
greatest danger was anticipated from the side of the Jews, for the regulations
affecting them were the most numerous and the most severe. At the time, restrictions
were confined to personal and social relations.57

The sources indicate that nineteen bishops who came from all parts of Spain were
present at Elvira when five anti-Jewish measures were adopted.58 The number of
bishops present may have been as high as forty-three.59 The anti-Jewish measures
forbade intermarriage between Christians and Jews (Canon 16), and the related
canon that adultery with Jewesses was forbidden (Canon 78), forbade Christians to
eat with Jews (Canon 50), the making of the Sabbath into a festival (Canon 29) and
included the prohibition of having fields blessed by Jews (Canon 49), ‘lest they make
our blessing invalid (irritam) and feeble (infirmam).60 Evidently this practice was
viewed with some seriousness, as punishment involved complete exclusion from the
church.61 The first and the third anti-Jewish measures in particular, intermarriage and

55 See Alfred William Winterslow Dale, The Synod of Elvira and Christian Life in the Fourth
Century: A Historical Essay (London, Macmillan, 1882), 252.

56 See Rosemary Ruether, Faith and Fraticide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism (New York,
Seabury Press), 1979), 191.

57 See Dale, The Synod, 253.
58 See Mansi, vol. 2, 357–97, 469.
59 Hefele, vol. 1, 132
60 See Mansi, vol. 2, 306. ‘Admoneri placuit possessores, ut non patiantur fructur suos, quos a Deo

percipiunt cum gratiarum actione, a Judaeis benedici; ne nostram irritam & infirmam faciant
benedictionem. Si quis post interdictum facere usurparit, penitus ab ecclesia abjiciatur.’
61 See Feldman, ‘Proselytism’, 23.

73

eating with Jews, were to be repeated by councils outside of Spain and beyond the
geographical confines of Gaul. However, the fact that these measures were decreed at
this time indicates a high degree of socialisation between Jews and Christians in this
area of the Iberian peninsula. The decisions also indicate a level of uneasiness among
the church authorities as to judaising practices. At this stage, the decisions were only
of local importance, but they could be regarded as a test of the gathering antagonism
of the church authorities towards the Jewish population.

Intermarriage

An area that evidently was a cause for concern for the Emperor and the church
authorities was the question of intermarriage. In the case of the marriage of Jews and
Christians it could be, as Rosemary Ruether suggests, that the main purpose for its
prevention was the fear of judaising by the non-Jewish partner.62

Legislation against intermarriage was to be repeated throughout conciliar legislation
for centuries, indicating that the prevention of marriage between Jews and Christians
was not entirely successful, despite the very harsh punishment exacted both by the
imperial authorities and the church, and Jewish opposition to intermarriage.

Canon 16 of Elvira reads:

Haereticis si se transferre noluerint ad ecclesiam catholicam, ne ipsis
catholicas dandas puellas; sed neque Judaeis, neque schismaticis dari
placuit, eo quod nulla possit esse societas fidelis cum infideli: si
contra interdictum fecerint parentes, abstinere per quinquennium
placet.63

If heretics do not wish to submit themselves to the discipline of the
Catholic Church, Catholic girls are not to be given to them (in
marriage). The decree has been made not to give them to Jews or
heretics, since there may be no association of believers with non-
believers. If the parents (or relatives) disregard this prohibition, they

62 This is suggested by Ruether, Faith and Fratricide, 189.
63 Mansi, vol. 2, 191–2.

74

must abstain (from communion) for five years.64

This early conciliar interdiction on intermarriage only appears to prohibit
intermarriage to Jewish men, for nothing is said about marriage to Jewish women.
Apparently, ancient statutes did not attempt to cover every eventuality, often being
restricted only to problematic cases.65 Apparently marriages to Jewish women were
not considered to be a problem, possibly due to the ingrained natural resistance to
intermarriage with Jewish women by Christian men.66 Again, one could presume
reciprocal reluctance from the Jewish side.

Again, in this canon, Jews are apparently equated with heretics, the same penalties
for disobedience being meted out for marriage with Jews or heretics, both of whom
are ostensibly condemned for not subscribing to belief in all the teachings of the
Catholic Church. It is likewise implied that if the heretic or Jew is willing to be
converted (probably more specifically as regards orthodox christological doctrine)
then intermarriage is permitted. However, the fifteenth canon of Elvira, which
forbids intermarriage with non-believers, fixes no penalty for disobedience. Why this
difference?

Dale highlights the point that the number of women among the Christians of this
time was large in comparison with that of the men, though he does not give his
sources for this conclusion.67 Thus the men could readily find Christian wives,

64 The third Council of Carthage, in its twelfth canon forbids the sons and daughters of the bishops
and clergy to marry unbelievers, (Gentilibus), heretics and schmismatics. Jews are not mentioned
specifically, in these reconstructed canons, but were included in the interdicts concerning
schismatics, according to the commentary in Mansi, vol. 2, 191. Item placuit, ut filii vel filia
episcoporum, vel quorum-libet clericorum, Gentilibus, vel haereticis, aut schismaticis
matrimonio non jungantur. See also Mansi, vol. 8, 646. The African Council of 525 under
Boniface of Carthage renews several earlier decisions, including those of the third Carthaginian
synod. This latter council appears to have been held in 397 on the 28 August. See Hefele, vol. 2,
401, 407.

65 See Pakter, ‘Early Western’, 720, n. 83.

66 See Pakter, ‘Early Western’, 720.

67 The Roman army hired mercenaries to do much of their fighting but warfare would have
accounted for the killing of large numbers of the male population. See Pan.Lat. XII. 22 (Goths as
mercenaries).

75

whereas, for many Christian women, the choice was either to remain unmarried or to
marry outside the faith. He suggests that marriage with heretics or Jews was seen by
the church as the greater of the two evils. Both belonged to the minority groups and
possessed positive convictions as compared with the unbelievers, whose beliefs were
less rigid and more tolerant and who were likely to make fewer demands. He reasons
that the unbeliever would be more likely to allow his wife to follow her own
religious practices, than either a Jew or a heretic.68 Dale adds that the wording
suggests a recommendation, to be enforced by the moral sense of the community,
rather than by condemnation and sentence by law.69

Thus, due no doubt to the growing problem of intermarriage, the church found it
imperative to restrict marriage between Christians and Jews. The parents of the bride
were penalised by five years' suspension from communion with the church, as they
were held responsible for such engagements, being punished by the fifty-fourth
canon for breach of contract in betrothal. The woman, in marrying a Jew would be
cut off from the church altogether.70

If intermarriage was forbidden by the church at the Council of Elvira, the same
measure is balanced on the Jewish side by the stricter view found in the oral law
which unequivocally forbids the marriage of non Jews with Jews,71 and the Jewish
written law which forbids marriage with non-Jews.72

An accompanying canon, no. 78 from Elvira, forbids adultery with a Jewish or pagan

68 See Dale, The Synod, 261–2.
69 See Dale, The Synod, 260. See Canon 15: ‘ Propter copiam puellarum gentilibus minime in

matrimonium dandae sunt virgines Christianae, ne aetas in flore tumens in adulterium animae
resolvatur . Hefele, vol. 1, 144.
70 See comments by Dale, The Synod, 258–259. The Council of Toledo decreed that Jews with
Christian wives were to become Christian, or separate from them, and the Council of Clermont
declared that husband and wife were to be excommunicated. 4 Toledo LXII, and C. Arvernens.
(Clermont) VI.
71 See b.Abod. Zar 36b; b. Kid. 66b, 68b; b. Yeb 23a. This is also mentioned by Josephus, AJ 8. 7.
5; Philo, De Spec Leg 3. 5. 29; Tacitus, Hist 5.
72 See Gen 43:14ff; Ex 34:16; Num 25; Deut 7:3ff; I Kgs 11:1ff; Ezra 10; Neh 13:23ff. See also
Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 9:22; Philo, De Spec. Leg. 3:5: Josephus, AJ 20.7.2.

76

woman, and decrees a penance of five years if the offender has not confessed
himself. If he has made a spontaneous confession, the canon makes a vague threat
that the offender should be excommunicated (arceatur) but it does not stipulate the
length of time for this punishment. Hefele, quoting the opinion of Mendoza in Mansi
1, 388 suggests that it could be supposed that this was for three years, according to
the analogy with the 76th canon of Elvira, which says that if a deacon has committed
a mortal sin, and makes known his fault, he may be received into communion, after
three years of penance. If another makes known his fault, he may be received into
communion after five years of penance.73 However, one may query the length of
penance being for three years, while the 69th canon decrees five years’ punishment
for every adulterer.74 An added reason to reject this opinion would be the resulting
discrepancy in the severity of the punishment for real adultery covered in canon 78
with that of canon 72, the evidently less criminal offence of a widow having sexual
relations with a man whom she subsequently marries.

Si quis fidelis habens uxorem cum Judaea vel Gentili fuerit
moechatus, a communione arceatur: Quod si alius eum detexeret,
post quinquennium, acta legitima poenitentia poterit dominicae
sociari communioni.75

If one of the faithful has committed adultery with a Jewess or pagan
woman, he shall be excommunicated. In the case where his sin was
discovered by another, after five years’ acts of legitimate penitence,
he is able to return to the society of Sunday communion.76

The punishment is the same, whether adultery be with a Jew or a pagan. Is the
implication that the crime is less serious if the adultery be with another Christian?

About one hundred and twenty-five years after the Council of Elvira, Canon 14 of
the Council of the fifteenth session of the Council of Chalcedon (451 CE) also speaks

73 See Hefele, vol. 1, 169.
74 See Hefele, vol. 1, 170.
75 Mansi, vol. 2, 388.
76 See Hefele, vol. 1, 167–71.

77

of the forbidden grades of intermarriage between Christians with Jews and heretics,

adding heathens (pagani) or Hellenists (Helleni). .

Quoniam in nonnullis provinciis concessum est lectoribus &
cantoribus uxores ducere, decrevit sancta synodus nulli eorum licere
diversae a recta opinionis uxorem ducere: eos autem qui ex ejusmodi
matrimonio liberos susceperunt, si eos quidem baptizare apud
haereticos praevenerint, ad catholicae ecclesiae communionem
adducere: si autem non baptizaverint, non posse eos apud haereticos
baptizare. Sed neque haeretico, vel pagano, vel Judaeo, matrimonio
conjungere, nisi utique persona, quae orthodoxae conjungitur, se ad
orthodoxam fidem convertendam spondeat. Si quis autem hoc sanctae
synodi decretum transgressus fuerit, canonicis poenis subjiciatur.77

Whereas in some provinces readers and singers are permitted to
marry, this holy synod decrees that none of these shall take a
heterodox wife; but those who already have children from such unions
(with heterodox wives) if they have already allowed them to be
baptised by heretics, must bring them into the communion of the
Catholic Church. If, however, they are not yet baptised, then they
must not allow them to be baptised by heretics, or to marry heretics or
pagans or Jews, unless the person who is to be united with the
orthodox party promises to adopt the orthodox faith. If any one
transgresses this ordinance of the holy synod, he shall be punished
according to the canon.

According to the Latin translation of Dionysius Exiguus, who speaks only of the

daughters of the lectors and singers, the meaning probably may not be understood to

mean that the sons of readers may marry heretics, Jews or pagans, but simply that the

latter possibility was less of a problem, Hefele expressing the prevailing view held

that men are less easily led to fall away from the faith than women.78 It appears that

the canon does not mean that other Christians are free to marry Jews, as in 339 CE

Constantine had passed a law prohibiting Jews from marrying women from the

weaving factories (C.Th.16.8.6 [13/8/39]), a measure which was reinforced by the

harsh blanket decree in the year 388 of Theodosius I that made it the crime of

adultery for any Christian to marry a Jew, and exacted capital punishment for the

crime (C.Th.3.7.2 and 9.7.5 [14/3/388]). Again, why are lectors and singers

77 See Mansi, vol. 7, 363. The first part of the canon has been inserted by Gratian, c.15, Dist. xxxii.

78 See Hefele, 3, 400–1. The Arabic canons of Nicaea, rediscovered at Mt Athos, although
commonly held to be spurious, express this view. (See Canon 53). See Pakter, ‘Early Western’,
722.

78

particularly singled out, if not that their official function in the liturgy required a
higher standard of acceptable behaviour than that of the ordinary Christian? It
appears that the one-sided prohibition of marriage to Jewish men was accepted in
some regions, such as Spain, while other regions excluded all marriages to Jews.
While in Spain the one sided ban on marriages to Jewish men existed, all marriages
to Jews were forbidden by St Ambrose, and by Lex Romana Burgundionum, canon
19:100, suggesting that intermarriage between Christian women and Jewish men
occurred frequently enough for this legislation to be passed. 79 Imperial legislation
further exacerbated the position of Jews by decreeing that Jews must observe
Christian laws on marriage, divorce and consanguinity, a measure which
considerably compromised traditional Jewish marriage law but which may not have
been successfully enforced.80

Eating with Jews

Meals with Jews were forbidden at Elvira, as Canon 50 states:

Si vero quis clericus fuerit, sive fidelis, qui cum Judaeis cibum
sumpserit, placuit, eum a communione abstineri, ut debeat emendari.81

If, in fact any among the clerics and faithful should dine with Jews, it
is resolved that he should abstain from communion, so that he should
be corrected.

The immediate result of such a prohibition, with the indefinite punishment attached
to its violation of excommunication from church activities, would have been to
restrict all free association with Jews.

Again, Pakter points out that the term placuit (it is resolved) is used regularly for

79 See Pakter, ‘Early Western,’ 722. While in Spain the one sided ban on marriages to Jewish men
existed, all marriages to Jews were forbidden by St Ambrose, and by Lex Romana
Burgundionum, canon 19:100, suggesting that intermarriage between Christian women and
Jewish men occurred frequently enough for this legislation to be passed.

80 See commentary by Ruether, Faith and Fratricide, 190.
81 Mansi, vol .2, 307.

79

provisions upon which agreement is reached only after a considerable degree of
controversy.82 This in itself would indicate that meals with Jews were a common
event.

This canon was repeated in a very similar form at many councils in Spain and Gaul,
and in other areas. Thus, for example, the fifth Council of Carthage in 421 devoted
its 7th canon to the subject, stipulating that Christians were not to eat with Jews.
Christianus cum Judaeis non manducet.83

At the Council of Vannes (Brittany) in 465 AD, the first Frankish canon on the
subject of the Jews was passed. Six bishops were present when it was decreed that
clerics were not to eat with Jews (Ut clerici Judaeorum convivi declinent),84 which
implied that clerics were not permitted to partake of meals in Jewish precincts, nor
could these clerics invite Jews to their meals. Forty one years later at Agde, in 506
CE in South Gaul, when thirtyfive bishops were present, the prohibition reappears,
with the added stricture, that lay people are to be excluded as well from eating with
Jews.85 There are two versions. In the first codex, canon 40 is summarised as: Ne
Christiani Judaeorum utantur conviviis (Christians are not to enjoy conviviality with
Jews) and in the second: Christianus cum Judaeis non manducet (Christians are not
to eat with Jews).86

Omnes deinceps clerici, sive laici, Judaeorum convivia evitent: nec
eos ad convivium quisquam excipiat. Quia cum apud Christianos
cibis communibus non utantur, indignum est, atque sacrilegum,
eorum cibos a Christianis sumi; cum ea quae apostolo permittente nos
sumimus, ab illis judicentur immunda: ac sic inferiores incipiant esse
Christiani, quam Judaei, si nos quae ab illis apponuntur utamur, illi

82 See Pakter, ‘Early Western’, 717. The term placuit also occurs in the wording of Canon 49 of
Elvira about the blessing of Christian fields by Jews.

83 See Mansi, vol. 4, 492.
84 This form of the canon reappears at the Council of Venice in 665 (Mansi 7,951-4 ff.), where only

the clerics are forbidden to eat with Jews. See Canon 12 of Vannes, in Hefele, History of the
Church Councils, 4, 17.
85 Near the shore of the Mediteranean, in the province of Languedoc.
86 See Mansi, vol. 7, 319–23 ff.

80

vero a nobis oblata contemnant.87

Everyone successively, whether clergy or lay is to avoid conviviality
with Jews; and is not to accept any conviviality with them. Because,
when among Christians they do not use the common food, it is
shameful and sacrilegious that their food be taken by Christians, since
the things that we take with permission of the apostle are judged
unclean by them. And so Christians begin to be inferior to Jews, if we
use what is laid out by them, but they spurn what is offered by us

The interdiction is laboriously expressed. The specific reference to Jews in Brittany
is unexpected, as there Jews were apparently never numerous, and had come to the
Province relatively late, in comparison with the east. The only places in Gaul where
Jews were relatively numerous were Nantes and Guérande.88 As one of the
signatories to the Council documents was Nunechius, the Bishop of Nantes, this
may account partly for the anti-Jewish bias. Blumenkranz analyses the three elements
of the prohibition thus, harmonising the various elements of the different canons and
law codes that describe it.

1. Omnes deinceps clerici... a Christianis sumi.
2. Indignum est atque sacrilegum Judaeorum cibos…judicentur

immunda.
3. Omnes d.c. excipiat, quia inferiores inciperent esse clerici…

oblata contemnant.

Here are three parallel justifications for not eating with Jews. Firstly, it would be
unworthy on the part of Christians to eat the food of Jews since Jews refused to eat
Christian food. Secondly, Jews refuse to eat Christian food since they consider it to
be impure (not kosher), but the Christian knows that, thanks to apostolic
authorisation, this food may be eaten. Thirdly, if Christians agree to eat with Jews,
they admit their inferiority.89 Thus, the church canons are specific about naming Jews
directly, indicating the feeling of insecurity of a religion struggling to define itself,
which is not the case with the Jewish sources.

87 This repeats, word for word, the decree of Vannes. Mansi, vol. 7, 331–2.

88 Jews were expelled from Brittany on 10 April 1240. See Bernard Blumenkranz, Juifs et
Chrétiens: Patristique et moyen age (London,Variorum Reprints, 1977), 1055, n. 2.

89 See Blumenkranz, Juifs et Chrétiens, 1056–7.

81

Jewish Sources on the Question of Eating with Gentiles

The Jewish sources do not say directly that Jews cannot eat with Christians.
However, some of the views on the non-acceptance of food from non-Jews are
summarised in Massechet Kutim (dealing with the Samaritans) at the end of the
fourth seder of the Babylonian Talmud, with some laws appearing first in Mishnah
Abodah Zara, Kiddushin, Chullin, and Bechoroth. The laws tend to use terms such as

‘gentiles’ (ohud) or ‘idol worshippers’ (ohcfuf hscug) which cover Hellenistic
religions and other terms, such as minim (ohbhn), which occasionally refer to

Christians.

Their produce (Samaritan) is forbidden as untithed, as in the case of the gentiles (m.
Kut. 1:9). However, there is a contradiction to this law (t. Dem. 3:3), which may
reflect that the opinion comes from a different time or area.90 Fruit from markets that
grew in the royal country where a mixture of Jews and gentiles was settled was
considered dema'i (suspect). However, part was liable to tithing. When the royal hill
country became a predominantly gentile settlement in the days of Abbahu,91 all
produce was forbidden to Jews (y .Demai 2:1). This was due to the fear that the food
bought from the gentiles may have been used in idol worship and was not ritually
pure (b. Hul. 6:2).

They (the Samaritans) invalidate the Erub92 even as the gentiles. (m.
Kut. 1:10.).

The slaughtering by a non-Jew is deemed as carrion (vkcb) (m. Hul.

90 See also t. Dem. 5:21-22 (tithes from Gentiles) and y. Dem. 3:4. (giving grain to an idolatrous
miller). See B. Maisler, ‘Der District Šrq in den Samarischen Ostraka’, JPOS, 14 (1943), 97.
See also S. Klein, ‘The Land of the Samaritans in the time of the Talmud’, (Hebrew) JJ, 6
(1913), 158.

91 R. Abbahu lived in Caesarea in the latter part of the third century and at the beginning of the
fourth. He had many contacts with heretics, minim, who, in some cases were certainly Christians.
A Christian contemporary of Abbahu, Origen of Alexandria, also lived in Caesarea for a time. (y.
Dem. 2:1). See R. Travers Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (Clifton, New Jersey,
Reference Book Publishers, 1966) 62.

92 Legal prescription to allow the keeping within Sabbath limits.

82

1:1)

[The milk in the] stomach [of a beast slaughtered by] a gentile
(idolator) or [in the stomach of a beast that had become] carrion is
prohibited. (m. Hul. 8:5).93

The tractate Aboda Zara details rules for the purchasing of food and doing business
with gentiles before their festivals, but since the Kalends, the Saturnalia, the
commemoration of the Empire, the anniversaries of kings and the day of their birth
and of their death are stipulated, it is likely that Christians are not implicated here.94
Numerous foods that cannot be bought from gentiles are stipulated, such as wine,
vinegar,95 and unsupervised milk,96 but the permitted foods, which include honey and
certain vegetables also are listed.

These are [even] permitted as food: milk which a gentile milked when
an Israelite watched him; honey or honeycomb (even though they drip
with moisture they do not come within the law of food rendered
susceptible to uncleanness by a liquid) (Lev 1:36,38); picked
vegetables into which it is not their custom to put wine or vinegar;
unminced fish, or brine containing fish; a [whole] loaf of asafoetida or
pickled olive-cakes. R. Jose says: If the olives are sodden (they may
have been soaked in wine) they are forbidden. Locusts that come out
of the [shopkeeper’s] basket are forbidden (he is suspected of
sprinkling them with wine); but those from the shop-store are
permitted. And the same applied to Heave-offering. (m. Abod. Zar
2:7).

Such rules would make it difficult for Jews to eat with non-Jews. However, inviting
non-Jews to meals does not appear to have been forbidden.

Superstition and Magic

It is evident that the early Christians of gentile origin at least, ascribed magical
powers to Jewish religious symbols, and also to Jewish religious rites themselves.

93 See also m. Bek. (firstlings) 3:12 pertaining to the purchasing of beasts from gentiles.

94 m. Abod. Zar. 1:1ff.

95 See m. Abod. Zar. 2:7.

96 m. Abod. Zar. 3:6.

83

Thus we find specific canons relating to these practices, from the Synod of Laodicea
in Phrygia, which is of uncertain date, but was held about 360 CE.97 The synod
produced no fewer than four canons that forbade Jewish practices. In addition, there
was a canon regulating reading on Saturday. The collections of canons from the
synods of Carthage, from Africa, and the east gathered before the sixth century also
contained similar references to Jews.98

Quod non oportet eos qui sunt sacrati, vel clerici, esse magos, vel
incantatores, vel mathematicos, vel astrologos, vel facere ea quae
dicuntur amuleta quae quidem sunt ipsarum animarum vincula: eos
autem qui ferunt, ejici ex ecclesia jussimus.99

Neither the higher nor the lower clergy may be magicians, conjurers,
mathematicians, or astrologers, nor shall they make so called amulets,
which are chains for their own souls. And those who wear these
amulets shall be shut out from the church.100

A similar canon occurs in the Codex Africanae, collected before the sixth century.101
The African canons are the most complete collections, and the meetings were
principally concerned with disciplinary problems in ecclesiastical organisation and
the life of the church. There were few rulings on questions of dogma or cult. From
348–426, there were at least twenty-three African Councils, mostly at Carthage. The
most important canons were collected in the Codex Ecclesiae Africanae, published
by the Council of Carthage in May 419.

Auguriis vel incantationibus servientem, a conventu ecclesiae
separandum. Similiter & superstitionibus Judaicis vel seriis
inhaerentem.102

97 See Mansi, vol. 2, 563ff; Hefele, vol. 2, 310–318. Both the higher and lower clergy were
forbidden to make or wear phylacteries. Canon 36.

98 Hefele, vol. 2, 410ff.

99 Canon 36. Mansi, vol. 2, 569–70. In the Greek version of the canon, the word used is:
φυλακτ»ρια ‘phylacteries’. Phylacteries are not identical to amulets, though both are written in
Hebrew script, in itself regarded as magical by the less educated.

100 Hefele, vol. 2, 318.

101 See Gaudemet, L' Eglise, vol. 3, 36.

102 Carthage. Canon 89. Mansi, vol. 3, 957–8.

84

He who deals in auguries (soothsaying) and conjuring must be shut
out of the Church, as must those who join in Jewish superstition.103

The Jews had been accused of superstition by Greek and Latin authors, who used it
as a derogatory term to describe their religious practices. These included Seneca,104
Perseus,105 Plutarch,106 and Tacitus, the latter accusing the Jews of fanaticism,
ignorance, and pervicaciam superstitionis ‘obstinate superstition.’107 The reason for
these attacks is not unconnected to the fact that Romans found Jewish practices
attractive. It could be concluded that the church mounted similar attacks on Jewish
practice for the same reason. However, superstitious beliefs, and belief in magical
practices were evidently part of life in early church communities. A number of
witnesses, particularly in the east, attest to the superstitious use of phylacteries
(tefillin). Thus, according to Jerome, pious women made much use of them. These
mulierculae of the Palestinian communities made themselves phylacteries which
contained pocket gospels, their use deriving directly from the use made of
phylacteries by the Jews, but being regarded as magic portents.108 Again, Jerome
makes it clear that under Jewish influence, amulets with Hebrew writing on them
were used in the same way.109 However, as the above canon illustrates, some of the
clergy also maintained these practices. In the Latin and Greek versions of the canon,
‘amulet’ and ‘phylacteries’ (tefillin) appear to be used as synonymous terms, when in
fact, their primary meaning is different.110

103 See Hefele, vol. 3, 417. Canon 89. This purports to come from the fourth synod of Carthage in
398, but is actually later.

104 End of the 1st century BCE. till 65 CE. See Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 1 429.

105 34–62 CE. See Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 1, 435.

106 He lived from the fourth decade of the first century CE to the second decade of the second
century CE. See Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 1, 545.

107 56 CE to 120 CE. See Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 2, 7–10.

108 Comm. in Matth. 33.6 (PL 26:175).‘Pietatiola illa Decalogi, phylacteria vocabant. Hoc apud nos
superstitiosae mulierculae in parvulis Evangeliis et in crucis ligno et istius modi rebus...’

109 Ep. 75.3 (PL 22: 687). ‘Ad imperitorum et muliercularum animos concitandos, quasi de hebraicis
fontibus hausta barbaro simplices quosque terrent sono .

110 Matthew23: 5 uses φυλακτ»ρια for tefillin.

85

Among the common people the rabbis had a great reputation as physicians, and their
therapeutic methods exercised a fascination over the people they treated. Thus, John
Chrysostom condemned the practice of many ‘demi’ Christians of running to
synagogues and rabbis in search of cures. However, it was evident that the popular
fascination arose from making an association between physicians, magicians, and
sorcerers. According to Chrysostom, Jewish therapy often depended on the use of
incantations and amulets.111

Another problem was the worship of angels, which continued to be an abuse from
the time of Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians (2:18) till at least the time of Theodoret
of Cyprus, who bears witness in his commentary on this epistle that the Synod of
Laodicea had forbidden ‘praying to the angels’, and that in regions of Phrygia and
Pisidia ‘Michael-Churches’ were still in existence in his own time.112

Quod non oportet Christianos, relicta Dei ecclesia, abire, & angelos
nominare, vel congregationes facere; quod est prohibitum. Si quis
ergo inventus fuerit huic occultae idolatriae vacare, fit anathema, quia
reliquit dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, & accessit ad
idolatriam.113

Christians shall not forsake the Church of God and turn to the
worship114 of angels, thus introducing a cultus of the angels. This is
forbidden. Whoever, therefore, shows an inclination to this hidden
idolatry, let him be anathema, because he has forsaken our Lord Jesus
Christ, the son of God, and gone over to idolatry.115

111 Disc. 8.7.1–5. See introduction to Saint John Chrysostom: Discourses Against Judaizing
Christians, tr. Paul W. Harkins (Washington D. C. , Catholic University of America, 1977), xli.
See also Disc. 8.5.6–8; 8.6.11.

112 Hefele, vol. 2, 317.

113 Mansi, vol. 2, 569–70.

114 The term ‘worship’, which occurs in Colossians can be used in a variety of ways, but stands for
the act of worship. In Colossians it may be objective genitive, i.e. the worship given to angels, or
could be subjective genitive. and refers to the worship the angels performed. See Fritz Rienecker,
A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1980), 576.

115 Canon 35 of Synod of Laodicea. ca. 360. See Hefele, vol. 2, 317.

86

The philosophy behind this veneration of angels was the concept that God was too
high to be approached directly, and that his good will must be gained through the
angels. Evidently the canon was referring to abuses, as veneration of angels was not
normally excluded in church practice.116

Sabbaths and Feasts

The observance of the Sabbath, ritual fasts, and the dietary laws apparently also
possessed a magical power in the eyes of the Christian masses.117

There was also the accusation of judaising. Phillip Sigal postulates that judaising in
the church during the early centuries in reference to the date of Easter, food practices
or the observance of the Sabbath was not the effort of Jews to judaise a gentile
church, but the struggle for preservation of elements of Judaism within the church
among Christians who experienced confusion.118 Changes were not made without
strong opposition from Christians who did not dare abandon the feast days of the
Jews, holy days which had been hallowed since ancient times.119

Two canons from the Synod of Laodicea in Phrygia in about 360 CE mention the
Sabbath specifically. Canon 16 stiputates:

Ut evangelium cum aliis scripturis sabbato legatur.120

On Saturday, the Gospels and other portions of the

116 See Augustine, Contra Faustus, 20:21; Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 7:15. Charlemagne’s capitulary
of the year 789 [cap. 16] said that the synod of Laodicea had forbidden the giving of names to
the angels other than those authorised: Michael, Gabriel and Raphael, the only ones which are
named in the Hebrew Bible. See Hefele, vol. 2, 317. The apocryphal Book of Enoch names
several other angels, namely fallen angels, whose names would have been known in various
circles of the period.

117 See Simon, Verus Israel, 355.
118 See Phillip Sigal, The Emergence of Contemporary Judaism, 2 vols, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,

Pickwick, 1980), vol. 1, 378.
119 See Juster, Les Juifs, vol. 1, 308 .
120 Mansi, vol.,2, 567–8.

87

Scripture shall be read aloud.121

Though Christian observance of the Sabbath was quite common in certain places till
about the end of the third century, it is unlikely by the last half of the fourth century
that Saturday was honoured with a special ceremony resembling the Jewish
celebration of Sabbath.122 This is supported by the content of Canon 29 of the same
Synod of Laodicea.

Quod non oportet Christianos judaizare, & in sabbato otiari, sed ipsos
eo die operari: diem autem dominicum praeferentes otiari, si modo
possint, ut Christianos. Quod si inventi fuerint judaizantes, sint
anathema apud Christum.123

Christians shall not judaise and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on
that day; but the Lord’s day they shall especially honour, in every way
possible as Christians. If however, they are found judaising, they shall
be shut out from Christ.124

Although no canon from church councils appears to have been composed on the
subject, the Didache stipulates that Christians should fast on Wednesdays and
Fridays, in contradistinction to the Jews who fasted on Mondays and Thursdays. This
was part of the process of transposing Jewish customs.125

Jewish Feasts

Superstitious respect apparently was also given to the unleavened bread of Passover.
Marcel Simon reports that the preparation and eating of this bread were accompanied
by mysterious rites, which included a prayer form in Chaldaean, to deceive and drive
away evil spirits. Apparently popular Jewish devotion regarded the unleavened bread

121 Hefele, vol. 2, 360.
122 Hefele vol. 2, 310–11.
123 Mansi, vol. 2, 569–70.
124 Translation based on Hefele, vol. 2, 316. Canon 29 of Laodicea (ca 360)
125 See Didache 8.1 and Epiphanius, Haer 16.1. See also Didascalie Apostolorum, 21, which

incorporated the Didache prescriptions and the later The Apostolic Constitutions, 8.70.

88

as a precious talisman, and people would keep it from one Passover to another,
selling it occasionally to credulous gentiles.126

Quod non oporteat azyma a judaeis accipere, & communicare
impietatibus eorum.127

No one shall accept unleavened bread from the Jews, or take part in
their profanity.128

As well as the forbidding of judaising, this may also be part of the background
behind the non- acceptance of festal presents from Jews which was outlawed by
Canon 37 of Laodicaea.

Quod non oporteat a judaeis vel haereticis quae mittuntur munera
festiva suscipere, nec cum eis festis celebrare.129

No-one shall accept festal presents from Jews and heretics, or keep
the festivals with them.130

Thus Christian participation in Jewish services was discouraged in canonical
legislation and also in the so called Apostolic Canons.131

Ban on Attendance at any Jewish service

The African canons permit Jews to enter churches.

Ut episcopus nullam prohibeat ingredi ecclesiam, & audire verbum
Dei sive gentilem, sive haereticum, sive Judaeum, usque ad missam

126 See Simon, Verus Israel, 355.
127 Canon 38. Mansi, vol .3, 580–1. (Dionysius). From Council of Laodicea, 364 CE.
128 See Hefele, vol. 2, 318.
129 Mansi, vol. 3, 580.
130 See Hefele, vol. 2, 318. Canon 37. See The Apostolical Constitutions, Book 2. 62.The Apostolic

Constitutions mention the forbidding of attendance at Jewish services (and those of the ungodly,
and heathen) in the context of divinations, diviners, wizards, and demons.
131 Christian participation in Jewish services was forbidden in Apostolic Canon 71 (70).

89

catechumenorum. 132

The bishop shall hinder no one, whether gentile, heretic or Jew, from
entering the church, and hearing the word of God, up to the Mass of
the Catechumens.

These categories of people were permitted to remain for the first part of the
Mass, for the Church lessons and sermons, which was known as the Mass of
the Catechumens, possibly in the hope of winning them over to the teachings
of the Church.133

Another canon from Laodicea states that it is not permitted to heretics, so
long as they continue in heresy, to set foot in the house of God.134

On the other hand Christians were not permitted to attend Jewish services, evidence
being from The Apostolic Constitutions.

Endeavour therefore never to leave the church of God; but if any one
overlooks it, and goes either into a polluted Temple of the heathens,
or into a synagogue of the Jews or heretics, what apology will such an
one make to God on the day of judgment.135

Jewish Catechumens

Jewish catachumens or converts were treated with more strictness by the Church
Councils, according to a canon from the council of Agde, in case they returned to
Judaism.

Judaei quorum perfidia frequenter ad vomitum redit, si ad legem
catholicam venire voluerint, octo mensibus inter catechumenos,
ecclesiae limen introeant: & si puta fide venire noscuntur; tum
demum baptismatis gratiam mereantur. Quod si casu aliquo periculum
infirmitatis intra praescriptum tempus incurrerint & desperati fuerint

132 Mansi, vol. 3, 958. Carthage, Canon 84. Purportedly from the fourth Council of Carthage in 398
but actually later.

133 See Hefele, vol. 2, 301–2.
134 Hefele, vol. 2, 301. Canon 6 of Laodicea, Mansi 3, 577. ‘Quod haeretici non permittendi sint

ingredi in domum (Luc. addit Dei ) in haeresii permanentes’.
135 See Book 2. 61. See also no. 62.

90

baptizentur.136

If Jews wish to become Catholics, since they may so readily return to
their vomit, they must remain eight months as catechumens before
entering the threshold of the Church: and if they sincerely come to
know the faith: then they will be deemed worthy to merit the grace of
baptism. Only in such case as incurring a dangerous and desperate
illness during the prescribed time may they receive baptism earlier.137

Jews as Witnesses

The African Canons forbade Jews to be witnesses, classing them among undesirable
categories of persons.

Item placate, ut omnes servi, vel proprii liberti ad accusationem non
admittantur; vel omnes, quos ad accusanda publica crimina leges
publicae non admittunt; omnes etiam infamiae maculis aspersi, id est
histriones, ac turpitudinibus subjectae personae, haeretici etiam, sive
pagani, seu Judaei, sed tamen omnibus, quibus accusatione denegatur,
in causis propriis accusandi licentia non neganda.138

Neither may slaves nor freedman come forward as accusers, nor any
on account of public offences are by law excluded from bringing any
accusation, nor any who bear the mark of infamy, such as actors or
persons on whom any other stigma rests, or heretics, heathens or
Jews.139

There apparently had been no Roman legislation prohibiting testimony from Jews
prior to Justinian, or this would have been included in these earlier African church
canons.140

136 Canon 34. Mansi, 8, 330.
137 Hefele, vol. 4, 82. The Council was held in the year 506.
138 Mansi, vol. 3, 825–6.
139 See Hefele, vol. 2, 475 &9. Canon 129 in the African Codex, or second canon of Synod of

Carthage on 30th May 419. Repeated as Canon 6 in 421 at Carthage.
140 See Pakter, ‘Early Western’, 726.

91

Anathemas and Christology

The Council of Sirmium in 351 CE produced a canon, which defined doctrine about
God and Christ in relation to Jews. 141

Si quis haec verba, Ego sum Deus primus, Ego quoque postea, &
praeter me non est Deus, quae ad subversionem idolorum dicta sunt,
ad subversionem unigeniti ante saecula Dei Judaice accipiat,
anathema esto.142

If any one interprets the words: ‘I am the first and I am the last;
besides me there is no God143 as opposed to false gods, after the
Jewish manner, as denying the only-begotten God, who was before all
ages, let him be anathema.’144

Use of Term ‘Levite’

Frequently in the Church Council canons the expression ‘Levite’ as a church
functionary occurs, as well as the expressions ‘readers’, ‘singers’ and ‘priests’, terms
used of the Temple liturgy functionaries.145 This appropriation of terms was part of
the supersessionist theology of the church. In addition, there are echoes of the
biblical practice of ritual purity in the strict rules for marital relations of such
personages, as illustrated by rulings from the synods held in Rome in 386 and
Carthage in 393.

‘…suademus quod sacerdotes & Levitae cum uxoribus suis non
coeant, quia in ministerio ministri quotidianis necessitatibus
occupantur’.

141 About a dozen bishops were present. See Hefele, vol. 2, 193
142 See Hefele, vol. 3, 257.

143 Isa 44:6.

144 Hefele, vol. 2, 195. Canon 34. The Council of Sirium was held in 351 at the request of Emperor
Constantius. Hefele,193. This is part of a series of anathemas. A number of Eusebians were
present. Mansi, vol. 3, 257ff. The anathema appears to refer to the Prologue of John’s Gospel and
the pre-existent Christ.

145 See Mansi, vol. 3, 709–10. Canon 3, ‘…episcopos, inquam, presbyteros & diaconos, ita
complacuit, ut condecet sacros antistites ac Dei sacerdotes, nec non & Levitas…’.

92

Finally we advise (suademus) that the priests and Levites (levitae)
should not live with their wives while in ministry necessitating daily
occupation.146

Role of Emperor in Church Councils

The relationship between Christianity and the Roman Empire in the first three
centuries of this era was undefined. Christianity was tolerated as a non–legal
minority religion except for brief periods of persecution such as those under Nero in
the first century of this era (54–68),147 Domitian (81–96),148 Decius (249–51) and
Diocletian (303–311).149

When Christianity became the state religion under Constantine, imperial protection
ensured its spread, and the growth in power of the church. The emperors’s role and
influence on church council legislation, at least for a time, when the church allowed
emperors to take part in canonical legislation, aided the growing power of the church
and further formalised its estrangement from Judaism.

Although early councils discouraged social contact with Jews, they held no legal
power over them, and no jurisdiction could be exercised over Jews unless these
actions had been authorised by secular powers. The papacy did not possess a
monopoly of legal authority, canon law being as much the product of local councils
as of papal letters. On the other hand, the emperors could command, and possessed
actual legal jurisdiction that restricted civil freedom, while the church’s chief weapon
was moral, employing the threat of excommunication, which some would avoid at all

146 Canon 9. See Hefele, vol. 2, 387, and Mansi, vol. 3, 670. The synodal letter of Pope Siricius,
which contains these nine canons, has been preserved by an African Synod at Tele at the
beginning of the fifth century. There are doubts about its genuineness. See Hefele, vol. 2, 387–8.

147 Suetonius, in his Life of Domitian (Book 10), reports that this Emperor (81–96 CE) condemned to
death many senators, some of whom had been consuls who were accused of wanting to introduce
new things. The possibility exists that some were Christians. See also Sandro Carleti, Guide to the
Catacombs of Priscilla, tr. Alice Mulhern (Vatican City, Pontifical Commission for Sacred
Archaeology, 1982), 10.

148 The exact nature and extent of his persecution are difficult to discern. See Marcel Simon, La
Civilisation de l'Antiquité et le Christianisme (Paris, Arthaud, 1972), 32, 60, 150, 211, 213,468.

149 See Averil Cameron, The Later Roman Empire AD 284–430. (Hammersmith, Fontana, 1993), 10.

93

costs.

By the early part of the fourth century, when episcopal synods were a permanent
feature of church discipline and organisation,150 the first Christian emperor set a
precedent in his interventions in ecclesiastical disputes, and his calling of church
councils, his role being especially prominent as regards the first so called ecumenical
Council at Nicaea.151

However, neither local or provincial councils nor the African councils required
imperial intervention, and were held regularly.152 The fact that the first four general
Councils were convoked by the emperors, with the ‘Bishop of Rome’ being
represented only by his legates, illustrates that Church authority had not been
centralised in Rome at this stage, and that the Bishop of Rome had not yet set
himself above the emperor when it came to matters of church discipline.

The emperors’ protection was vital in strengthening the authority of Rome over the
rest of the provinces, for the decrees of general councils were acknowledged by the
whole church, whereas the synods wielded only local authority in the provinces.153
Edicts repeated that the privileges bestowed on the Bishop of Rome were inviolate,154
but the several repetitions of this law indicate that these privileges could not always
be enforced.

The role of the emperor in convoking the general councils appears to have been quite
considerable until the middle of the fifth century, at which point Pope Gelasius made

150 See Hubert Jedin, Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: An Historical Outline
(Edinburgh, Nelson, 1960), 17.

151 Eusebius, Vita Const. 3.7–14.
152 Gaudemet, L'Eglise, vol. 3, 457.
153 The first four so called Ecumenical or General Councils were held in the fourth century at Nicaea

(325) Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). See Chapter 3 in Jedin,
Ecumenical Councils.
154 See C. Th. 11.16.21 9 (year 397).

94

clear that the council was subject to the Pope.155 The emperor not only intervened in
the convocation of the councils, but participated in its deliberations, personally or
through intermediaries, and confirmed its decisions.156 However, though the emperor
could convoke councils, the papacy was to declare that the authority of a general
council lay in its decisions and the obedience of the church rather than in the imperial
convocation.157 When there were more pressing problems that affected a larger part
of the church, the emperor often took the initiative in convoking the meeting, and
threatened non-conformists with exile.158

Conclusion

Church council documents from the fourth century indicate that Jewish services
continued to hold a certain attraction for many Christians. The church demanded in
its canons that Jewish practices be discontinued. However, the church council
statements on Jews reveal the ambiguity of the church position, for, while denying
Jewish practices, Jewish terms were appropriated in church vocabulary, and other
elements persisted, because of the Judaic basis of Christianity. Again, it was clear
that Christians, while attracted to Judaism, were also experiencing confusion about
Jewish praxis, which is indicated by the struggle against judaising reflected in certain
church canons.

Effectively, the early councils had no jurisdiction over outsiders, and could only
attempt to limit social contacts with Jews. Church canons on Jews were defensive
and repressive, and intolerant. It is evident that without secular support, the church
held moral power rather than judicial, when the offender was a Jew.

155 See Gaudemet, L'Eglise, 3, 460. In the time of Pope Gelasius, the Council was made subordinate
to the Pope.

156 Gaudemet, L'Eglise, vol. 3, 457. See Mansi, vol. 4, 588 and the Pope’s letter to Theodosius
accepting the emperor’s convocation of the Council of Ephesus (449 CE), Ep. 29, PL 54:781. See
also Ep. 62 and 63, PL 24: 875ff. Apparently the Pope himself could not convoke the council, but
had to rely on the emperor. See also Mansi, vol. 6, 558 regarding Marcion and the Council of
Chalcedon.

157 See Athanasius, Apol.contra Arianos, PG 25:281ff. Gaudemet, L'Eglise, 458.
158 See Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 10.5.21 and the Council of Arles.

95

Legislation about Jews by the secular authorities became more persistent and precise
from the time of Constantine’s accession when the emperor began to play a role in
church councils. The growing harshness of laws about Jews was presumably
influenced by increasing pressure from the church hierarchy, whose power escalated
gradually.159 The raising of Christianity to the status of the religion of the empire
meant that Jews were to be increasingly compromised.

159 See L. H. Feldman, ‘Proselytism’, 9. This is clear from an examination of the Theodosian Code.
96

Chapter Four. The Theodosian Code and Laws on Jews

The laws concerning Jews show three conflicting tendencies: the maintenance of a
privileged status, prohibition of proselytism, and later, as the Christian movement
gathered strength under imperial protection, hostility to Judaism.1 The Theodosian
Code portrays the growing status of Christianity and the gradual erosion of Jewish
rights.

The Code, compiled at the initiative of Emperor Theodosius II, between 438 and
439, incorporates Roman imperial legislation dating from the beginning of the
Christian period.2 Roman law, as reflected in the Theodosian Code is a mixture of
toleration and restrictions, tending to favour the church.3 The new standing of
Christianity is revealed, for example, in the restructuring of the calendar to
accommodate the observance of Sunday, the inclusion of Easter in the calendar of
public festivals as well as the status of the forty days of Lent when tortures were
not to be applied.4

When the Jewish state was destroyed, the first law framed by non-Jews to regulate
Jewish life dates from Hadrianic times in the second century. The redaction of the
Mishnah coincided with an important change in Roman law with the constitio
antoniniana of 212, which bestowed citizenship on most of the inhabitants of the
empire, including the Jews.5 In the Diaspora, laws about Jewry date only from the

1 Jean Gaudemet, L'Eglise dans l'Empire romain (iv–v siècles) 3: Gabriel Le Bras (ed.), Histoire
du Droit et des Institutions de l'Église en Occident, (7 vols, Paris, Sirey, 1955–96), 625.

2 The laws date from Constantine, e.g., C. Th. 4.7.1 (dated 321) and are addressed to Bishop

Ossius of Cordova, on the question of slaves.

3 See Mark R. Cohen, Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages (Princeton

University Press, 1994), 32ff.

4 See C. Th. 2.8.19 (389) Sunday and Easter; C. Th. 9.35.5; Lent. See David Hunt,
‘Christianising the Roman Empire: The Evidence of the Code’, in Jill Harris and Ian Wood
(eds), The Theodosian Code: Studies in the Imperial Law of Late Antiquity (London,
Duckworth, 1993), 144.

5 See Hagith Sivan, ‘Rabbinics and Roman Law: Jewish-Gentile/Christian Marriage in Late
Antiquity’, REJ, 156:1–2 (1997), 64.

97

fourth century, when Christianity became the favoured religion of the empire.6 Fifty
one laws on Jews appear in Book 16 of the Theodosian Code7 and reflect the
changes in public life that are linked to the new status of Christianity as the official
religion of the empire.8

However, Christianity did not entirely repudiate its Jewish origins. The prevailing
view was that Jews held their place in the world order, as ‘witnesses of the ancient
prophecies’9 as Augustine was to phrase it. Unlike those whom the Church
designated as heretics, Jews were not to be made to disappear, this opinion
contributing to the maintenance of some legal measure in their favour.10

Under Roman rule Jews possessed certain rights, as a sui iuris minority. The
Theodosian Code was to legislate on several issues about Jews that had been the
concern of several local church synods and ecumenical councils. Canonical
legislation on such issues as intermarriage, Jews as witnesses, or the prohibition of
circumcision of slaves, was reinforced by the imperial laws. Thus Christian canons
and Roman law converged to act against certain aspects of Jewish life to restrict its
influence. However, in some areas against which church canons legislated such as
the Sabbath, the Theodosian Code provided protection of Jewish life against
aggression by Christians. More than a dozen laws are protective of Jews. However,
a greater proportion of the latter reveal deteriorating relations between Jews and

6 See Walter Pakter, Early Western Church Law and the Jews, in Harold W. Atridge and Gohei
Hata (eds), Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism (Detroit, Wayne State University, 1992), 714.

7 See The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions: A Translation with
Commentary, Glossary, and Bibliography by Clyde Pharr (Princeton University Press, 1952)
and Amnon Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation (Detroit, Michigan, Wayne State
University, 1987).

8 Linder, The Jews, 17, points out that the Theodosian Code has 52 texts, three of which are
included in the Code and three in the Digest. The Breviarium (Alaric II) adds an additional
jurisprudential text to the legislative texts of the Theodosian Code, as well as twelve texts from
the Visigothic commentary. The Justinian Code has 32 texts. Texts from other sources include 8
in the collections of Justinian’s Novels, 4 in Sirmond’s law collection, 4 in collections which
originated from the Council of Chalcedon, one from Majorian’s collection of Novels and
another law in the jurisprudence of Julian.

9 Civ. Dei, 18.46.

10 See Gaudemet, L’Eglise, vol. 3, 625.

98

Christians. The greater portion of the laws concerning Jews in the Theodosian
Code are restrictive or repressive, showing the gradual deterioration of Jewish
rights, in converse proportion to the growing power of the church.

Significance of Code Favouring Church

The importance given to Christianity in the Theodosian Code illustrates the
movement towards separation of Christians from Jews. Firstly, as the Church was
granted increasing numbers of privileges, it is clear the Code had broken with the
religious pluralism that historically had been the policy of Roman law. The change
took place gradually from the fourth century. Thus, a small proportion of laws
which favour the church date from the first half of the fourth century with the
accession of Constantine,11 a larger number are from the middle and late fourth
century,12 and by far the greatest number of laws granting privileges to the church
date from the fifth century, when the power of the western empire was in decline.13
By the fifth century, in the wake of a stronger church, and as a consequence of its
firm alliance with the emperor, religious and social contacts between Jews and
Christians appear to have been weakened and ruptured.14

Four main categories of laws concerning Jews can be distinguished: Firstly,
statutes which establish the basic rights and freedoms of Judaism; secondly,
statutes which prohibit injustices or violence against Jews or their cult; thirdly,
statutes prohibiting anti-Christian practices by Jews and finally, statutes which
restrict the Jewish cult and activities.15 By the end of the fourth century during the

11 C. Th. 1.17.1; 4.7.1 (318 and 321 CE).
12 See for example C. Th. 12.1.49 (a bishop not compelled to deliver his property to the municipal

council) (361 CE) or C. Th. 11.36.31 (fines for criminals) (392 CE).
13 See for example: C. Th. 16.2.35–47; 16.10.19. Temples outlawed, bishops given power (407

CE); 11.1.37 (360 – previous rescripts to remain in place).
14 See Gaudemet, L'Eglise, vol .3, 624. The Code includes the restructuring of the calendar in the

latter part of the fourth century to include the observance of Sunday, the recognising of Easter
as a public festival, as well as the forty days of Lent C. Th 2.8.19 (389 CE) and 9.8.19 (Easter)
and C. Th. 9.35.5 (Lent).
15 See Edward Flannery, The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism, rev.

99

reign of Theodosius II, Jews are classed with pagans, heretics and Manichaeans, all
considered as adversaries of Christians.

Laws on Jews
1. Statutes Maintaining Privileges of Jews16

In general, the legislation of non-Christian emperors in the fourth century, was
tolerant and favourable towards Jews. At first, Judaism enjoyed similar privileges
to the Catholic Church.17 A law passed in 321 recalled the ancient privileges
accorded Jewish clergy, who, although exempted from curial duties had also been
admitted to its honours by Septimus Severus and Caracalla.18

We grant to all the curias in a general law, that the Jews shall be
nominated to the curia. But in order to leave them something of the
ancient custom as a solace, we allow them in a perpetual privilege
that two or three in every curia shall not be occupied through any
nominations whatever. (C. Th. 16.8.3).19

However, it appears that this ancient privilege was not honoured everywhere, even
in the west. It was one of the earliest laws in a series that were designed to secure
and regulate the recruitment of the curias and their functioning even at the expense
of previously privileged groups such as the Jews and Christian clergy.20

Jewish clergy continued to enjoy a good number of personal immunities, as is
illustrated by laws passed in 330 and 331.

edn (New York, Paulist Press, 1985), 56.
16 These are at least seven in number. 16.8.2 (330 CE), 16.8.4 (330 CE), 16.8.8 (392 CE), 16.8.13

(397 CE), 13.5.18 (390 CE), 16.8.15 (404 CE), 16.8.17 (404 CE).
17 See Gaudemet, L'Eglise, vol. 3, 625.
18 See Gaudemet, L'Eglise, vol. 3, 626. See C. Th. 16.8.2, which conferred a statute upon Jewish

clergy similar to that of Christian clergy. Constantine decreed that the Jewish religious
leadership should be exempt from personal and civic liturgies, and that those leaders who were
already decurions at that time would be exempt from transport liturgies. See also Linder, The
Jews, 72.
19 11 December, 321. Linder, The Jews, 121–2.
20 See Linder, The Jews, 121.

100

If any persons with complete devotion should dedicate themselves
to the synagogues of the Jews as patriarchs and priests and should
live in the aforementioned sect and preside over the administration
of their law, they shall continue to be exempted from all compulsory
public services that are incumbent on persons, as well as those that
are due to the municipalities... (C. Th. 16.8.2).21

However, in 383 Gratian, and Honorius rescinded the obligation of compulsory
public service, the first, while citing an analogous obligation incumbent on
Christian clergy,22 and the second in proposing the argument that all men of
whatever superstitious belief (meaning Jews and pagans) should be constrained to
the fulfilment of their compulsory public services.23 It represents another step in the
losing battle of the authorities to prevent the progressive decay of the curial system.
Linder points out that this law should be seen as an equalisation of the status of
Jewish clergy with that of the Christian clergy.24 On the other hand, James Parkes
interprets this law as being the first infringement of the rights of Judaism as a
lawful religion, so that from this point, Judaism had been placed on an inferior
plane to orthodox Christianity.25 In the east, fourteen years later, Arcadius was
more liberal and even handed according analogous immunities to Jews and
Christians alike.

Jews shall be bound by their own ritual. Meanwhile, in preserving
their privileges, We shall imitate the ancients by whose sanctions it
was determined that those privileges which are conferred upon the
first clerics of the venerable Christian religion shall continue, by the
consent of Our Imperial Divinity, for those persons who are subject
to the power of the Illustrious Patriarchs, for the rulers of the

21 See Pharr, Theodostian Code, 467. See also Linder, The Jews, 120. C. Th. 16.8.4 repeats the
law and C. Th. 16.8.3.

22 C. Th. 12.1.99 (383 CE). The text of this law is preserved in two fragments C. Th. 12.1.100 and
C. Th. 12.1 .99. See Linder, The Jews, 165.

23 C. Th. 12.1.158. (398 CE). This law annulled the exemption of Jews from curial liturgies, but,
according to Linder, this law appears to exaggerate the role played by the Jewish population in
the cities of Apulia and Calabria. Linder, The Jews, 214.

24 See Linder, The Jews, 214.

25 See James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of
Antisemitism (London, Soncino, 1934), 181.

101

synagogues, the patriarchs, and the priests, and for all the rest who
are occupied in the ceremonial of that religion (C. Th. 16.8.13).26

This state of affairs was not to last. Changing conditions and contemporary needs
resulted in legislation that obliged both Christian and Jewish clergy to fulfil curial
duties.27In 404 Arcadius renewed the privileges of Jewish clergy, but he never again
mentioned their exemption from the curia.28

Julian (361–3)

Julian, though raised a Christian, repudiated this faith, rejecting it in favour of the
Graeco-Roman gods.29 His religion was syncretistic, but his open mindedness did
not extend to the Christian religion, as his decree, ‘Rescript on Christian Teachers’,
which excluded all Christian influences from the educational institutions of the
empire appears to illustrate.30 It was his plan to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem,31
which raised the ire of the Christians, who claimed that the Temple’s destruction
had proved that they, and not the Jews, were the Chosen People of God.32 Julian
had planned to rebuild the Temple on his return from a military campaign against
the Persians, but died in battle on 26 June 363, after only nineteen months as
emperor.33 However, Julian was a theist,34 and his desire to rebuild the Temple was
possibly motivated by personal reasons such as his love of animal sacrifices, rather

26 397 CE. See Pharr, Theodosian Code, 468
27 C. Th. 12.1.163-5 (399 CE ).
28 C. Th. 16.8.15. See also Gaudemet, L'Eglise, vol. 3, 626.
29 See Jeffrey Brodd, ‘Julian the Apostate and His Plan to Rebuild the Jerusalem Temple’, Bible

Review, 11:5 (1995), 33.
30 See ‘Rescript on Christian Teachers’ in The Works of the Emperor Julian 3, tr. W. C. Wright (3

vols, London, Heinemann 1913–1926), 61–7.
31 See, Works of Emperor Julian, vol. 3, 47.
32 See PG 48:900; PG 96:1305; Rufinus, Hist. eccl. 10.38–40.
33 See Brodd, ‘Julian the Apostate’, 34–35. See also Julian, ‘Fragment of a Letter to a Priest’ in

Works, vol. 2, 297–339.
34 See Sozomen, Hist .eccl. 5.22 who believed Julian’s motives were aimed at drawing Jews into

offering sacrifices to Graeco-Roman gods.

102

than a genuine interest in the welfare of Jews in his empire.35 The shortness of his
reign ensured that his influence on legislation affecting Jews and Christians was
limited. As he was followed by a Christian emperor who did not subscribe to his
views, all plans for rebuilding the Temple were abandoned.36

Authority of Patriarchs Upheld in Religious Matters

Despite the growing power of Christianity, a law passed in 392 recognised the right
of the Jewish authorities in Palestine and in the Diaspora to excommunicate and to
revoke excommunications, not admitting the imperial authorities any rights in this
matter. The legislation was significant, for it recognised the authority of the
patriarchs in all matters pertaining to the Jewish religion, and showed a clear
recognition of the organisational and legal autonomy of the Jews throughout the
empire.37 The position of the patriarchs was evidently held in high honour, since the
title clarissimus was reserved till the middle of the fourth century for the highest
magistrates and the senatorial order, and the title illustris, introduced about 380,
designated the highest magistrates of the empire.38

In the complaints of the Jews it was affirmed, that some people are
received in their section by the authority of the judges, against the
opposition of the Primates of their Law, who had cast them out by
their judgement and will. We order that this injury should be utterly
removed, and that a tenacious group in their superstition shall not
earn aid for their undue readmission through the authority of judges
or of ill-gotten rescript, against the will of their Primates who are
manifestly authorised to pass judgement concerning their religion,
under the authority of the Most Renowned (clarissimorum) and the
Illustrious (inlustrium) Patriarch (C. Th. 16.8.8.).39

35 See Ammianus Marcellinus, 25.4.17.
36 See Jacob R. Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World: A Source Book: 315–1791, first

published 1938 (New York, Temple Library, 1965), 8.
37 See Linder, The Jews, 186.
38 See Linder, The Jews, 188–9, n. 7.
39 See Linder, The Jews, 187–8.

103

Juridical Powers of Jewish Authorities.

A law passed in 398 defined the juridical powers of the Jewish authorities, and
stipulated that Jews, as Roman citizens, were bound to live according to Roman
law and its practical application.40 This latter law reinforced the principle
established by Theodosius II in 392 that the jurisdiction of the Patriarchs in
religious matters was final.41 However, the 398 law marked a definite change in
jurisdiction. Two types of litigation were operational, cases belonging specifically
to the sphere of Jewish religion, and those that pertained to Roman law. The
significance of the 398 law was that it abolished Jewish jurisdictional autonomy
and withdrew recognition from the Jewish courts.

The Jews, who live under the Roman common law, shall address the
courts in the usual way in those cases which do not concern so much
the superstition as court, laws and rights and all of them shall bring
actions and defend themselves under the Roman laws; in
conclusion, they shall be under our laws. Certainly, if some shall
deem it necessary to litigate before the Jews or the patriarchs
through mutual agreement, in the manner of arbitration, with the
consent of both parties and in civil matters only, they shall not be
prohibited by public law from accepting their verdict; the governors
of the provinces shall even execute their sentences as if they were
appointed arbiters through a judge’s award (C. Th. 2.1.10).42

Thus, the judicial powers granted to the Jewish authorities became dependent on
the imperial government.43 Jewish legal autonomy was being withdrawn.

In 404, a law given by Arcadius in his own name and the name of Honorius
confirmed the privileges granted to the Patriarchs and office-holders whom they

40 C. Th. 2.1.10

41 C. Th. 16.8.8. See Linder, The Jews, 205.

42 C. Th. 2.1.10. See Linder, The Jews, 208.

43 See A. M. Rabello, ‘Jewish and Roman Jurisdiction’ in N. S. Hecht et al. (eds), An Introduction

to the History and Sources of Jewish Law (Oxford, Clarendon, 1996), 153. See also Linder,

The Jews, 205–6, who points out that Justinian’s editors made subtle changes in the original
Theodosian Code law, abolishing the original distinction between religious and non-religious
litigation, and thus the distinction between the different courts authorised to deal with religious
and civil litigation. Such a change was typical of the Justinian Code, which eroded many of the
privileges that had been given to the Jews by former Roman emperors.

104

nominated.44 In July of that same year permission in the west was renewed to
collect money for the Patriarchs.45 This represented the reversal of the prohibition
on collecting money for the Patriarch which had been passed in 399.46 The feeling
of good will towards the Patriarch was shortly to change.

Exemptions from Liturgies

Jews had been exempted from liturgies that involved transgression of their religion
by Septimus Severus and Caracalla,47 and this exemption was repeated by Modestin
in the third century.48 Jewish religious leaders benefited when Constantine passed a
law that exempted holders of religious offices from participating in civil liturgies in
about 330.49 Those who were not decurions at that time were granted only a partial
exemption, which applied to transportation liturgy only. Constantine had already
legislated on the nomination of Jews to the curia, when he ruled over the western
half of the empire: Britain, Gaul, Africa, Spain, Italy, Illyricum, and the Balkans,
except for Thrace.50

A law passed by Theodosius in 390 prohibited the enforcement of maritime
transport liturgy on the Jewish and Samaritan communities in Egypt,51 and a further
law on Jewish exemptions from liturgies was passed in 397 by Arcadius in his own
name and that of Honorius.52

44 C. Th. 16.8.15.
45 C. Th. 16.8.17.
46 C. Th. 16.8.14.
47 See Digesta 50:2:3:3, ed. Mommsen & Kruger, as cited by A. Linder, The Jews, 103–4. (Years

196/197–209/211).

48 See Linder, The Jews, 110–12. Digesta 27:1:15:6.
49 See C. Th. 16.8.2 and 16.8.4.
50 See C. Th. 16.8.3. (321 CE) and Linder, The Jews, 120.
51 C. Th. 13.5.18.
52 C. Th. 9.45.2.

105

2. Statutes Protective of Jews

There are at least sixteen laws protective of Jews which date from 368.53 The
central government granted synagogues protection when the local authorities
prevented gatherings in them, or when Christians seized, destroyed, or looted them.
There was consistency in the legislation from the end of the fourth century until the
third decade of the fifth century.54

Protection of Synagogues

At least eight of these laws are concerned with the protection of synagogues from
over zealous Christian mobs, a fact which indicates deteriorating relations between
Jews and Christians on the one hand and the legal authorities’ desire to maintain
law and order on the other. The attacks indicate a growing pattern of Christian
aggression towards Jews.

Other laws protecting synagogues from being attacked or razed to the ground
reflect increasing Christian aggression against Jews, with the populace seeking a
scape-goat. Again, it is clear that Christian aggression against Jews far exceeded
Jewish aggression against Christians.

Laws forbidding troops to be lodged in religious edifices mirror the turbulence of
the times, and political instability. When a sizeable army was in Trier from 367–
373 because of fighting on the German border, a law was passed on 6 May 368,
370 or 373, addressed to Remigius, the officer in charge of the mensores who
lodged and fed the troops, ordering him to evacuate from synagogues all who
invaded them with claims of the right of hospitality. The exemption from the duty

53 C. Th. 7.8.2 (368, 370 or 373 CE), 13.5.18 (390 CE), 16.8.9 (393 CE), 16.8.10 (396 CE),
16.8.11 (396 CE), 16.8.12 (397 CE), 2.1.10 (398 CE), 2.8.26 (412 CE), 8.8.8. (412 CE), 16.8.20
(412 CE), 16.9.3 (415 CE), 16.8.23 (416 CE), 16.8.21 (420 CE), 16.8.25 (423 CE), 16.8.26 (423
CE), 16.8.27 (423 CE).

54 See Linder, The Jews, 74.

106

of hospitality applied not only to synagogues but to all religious edifices.55

You shall order those that invade a synagogue as though on right of
hospitality of the Jewish law to evacuate it, for they ought to occupy
houses of private persons, not places of religion, on right of
habitation (C. Th. 7.8.2).56

Christian attacks on synagogues were evidently a growing problem. One such
known attack was the burning down of the Callinicum on the Euphrates in 388.
Theodosius had demanded that the bishop, Ambrose, who had initiated this act of
violence should rebuild the synagogue. However, Ambrose refused and the
Christians were not made to pay.57 Ambrose also chided Maximus for adopting
penal measures for those responsible for burning down the synagogue of Rome.58
This was a dangerous precedent set by a powerful bishop.

A law passed in 393 in the reign of Theodosius repealed the prohibition of
synagogues, and forbade their destruction and spoliation.

It is sufficiently established that the sect of the Jews is prohibited by
no law. We are therefore gravely disturbed by the interdiction
imposed in some places on their assemblies. Our Sublime
Magnitude shall, upon reception of this order, suppress with due
severity the excess of those who presume to commit illegal deeds
under the name of the Christian religion and attempt to destroy and
despoil synagogues (C. Th. 16.8.9).59

Another law passed in 397, in the name of Arcadius and Honorius, reiterates that
the synagogues of the Jews are not to be disturbed, indicating that violent attacks
against the Jews were continuing. Conditions at Illyricum, at that time were
disturbed after the recent invasion by Alaric in 395 and the weakening of the
government that resulted from the conflict between Stilicho, who was Honorius’

55 See Linder, The Jews, 161. See C. Th. 7.8.2.
56 See Linder, The Jews, 162. C. Th. 16.2.31 condemns the sacrilege of troops invading Churches

(409 CE).
57 Ambrose, Ep 40 & 41 (PL 16:1101ff).
58 Linder, The Jews, 190, n. 1.
59 Linder, The Jews, 190.

107

general, and Rufinus, who served under Arcadius.60

Your Excellent Authority shall order the governors to assemble, in
order that they shall learn and know, that it is necessary to repel the
assaults of those who attack Jews, and that their synagogues should
remain in their accustomed peace (C. Th. 16.8.12).61

In 412 a law given by Honorius in Ravenna decreed in the first part that synagogues
were not to be seized or damaged.

No one shall dare to violate or seize and occupy what are known by
the names of synagogues and are assuredly frequented by the
conventicles of the Jews, for all must retain what is theirs with
unmolested right and without harm to religion and cult (C. Th.
16.8.20).62

In 420 a law given by Theodosius II and addressed to Philippus, Praefectus
Praetorio of Illyricum indicates growing intolerance for Jews. It extends protection
to Jews who are being persecuted because of their religion, and so forbids the
damaging or burning of their places of worship. The law seems to be a late reaction
to the attacks that had been directed against Jews in several provinces in the
preceding years such as in Edessa in 411–263 and in Alexandria in 414.64

Three laws promulgated in 423 on 15 February, 9 April and the 8 June point to
worsening conditions for the Jews, while relations with the Christian population
were growing more tense.65

The first law promulgated in 423 is free from offensive language, and makes three
stipulations: that synagogues are not to be seized or burnt down, that Jews should

60 See Sozomen, Hist. eccl. 9.3.
61 Linder, The Jews, 198.
62 Linder, The Jews, 264.
63 See C. Th. 16.8.21. See also Parkes, The Conflict, 236, n. 3.
64 See Linder, The Jews, 284–45.
65 C. Th. 16.8.25, 26 & 27.

108

be given places to construct new synagogues to replace those seized and
consecrated as churches, and that it was forbidden to construct new synagogues,
with the existing ones being kept in their original state.66

The second law, passed two months later, in 423 reiterated the command that
forbade the molesting of Jews or the burning of synagogues. However, the
language has returned to its insulting vein, and the forbidding of circumcision of
non-Jews is added as a proscription. In addition, Jews are classified with
‘abominable’ pagans and heretics, who are considered marked by audacity
(audacia).67 In his third law in June 423, Theodosius II reconfirmed his hostile
policy towards Jews, pagans and heretics. Evidently the recent legislation needed to
be reiterated, for construction of new synagogues continued. The protection of
existing synagogues and of Jews needed to be repeated, owing to militant action on
the part of Christians.68 Thus, the situation of the Jews continued to deteriorate,
illustrated in 423 by the Christian destruction of the synagogue in Antioch. On this
occasion, the attempt of Theodosius II to rebuild it was thwarted by the ascetic,
Simeon Stylites.69 Yielding to pressure from church authorities, and in
contradiction of the mores of justice and truth, Theodosius passed no more laws
protecting Jews after 423, thus officially permitting the spoliation of synagogues to
continue. In 442, Theodosius himself authorised the confiscation of the synagogue
in the Copper Market of Constantinople.70

Laws protecting synagogues could be seen as a consequence of the christianisation
of the empire and the growing power of Christianity to the detriment of Judaism.
Although imperial authority continued the conservative policy of protection of the

66 C. Th. 16.8.25.
67 C. Th. 16.8.26.
68 See C. Th. 16.8.27. and 16.10 24.
69 See PG 114:381 and PG 86:2456. See also Evagrius Hist. eccl. 1.13. and A. M. Rabello, ‘The

First Law of Theodosius II and Celebrations of Purim’, in Christian News from Israel, ns. 24:4.

(1974), 166.

70 See Theophanes, anno 442; PG 108:265. See Parkes, The Conflict, 238, and C. Th. 16.8.20;
2.8.26. and 8.8.8.

109

Jews, these privileges were removed gradually. The appropriation of synagogue
property reflects an economic crisis, a breakdown in central authority and the
unsettled conditions of the time.

Sabbaths and Holy Days

Laws were passed exempting Jews from civic duties on Saturdays and their
holidays, and extending the measures of 389, which freed Jews from appearing in
Court on Christian and Imperial holidays.71

After other matters: We order, that no one shall be obliged to do
anything or be summoned in any way whatsoever, on the Sabbath
day or on the other days on which the Jews keep the reverence of
their cult, or it is clear that the remaining days could suffice for the
fiscal revenues and for private litigation (C. Th. 8.8.8).72

3. Statutes Prohibiting Anti-Christian Practices by Jews

Evidence of tension between Jews and Christians is also illustrated by several laws
prohibiting anti-Christian practices by Jews, which were passed between 313 and
409.73 Also relevant to the law in C. Th. 16.8.18 (408) is the incident in the Syrian
town of Inmester, located between Antioch and Chalcis. Socrates relates that in the
course of unbridled merriment during Purim, local Jews began to mock the
Christians.74 This affront to Christians by Jews evidently provoked serious
disturbances between Christians and Jews. Rabello comments that the law of
Honorius and Theodosius II concerning Purim ‘constitutes a patent intervention on
the part of the secular and ecclesiastical authorities in the religious life of the
Jewish community in the Roman Empire. Thenceforth (from 408), the observance
of Purim continues to be permitted’ but on the condition that Jews were to observe

71 See C. Th. 16.2.20 and 2.18.9. See also C. Th. 8.8.8 which was also passed in 412 and repeated
the Sabbath privilege.

72 See Linder, The Jews, 266.
73 See C. Th. 16.8.1 (329 CE), 16.8.18 (408 CE), 16.5.44 (408 CE), 16.2.31 (409 CE), 16.5.46

(409 CE).

74 See Socrates, Hist eccl. 7.16.

110