39 Against God-Fearers, Conversion to Judaism, and Profanation of Sunday

Honorius (with Theodosius II)

1 April 409

This law, given by Honorius in his name and in the name of Theodosius II at Ravenna on 1 April 409, was addressed to lovius, Praefectus Praetorio of Italy.

The legislator condemned the God-Fearers, still emphasizing the novelty of their appearance, and Justinian’s editors preserved the expression of surprise even after a century and a half. God­Fearers were allowed a year to rejoin the Church; once that time had expired they were to be prosecuted under the anti-heresy leg­islation. The fact that these measures are immediately followed by a reiteration of the traditional prohibitions against conversion to Judaism suggests that the legislator considered these two pheno­mena as linked together, and points to the semi-Jewish character of the sect of the God-Fearers. Mommsen’s reconstruction of the text, based on CJ 1:12:2, represents an attempt to solve another problem related to conversion to Judaism, that of slaves owned by Jews, by offering asylum to such slaves if they escaped to churches.

The association of God-Fearers with Jews in the same law lends

more weight to the identification of the God-Fearers with groups known as θεοσεβείς, σεβόμενοι, ‘metuentes’, DO2W ’’ΚΊ*’, Ή ’’ΚΊ*’, etc., semi-proselytes who abjured pagan practices and embraced some Jewish usages, yet did not convert entirely to Judaism. These groups have been sufficiently documented in Jewish and non-Jewish sources since the first century c.e., both in the Roman Empire and beyond its boundaries. There was, therefore, nothing new about them, but the novelty of the phenomenon, emphasized by the law from 407 and in the present law, consists perhaps in the appearance of God-Fearers among the Christians. They were traditionally re­cruited from among the pagans, yet our law qualifies them as rene­gade Christians. An isolated echo of the appearance of this group in Africa at that time can be detected in Augustine’s remark in 396, or the beginning of 397 (Letter n. 44), that many people joined it during the preceding decade in Thubursicum Numidarum (Kha- missa). It is noteworthy that he designated the leader of these God­Fearers as ‘major’, a title known from Roman laws to refer to the leaders of the Jewish communities. Several historians concluded from this passage that the sect of the God-Fearers was peculiar to northern Africa, and they adduced as further proof Philastrius’ problematic statement that this was a heretical Jewish sect con­nected with the worship of the goddess Caelestis. The laws dealing with the God-Fearers from 407 and 409 are, however, general laws, and there is nothing in their texts to suggest that they were limited to Africa.

Codex Theodosianus, 16:8:19, ed. Mommsen, pp. 891-892

IDEM AA.· IOVIO· P(RAEFECTO) P(RAETORI)O

Caelicolarum nomen inauditum quodammodo novum crimen super­stitionis vindicabit.* Ii nisi intra anni terminos ad dei cultum venerationemque Christianam conversi fuerint, his legibus, quibus 5 praecepimus haereticos adstringi, se quoque noverint adtinendos. Cer­tum est enim, quidquid a fide Christianorum discrepat, legi Christianae esse contrarium. Quam quidam adhuc, vitae suae etiam et iuris inmemores, adtrectare ita audent, ut de Christianis quosdam foedum cogant taetrumque ludaeorum nomen induere. Et quamvis qui haec ad- 10 miserint, priscorum principum legibus iure damnati sint, non tamen

paenitet saepius admonere, ne mysteriis Christianis inbuti* perver­sitatem ludaicam et alienam Romano imperio post Christianitatem cogantur arripere. Ac si quisquam id crediderit esse temptandum,* auc­tores facti cum consciis ad poenam praeteritis legibus* cautam 15 praecipimus constringi, quippe cum gravius morte sit et inmitius caede, si quis ex Christiana fide incredulitate ludaica polluatur. Et idcirco iubemus, ne ecclesiis quisquam nocens vel cuiusquam abducere fideli ac* devota deo praeceptione sancimus, sub hac videlicet definitione, ut, si quisquam contra hanc legem venire temptaverit, sciat, se ad maiestatis 20 crimen* esse retinendum.

DAT. KAL. APRIL. RAV(ENNAE) HONOR(IO) VIII ET THEOD(OSIO) III AA. CONSS.*

2            3

THE SAME TWO AUGUSTK TO IO VIUS / PRAEFECTUS PRAETORIO

A new crime of superstition shall somehow obtain the unheard name of Heaven-Fearers.⁴ Let them know, that unless they return within a year to the cult of God and to the Christian veneration, they too shall be affected by those laws which we have ordered to be imposed on the heretics.

GIVEN ON THE CALENDS OF APRIL AT RAVENNA, IN THE CONSULATE OF THE TWO AUGUSTI, HONORIUS FOR THE EIGHTH TIME AND THEODOSIUS FOR THE THIRD.¹⁰

Codex Theodosianus, 2:8:25, ed. Mommsen, p. 89

[IM]PP. HON(ORIUS) ET THEOD(OSIUS) AA. IOVIO P(RAEFECTO) P(RAETORI)O

Post alia: Dominica die, quam vulgo [s]olis appellant,* nullas edi penitus patimur voluptates, etsi fortuito [i]n ea aut imperii nostri ortus* 5 redeuntibus in semet anni metis obful[s]erit aut natali debita sollemnia deferantur.

DAT.

THE TWO EMPERORS AND AUGUSTI HONORIUS AND THEODOSIUS, TO IO- VIUS PRAEFECTUS PRAETORIO

After other matters: We absolutely do not suffer that any entertain­ment be produced on the Lord’s Day, which is called Sun-Day¹¹ by the populace, even if on that day shall shine perchance the com­mencement of our reign¹² in the recurring yearly cycle, or the obli­gatory solemnities be offered to our birthday.

GIVEN ON THE CALENDS OF APRIL AT RAVENNA, IN THE CONSULATE OF THE TWO AUGUSTI, HONORIUS FOR THE EIGHTH TIME AND THEODOSIUS FOR THE THIRD.

IDEM AA. IOVIO PP.

Caelicolarum nomen inauditum quodammodo novum crimen super­stitionis vindicavit. Ii, nisi ad dei cultum venerationemque Christianam conversi fuerint, his legibus, quibus praecipimus* haereticos adstringi, se 5 quoque noverint attinendos. Aedificia autem eorum, quae nescio cuius dogmatis novi conventus habent, ecclesiis vindicentur. Certum est enim, quidquid a fide Christianorum discrepat, legi Christianae esse contrarium.

D. K. APRIL. RAVENNA HONORIO VIII ET THEODOSIO III AA. CONSS.

THE SAME TWO AUGUSTI TO IOVIUS, PRAEFECTUS PRAETORIO

A new crime of superstition somehow obtained the unheard name of Heaven-Fearers. Let them know, that unless they return to the cult of God and to the Christian veneration, they too shall be af­fected by those laws which we order¹³ that shall be imposed on the heretics.

GIVEN ON THE CALENDS OF APRIL AT RAVENNA, IN THE CONSULATE OF THE TWO AUGUSTI, HONORIUS FOR THE EIGHTH TIME AND THEODOSIUS FOR THE THIRD.

Codex Justinianus, 1:12:2, ed. Krüger, p. 65

IMPP. HONORIUS ET THEODOSIUS AA. IOVIO PP.

Fideli ac devota praeceptione sancimus nemini licere ad sacrosanctas ecclesias confugientes abducere: sub hac videlicet definitione, ut, si quis­quam contra hanc legem venire temptaverit, sciat se ad maiestatis 5 crimen esse retinendum.

D. K. APRIL. RAVENNAE HONORIO VIII ET THEODOSIO III AA. CONSS.

THE TWO EMPERORS AND AUGUSTI HONORIUS AND THEODOSIUS TO IO- VIUS, PRAFECTUS PRAETORIO

We order in a faithful and devoted decree that none shall be al­lowed to take away fugitives to the sacrosanct churches: namely under this instruction, that if someone shall attempt to rise against this law, let him know that he shall be punished for high treason. GIVEN ON THE CALENDS OF APRIL AT RAVENNA, IN THE CONSULATE OF THE TWO AUGUSTI, HONORIUS FOR THE EIGHTH TIME AND THEODOSIUS FOR THE THIRD.

NOTES

1.        On the subject of the God-Fearers see S. Lieberman, Greek and Hellen­ism in Jewish Palestine, Jerusalem 1962, pp. 59-62 (in Hebrew); S. Pines, “The Iranian Designation for Christians and God-Fearers,” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, II (1969), pp. 100-107 (in Hebrew); L. H. Feldman, “Jewish Sympathizers in Classical Literature and Inscriptions,” Transac­tions of the American Philological Association, LXXXI (1950), pp. 200-208; Juster, I, p. 175 n. 3; M. Simon, “Le Judaisme berbdre dans 1’Afrique ancienne,” Re- cherches d’histoire Judto-Chretienne, Paris 1962, pp. 57-63. For the contribution of epigraphy to this question consult L. Rot Gerson, “ ‘God-Fearers’ in Jewish In­scriptions from Sardis,” Eshel Beer-Sheva—Studies in Jewish Thought, I (1976), pp. 88-93; H. Bellen, “Συναγωγή τών ’Ιουδαίων καί Θεοσεβών—Die Aussage einer bosporanischen Freilassungsinschrift (CIRB 71) zum Problem der Gottfürchtigen,” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, VIII-IX, Münster 1965-1966, pp. 171-186; B. Lifshitz, “Les Juifs ä Venosa,” Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica,lang=EN-US style='font-size:8.5pt;font-style:normal'> NS, XC (1962), p. 368.

2.        Augusti: Honorius and Theodosius II.

3.        lovius was Praefectus Praetorio of Italy in 409. See Haehling, pp. 314­315; PLRE, II, s.v.; O. Seeck, PW, 1:18, 1916, s.v., Col. 2015.

4.        Heaven-Fearers: this sentence is undoubtedly corrupt. Some of the mod­em editors and students of Codex Theodosianus, among them O. Seeck, emended ‘vindicabit’ to ‘vindicavit’, following the version of Codex Justinianus.

5.        Mysteries: compare Augustine’s definition of the Jews as ‘homines ani­males’, contrasted with ‘homines spiritales’, in a work written in 401 against the Donatists: ‘homines... ut iam divinis... sacramentis inbuti ad hue tarnen carnal- iter sapiant’. “Men... who although imbued in the divine sacraments... still discern in a carnal way.” See De Baptismo, 1:15:24, ed. Μ. Petschenig, CSEL, LI, 1908, p. 168.

6.        Willfully: on the use of the gerundive in the punitive clauses of legisla­tive texts see O. Hey, “Aus dem kaiserlichen Kanzleistil,” ALL, XV (1908), pp. 57-59.

7.         Former laws: see above, Nos. 1, 6, 8, 10-12, 16-17.

8.        That ♦ ♦ ♦: the text is obviously corrupt, due to an omission. It seems that the lost passage has been preserved in CJ 1:12:2. Mommsen suggested the following reconstruction: “that no fugitive seeking asylum in church, be he innocent or guilty, shall be taken out of churches, and above all that a Jew shall not be allowed to take from them away a slave of any man whatsoever.” The use of the term ‘nocens’ in the meaning of ‘criminis auctor’ or ‘criminis socius’ is post-Classi­cal. See F. Pringsheim, “Bonum et Aequum,” ZSSRG, RA, LII (1932), p. 103.

9.        Ulpian’s definition of high-treason was as follows: ‘Maiestatis autem crimen illud est, quod adversus populum Romanum vel adversus securitatem eius committitur’. “The crime of high-treason is that committed against the Roman people or against its security” (Dig. 48:4:1). Under the principate it was extended to cover the traditional crime of ‘perduellio’, “treason.” Its application to the religious sphere, e.g., in relation to conversion of Christians to Judaism, which the Christian legislator defined as a sacrilege, should be linked with Ulpian’s definition: ‘Proximum sacrilegio crimen est, quod maiestatis dicitur’, “A crime very near to sacrilege is that called high-treason” (ibid.), and to a certain extent, with the definition of Judaism as “alien to the Roman Empire.” Arcadius and Honorius established a series of definitions and particularly severe punishments for the crime of high treason, in a very detailed law, promulgated on 4 September 397 (CTh 9:14:3). The punishments included execution, confiscation of property, and various restrictions on bequeathing property and on emancipation of slaves.

10.      Given... third: 1 April 409.

11.      Sunday was designated, in a law of Constantine dated 3 July 321 (CTh 2:8:1), as “Sun-Day,” but a law promulgated in the names of Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius on 3 November 386 stated ‘Solis dies, quern dominicum rite dixere maiores’, “Sun-Day, appropriately called by our fathers the Lord’s Day” (CTh 2:8:18). Arcadius and Honorius employed the term “the Lord’s Day” in a law dated 27 August 399 (CTh 2:8:23). Augustine’s commentary to Psalms XCIII, composed between 394 and 418, proves, however, that the pagan names of the week-days were still used by pagans and Christians alike. See Enarrationes in Ps. XCIII:3, ed. E. Dekkers and J. Fraipont, CCSL, XXXIX, 1956, pp. 1302-1303. A funeral inscription from the church at Tipasa dates, indeed, the martyrdom of Victorinus to ‘Fie (leg. Die) solis’ (AE, 1942-1943, No. 48). An interdiction on holding circus games on Christian holidays was decreed in a law issued by Valentin- ian, Theodosius, and Arcadius on 7 August 389 (CTh 2:8:19), and ten years later, on 27 August 399, Arcadius and Honorius specifically prohibited giving any public entertainment, such as theatre performances and horse racings, on Sundays.

12.      The emperor’s reign commenced on the day he was nominated as emperor, either by the Senate or by the army. It became customary, beginning with the fourth century, to number the ruler’s years from the date of his nomination as Caesar, that is as the heir presumptive. Circus performances formed the main part of the celebrations held on these dates, probably since Pertinax’s reign. According to a law promulgated in the names of Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius on 7 August 389 (CTh 2:8:19), courts were closed on this day, as well as on the first of January, the foundation days of Rome and Constantinople, Easter, Sundays, and the emperor’s birthday. See Schulten, PW, 1:9,1903, s.v. Dies Imperii, Cols. 477-478. Compare also the definition of the term □T’ in the Babylonian Talmud: “The day on which the Pagans establish their king” (Avoda Zara, 10, p. 1).

13.      Order: Justinian’s editors replaced ‘praecepimus’ (perfect tense), found in Codex Theodosianus (CTh 16:8:9) with ‘praecipimus’ (present tense). Such emen­dations were not uncommon in the editing process of Codex Justinianus. See Grupe, XV, pp. 331-332.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Godefroy, VI: 1, pp. 257-260; Seeck, Regesten, p. 316; Browe, p. 118; Seaver, pp. 60-61.