9 Exemption from Liturgies to Holders of Religious Offices
Constantine the Great
29 November-1 December 330
This law was given by Constantine the Great in two versions:
(A) A version given in Constantinople on 29 November 330 and addressed to Ablavius, Praefectus Praetorio in the East.
This version has been preserved in Codex Theodosianus (CTh 16:8:2).(B) A version given in Constantinople on 1 December 330 and addressed to the holders of religious offices in the synagogues. It was received throughout the Empire in the course of the following year, in 331. It has been preserved in Codex Theodosianus (CTh 16:8:4). While version A was preserved in some detail, version B consists of only a brief and general summary. Nuyens believes that they represented two separate laws, the first dating from 330 and the second—a reissue and confirmation of the first law—from 331.
Constantine ordered in this law that holders of religious offices in the communities, those subordinate to the jurisdiction of the patriarchs and the Sanhedrin in Palestine, should continue to enjoy the exemption from personal-civil liturgies. Those who were not decurions at the time of the law’s enactment were to enjoy a comprehensive exemption, while those who were decurions at that time could enjoy only a partial exemption, covering the transportation liturgy only. Constantine had already legislated on this subject in 321 (see above, No. 7), but the present law specified that the exemption was restricted to holders of religious offices subordinate to the patriarchs and the Sanhedrin, and it omitted the previous limitation on the number of the exempted to two or three in every curia.
He obviously wanted to regularize the process of granting exemptions by transferring the powers to exempt, to a great extent, to the autonomous Jewish authorities in Palestine, adopting what had already become a long-established custom in the Eastern provinces.1 The whole problem was handled analogous to the treatment of the Christian clergy: the Jewish “clergy,” similar to the Christian clergy, was represented as “dedicating itself,” living in the cadres of a “sect” and presiding over the “law”; it merited, consequently, privileges that allowed it to devote itself to the cult and to the “law.” Arcadius confirmed, indeed, that the exemptions granted to the Jews by Constantine and his heirs were identical to those granted the Christian senior clergy (CTh 16:8:13 from 397; see below, No. 27). The importance of this exemption should best be appreciated on the background of the authorities’ consistent efforts to restrict the entry of decurions to the Christian clergy, and to prevent the abuse of clerical privileges in evasion of liturgies.2Two principles embodied in this law deserve particular attention:
(A) The law amounted to a recognition by the Imperial government of the Palestinian patriarchs and Sanhedrin as the supreme authority over the diaspora Jews. In this perspective all communal and synagogue officials were held subordinate to the patriarch, and nominations to office in the diaspora rested on the authority of the patriarch and the Sanhedrin.
(B) It established the communal officials as a privileged group in regard to the Imperial system of liturgies. In this respect the Jewish “clergy” was placed in a position similar to that of the pagan priesthood and most probably also to that of the Christian clergy.
This law was supplemented by additional legislation on the decurionate by Constantius, Valentinian and Valens, Arcadius and Honorius (see below, No.
27). It was used as model by the draftsmen of No. 27 in 397, whose text follows closely the earlier version (ibid.). Theodosius’ editors erred in the place they alloted it in the Codex, for they located it between a law they dated to 315 and another dated 321.Codex Theodosianus, 16:8:2, ed. Mommsen, p. 887
IDEM A. AD ABLAVIUM» PfRAEFECTUM) P(RAETORI)O
Qui devotione tota synagogis ludaeorupi patriarchis vel presbyteris* se dederunt et in memorata secta degentes legi ipsi praesident, inmunes ab omnibus tam personalibus quam civilibus* muneribus perseverent, ita ut 5 illi, qui iam forsitan decuriones sunt, nequaquam ad prosecutiones* aliquas destinentur, cum oporteat istiusmodi homines a locis in quibus sunt nulla conpelli ratione discedere*. Hi autem, qui minime curiales sunt, perpetua decurionatus immunitate potiantur.
DAT. Ill KAL. DECEMB. CONSTANT(INO)P(OLI) GALLICANO ET
10 SYMMACHO CONSS.·
THE SAME AUGUSTUS TO ABLA VIUS,3 PRAEFECTUS PRAETORIO
Those who dedicated themselves with complete devotion to the synagogues of the Jews, to the patriarchs or to the Presbyters,4 and while living in the above-mentioned sect, it is they who preside over the law, shall continue to be exempt from all liturgies, personal as well as civil;5 in such a way that those that happen to be decurions already shall not be designated to transportations6 of any kind, for it would be appropriate that people such as these shall not be compelled for whatever reason to depart from the places in which they are.7 Those however, who are definitely not decurions, shall enjoy perpetual exemption from the decurionate.
GIVEN ON THE THIRD DAY BEFORE THE CALENDS OF DECEMBER AT CONSTANTINOPLE IN THE CONSULATE OF GALLICANUS AND SYMMACHUS.8
Codex Theodosianus, 16:8:4, ed.
Mommsen, p. 887color=black face="Times New Roman">IDEM A. HIEREIS* ET ARCHISYNAGOGIS* ET PATRIBUS SYNAGOGARUM* ET CETERIS, QUI IN EODEM LOCO* DESERVIUNT
Hiereos et archisynagogos et patres synagogarum et ceteros qui synagogis deserviunt, ab omni corporali munere liberos esse 5 praecipimus.
DAT. KAL. DEC. CONSTANT(INO)P(OLI) BASSO ET ABLAVIO CONSS.*
THE SAME AUGUSTUS TO THE PRIESTS,9 THE ARCHSYNAGOGUES,10 FATHERS OF SYNAGOGUES11 AND THE OTHERS WHO SERVE IN THE SAME PLACE12
We order that the priests, archsynagogues, fathers of synagogues, and the others who serve in synagogues shall be free from all corporal liturgy.
GIVEN ON THE CALENDS OF DECEMBER AT CONSTANTINOPLE, IN THE CONSULATE OF BASSUS AND ABLAVIUS.13
NOTES
1. Compare the law from 5 February of the same year (CTh 16:2:7), which granted exemption from liturgies to Christian clerics ‘ad similitudinem Orientis’, “in the manner of the East.”
2. See C. Dupont, “Les privilèges des clercs sous Constantin,” RHE, LXII (1967), pp. 729-752; T. G. Eliot, “The Tax Exemptions Granted to Clerics by Constantine and Constantius II,” Phoenix, XXXII (1978), pp. 326-336; J. Gaude- met, “Constantin et les curies municipales,” lura, II (1951), pp. 55-56; A. M. Rabello, “I privilegi dei chierici sotto Costantino,” Labeo, XVI (1970), pp. 384389.
3. Flavius Ablavius, one of Constantine’s closest and more influential Christian counsellors, served as a “ministerial” praefectus praetorio at Constantine’s side from 13 September 329 until 337.
See A. Chastagnol, “Les préfets du prétoire de Constantin,” REA, LXX (1968), pp. 321-352; W. Ensslin, PW, 1:44, 1954, s.v. Praefectus Praetorio, Cols. 2497, 2500; Haehling, pp. 57-58; PLRE, I, s.v.4. Presbyters were members of the Sanhedrin. In the Diaspora communities the term designated members of the community’s ‘gerusia’, yet the legislator associated here the “Presbyters” with the patriarchs as heads of a priestly hierarchy, authorized to confirm and reject the lower officials of the synagogue; these “Presbyters” should be identified, therefore, with the members of the Palestinian Sanhedrin. See Linder, pp. 120-122.
5. Civil: a problematical passage. The legislator seems to be granting exemption from all liturgies, ‘ab omnibus... muneribus’, emphasizing the comprehensiveness of this exemption in a subordinate clause ‘tarn... quam’, but instead of designating separate types of liturgies that cover the whole field of liturgies this clause referred to types that overlap occasionally, and whose combination did not achieve completeness. ‘Munera personalia’, “Personal liturgies,” are not opposed to ‘munera civilia’, but to ‘munera patrimoniorum’, “Property liturgy,” for personal liturgies were carried out personally, while property liturgies were carried out through payment. The intermediate category of ‘munera mixta’, “mixed liturgies,” included personal duties as well as financial payments. See the definitions attributed to Hermogenian (Dig. 50:4:1) and to Charisius size=1>(Dig. 50:4:18). The term ‘civilis’ usually designated, in the context of liturgies, ‘munera civilia’, namely liturgies imposed by the cities for their own needs, while ‘munera publica’, “public liturgies,” were imposed by the State for State needs.
This distinction became progressively blurred with the integration of the cities and the municipal authorities in the Imperial government system, and with the imposition of State functions on municipal authorities. The two types of liturgies, originally distinct, were destined to lose their specific identities and merge together, but “civil liturgies” were not contraposed with “personal liturgies.” “Civil liturgies” were divided, however, into the three categories of personal, property, and mixed liturgies. It is possible, therefore, that the original version of our law limited the exemption to civil-personal liturgies only, a category that fits well the arguments adduced by the legislator, and that the text acquired its more general sense as a result of a corruption introduced during the process of its transmission. For the meanings of ‘civilis’, consult J. Gaudement, “ ‘Civilis’ dans les textes juridiques du Bas-Empire,” Festschrift H. Lewaid, Basel 1953, pp. 45-53.6. Transportations: mainly a liturgy of food transportation for army needs,
but also transportation of State-owned gold, animals, prisoners, etc. The responsibility for the transported objects lay on the transporter. Jewish sources designated it as an ‘angaria’ duty. See A. Marmorstein, “The Age of R. Johanan and the ‘Signs of the Messiah’,” Tarbiz, III (1932), pp. 161-180 (in Hebrew); D. Sperber, “Angaria in Rabbinic Sources,” L’Antiquite classique, XXXVIII (1969), pp. 164168. The Palestinian Talmud records the case of R. Zeira, who was obliged to perform an ‘angaria’ of myrtle transportation to the palace (PT, Berakoth 1:1:6:1). The term ‘prosecutor’ appears in a Hebrew transcription in Midrash
Tehillim 17:3 (Buber ed., p. 126). See also D. Sperber, “Anecdota,” Sinai, LXXVIII (1975/76), pp. 45-46 (in Hebrew). Sperber hesitates to accept the implication of that passage that transporters were given a certain coercive power, but the text of CTh 12:8:1, which dealt with the liturgy of gold transportation, clearly proves that such powers were expressely given in the nomination document.
7. They are: the exemption of synagogue officials was explained, in this law, by the legislator’s wish that the cult should not be interrupted. Compare a petition presented by Egyptian priests in 171, with the complaint that they were forced to leave their temple and work in mending river embankments at a great distance from their temple παρά τό έθος, “contrary to custom.” The Strategos was asked to put an end to the practice and allow them to work in the vicinity of their village, so that they could assure the daily cult. For the text of this petition see E. H. Gilliam, “The Archives of the Temple of Soknobraisis at Bacchias,” Yale Classical Studies, X (1947), pp. 250-254.
8. Given... Symmachus: 29 November 330.
9. Priests: the legislator used the Greek term in a Latin transcription. It designated, probably, all the community officials, analogous to the pagan priesthood and the Christian clergy.
10. Although the office of Archysynagogue is sufficiently documented in Jewish and Roman sources, and especially in epigraphic sources, its true nature is still largely unknown. It seems that the Archysynagogue functioned mainly in the spiritual sphere, and that he was responsible for maintaining the synagogal cult, but he may have been active also in more practical matters, particularly those concerned with the synagogue’s buildings and properties. See CI J, I, pp. XCVIIXCIX; Juster, I, pp. 450-453; S. Krauss, Synagogale Altertümer, Berlin 1922, pp. 114-121; H. J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome, Philadelphia 1960, pp. 171-172; B. Lifshitz, “Fonctions et titres honorifiques dans les communautds juives,” Revue biblique, LXVII (1960), p. 58.
11. The term ‘pater synagogae’ was probably purely honorific, devoid of any effective function, although our law seems to indicate such functions.
12. The same place: as our law appeared in Codex Theodosianus after CTh 16:8:3, addressed to the decurions of Cologne (see above, No. 7), some historians deduced that this law was addressed to that city. Closer study of the combination of both terms—‘locus’, “place,” and ‘deservire’, “to serve”—in our law indicates, however, that it was addressed to all synagogue officials in the Empire. This meaning becomes clear once the title is seen as a summary of the law, which referred to ‘qui synagogis deserviunt’ in their two complementary aspects, both “those that serve in synagogues” and “those that serve the synagogues.” The term ‘locus’, in plural ‘loca’, designated cult-buildings and consecrated edifices in general, according to the definition given by Isidor of Sevilla: ‘De aedificiis sacris. Sacra sunt loca divinis cultibus instituta, utpote ea in quibus altaria litantibus de more pontificibus consecrantur’. “On sacred edifices. Sacred places are those instituted for the divine cults, that is, places in which altars are consecrated by priests who offer sacrifices according to custom.” See Etymologiae, XV:4, ed. W. Μ. Lindsay, II, Oxford 1966. In a more specific sense this term designated both churches (see below) and synagogues. In 368 (or 370, or 373) the legislator defined synagogues as ‘loca religionum’ (see below, No. 14). The clause “that serve the synagogues” corresponds to the similar clause in the law addressed to Ablavius, expressing the same idea in different terms. Similar expressions are found in texts dealing with Christian clergy dedicated to Christian cult, e.g., in Cyprian’s letters. See St. Cyprien, Corre- spondance, 1:1, ed. Bayard, I, Paris 1925, p. 2; LXXII:2:2, ibid., II, Paris 1925, p. 261. The combination of ‘locus’ with ‘deservire’, found in our law, appeared in numerous Christian texts, such as the law issued in the names of Gratian, Valentin- ian, and Theodosius in 380, which granted exemption from capitation-tax to all those who are ‘custodes ecclesiarum... vel sanctorum locorum ac religiosis obsequiis deservire’, “guardians of the churches and of the sacred places... who serve the religious cults” (CTh 16:2:26). See also a letter by Gregory I in 595, referring to mass celebrated ‘a presbyteris ecclesiae tuae in sancto loco deservientibus’, “by the presbyters of your church, who serve in the sacred place.” Later Gregory I mentioned, in the same manner, the monks serving in the oratory: ‘monachis in eodem loco deservientibus’. See Gregorius I, Registrum Epistolarum2, V:50, ed. P. Ewald & L. M. Hartmann, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Epistolae, V, 1957, pp. 349350. It is possible that the Christian term derived from the Jewish terms DlpD and mnK—in Hebrew and in Aramaic—commonly employed to designate synagogues. See J. Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic: The Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Ancient Synagogues, Tel-Aviv 1978, pp. 10, 22, 34, 48, 54, 77, 95, 99-101 (in Hebrew).
13. Given... Ablavius: 1 December 331. This date is erroneous, for it combines elements of two different dates, of the giving of the law and of its promulgation. It should be corrected, according to Seeck, as follows: “Given on 1 December at Constantinople, in the consulate of Gallicanus and Symmachus (330); promulagted in the consulate of Bassus and Ablavius (331).” Combinations of this type were quite common when laws were given towards the end of the year and promulgated in the course of the following year. See Seeck, Regesten, p. 83.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Godefroy, VI: 1, pp. 240-243; Seeck, “Zeitfolge,” p. 241; idem, Regesten, pp. 83, 180; Ferrari dalle Spade, “Privilegi,” pp. 107-109; Seaver, pp. 30-31; Dörries, pp. 195-196; Noethlichs, pp. 35-36; Μ. Nuyens, Le Statut obligatoire des décurions dans le droit constantinien, Louvain 1974, pp. 200-202, 209; Archi, pp. 64-65; Avi-Yonah, p. 163; Reichardt, p. 21; Vogler, pp. 42-43, 63-64.