A.D. 363-429.
JOVIAN TO HONORIUS.—MUTUAL JEALOUSIES AND OUTRAGES.—SUPPRESSION OF
THE PATRIARCHATE OF TIBERIAS.
Jovian, a stern enemy of the Jews, succeeded to the throne vacated
by Julian, but, fortunately for them, reigned for a few months
only. Valens and Valentinian, who followed, reinstated the Jews in
the possession of their ancient rights, but withdrew the exemption
from serving public offices, which they had hitherto enjoyed. Under
their rule, as under that of all succeeding emperors to the time
of Justinian, the main things that attract the reader’s notice are
the mutual jealousies of the Jews and Christians, for ever breaking
out into acts of lawless violence, the blame of which does not lie
wholly on one side. The idea seems to have possessed the minds of the
Christians, even of their bishops (whose training and office should
have taught them better), that the Jews as a race were the personal
enemies of Christ,[60] and, as such, objects of aversion and horror.
This was a fruitful source of the wrongs, oppressions, and cruelties
with which the pages of their after history are so deeply stained.
The emperors strove, to the best of their ability, to hold the
balance of justice evenly between the contending parties, but often
found it impossible to do so. Thus, a synagogue having been burnt by
the Christians at Rome (A.D. 387), Maximus the Usurper, who was at
that time in possession of the capital, ordered it to be rebuilt by
those who had wrecked it. For this righteous act he was denounced
by Ambrose,[61] Bishop of Milan, who attributed his subsequent fall
and ruin to that act, and induced Theodosius to revoke the decree.
A similar outrage having been committed at Osrhoene, a city of
Mesopotamia (A.D. 395), the same order was issued by Theodosius
himself. But Ambrose again interfered, and addressed a most indignant
letter to the Emperor. Overlooking altogether the wrong committed by
the Christians, he argued that it was most unjust to require them
to take part in building up a Jewish synagogue; which was, he says,
‘the home of perfidy, the dwelling-place of impiety.’ It is said
also, by Zonaras, that he preached publicly to the same effect at
Milan; but of that there is no evidence. Theodosius, who entertained
the profoundest respect for Ambrose, was overawed, and withdrew his
edict.[62] But that his conviction as to the justice of the case was
unaltered, we may see by the law which Theodosius promulgated in the
last year of his life, which secured protection to the Jews in the
exercise of their religion, and decreed the punishment of all who
assailed them.[63]
On the other hand, the Jews were not behindhand in displaying a
very turbulent and rancorous temper. On all occasions which offered
themselves, and these were neither few nor trivial, they did their
best to harass and mortify the Christians. The Arian controversy,
which so grievously distracted the East, and for so long a period,
could not have concerned them. Yet they were always ready to support
the Arian leaders with their influence, and unite with Arian mobs
in attacking the churches of the Orthodox. Nor were these the only
outrages they committed. At some of their feasts, when, ‘flown with
insolence and wine,’ they issued forth from the banqueting chamber,
they were wont to insult and attack any Christians they might meet.
At the feast of Purim in particular such displays were likely to
occur. On that occasion it was their practice to erect a gibbet, to
which a figure representing Haman was fastened, and whenever his
name occurred in the service for the day they broke out into furious
execrations against him. On the occasion of one of the celebrations
of this feast at Inmestar, a city of Chalcis, near Antioch, their
insolence was carried to a most shocking height. Rushing out into the
street, some of the drunken Jews seized on a Christian boy whom they
met, and dragging him into the house, fastened him to the gibbet,
from which the figure of Haman had been removed, and which, in
mockery doubtless of the crucifixion, had been fashioned in the shape
of a cross.[64] They then proceeded to scourge the lad so severely
that he is said to have died under their hands. The Christians were
roused to fury by the murder, and a bloody fight ensued, in which
many lives were lost. This occurred A.D. 412.
Several strange stories are told of occurrences during the early part
of the fifth century, which illustrate the temper of the times. They
are mostly concerned with conversions; to effect which great zeal
was undoubtedly displayed; but it is not often of a kind that we can
either admire or approve. Offers of worldly advantages of one kind or
another were made by those who were anxious to secure converts; and
no one will wonder at hearing that many, in consequence, professed
themselves willing to submit to baptism. These converts, however,
were not inclined to be content with profiting once only by so
easy a mode of obtaining the good things of life. They presented
themselves as candidates for baptism at the churches of every sect in
Constantinople. The practice was detected. A tradition relates that
when one of these pseudo-converts was brought to the font, the water
receded from the sacred vessel, so that the ministrant could not
perform his office. Startled at so strange an occurrence, he set on
foot a strict inquiry, and elicited the fact that the man had already
been baptized in the churches belonging to every sect in the city,
except the one in which this incident was reported to have occurred.
Unfortunately, the church belonged, not to the Orthodox, but to the
Novatians. The extent to which the scandal had reached is proved by
the enactment of a law, which forbade the baptism of any Jew, until
strict inquiry had been made as to his character and motives, and a
certain noviciate passed.
Not unfrequently the conversions were what may be termed wholesale,
large bodies of men offering themselves at the same time for
admission to the Church; and these were brought about after what most
persons would consider a strange fashion. Thus, in the island of
Minorca (A.D. 418), Severus, the bishop, had been greatly distressed
by the presence of a Jewish synagogue under a Rabbi named Theodorus,
and exerted himself to the utmost to effect their conversion.
He had heard that Theodorus was a man of unusual learning and
ability, as well as of the highest character, and well accustomed to
controversy—a formidable antagonist, in fact, for whom, it was to be
feared, the bishop himself was no match. Nevertheless, fortified by
the possession of the relics of St. Stephen, which, it appears, had
been left in the island, he challenged Theodorus to a disputation,
which he proposed to hold in a church at Magona. The Jews declined
the contest, on the ground that it was their Sabbath day, on which
they could enter no unclean place. The bishop then proposed that the
meeting should take place in the Jews’ synagogue; and when they came
up in large numbers to his house, to decline that suggestion also,
he solved the difficulty by marching with all his followers to the
synagogue. A riot broke out in the street, and the Christians pursued
their opponents into their place of worship, which they plundered
and then burned. This procedure failing to convert the Jews, a
disputation was at last held, at which Theodorus made an oration so
learned and powerful that Bishop Severus was unable to answer him.
Happily, however, there was no need for him to do so. When he had
concluded, the whole of the Christians, anxious to gain so worthy
a proselyte, broke out into a general cry, ‘Theodorus, believe in
Christ.’ The Jews mistook the words for ‘Theodorus _believes_ in
Christ,’ and straightway, stricken to the heart by this terrible
apostasy, fled into the woods, leaving Theodorus in the hands of the
Christians. The bishop did not fail to point out to him that the hand
of Heaven was plainly discernible in what had passed; and Theodorus,
perplexed by the position in which he found himself placed, angered
at his desertion by his countrymen, and possibly influenced by the
hopes of worldly advancement, submitted to baptism; and his example
was followed by his congregation. The bishop plumed himself on his
victory, and besought his brethren everywhere to adopt the same
method with the Jews. In burning down synagogues, as Milman remarks,
they were ready enough to adopt his advice.
Another general conversion took place in Crete (A.D. 432) where the
circumstances, though not exactly similar, were equally strange. An
impostor, who had assumed the name of Moses, gained so much influence
over the Jews in that island, who, we are told, were numerous and
wealthy, as to persuade them that he could open a way for them
to the Holy Land through the waters of the Mediterranean, as his
namesake had done of old through those of the Red Sea. The delusion
spread so far, that the Jews abandoned their houses and lands and
all their personal possessions, except such as they could carry with
them, and having been led by their conductor to the top of a high
rock, threw themselves by his order into the sea. He himself then
disappeared,[65] having probably reaped all that he could hope to
gain by the transaction. Great numbers were drowned, and more would
probably have shared their fate, if it had not chanced that there
were some fishing boats lying off that part of the coast, which came
to their assistance. The occupants of these boats were Christians;
and this circumstance, added to the fact that the impostor had been a
Jew, induced large numbers to adopt Christianity.
Turning to Egypt, always a place of importance in Jewish history, we
learn that there were, about the middle of the reign of the Emperor
Theodosius II., great disturbances, caused mainly by the continual
feuds between the Christians and Jews. The latter had always been
conspicuous, not more on account of their wealth and numbers, than of
their turbulent spirit. This, however, was in a great measure stirred
into action by the accession of Cyril to the bishopric of Alexandria,
vacated by Theophilus, A.D. 412. Cyril was a man of great force of
character, but vain, hasty, and imperious. He soon obtained a most
commanding influence in the city, of which the Prefect Orestes
was naturally jealous. Desiring to punish the insolence of Cyril’s
followers, he ordered one of them, Hierax, a schoolmaster, who had
committed some breach of the peace, to be publicly scourged. Cyril
sent for the Jews who had delated Hierax to Orestes, and threatened
them with his anger unless they adopted a different course in their
dealings with the Christians. Anticipating that this threat would
soon be followed by an open attack upon them, the Jews resolved
to be beforehand with him. Having put on rings of bark, in order
to be able to distinguish one another in the dark, they raised at
midnight the cry that one of the principal churches was on fire. The
Christians rushed out in great numbers to extinguish the flames, and
the Jews falling upon them, made a great slaughter of them. In the
morning Cyril armed his followers, and assailing the Jews in his
turn, slew great numbers, plundered and burned their houses, and
drove the survivors out of the city. Orestes interfered on their
behalf, but was himself attacked, and wounded in the head by a stone.
Both parties made their appeal to Theodosius, at that time a boy of
fourteen. Whether it was that the Court of Constantinople was too
much engaged with affairs of State to attend to troubles in Egypt,
or that Cyril’s private influence gained the ascendency, we are not
told; but it does not appear that any of the criminals, not even the
murderers of Hypatia,[66] were ever punished, or the Jews, who had
been expelled from Alexandria, reinstated in their homes.
Some years afterwards (A.D. 429), the Jews received a severe blow in
the suppression of the Patriarchate of Tiberias; which had existed
for about three hundred years, but now expired in the person of
Gamaliel IV., the ninth patriarch who had held that office. The
revenue by which the patriarchs had been supported, was derived
from certain duties levied upon the Jews residing in all quarters
of the empire, the patriarch’s collectors being sent everywhere for
that purpose. It is probable that the tie which united the Jews to
the ancient centre of their faith had for a long time been growing
gradually weaker, as the severance itself widened; and the periodical
visits to Jerusalem, which had kept up the bond of attachment, had
long ceased to be observed. It is said that petitions were presented
to the emperors requesting the abolition of the impost. However
that may have been, an edict was issued by Honorius, forbidding the
levying of the duty at Rome, and, most probably, in any part of the
Western empire. That raised in the East appears to have gone directly
into the Imperial treasury. This step did not formally abrogate the
patriarchal office, but it was a deathblow to it. Gamaliel retained
the name, and some show of authority, during the remainder of his
life, but no successor was appointed when he died.
FOOTNOTES:
[60] I have elsewhere pointed out how fearfully mistaken is such
a belief. Granting, for the argument’s sake, that the Jews who
crucified our Lord are to be regarded as His enemies, and, as such,
just objects of our abhorrence, their genuine descendants, those who
should inherit that abhorrence, are not their children according to
the flesh, but they (St. John viii. 41, 44) who imitate their deeds.
These are their genuine children. These ‘crucify the Son of God
afresh.’ If we must abhor any as the enemies of Christ, let us abhor
these.
[61] Ambrose, _Epist._ xxix.
[62] A similar case occurred at Antioch, under Theodosius II. (A.D.
423), where the clergy were ordered to make restitution to the Jews,
whose synagogue they had gutted and plundered. The celebrated Simeon
Stylites interfered on this occasion, and succeeded, as Ambrose had
done, in annulling the Imperial order.
[63] Cod. Theod. viii. 16.
[64] It is not improbable that the tradition of this occurrence gave
rise to the charge so often made, and which seems so inexplicable,
against the Jews in after ages, of crucifying boys in mockery of
the Saviour’s passion, though no evidence of such an act was ever
produced.
[65] The historian Socrates is persuaded that the impostor was a
demon, who assumed human shape to beguile the Jews. But seeing that
the cheat resulted in a numerous conversion to the Christian faith,
it is strange that he should have entertained such a notion.
[66] Hypatia was a young lady of Alexandria, professing heathenism,
and of rare accomplishments, great beauty, and unspotted character.
Cyril is said to have been jealous of her influence in the city; and,
in the hope of pleasing him by the deed, the fierce Christian mob
tore her from her chariot, and cut her to pieces with oyster shells.
This barbarous and revolting murder is the worst deed of those cruel
and lawless times.