been used (e.g. thesupputatioRomanaand the Alexandrian cycle). Its use for
the calculation of Passover dates resulted thus in a hybrid calendar, basically
Jewish (because lunar, designed for the date of Passover, and allowing Pass-
over before the equinox), but dependent on the Julian (or Antiochene)
calendar (with a‘rule of March’and the use of Julian dates for designating
the date of Passover), and modelled on a scheme previously used in Christian
Easter cycles (the–11/+19 scheme).
This hybrid calendar could not fail to have been politically significant, even
if it also served the needs of practical convenience. The integration of elements
from the Julian and Christian calendars into the Jewish calendar would have
had the effect of raising the latter’s respectability and social profile in a society
where, in the mid-fourth century, Christianity was becoming increasingly
dominant. The rule of March and the–11/+19 scheme gave the Jewish
calendar stability and regularity not only in terms of its structure, but also in
terms of its position and integration in the culture of the Roman, Christian
Empire. But this did not mean, for that matter, surrender to the dominant
culture: quite on the contrary, laying claim on elements of the dominant
calendars by appropriating the rule of March and the–11/+19 scheme could
be interpreted as a subtle act of political subversion, putting into question the
hegemony of the Julian and Christian calendars and constituting, in a certain
way, an affirmation of the Jews’social status and dissident identity.^127
It remains to be asked, however, whether the Jewish Passover dates listed in
the Council of Serdica document can be considered historically reliable. The
faction of eastern bishops who authored this document were probably relying
on what they knew as actual Jewish practice, probably in Antioch, at least as
far as concerned the‘rule of March’; but it is uncertain whether they would
had kept apreciserecord of the last sixteen Passover dates that had been
observed. In the absence of such records, the dates in this document could
have been reconstructed with the help of a–11/+19 scheme which the bishops
would have taken from their own Easter computational tradition as a conve-
nient method of approximation. It is difficult to prove, therefore, that the
- 11/+19 scheme was actually adopted and used by the Jews in Antioch (or
elsewhere in the Roman East), although their use of the rule of March appears
to be reasonably secure.^128
(^127) On the relationship between hybridity, subversiveness, and dissidence, see above, near n. 9.
(^128) As argued in more detail in Stern (2001) 75–8, 124–6. The implicit attribution of a–11/
+19 scheme to the Jews in the Serdica document, whether or not historically reliable, was also a
reflection of the complex relationship between Judaism and Christianity, in which the bound-
aries in this period were not always entirely clear. The sometimesfluid relationship between
Judaism and Christianity formed itself, to a large extent, the basis of the 4th-c. Passover and
Easter date controversies which we shall return to in the next chapter.
Dissidence and Subversion 339