RABBIS AND PATRIARCHS ON THE MARGINS 117Honorius did in fact briefly cancel the right to collect the tax,^43 as Julian had
never had the opportunity to do, but in the eastern empire this right was
consistently affirmed.^44 Imperial laws of the 390s seem to recognize the patri-
arch’s jurisdiction over theprimates(leaders) of the Jews throughout the em-
pire,^45 who in turn were authorized to legislate and judge concerning Jewish
religious, though not civil, law.^46 Epiphanius (Panarion 30.11), writing in the
370s, describes a patriarchal agent traveling through Asia Minor collecting
taxes and removing archisynagogues andazanitae(hazanim) from office. The
patriarchs were thus recognized by law as occupying the pinnacle of the Jew-
ish ecclesiastical pyramid. Furthermore, by the 390s,^47 they wereviri inlustres
(the highest rank in the late imperial senate) and honorary praetorian prefects
and soin some sense(precisely what sense is obscure, since these honors were
just that) occupied a position surprisingly near the pinnacle of the Roman
imperialpyramid, certainly ranking higher than the governors of their native
province of Palaestina Secunda, who were mereclarissimi, members, that is,
of the lowest senatorial rank.
The importance of the patriarchs in the late fourth century is confirmed
by contemporary writers: for Epiphanius, the patriarch was a regal figure,
complete wit haconsistorium(an advisory council, like that of the emperor),
a fiscal administration, archives public and, in the church father’s none too
credible story, secret as well, and regents.^48 The Jewish world as ruled by him
was a sort of Roman Empire in miniature but in its pre-Constantinian state—
with the patriarch (but he comes pretty close) and says nothing of their power in the Diaspora
synagogues (though it was the obvious place for messengers from overseas to come, and even if
they lacked power, why should they have lacked prestige?) seems to me unnecessary. Most likely
they were what they seemed—messengers from the patriarchs trying (with ungaugeable but surely
mixed success) to raise money and interest in the Diaspora synagogues. For more detailed discus-
sions of the evidence, see S. Schwartz, “Patriarchs and the Diaspora” and Levine, “Status of the
Patriarch,” p. 13–6.
(^43) CT h16.8.14 = Linder, no. 30; rescission: CT h16.8.17 = Linder, 34.
(^44) So apparently CT h16.8.15 = Linder, no. 32.
(^45) CT h16.8.8=Linder, no. 20; 16.8.13 = Linder, no. 27.
(^46) CT h2.1.10 = Linder, no. 28. See below.
(^47) But probably not muc hearlier; Julian addresses Iulus asaidesimotatos, which has no admin-
istrative significance, though we would not expect technical terminology in a rhetorical context;
but the mosaic inscription from the floor of the synagogue of Hamath Tiberias that calls the
patriarchslamprotatoi(=clarissimi, the lowest of the senatorial ranks) is unlikely to be much
earlier than the mid-fourth century.
(^48) For some salutary, if at points excessive, skepticism about Epiphanius’s story, see Z. Rubin,
“Josep ht heComesand the Attempts to Convert Galilee to Christianity in the Fourth Century
C.E.”Cathedra26 (1982): 105–16 (in Hebrew). Contra Rubin, though, Epiphanius does not say
there was a bishopinTiberias but rather a bishop near Tiberias—which is to say that Epiphanius
knew there was no bishop in Tiberias and did not know where the nearest one was in Con-
stantine’s time (Bet hS hean?).