CHRISTIANIZATION 183the medievalist Jeremy Cohen’s account of “imperial policy” toward the Jews
from Constantine to Theodosius II, was unconnected with either the Neus-
nerian or the archaeological revolutions. Cohen acknowledged his debt to Salo
Baron and his intention to refute the “lachrymose” view of late antique Jewish
history promoted by Graetz, Dubnow, and (it must be said, to a far lesser extent)
Juster, and argued that the Christian emperors were basically sympathetic to
the Jews, and their laws tended to protect their rights and privileges.^11
In what follows, I would like to alter the terms of the debate. First of all,
both the traditional and the revisionist accounts seem partly correct. There
can be no doubt that as the interests of the state and the orthodox church
gradually and incompletely converged, the state became increasingly hostile
to Jews. Local persecutions, forced conversions, seizures of synagogues, and
so on, which violated the letter but not always the spirit of the laws, may have
been somewhat less common than has often been thought (surprisingly few
are attested in contemporary sources), but they undoubtedly occurred.^12
Stroumsa and Millar were right to argue that what distinguished Christian
from pagan emperors was the Christians’ conviction that they possessed the
unique religious truth—a conviction that could only make life difficult for
the Jews, in the end.^13
There is, however, no denying the prosperity demonstrated by archaeologi-
cal discoveries, nor the extent of the Jews’ practice of appropriating cultural
items great and small from their Christian environment. But it is far from
obvious how these facts can be used to argue that Jewish Christian relations
were basically friendly, or, what is far less likely, that Jews and Christians
were still not fully differentiated in late antiquity. But presumably peaceful
coexistence may have been the norm in some places (see below on Minorca).
(^11) And note also T. Braun, “The Jews in the Late Roman Empire,”SCI17 (1998): 142–71.
(^12) For a perhaps too skeptical view, see G. Stemberger, “Zwangstaufen von Juden im 4. bis
- Jahrhundert: Mythos oder Wirklichkeit?” in C. Thoma, G. Stemberger, and J. Maier, eds.,
Judentum—Ausblicke und Einsichten: Festgabe fu ̈r Kurt Schubert zum Siebzigsten Geburtstag,
(Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang, 1993), pp. 81–114. Stemberger comes down firmly on the side of
mythos, and it must be admitted that the stories of forced conversions tend to be found mainly
in noncontemporary sources and function as foundation myths of churches, in a way that arouses
suspicion. But Stemberger’s question is too narrow. For a broader view, see the works cited in the
following note.
(^13) G. Stroumsa, “Religious Contacts in Byzantine Palestine,”Numen36 (1989): 16–42; F.
Millar, “Jews of the Greco-Roman Diaspora Between Paganism and Christianity,” in J. Lieu, J.
North, and T. Rajak, eds.,Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire(London:
Routledge, 1992), pp. 97–123; also, Z. Rubin, “Christianity in Byzantine Palestine: Missionary
Activity and Religious Coercion,”Jerusalem Cathedra3 (1983): 97–113. By contrast, the pagan
Roman state established a set of behavioral norms, adherence to which might result in a subject’s
successful integration. Many of these norms were in conflict with Jewish practice, but other
aspects of Jewish practice were of no interest to the state. The Christian state regarded Judaism
as simply wrong.