CHRISTIANIZATION 195state’s hostility, and the aforementioned insulting rhetoric (which is by the
way not universally used in the laws). Several laws seem intended to prevent
Jews from exercising any authority over Christians; hence, starting in 404, a
series of laws remove Jews from service as imperial officials.^39 Likewise, the
oft repeated prohibition of Jewish ownership of Christian slaves started under
Constantine as an extension of the traditional Roman taboo against circumci-
sion, since it was assumed that Jews would circumcise their male slaves (CTh
16.9.1; Const. Sirm. 4; issued 335). But it came to be an expression of opposi-
tion to the subjection of Christians by non-Christians.
Other laws seem to have different motivations. The emperors, before Justin-
ian (see Novella 37, issued 535), consistently stated that synagogues may not
be seized by Christians and destroyed or turned into churches. But starting
with CTh 16.8.25 (Constantinople, 423; cf. 16.8.27, given several months
later; Theod. Nov. 3, 438) they also forbade construction of new synagogues—
perhaps a concession to the apparently numerous bishops and monks who
opposed the imperial protection of synagogues. The prohibition of synagogue
construction provides us with an important warning about the functioning of
the law because, as is well known, the great age of synagogue construction in
Palestine was in the fifth and sixth centuries, precisely the period when such
construction was illegal.^40
Social Consequences of Marginalization
The progressive marginalization of the Jews (of which the laws are an im-
portant manifestation) was not simply a matter of expulsion from government
bureaus and military office, and theologically motivated prohibitions against
synagogue construction. The laws, both the apparently friendly and the restric-
tive ones, can be viewed as components of a structural shift, in which the
relations between the Jews and the state were radically redefined. The increas-
ing importance of religion affected the structure and composition of the pa-
tronage networks that held the empire together. Although Peter Brown has
(^39) CTh 16.8.17, Rome, 404, removing Jews and Samaritans from service asagentes in rebus,
and all other imperial service; CTh 16.8.24, Ravenna, 418, prohibition of Jews asagentes in
rebus,palatiniand military officers, but permission of advocacy; Jews already in nonmilitary
service shall not be expelled; Const. Sirm. 6, Aquileia, 425, Jews and pagans removed from gov-
ernment service and advocacy, “ne occasione dominii sectam venerandae religionis inmutent”
(lest [Christians], because of the Jews’ rule over them, exchange the venerable religion for a sect);
Theodosii (II) Novellae, 3, Constantinople, 438, Jews and Samaritans barred from all govern-
ment offices, including that ofdefensor civitatis; CJ 1.5.12, Constantinople, 527, all nonorthodox
barred from civil and military offices. But Jews of the curial class were consistently liable for
service as decurions, unless they were members of the clergy.
(^40) Cf. Theophanes the Confessor,Chronographia, ed. De Boor, 1:, 102.