We grant to all the curias [i.e. city councils] in a general law that the Jews shall be
nominated to the curia[l offices, if they qualify as decurions]. But in order to leave them
something of the ancient custom as a solace, we allow them [i.e. the Jews’ decurions]
in a perpetual privilege that two or three [Jewish decurions] in every [civic] curia shall
not be occupied through any nominations [to civic magistracy offices and civic liturgies]
whatever. (Constantine, CTh 16.8.2; trans. Linder 1987: no. 7, p. 127)
Those who dedicated themselves with complete devotion to the synagogues of the
Jews, to the patriarchs [the term “patriarch” appearing in such context designates a
local synagogue official; it is unrelated to the Patriarchate in the Land of Israel] or to
the presbyters, and while living in the above-mentioned sect, it is they who preside over
the law [of the Jews], shall [if they qualify to be decurions] continue to be exempt
from all liturgies, personal as well as civil; in such a way that those who happen to be
decurions already shall not be designated to transportations of any kind, for it would
be appropriate that people such as these shall not be compelled for whatever reason to
depart from the places in which they are [and so be unavailable to serve the synagogues].
Those [aforementioned synagogue officials] who are definitely not [yet named as]
decurions, shall enjoy perpetual exemption from the decurionate. (Constantine, Codex
Theodosianus16.8.2; trans. Linder 1987: no. 9, pp. 134 –5)... to the priests (hiereis), archisynagogues, fathers of the synagogue, and others who
serve in the same place: we order that the priests, archisynagogues, fathers of the syn-
agogues, and others who serve in synagogues shall be free from corporeal liturgies.
(Constantine, CTh 16.8.4; trans. Linder 1987: no. 9, pp. 134 –5)
It follows, then, that as an anti-Jewish measure, the Byzantine Christian Roman empire
eventually canceled these exemptions from civic magistracies and liturgies for Jewish
decurionesserving synagogue-based magistracies.
In sum, the evidence supports a clear and incontrovertible picture of Roman
Diaspora-synagogue-community administration characterized by a remarkably con-
sistent set of institutions and functions sustained by an interlocking system of
honors, benefaction, and service in magistracy-like roles. The purpose of this system
was to provide communal infrastructure, to define and enforce important norms for
orderly Jewish life in public and private Jewish spheres, to maintain the public cult
of YHWH through public scriptural reading, study of scriptures, and prayer, to ensure
the education of Jewish youth in the particulars of Jewish life and responsibility; to
care for the economically underprivileged, to heal the sick, and to bury the dead.
The principal “players” in this system were a socio-economic elite, who, in essence,
comprised a quasi-hereditary Jewish aristocracy and plutocracy. Their authority and
responsibility were vested in a synagogue/community “council,” to which they were
essentially harnessed (probably for life) by status and wealth, and ultimately by birth.
As I stated, I do not wish to enter the debate as to whether the Diaspora syn-
agogue community was a voluntary association. Clearly, in many important respects
the synagogue community looked and functioned like a typical voluntary association
(see Harland 2003). The foregoing paragraph, however, impels one to restate
another, quite different analogy; the synagogue communities (and perhaps other
voluntary associations in the cities as well) looked and functioned remarkably like
the Greco-Roman cities in which they were situated. And, in my view, this would
Roman Diaspora Judaism 375