Justinian’s Novella 146 and Contemporary Judaism

8/12/2019 Justinians Novella 146 and Contemporary Judaism

1/26

Justinians Novella 146and Contemporary Judaism1

Willem F. Smelik


2/26

2 T G S R

The signicance of Novella 146, perhaps the most notorious of Romanlegal documents on Jews and Judaism, has long been recognised. Issuedon February 8, 553 , in the middle of his failing attempts to reel in theMonophysites and establish a reconciled Church, shortly after the greatplague, the emperor addressed the Novella to the Praefectus Praetorio of theEast, Aerobindus.1The Novella regulates the use of liturgical languagesin the synagogue service and sets out the punishments to be meted out toanyone who dees the principle of free language selection. Justinian haslearntfromtheirownpetitionsthatsomeJewsinsistedupontheexclusiveuse of the Hebrew language in reading the Scriptures, whereas othersconsider it right to use Greek as well.2 On the face of it, the Novella thusreects a turning point in reading practices when advocates of the Hebrew language opposed the scriptural recitation in Greek, posibly followingthe increase of rabbinic inuence upon Diaspora Judaism. Accordingly,

0I am particularly grateful to Alison Salvesen for the meticulous organisation of the ESAJS seminar at Oxford University, her kind invitation to participate, and to allparticipants for their congenial and stimulating contributions. I am no less grateful to

Nicholas de Lange for his many helpful remarks and suggestions on an earlier versionof this article in a paper which I gave at the Hebrew, Jewish and Early Christian StudiesSeminar, University of Cambridge, 12 May 2008. Finally, I greatly benetted from furthercomments off ered by Bernard Stolte, Simon Corcoran and Sacha Stern on a draft of thisarticle.Finally, thanks are due toT.M. Law for all his eff orts inediting thevarious versionsof the article I sent to him. Needless to add, only the errors are entirely mine.

The Greek text of the Novellae is cited after R. Schll and W. Kroll, Corpus Iuris Civilis.III. Novellae (Berlin: Weidmann, 1895). For the translation, see A. Linder, The Jews inRoman Imperial Legislation (Detroit & Jerusalem: Wayne State University Press and TheIsrael Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1987), pp. 402-11. The translation of Nov.146 quoted, here and below, is based on that of Linder, with some adaptations; seefurther J. Parkes, The Conict of the Church and the Synagogue (New York: World Publishing,1961), pp. 392-93; Fred H. Blume, Annotated Justinian Code (University of Wyoming,http:uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/blume&justinian/default.asp). Cf. S.P. Scott, The Civil Law . XVI- XVII. The New Constitutions of Justinian (Cincinnati: The Central Trust Company, 1932).

1The quaestor (the emperor's legal draftsman, seeA.M. Honor, Some ConstitutionsComposed by Justinian, Journal of Roman Studies 65 (1975), pp. 107-123 [107]) of Novella146 is identied as Constantinus, who took part in the Council of Constantinoplea few months later; see T. Honor, Tribonian (London: Duckworth, 1978), pp. 240-2;

A.H.M. Jones, J.R. Martindale and J. Morris (eds.), Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19711992), III, Constantinus 4; R. Price, TheActs of the Council of Constantinople of 553 (2 vols; Translated Texts for Historians, 51;Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2009).

2On the translation of !"#"$"%&'()*( as use, see below.


3/26

J N 146 C J 3

the Novella has long been hailed as crucial evidence for the changes inliturgical reading practices among Diaspora Jews. 3

Lately this scenario has come under renewed scrutiny because theNovella is not just about liturgical language selection. Comprised of apreamble, three chapters and an epilogue, this Novella is also about tooliteral Jewish interpretation of the Scriptures and evil Jewish commen-tators. It contains the following three prohibitions: exclusive recitationin Hebrew which relies on Jewish commentators to convey its meaningto the masses, the +),-.#/0*1 a common designation of the Mishna inpatristic literature and, by extension, of the Oral Tora,4 and the denial of the resurrection, the last judgment and God's creation of angels. Finally,the Novella concludes with the hope that access to the Holy Books willopen the eyes of those who err in clinging to their Jewish religion and with the penalties to be imposed on those who stand in the way of thelaw's implementation. Every reading ultimately must explain the Novella'sself-expressed context of an inner-Jewish debate in view of its attackon the evil of Jewish commentators, the Mishna or Oral Tora, and thecondemnation of the so-called Sadducean denial of the last judgment,the resurrection andangelic beingsalthough rabbinic Judaism, if indeed

3 J. Juster, Les Juifs dans lEmpire Romaine: leur condition juridique, economique, sociale (2 vols; Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1914), II, pp. 369-77 (369); V. Colorni, Luso del greco mellaliturgiadelgiudaismoellenisticoe la novella 146di Giustiniano,AnnalidiStoriadelDiritto,8 (1964), pp. 1980; Linder, Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, pp. 403-404; K. Treu, DieBedeutung des Griechischen fr die Juden im rmischen Reich, Kairos 15 (1973), pp.12344; S. Simonsohn, The Hebrew Revival among Early Medieval European Jews inS. Lieberman (ed.), Salo Baron Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday (3 vols.; Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1974), II, pp. 83158; A. Rabello,Giustiniano, Ebrei, Samaritani: Al la luce del le fonti storico-letterarie, ecclestiastiche e giuridiche(Milan: Giuff r, 1988), II, pp. 814-28; P. Schfer, Geschichte der Juden in der Antike: Die Juden Palstinas von Alexander dem Groen bis zur arabischen Eroberung (Stuttgart: VerlagKatholisches Bibelwerk and Neukirchener Verlag, 1983), pp. 205-206; P. Gray, Palestineand Justinians Legislation on Non-Christian Religions, in B. Halpern and D. Hobson(eds.), Law, politics and Society in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic Press, 1993), pp. 24170 (264-68); N. de Lange, Prier et tudier Byzance, REJ

158 (1999), pp. 5159. Contrast L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrge der Juden historischentwickelt (Frankfurt: J. Kaufmann, 2nd edn, 1892), p. 11.

4 Juster, Les Juifs dans lEmpire Romaine, I, pp. 372-74; A.I. Baumgarten, Justinian andthe Jews, in L. Landman (ed.), Rabbi Joseph H. Lookstein Memorial Volume (New York: Ktav,1980), pp. 3744 (38).


4/26

4 T G S R

rabbinic Judaismwas intended in the Novella, isnot known tohavedeniedany of these.

The modern reception of the Novella shows an ongoing struggle toalign the various aspects of the Novella in a coherent reading. Scholarsdisagree on virtually every aspect of the Novella: the identity of those who initiated the dispute, the context of the controversy, and Justiniansobjectives. Above all the unhinged nature of the Novella always requiredexplanation where Justianian ventures into vehement criticism of Jewishpractices and beliefs. Krauss, for example, harmonised the disparate el-ements of the Novella by shifting the focus of Justinian's ire from thesynagoguetotheseatofrabbiniclearning,theacademy,wheretheemperor would have attempted to prohibit the Mishna. The focus on the synagogue was a clerical mistake in his opinion.5 While his interpretaion failed toconvince, it demonstrates the problem of interpreting the Novella in acoherent way.

An early answer to the problem relates the unbalanced compositionof the Novella to Justinians religious fervour. In this view, Justinianaddressed a controversy about the exclusive use of Hebrew (or Greek) asthe language of reading the Tora in the Byzantine Diaspora, while simul-taneouslyseizingtheopportunitytoaddressotherissuestheChristianem-peror had with Judaism.6 The Preamble sets out the petitions to Justinian,Chapter Onehisdecree, Chapter Twodetails furtherprohibitions, ChapterThree an expression of hope that access to the Scriptures in ones nativetongue contributes tochoosing what isbetter, andan epilogue once moresetting out the punishments for those who defy God and Empire. It isnot

implausible to maintain that the Novella has the permissable languagesfor the Scriptures as a trigger for legislation, with a set of subsidiary orsupplementary objectives following from his Christian faith. It is truethat those prohibitions and exhortations which are unrelated to liturgicallanguages do not receive a mention in the preamble. On the other hand,there is the opening exhortation that the Hebrews are not to stick tothe bare letters (%2 3*$451 !#40-)-67.("* -451 8#'%%"0*(, p. 714 ll. 15-16). Along these lines, the somewhat unhinged nature of the Novella is

the result of the emperors dislike of Jewish literalism. The main goal5S. Krauss, StudienzurByzantischJdischenGeschichte, Jahresberichtder Israelitisch-

Theologischen Lehranstalt 21 (1914), pp. 60-62.6 Juster, Les Juifs dans lEmpire Romaine, I, p. 369.


5/26

J N 146 C J 5

is the appropriate use of language for the Scriptures, but frequently thefacilitationofconversiontoChristianityisidentiedasasecondobjective.7

In recent years some scholars promoted the second objective to theprimary one, in part because of the references to Jews grasping the truemeaningoftheprophecies,inpartbecauseanewsensitivitytothe hermeneu-tic character of the Novella raised questions about the Novellas socio-historical accuracy. After all, the Novella would not seem to portray Jews asthey might have been observed, reecting their concerns, discussions and behaviour, but rather as they were perceived by their Christian opponents.For Veltri, the question whether Greek is permissible in the synagogueis a pretext to facilitate the conversion to Christianity, focusing on theprohibition of rabbinic teaching. There never was a Jewish petition to Justinian. The severe penalties against those who deny the resurrectionor the judgment, or the work of God, or that angels are part of creation inthe second chapter are literary topoi which reect the Christian perceptionof Jews as informed by the New Testament rather than religious tenetsof Byzantine Jewry. Justinian's aim, in his view, was to facilicitate theconversion of the Jews by removing the barrier of Jewish interpretation.Most of this has little to nothing to do with the public reading of the Toraor even with contemporary Judaism. Either the purport of the Novella isrooted in the JewishChristian debate, or alternatively the Novella's factsare fabricated in support of the emperor's own objectives. As such, hisreferences to Jewish practices and beliefs are hermeneutical.8 But even on

7So, e.g., M. Avi-Yonah, Geschichte der Juden im Zeitalter der Talmud (Berlin, 1962), pp.246-56; A. Sharf, Byzantine Jewry from Justinian to the Fourth Crusade (New York, 1971), pp.24-25; H. Schreckenberg, Die christlichen AdversusJudaeosTexte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (1.11. Jh) (Europische Hochschulschriften, 23; Frankfurt am Main:Peter Lang, 3rd edn, 1995), pp. 413-14; G. Veltri, Die Novelle 146 9)#* :"*/(: Das Verbotdes Targumsvortrags in Justinians Politik, in M. Hengel and A.M. Schwemer (eds.), DieSeptuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum (WUNT, 72; Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr,1994),pp. 116-30 (123);C. Barber, The Truth in Painting: Iconoclasm andIdentityin Early-Medieval Art, Speculum 72 (1997), pp. 10191036 (1034-35).

8Veltri, Die Novelle 146, p. 118; L.V. Rutgers, Justinian's Novella 146 Between Jews

and Christians, in R. Kalmin and S. Schwartz (eds.), Jewish Culture and Society under theChristian Roman Empire (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), pp. 385-407. For hermeneutic Jews in LateAntique literature, see J. Lieu, Image and Reality: The Jews in the World of the Christians inthe Second Century (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996); P. Fredriksen, Augustine and the Jews: AChristian Defense of Jews and Judaism (New York: Doubleday, 2008).


6/26

6 T G S R

the assumption that the Jews are straw men in the Novella, the problem of its structure remains unsolved.

In this article I suggest that the Novellas structure becomes moretransparent and balanced when it is considered as Justinians legal re-sponse to two Jewish parties with conicting claims and beliefs. Central tothisviewis the recognition that the secondchapter addresses non-rabbinic but contemporary Jewish beliefs and that Justinian addresses the claimsand accusations of repulsive interpretations and beliefs of both parties who petition him. I will off er an interpretation which inexhaustively appreciates the legal terminology of the Novella in the light of the otherNovellae, briey focuses on the nature of the conict about language andnally reconsiders the second chapter of the Novella.

Novella 146 as a NovellaSince Justinian combined imperial with Christian authority, he rst de-nes his position in legal and, whenever relevant, religious terms in theprefaces to the Novellae.9 An innovative emperor, he viewed legislation as

his God-given tool for mending legal or administrative inadequacies andimposing religious orthodoxy on his subjects.10 The tone is set immedi-ately with the opening remark:

It was right and proper that the Hebrews (;"6%"-


7/26

J N 146 C J 7

between misleading jurists and Jewish interpreters.12In Nov. 146's preface,the prophecies announce Jesus who fullled them, and if only the Jewsabandoned their literalism, they too would come to reason. For Justinian,the greater good of recognizing the Saviour is inextricably linked to theissue about scriptural translation that follows. Translation is the road tounderstanding the Scriptures, which should go beyond the naked letterto encompass the more divine sense.13From his perspective, there is nodiscrepancy between the language selection of scriptural recitation and theevil of the commentators.

The prefaces tend to open with a brief description of a case or issue,and may refer to requests, petitions or supplications (!#40.$),0*1 andM7)-)N/) which parties addressed to Justinian wherever relevant.14 In thereform novels, written during the time that Tribonian served as Justinian'squaestor,15 the novels are characterised by their long historical prefaces, but the later ones do not refer to antiquity and simply refer to petitions asthe cause for the new law.16In this relatively late law, the emperor descibesa fault-line within the Jewish communities with petitions as his source of information (146, pp. 714-15):

12E. Klingenberg, Justinians Novellae Concerning the Jews, in E. Goldman (ed.), The Jerusalem 1994 Conference Volume (Jewish Law Association Studies, 8; Atlanta: ScholarsPress, 1996), pp. 7999 (97-99), referring (among other things) to Justinian's Digest, 1.3 andthe quotation of Celsus: Scire leges non est verba earum tenere, sed vim ac potestatem.

13Nov. 146.3 (p. 717 ll. 7-9).14For the use of !#40.$),0*1, see I.G. Archi and A.M.B. Colombo, Legum Iustiniani

imperatoris vocabularium Novellae Pars Graeca (11 vols.; Milano: Cisalpino-La Goliardica,19771989), VI,pp. 2899-2900. I. Avotins,On the Greek of the Novels of Justinian: A Supplementto Liddell-Scott-Jones Together with Observations on the Inuence of Latin on Legal Greek (Altertumswissenschaftliche Texte und Studien, 21; Hildesheim: OlmsWeidman, 1992),p. 184 provides the legal meaning entrance upon an inheritance, its acceptance inaddition to those listed by Liddell, Scott and Jones. For petitions generally, see D. Feisseland J. Gascou (eds.), La ptition Byzance (Centre de Recherche d'Histoire et Civilisationde Byzance, Monographies, 14; Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d'Histoire etCivilisation de Byzance, 2004).

For M7)-)N/, which occurs nine times, six of which in prefaces, see Nov. 2 pref. (p. 10 l.24); 6 pref. (p. 36 l. 4); 30.9 (p. 232 l. 30); 83 pref. (p. 410 l. 11); 106 pref. (p. 508 l. 1); 133.2 (p.

669 l. 9); 139 pref. (p. 700 l. 18). See also -"51 -) -H( +)4%.(/( M7)-)


8/26

8 T G S R

However, although they have erred from the right doctrine till today, given asthey are to senseless interpretations, when we learnt that they dispute amongthemselves we could not bear to leave them with an unresolved controversy.We have learnt from their petitions, which they have addressed to us, that while some hold on to the Hebrew language alone and want to use it inreading the Holy Books others consider it right to admit Greek as well, andthey have already been quarreling among themselves about this for a longtime.

Justinian was an active legislator who did not like to leave things un-resolved.17 He acted as the nal court of appeal, but appeals could also be addressed to him directly, in circumvention of the lower courts.18References to disputes between parties by the verb B%I*0&6-./, whichmore than once triggered Justinian's legislative action, are a commonfeature in the Novellae.19 So too is the image of the benign emperor who,tirelessly working for the greater wellfare of his subjects,20 cannot bear toleave them with an unresolved controversy, which is comparable to thefollowing words of Novella 82:

Theseconsiderations have rightly movedus to enact the present law, sinceweconsidertheinterestsofoursubjectsanddesirethatlegalconictsbedecidedquickly and without delay.21

17Keenlyaware of the inadequacy of previous laws, theNovellaereformmany previouslaws or address legal uncertainties. See, e.g., Nov. 73 Ch. 1 concerning safe deposits whichare only safeguarded by writing, the authenticity of which may be challenged and couldrender thedispute undecided (B7#O-4,, cf. Nov. 146, Pref., p. 714 l. 22); witnesses,however,could verify the authenticity of the document in question.

18Gray, Palestine and Justinians Legislation, p. 269. This applies in general to allRoman emperors, starting from Augustus. See F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World(London: Duckworth, 1992).

19See for example Nov. 73, Pref. and Epilogue (p. 364 l. 29; p. 369 l. 32); for furtherexamples, see Archi and Colombo, Novellae Pars Graeca, I, pp. 120-21; G. Lanata, Aliud vates, aliud interpres: La Novella 146 de Giustuniano, i settanta, Aquila, in J.H.A. LokinandB.H.Stolte(eds.),Novella constitutio:Studies inHonour ofNicolaasvanderWal(SubsecivaGroningana, 4; Groningen: Egbert Forsten and Het Groningsch Rechthistorisch Fonds,1990), pp. 117-30 (120).

20See Nov. 78pref.P!)*+2+L B)


9/26

J N 146 C J 9

That such self-representations involve some grandstanding is obvious,but would Justinian go so far as to invent a legal conict to justify his decree?In recent years it has been called into question whether Novella 146 isone of the genuine legislative responses to issues that were brought to Justinians attention, for the simple reason that it would seem counter-intuitive for Jews to have ever petitioned Justinian.22 The truth is thatsuch generalisations carry little value. Since records of proceedings werenot kept, we have no means to verify actual Jewish use of petitions andlitigation through the State courts, but the possibility cannot be ruledout. In the previous century, Jews petitioned Theodosius II and gainedthe favourable imperial decision of April 9, 423 , which banned theoccupation and burning of synagogues.23 Following Justinian's Code of 534 , Jews had to go to the State courts in any litigation includingthose that concern their superstition unless both parties involved in civilaff airs agreed to accept inner-Jewish arbitration.24Regardless of the much-disputed ambiguity of this revision of the Code of Theodosian, the Statecould get involved if inner-Jewish arbitration had failed, as the prefacesuggests, with possible conicts about positions, ownershipof community facilities and the like as a consequence.

22Veltri (Die Novelle 146, pp. 117, 122), followed by Rutgers (Justinian's Novella 146,p. 388), argued that it is inconceivable that any Jew would have approached Justinian.See also A. Scharf, Byzantine Jewry from Justinian to the Fourth Crusade (New York:Schocken Books, 1971), pp. 24-25; Lanata, Aliud vates, aliud interpres, p. 120. In a similardisadvantageous position, as W. Horbury mentioned to me, Christians sent petitions tothe emperor before the reign of Constantine.

23Codex Theodosianus 16.8.26; Linder, Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, p. 291.24Cod. Just. 1.9.8, revising Cod. Theod. 2.1.10; the former omits the word non in its

revision of the latter law, and consequently no longer excludes religious litigation from

the courts. Juster considers the omission a scribal error; others do not. The problem withthe omission of non is the law's explicit recognition of Jewish courts. See Linder, Jewsin Roman Imperial legislation, pp. 204-207; C. Brewer, The Status of the Jews in RomanLegislation: The Reign of Justinian 527-565 CE, European Judaism 38 (2005), pp. 127139(132-33).


10/26

10 T G S R

Justinians Novellae frequently include the expression we learnt.25Inthe context of the Novellae, and its frequent occurrences in the prefaces,26

%"(C'(/ learn has a legal connotation,27 as knowledge acquired in theprocess of responsive legislation although not necessarily through any formal judicial process, the result of which may be indicated by the verb)R#O07/, while a decision is frequently indicated by 7#O(/. The summary of the issue at hand is ostensibly derived from the petitions addressedto him. Justinian's prefaces do sometimes invent or use historical dataselectively asa precedent forpresent legislation,28toconceal the innovativenature of his legislation behind the references to antiquity, but there isno similar evidence for contrived controversies in the prefaces. Nor is theinformation concerning the language selection in scriptural recitation atopic in the JewishChristian debate which the emperor evidently bor-rowed from elsewhere. The reference to the use of Aquila's translation, which was favoured by Palestinian rabbis, and widely used by Byzantine Jewry for many centuries to come,29 reinforces the impression that he hadinformation at his disposal. The Novellas conformation to legal language

25See, e.g., Nov. 157, pref. (p. 733 ll. 19-20): P7 -H( )U1 Q%T1 +*"I?#/1 B(6()8%.(/(!$6%%)$)50C"< -* 7"-W -2( %.06( -H( !4-"%H( 7"@ !#?1 8) -2( ]0#46(2( =!"#K


11/26

J N 146 C J 11

and Justinians explicit references to the reasons for legislation, whethersuggestions from officials around him or petitions from his subjects,does not preclude the possibility that the controversy and petition of thepreamble have been invented for the occasion, but it renders the notion of a wholesale fabrication less self-evident.

The Parties in the ConictThe petitions of the preamble suggest that more than one Jewish party was involved, 30 but otherwise the text gives little away about the identity of those who addressed Justinian. No location or name is given beyond theappellation ;"541 Hebrew(s), which occurs six times in this decree, 31 but only once in the remainder of the Novellae. 32The adjective :"i+)1occurs twice and only in Novella 146. 33The noun may have been used as amere synonym of j4,+"5k1, which is customary in Justinian's Codex, butoccurs in only two of the Novellae, 34 while the adjective j4,+"l7k1 occursinthree. 35NowthemeaningofJewandJewishisasproblematicasthatof Hebrew. 36Even if the term Hebrews, as argued by some, carried subtle

connotations of geographical provenance, religious orientation (towardsthe rabbinic Judaism) or language selection, 37and even if we would restrictsuch connotations to certain times or sources, it should be observed thatin Novella 146 both factions among the Jews are addressed as Hebrews,

30a* "E-H( 8W# -H( !#40)(6()8%.(/( Q%5( !#40)$)\0)/( =%'C4%)(, with Hebrewsas antecedent.

31Nov. 146 pp. 714 ll. 7, 14; 715 ll. 14, 15; 717 ll. 3, 28. 32Nov. 139, preface, p. 700 l. 15: -4m1 B!V n*(+\41 -J1 7D%61 7"@ -4m1 ;"


12/26

12 T G S R

which resolutely undercuts any specic connotation for the term Hebrewas a party of linguistic or religious preference in this context. 38

The Novella refers three times to liturgical language preferences, twicein the preface and once in the official decree of the rst chapter. Theconict centers on the use of Hebrew versus Greek, but its mono- or bilingual nature remains vague: is the conict about Hebrew versus Greek,or Hebrew versus Hebrew and Greek? We do know that the Novella stillpresumesa Hebrew reading practice, whether ornot universal incharacter,thus ruling out the oft-repeated opinion that Justinian prohibits the useof Hebrew altogether. Admittedly, an anonymous synopsis of the Novelsproduced in the ninth or tenth century suggests as much, but the morecontemporary sixth-century abridgement of the Novels by TheodorosHermopolitanus calls for a bilingual reading practice inwhich the Hebrew recitation should be followed by a translation into Greek or any other vernacular. 39The Epitome by Athanasios of Emesa, compiled between 572and 577 , refers to a recitation in Greek or any other language alongsideHebrew (!"#W -2( p"l72(),40 which could impy a bilingual practice, butas it follows the summary that the Jews (;"


13/26

J N 146 C J 13

be no license to the commentators which they have, who employ theHebrew language alone to falsify it at their will: %k(6( -2( :"i+"!"#"$"%&q(4,0*. Consequently, the verb does not imply a bilingual read-ing practice.On the other hand, Codex Marcianus reads!#40$"%&q()*(toaddinstead,areadingtheeditorsoftheNovellaehavenotdeemedoriginalat this point. Both the Latin translation of the Authenticum and CodexLaurentianus, which is otherwise considered less authoritative than CodexMarcianus, support the former reading.42Still, the existence of the reading!#40$"%&q()*( suggests that the Novella was understood by some to referto a bilingual practice, as did Theodoros Hermopolitanus. Moreover, theNovella refers to the wish of the Greek-speaking Jews to use Greek as well(4M +L 7"@ -2( p$$6(


14/26

14 T G S R

The novel describes the preference for Hebrew among some Jews interms that suggest Hebrew was more than a scriptural language: somehold on to the Hebrew language alone and want to use it for the readingof the Holy Books.46 This description is not a tautology, but contains twocomplementary clauses in contrast to that of their opponents: others areof the opinion that Greek may also be used.47 Discounting the notionthat they stuck to Hebrew as a vernacular, Hebrew apparently had anenshrined status as the language of the liturgy. Where might this have been the case, and where might it have been opposed by Greek-speaking Jews?The situation can reasonably be envisaged for both the Diaspora andPalestine. Because the novel is addressed to the praetorian prefect of theEast, the law applies to a wide geographical area that spans the EasternBalkans, Asia Minor and the Levantine including Palestine. AlthoughHebrew lost ground as a vernacular almost everywhere in the secondcentury, it underwent a revival as a learned and liturgical language.48 As aliturgical and academic language, Hebrew was to last in the long term but,unsurprisingly, the revival came with jolts and tugs, as is evident from theappearance and disappearance of Hebrew inscriptions in Southern Italy during the rst millennium .49 In Egypt, Hebrew papyri appear fromthe beginning of the fth c. in a cultural revolution among Jews in theDiaspora.50 Hebrew eventually made inroads in the Byzantine heartlandas well, but our evidence unfortunately dates from a later period, and weknow next to nothing about the use of Hebrew in Asia Minor around thistime.51

If waxing rabbinic inuence, or if not specically rabbinic, a more

widely sustained process of Hebraisation stand behind the Novella, theoriginal conict could have been anywhere in the realm. Justinian refers

46P. 715 ll. 2-5: 4M %L( %?(61 _K4(-"* -J1 ."i+41 I/(J1 7"@ "E-t 7)K#J0C"* !)#@ -2(-H( M)#H( &*&$O/( B(q8(/0*( &4N$4(-"*.

47P. 715 l. 5: 4M +L 7"@ -J( p$$6(O+" !"#"$"%&q()*( BF*4S0*.48N. de Lange, The Revival of the Hebrew Language in the Third Century , JSQ 3

(1996), pp. 34258.49See M. Williams, The Jews of Early Byzantine Venusia: The family of Faustinus I,

the Father, JJS 50 (1999), pp. 3852.50V. Tcherikover, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (3 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Magnes Press,Hebrew University, and Harvard University Press, 19571963), vol. I, p. 102.

51N.deLange,AThousandYearsofHebrewinByzantium,inW.Horbury(ed.),HebrewStudy from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999), pp. 147-61.


15/26

J N 146 C J 15

with some uncertainty to 4M !"#"E-451 B#K*I)#)75-"* r !#)0&\-)#4* -,KV(r +*+'07"$4*!#40"84#),?%)(4*,thosewhoarecalledamongthemArchipherek-itae, or possibly Presbyters or Didascaloi,52 perhaps reecting some of the terms used in diff erent parts of his Empire while creating a Jewishparallel to similar listings of ecclesiastical authorities like bishops, monksand clergymen. Some of these terms, namely B#K*I)#)75-"* (= !"#$ %)and +),-.#/0*1 , originated in Palestine, they could have been exported, which+),-.#/0*1 evidentlywas (see below). Perhaps more signicantly, wehave no indication that Hebrew was used in Asia Minor during the early centuries . Paul, who hailed from Asia Minor, and the early Christiansused the Septuagint or revisions thereof. Written Greek translations wereexplicitly permitted by the Tannaim, a permission which was challenged but never revoked by the Amoraim. The identication of selected names inthe Table of Nations (Gen. 10) with areas of the Graeco-Roman world has been brought up in the Yerushalmi to legitimize the use of Greek in theseHellenistic areas.53R. Meirs reported visit to Minor Asia signals that hedid not nd a megilla written in Hebrew.54While circumstantial in nature,theevidencesuggeststhatadearthofHebrewwaslongstandinginthisarea well into the Byzantine era. From a regional and long-term point of view,the use of Greek for Scriptural readings was probably widespread beforethe practice caved in to a Hebrew-only one.

Given Justinian's antics, it may seem today that only the faction advo-cating the use ofGreek could reasonably have believed to stand a chance of success, forcing their opponents to follow suit and le their own petitionin response. But the Novella does not indicate who took the initiative

to petition the emperor and such generalisations are of little use. At alocal level, it all depends on who were in control of the synagogue, and who challenged which customs, which may have gone either way and noevidence currently in our possession can sway the argument.

The Prohibitions52The term B#K*I)#)75-"* may be honoric: Linder, Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation,

p.411n.8.SeealsoRabello,Giustiniano, Ebrei, Samaritani,II,p.823n.19;Levine, The Ancient

Synagogue, pp. 407-408.53 y. Meg. 1.11(8),71b; see my Rabbis, Language and Translation in Late Antiquity, Ch. One,The Family of Languages, forthcoming.

54t. Meg. 2.5; cf. y. Meg. 4.1, 74d; b. Meg. 18b; b. Ber. 36.8. See also Lieberman, !'$()' *+)%$, , V, p. 1143.


16/26

16 T G S R

Reading Novella 146 is odd for the distinct windows it provides on con-temporary Judaism. On the whole, Justinian places as much emphasison proper biblical interpretation as on the use of Bible translations inthe synagogue. The Novella opens with reference to Jewish adherenceto the bare letters and chapter three deals entirely with the hope thatthe Jews shall turn from the bare letters to the better matters. All thisis perhaps not surprising, but requires explanation. However, the focuson interpretation and recitation is compounded with some of Justiniansmore surprising dos and donts: the prohibitions of the deuterosis inchapter one and three specic beliefs in chapter two. How to account forthe presence of these distinct elements in one Novella?

Scholars have argued that the true context of the Novella is the JewishChristian debate, which hinged on the proper interpretation of Scripture, rather than Bible recitation and translations.55 Justinian hadrealised that Jews were not going to be won over to the Christian inter-pretation of the deeper meaning of the prophecies, hindered as they were by their deuterosis, or Oral Tora. Thus the prohibition of the Oral Tora isthecounterpartofthedecisionthattheHebrewsaretoreadtheScripturesin their vernacular so that they will understand the Holy Books and they shall live and act according to them (p. 715 l. 21).

It is true that the rabbis, rattled by the Christian claimsthat the Churchrepresents the true Israel under recourse to the Septuagint, bolstered theirclaimtotruthbytheiruniquepossessionoftheOralTora.Thiscompanionto the Written Tora is their mysterion that came without a translation.The apologetic use of the notion of the Oral Tora was not missed on

Christian authors. Asearly as the 4th c.a counter-claimisattested in the Tractatus super Psalmos 2.2-3 by Bishop Hilary of Poitiers, who claimed thatanesotericoral tradition, reachingback toMoses, informedthe translationof the Septuagint.56 Justinian's sentiments stand in a Christian tradition when he dismisses the +),-.#/0*1 as an invention of men in their chatter,

55Baumgarten, Justinian and the Jews, pp. 39-40. So also Parkes, The Church andthe Synagogue, p. 253; S. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews (New York and

Philadelphia: Columbia University Press and the Jewish Publication Society of America,2nd edn, 1952), pp. 11-13.

56M. Bregman, Mishnah and LXX as Mystery: An Example of Jewish-ChristianPolemic in the Byzantine Period, in L.I. Levine (ed.), Jews and Judaism in Byzantine-Christian Palestine (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2004), pp. 333-42.


17/26

J N 146 C J 17

exclusively of earthly origin, words that are reminiscent of Jerome's ideasabout the Mishna as a human invention.57

On this reading, the contrast between the deuterosis and the trans-lated Scriptures makes sense within the rst chapter, but the same cannot be said for the second chapter.Long considered a conundrum, this chapterintroducesasubjectthatdoesnottwellwithintheNovella'sgeneralfocus:

And if there are some people among them who shall attempt to introduceungodly nonsense, denying either the resurrection or the last judgment orthattheangelsexistasGod'sworkandcreation,wewantthesepeopleexpelled

from all places, and that no word of blasphemy of this kind and absolutely erring from that knowledge of God shall be spoken.

Why did Justinian make a point of these beliefs, and why here? The rabbisdo not deny any of these notions. Indeed, some scholars have arguedthat this chapter attacks virtual Jews moulded after the New Testament'sand Josephuss portrayal of the Sadducees to highlight their erroneous ways.58Whether on his own or in consultation with some clerical advisers,

Justinian constructed a Judaism informed by the New Testament and hisadvisors rather than by real-life observation. Admittedly, such a stereo-typical attack would come as no surprise from an active legislator wontto have late-night discussions with theologians,59 but its prominent andseemingly isolated position within the Novella begs the question whatit is doing there. Perhaps Justinian merely projected unacceptable beliefsthat some Christians may have held on an external party, the Jews, inhis endeavours to dene Christian orthodoxy, as he was wont to do, and

to eff

ectively exclude heresies by making these notions part of the oldadversarys belief. As there is no hint whatsoever in the Novella for suchconcerns with contemporary Christianity, the question what triggered itsinclusion remains unanswered.

Did Jews actually hold any of the beliefs Justinian accused themof? Some scholars thought that some Jews probably did and argued thatSadducaean concepts may have lingered on, as they also may have had an

57Baumgarten, Justinian and the Jews, p. 42.58So Veltri, Die Novelle 146, pp. 119-20; Rutgers, Justinian's Novella 146, p. 405. Forthe New Testament, see Mat. 22.23; Marc 12.18; Luke 20.27; Acts 23.8.

59Gray, Palestine and Justinians Legislation, p. 252, citing Procopius, De bello gothico 3.32.9.


18/26

18 T G S R

impact on the early Karaites.60 This aspect should be viewed in a widercontext of similar charges as Justinians in rabbinic literature itself, suchas the locus classicus of m. San. 10.1 with its charge against denial of theresurrection, also commonly ascribed to the Sadducees.61But the notionschallenged by Justinian and the rabbis should not be ascribed to theSadducees too rashly.

A highly theologically charged dispute between Cain and Abel, sup-plemented to and interwoven with the translation of Gen. 4.8 in targumicliterature, has often been aligned with the diff erences of opinion betweenSadduceesandPharisees.62In its various guises, the targumic tradition has

60Rabello, Giustiniano, Ebrei, Samaritani, p. 824 n. 23.61H. Sysling, Tehiyyat Ha-Metim: The Resurrection of the Dead in the Palestinian

Targums of the Pentateuch and Parallel Traditions in Classical Rabbinic Literature (TSAJ, 57;Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1996), p. 125; J. Kalman, Repeating His Grandfathers Heresy:The Signicance of the Charge That Job and Esau Denied the Resurrection of the Deadfor Understanding Rabbinic Polemics, in L.M. Teugels and R. Ulmer (eds.), Midrash andContext: Proceedings of the 2004 and 2005 SBL Consultation on Midrash (Judaism in Context,5; Piscataway: Gorgias, 2007), pp. 1-15.

62For the Targums, see J. Ramon Daz, Dos notas sobre el Targum palestinense,Sefarad 19 (1959), pp. 13336; P. Grelot, Les Targums de Pentateuch. Etude comparativedaprs Gense 4,3-16, Semitica 9 (1959), pp. 5988; R. le Daut, Traditions targumiquesdans le Corpus Paulinien?, Biblica 42 (1961), pp. 2848; G. Vermes, The Targumic Versionof Genesis IV 3-16, Aluos 3 (19611962), pp. 82114; M. McNamara, The New Testament andthe Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch(AnBib, 27;Rome:Biblical Institute Press,1966),pp.156-60; A.D. Macho, DeuxnouveauxfragmentsduTargumpalestinienNew York, inStudisul lOriente e la Bibbia o ff erti a P. Giovanni Rinaldi (Geneva: Studio e Vita, 1967), I, pp. 175178; J. Bowker, The Targums and RabbinicLiterature: An Introduction to JewishInterpretationsScripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), pp. 132-41; A. Dez Macho, Unnuevo fragmento del Targum palestinense a Genesis, Augustinianum 9 (1969), pp. 12023; S. Isenberg, An Anti-Sadducee Polemic in the Palestinian Targum Tradition, HTR 63 (1970), pp. 433444; A. Braver, The Debate Between a Sadducee and a Pharasee in thMouths of Cain and Abel, Beth Mikra 44 (1971), pp. 583585 (Hebrew); G.J. Kuiper, ThePseudo-Jonathan TargumandItsRelationship to targum Onkelos(Rome: GregorianUniversity Press, 1972), pp. 49-67; A. Rodriguez Carmona, Targum y resurrecin: Estudio de los textosdel Targum Palestinense sobre la resurrecin (BTGran, 18; Granada: Facultad de Teologa,1978), pp. 30-47; Shinan, -&./0#)'/ 1% -'20! , pp. 303-304, 346; B. Chilton, A ComparativeStudy of Synoptic Development: The Dispute between Cain and Abel in the Palestinian

Targums and the Beelzebul Controversy in the Gospels, JBL 101 (1982), pp. 553562; J.Ferrer i Costa, Estudi de la interpretaci targmica de Gn 25,29.32.34. Tres textos depolmica antisaduce, Associaci Bblica de Catalunya 23 (1983); J. Bassler, Cain and Abel inthe Palestinian Targums, JSJ17 (1986), pp. 5664(9);B.B. Levy, Targum Neophyti 1: A TextualStudy, (Lanham: University Press of America, 19861987), I, pp. 105-109; U. Glemer,


19/26

J N 146 C J 19

Cain and Abel dispute the last judgment, the world to come, and rewardand punishment.63 In the version of Targum Neoti, where two diff erentstrands of the tradition come together (which we do not have to date anddisentangle for the present purpose), the second of these reads as follows:

Cain spoke up and said to Abel, There is no judgment and no judge, andthere is no other world, and no giving of good reward to the righteous, andthere is no exacting of vengeance from the wicked. Abel spoke up and said toCain, There is judgment and there is a judge, and there is another world,and there is giving of good reward to the righteous, and there is exactingof vengeance from the wicked in the world to come. The two of them weredisputing over the business of this matter on the surface of the eld whenCain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him.

The similarity between these topics and those of the PharisaicSadduceandisagreements was not lost on scholars, which played a prominent partin dating the various targumic versions of this dispute, although thedispute has also been viewed as anti-Epicurean, anti-Gnostic, anti-Karaite,anti-Pharisaic, anti-Edomite and anti-Christian.64 And for the sake of

completeness, a Cairo Geniza version has been considered polemicizingagainst Hellenized Jews or Judaized Christians.65 In Shinans view, how-ever, we have here a topos of heresy rather than a specic accusation incontemporary polemics.66

Should the disputed views necessarily be ascribed to Sadducees, or if not against them, beconsidereda controversy longdoneanddusted? Meretradition, and especially self-denition in the face of an adversary, may indeed explain the selection of these topoi as an echo from the past. Had

neither Jew nor Christian of any particular bent adhered to the disputedEntstehung und Entwicklung der Targume zum Pentateuch als literarkritisches Problem, dargestelltam Beispiel der Zusatztargume (unpublished Ph.D. Diss. University of Hamburg, 1988), pp.296-339; J. Kugel, Cain and Abel in Fact and Fable, in R. Brooks and J. J. Collins (eds.),Hebrew Bible or Old Testament? (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1989), pp. 16790;D. Shepherd, Translating and Supplementing: A(nother) Look at the Targumic Versionsof Genesis 4.316, JAB 1 (1999), pp. 12546.

63Seefurther TargumMal. 3.6(below) andthePalTgs to Gen. 25.34(29): Sysling, TehiyyatHa-Metim, pp. 104-35; C.T.R. Hayward, A Portrait of the Wicked Esau in the Targum of

Codex Neoti 1, in M. McNamara andD. Beattie (eds.), The Aramaic Bible(Sheffield: JSOT,1994), pp. 291309.

64See Shinan, -&./0#)'/ 1% -'20! , pp. 303-304, 346.65Bassler, Cain and Abel, p. 62; cf. p. 58.66Shinan, -&./0#)'/ 1% -'20! , p. 346; Hayward, A Portrait of the Wicked Esau, p. 300.


20/26

20 T G S R

views, because the promoted views had been universally accepted, theirprominent place in the rabbinic traditions may still be an expression of self-denition.67 But there is a limit to the plausibility and stretch of thisargument, both in general and in particular. In particular, the assumptionthat the controversy lost its relevance when the sects of the Pharisees andSadducees disappeared from the scene of history is overly schematic,68 while it is also questionable that these views were strictly Sadducaean. Ingeneral, the argument of self-denition should be checked against thepossibility that some contemporaries actually held the denounced articlesof faith. If some would deny the last judgement, the World to Comeor reward and punishment, there is a very real reason to disseminatethese traditions in the synagogue to challenge contemporary dissidents inpropagandizing style.

Which heretics among the Jews may have ascribed to these de-nounced views? We should note that Justinian included a third article of heresy which does not feature in the targumic versions: the denial thatangels are God's creation. This latter denial subtly diff ers from the New Testament portrayal of Sadducaean beliefs. At stake here is not the belief in angelic beings per se, but in their dependence on God as his creation;this latter element is invariably picked up in the medieval reception of the Novella.69 The Sadducees, who probably never denied the existenceof angels but the beatic afterlife of the righteous as angels, never madethis specic point as far as we know (Acts 23.8 is our only source in thisregard).70 The diff erence is subtle yet decisive, for the creation of angelsis not a topic in the SadduceePharisee opposition, but in the rabbinic

67See E. Iricinschi and H.M. Zellentin, (eds.) Heresy and Identity in Late Antiquity(TSAJ, 119; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).

68See M. Goodman, Sadducees and Essenes after 70 CE, in S.E. Porter, P. Joyceand D.E. Orton (eds.), Crossing the Boundaries. Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honourof Michael D. Goulder (Leiden: Brill, 1994), pp. 347-56.

69See Linder, Legal Sources of the Early Middle Ages, pp. 32-33 (Theodoros Hermopoli-tanus); pp. 36-37 (Athanasios of Emesa); pp. 57-58 (Collectio Tripartita); pp. 110, 121-(Basilica); p. 155 (Synopsis).

70Acts 23.8 is the only source for the Sadducean denial of angels, which, as D. Daube,On Acts 23: Sadducees and Angels, JBL 109 (1990), pp. 49397, plausibly suggests, shouldnot be understood as a wholesale denial of the existence of angels but as the denial of the beatic afterlife of the righteous as angels. However, later recipients of the NT may haveunderstood this text as a straightforward Sadducean denial of the existence of angels.


21/26

J N 146 C J 21

portrayal of the heresy of the Two Powers.71There is ample evidence thatGods creation of angels, or their independent existence, represents anissue in rabbinic literature, but one which has no bearing on the belief system of the Sadducees but on what we may loosely term gnostic notionsof a divided spiritual realm, in which Gods control over and creation of allangels was challenged.

The three disowned beliefs are closely interrelated, even though Jus-tinians third does not feature in the Targums. Bodily resurrection anda nal day of reckoning complement each other in the doctrine of retri- bution and resurrection, which rst appears in apocalyptic circles of thesecond c. (see Dan. 12.2).72 Early Christianity, if not Jesus himself,already believed that the resurrection would be followed by a nal day of judgement.73But not everyone shared these beliefs. These beliefs werechallenged by dualists who held that spirit and matter could not truly coexist.Whoeverdeniedbodilyresurrectionhadlittletimeforanaldayof reckoning. The correlation between both concepts is negatively expressedin an opinion which Targum Jonathan ascribes to the House of Israel,rather than either Cain or Esau, in Mal. 3.6: But you, House of Israel, youthink that whoever dies in thisworldhashis judgement ceased.74Whoeverthe targumist had in mind, it was not an insignicant group. For gnostics,resurrection was not an eschatological event but at best a metaphor forthe ight of the soul from the body.75 Justinians third notion points to believers in a divided heavenly realm, who extended the docetic challengeto Gods creation to the denial that angels are created. The reference toheretics in Gen. R. 1.7, who claimed that two powers created the world,

springs tomind. Who theminimin the rabbinic references tomanypowers

71On this heresy, and the creation of angels, see A.F. Segal, Two Powers In Heaven: EarlyRabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 1977).

72 J.N. Bremmer, The Rise and Fall of the Afterlife: The 1995 Read-Tuckwell Lectures at theUniversity of Bristol (London: Routledge, 2002), p. 43.

73K.J. Madigan and J.D. Levenson, Resurrection: The Power of God for Christians and Jews(New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), p. 20.

74See R.P. Gordon, The Targumists as Eschatologists, SVT 29 (1978), pp. 113-30, whoargues that TgJon reects the situation prior to the destruction of the Second Temple.

75Madigan and Levenson, Resurrection, p. 228. For views on creation, see alsoE.P. Meijering, God Cosmos History. Christian and Neo-Platonic Views on DivineRevelation, Vigiliae Christianae 28 (1974), pp. 248-276.


22/26

22 T G S R

are remains obcure, since our rabbinic sources are hardly interested inproper descriptions.76

Thereissomeepigraphicalevidencethatthevariationsinthebeliefsof beatic afterlife at the turn of the CommonEra didnot vanish altogether inthe early rabbinic period,77 but persisted for many centuries. A number of epitaphs is at odds with the belief in life after death, such as an inscriptionfrom Jerusalem which states: No one can go up [from the grave].78Someinscriptions appear to distinguish between the %$. and the */%. , with theformer being laid to peace and the latter being wished eternal life.79 Theconcepts of astral immortality, bodily ascension to heaven, and a shadowy existence in the underworld still may have had their believers during theclassical rabbinic period. Targumic traditions attest to a largelysuppressedform of astral immortality, without bodily resurrection, whereas othersreect the belief that the righteous had become angels.80 According toone of the Jewish Palestinian Aramaic poems, Moses complains at Adam'stombthathehastodiebecauseofthelatter'ssin,whereuponAdam,stirredfrom his sleep by Moses's power, ironically retorts from his grave thatMoses had been marked for death in the Tora that preceded him by twothousand yearsthe very Tora which he boasted to have brought down toearth.81 This tradition reects the old belief in a state of shady existencein the netherworld. Another of these Aramaic poems reects the same

76See Y.Y. Teppler, Birkat haMinim: Jews and Christians in Conict in the Ancient World(TSAJ, 120; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), Ch. 5.

77For the epigraphical evidence, see the survey by P.W. van der Horst, Ancient JewishEpitaphs: An introductory Survey of a Millennium of Jewish Funerary Epigraphy (300 bc(CBET, 2; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1991), pp. 114-26.

78F.M. Cross, A Note on a Burial Inscription from Mount Scopus, IEJ 33 (1983), pp.245-46. See further Van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs, p. 121.

79 J.S. Park, Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Inscriptions: With Special reference to PaLiterature (WUNT, 121; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), p. 152.

80See, e.g., TgJon Judg. 5.31; 2 Sam. 23.4; Isa. 30.26; TosTg 1 Sam. 17.43; TgPsJ Gen. 5Num. 25.12. See W.F. Smelik, On Mystical Transformation of the Righteous into Lightin Judaism, JSJ 26 (1995), pp. 12244; J.H. Charlesworth, The Portrayal of the Righteousas an Angel, in G.W.E. Nickelsburg and J.J. Collins (eds.), Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism

(Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 12; Chico: Scholars Press, 1980), pp. 13551; G.W.ENickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and EaChristianity (Cambridge, : Harvard University Press, expanded edn. 2006).

81See Sokoloff and Yahalom, !3#4/ &.3 '#&% , no. 40, p. 242. The irony is twofold, because Moses boasts that he brought down Tora from heaven.


23/26

J N 146 C J 23

belief of the grave as an eternal prison as the epitaph referred to above: theangel of death consigns its victims to never-ending imprisonment whenhe overturns villages and destroys cities / and makes them desolate of residents; / He constrains the population in his prison / He imprisonsthem forever and ever, and to use the explicit chiff re of death, he placesthe maggot in their clothes.82Throughout this poem death is irreversible while the afterlife and God receive no mention whatsoever.83That the nalcouplet suddenly and unexpectedly refers to the reward good deeds bringabout smacksofa laterevisionof the originalpoem, and evenso, these nallines still do not envisage what form the reward takes. As is to be expected,such glimpses of non-rabbinic views on death and the hereafter remainrare.

More typical of what we know to represent contemporary rabbinic beliefs is a poem which entails a discussion between body and soul andGods retort that both will be sentenced together on the day of nalreckoning, views which are rmly located in the rabbinic outlook onthe hereafter. But elsewhere, too, there are hints of alternative views.Flesher has demonstrated that the author responsible for the compilationof Targum Pseudo-Jonathan seems to have ruled out explicit referencesto the resurrection of the dead, even when they were present in hissources;84exactly why he omitted such references remains unclear, but thatalternative understandings of beatic afterlife were in play is plausible.Some Jews, including rabbis, denied the resurrection altogether. Mostprominent among their ranks was Elisha ben Abuya, who came to theconclusion that there is no reward and no resurrection of the dead.85

Elisha may well have become a chiff

re for heresy,86

but whatever Elisha's

82M. Sokoloff and Y. Yahalom, 1!#%& 5#! &2)*& 1% -&&/#! -&% : !3#4/ &.3 '#&% '&+.6&3* *$)"'3 (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1999), no. 58.

83See M. Kister, */)14 *#&% 1% */1)43 -&+3&* - !3#4/ &.3 '#&% , Tarbiz 76 (2008), pp.105-84.

84P.V.M. Flesher, The Theology of the Afterlife in the Palestinian Targums to thePentateuch: A Framework for Analysis, in J. Neusner (ed.), Approaches to Ancient Judaism:New Series. XVI (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), pp. 147.

85 y. Hag. 2.1, 77b; cf. Qoh. R. 7.16.86 J. Maier, Geschichte der jdischen Religion (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1972), pp. 209-10; D. Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), p. 142. Cf. Segal, Two Powers, p. 96: ...the term two powersin heaven became a completely conventional, stereotypic term. It no longer referred to


24/26

24 T G S R

personal views really were, these traditions point to belief notions whichsome rabbis once shared with the Sadducees or later exponents of similar beliefs.

It follows that Justinians second chapter was probably not directedagainst the Sadducees as a chiff re for the perdious beliefs of the Jews, forSadducees did not deny the creation of angels whereas others, particularly gnostics, or otherwise heretic Jews, did. Certainly it cannot have beenadressed at rabbinic Jews, although Justinian didnotdiscriminatebetweenrabbinic Judaism and other Jewish factions, all of whom he simply calledHebrews in the Novella. Whatever their preferences and beliefs, they remained a single category of heretics for him. And yet we may identify the objects of his prohibitions. Justinians contrast of the deuterosis withthe translated Scriptures in the rst chapter obviously took aim at thecamp that sought to impose a Hebrew-only recitation on Greek-speakingcommunities. Conversely, it stands to reason that the second chapter hadthe Hellenist faction in its sight which held views about resurrection andcreation that rabbinic Judaism had come to discard but which had beencredible in the Graeco-Roman world before Christianity came to power.The division of the prohibitions over two chapters corresponds to the twofactions that petitioned him.

Where did he glean these data from? His sources will always remaina matter of speculation, whether we deem the situation his Novella refersto ctional or not. But following the legal model, it is likely that each of the Jewish factions included in what must have been desperate petitionsincriminating information about the opposition. The party accused of

suppressing a Greek translation would have found itself in a very diffi

cultposition to defend to the Greek-speaking emperor, but could have hit back by pointing out that their adversaries maintained a conception of afterlife, justice andcreation which contradictednotonly rabbinic thought but also central tenets of Christian faith. That would provide the mostnatural explanation for the inclusion of this chapter in the Novella. By way ofcontrast,theiropponentscouldpointtotherabbinicconceptoftheOralTora that had come to undermine the revelation of the Septuagint and

the parity of Christian claims with Jewish ones to representing the trueone group (if it ever did) and became relevant to a whole series of groups, becoming ahomologous term with those who say there is no power in heaven and those who say there are many powers in heaven.


25/26

J N 146 C J 25

Israel. When Justinian wrote that he had learnt from their petitions, helearnt more about contemporary Judaism than the conict that requiredhis attention in the rst place.

The self-image of Justinian as a benign Emperor certainly masks hisless than magnanimous attitude towards his Jewish subjects. But evenone not particularly known for his pro-Jewish attitudes adheres at thispoint to both the legal genre and judicial procedures, advocating a middlecourse which even permits the use of Aquilas version, although ofa gentile(=heathen) nature.87Aquilas translation was still widespread in Justinianstime.88 These aspects of the law are far less imaginary or tendentious thanits claims of Jews given to senseless interpretations. The Novella is notcaesaropapism, but legal consequentialism.

A Balancing ActOur increased awareness of the importance of literary images in thecreation of a Christian identity, in which the Jews may well be straw men, should not close our eyes for the realities from which that identity emerged.89 The distortive prism on Judaism in Christian literature doesnot rule out reality. Christians were well aware of the synagogue, whichaccording to third and fourth century Church Fathers proved so attractiveto many of their coreligionists that they even attended their services. Nor were they unaware of the centrality of reading the Scriptures on Shabbat.90EveniftheNovellawouldhavetoldusmoreabouttheChristianperceptionof the Jews than about their internal disagreements, this assumption doesnot warrant the conclusion that Justinian invented an internal Jewishcontroversy about the suitable languages of Bible recitation as a pretextfor his hidden agendas.

Justinian's decree, despite its bias, reects a judicious balance betweenthe demands of two parties. It provides a legal place for Greek without

87The wordB$$?I,$41, foreigner, used to describe Philistinesin the, herestandsfor non-believer in contrast to those Jews whoproduced theSeptuagint as if illuminated by a prophetic grace.

88See now N. de Lange, The Greek Bible Translations of the Byzantine Jews, inP. Magdalino and R. Nelson (eds.), The Old Testament in Byzantium (Washington, DC:

Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2010), pp. 39-54.89See also S.J. Shoemaker, Let Us Go and Burn Her Body: The Image of the Jews inthe Early Dormition Traditions, Church History 68 (1999), pp. 775823 (783-86).

90W. Horbury, Early Christians on Synagogue Prayer and Imprecation, in Idem, Jewsand Christians in Contact and Controversy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998), pp. 226-43.


26/26

26 T G S R

denying Hebrew its liturgical role, and gives permission to use alsoAquila's translation, although he was a gentile and in some readingsdiff ers not a little from the Septuagint. Justinians accommodation of a literal translation endorsed by the rabbis looks like a concession tothe Hebraists, while he comes down in favour on the Hellenists' sideotherwise. Even so, the use of Hebrew, whether alone or accompanied by a translation, is upheldin stark contrast to the prohibition of the+),-.#/0*1 and the demand to expel all those who adhere to both non-rabbinic and non-orthodox Christian beliefs about resurrection, the last judgement, and the existence of angels. Consequently, Colornis sensethat the Novella is witness to the rabbinic inuence on reading practicesand that it can be construed as part of the process of Hebraisation of the Jewish Diaspora still has much going for it. In spite of Justiniansless than enthusiastic perception of Jewish practices, the Novellas legalterminology and judicious verdict show that Colornis take should not bedismissed as naive. Justinians give and take, while obviously ltered by hisown Christian convictions, was informed by the allegations that had beendropped at his door by the Jewish parties involved.

Justinian’s Novella 146 and Contemporary Judaism

Documents

Transcript of Justinian’s Novella 146 and Contemporary Judaism