The significance of this piece of mid-sixth century imperial legislation has been much discussed of late. Ostensibly relating to the language in which Scripture is to be read in Jewish public settings, it also spurns (perceived) Jewish literalism and prohibits both the Oral Torah and the denial of certain beliefs. The present essay rejects arguments recently advanced that the petition to which the Novella responds was pure fabrication and the Jews mentioned in it merely ‘straw men’. It discusses the terminology and structure of Novella 146 in the light of other Novellae, which suggests that the petitions were not literary inventions. It also argues that the second chapter addresses non-rabbinic but contemporary Jewish beliefs. It supports the position that the Novella does offer some evidence for the relative positions of Hebrew and of Greek in Jewish liturgy and community life, and for the existence of notions that differed from normative rabbinic beliefs.
The significance of this piece of mid-sixth century imperial legislation has been much discussed of late. Ostensibly relating to the language in which Scripture is to be read in Jewish public settings, it also spurns (perceived) Jewish literalism and prohibits both the Oral Torah and the denial of certain beliefs. The present essay rejects arguments recently advanced that the petition to which the Novella responds was pure fabrication and the Jews mentioned in it merely ‘straw men’. It discusses the terminology and structure of Novella 146 in the light of other Novellae, which suggests that the petitions were not literary inventions. It also argues that the second chapter addresses non-rabbinic but contemporary Jewish beliefs. It supports the position that the Novella does offer some evidence for the relative positions of Hebrew and of Greek in Jewish liturgy and community life, and for the existence of notions that differed from normative rabbinic beliefs.
The significance of this piece of mid-sixth century imperial legislation has been much discussed of late. Ostensibly relating to the language in which Scripture is to be read in Jewish public settings, it also spurns (perceived) Jewish literalism and prohibits both the Oral Torah and the denial of certain beliefs. The present essay rejects arguments recently advanced that the petition to which the Novella responds was pure fabrication and the Jews mentioned in it merely ‘straw men’. It discusses the terminology and structure of Novella 146 in the light of other Novellae, which suggests that the petitions were not literary inventions. It also argues that the second chapter addresses non-rabbinic but contemporary Jewish beliefs. It supports the position that the Novella does offer some evidence for the relative positions of Hebrew and of Greek in Jewish liturgy and community life, and for the existence of notions that differed from normative rabbinic beliefs.
1 Willem F. Smelik 2 Tnr Grrr Scrirrrrs xn rnr Rxnnis The signicance of Novella 146, perhaps the most notorious of Roman legal documents on Jews and Judaism, has long been recognised. Issued on February 8, 553 , in the middle of his failing attempts to reel in the Monophysites and establish a reconciled Church, shortly after the great plague, the emperor addressed the Novella to the Praefectus Praetorio of the East, Aerobindus. 1 The Novella regulates the use of liturgical languages in the synagogue service and sets out the punishments to be meted out to anyone who dees the principle of free language selection. Justinian has learnt fromtheir ownpetitions that some Jews insisted uponthe exclusive use of the Hebrew language in reading the Scriptures, whereas others consider it right to use Greek as well. 2 On the face of it, the Novella thus reects a turning point in reading practices when advocates of the Hebrew language opposed the scriptural recitation in Greek, posibly following the increase of rabbinic inuence upon Diaspora Judaism. Accordingly, 0 I am particularly grateful to Alison Salvesen for the meticulous organisation of the ESAJS seminar at Oxford University, her kind invitation to participate, and to all participants 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 version of this article in a paper which I gave at the Hebrew, Jewish and Early Christian Studies Seminar, University of Cambridge, 12 May 2008. Finally, I greatly benetted from further comments oered by Bernard Stolte, Simon Corcoran and Sacha Stern on a draft of this article. Finally, thanks are due to T.M. Lawfor all his eorts in editing the various versions of 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 in Roman Imperial Legislation (Detroit & Jerusalem: Wayne State University Press and The Israel 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; see further 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). 1 The quaestor (the emperor's legal draftsman, see A.M. Honor, Some Constitutions Composed by Justinian, Journal of Roman Studies 65 (1975), pp. 107-123 [107]) of Novella 146 is identied as Constantinus, who took part in the Council of Constantinople a 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, The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553 (2 vols; Translated Texts for Historians, 51; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2009). 2 On the translation of !"#"$"%&'()*( as use, see below. Jsriixs Novriix 146 s Corrrorxr. Jnxis 3 the Novella has long been hailed as crucial evidence for the changes in liturgical reading practices among Diaspora Jews. 3 Lately this scenario has come under renewed scrutiny because the Novella is not just about liturgical language selection. Comprised of a preamble, three chapters and an epilogue, this Novella is also about too literal Jewish interpretation of the Scriptures and evil Jewish commen- tators. It contains the following three prohibitions: exclusive recitation in Hebrew which relies on Jewish commentators to convey its meaning to the masses, the +),-.#/0*1a common designation of the Mishna in patristic 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 will open 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 the law's implementation. Every reading ultimately must explain the Novella's self-expressed context of an inner-Jewish debate in view of its attack on the evil of Jewish commentators, the Mishna or Oral Tora, and the condemnation of the so-called Sadducean denial of the last judgment, the resurrection and angelic 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 mella liturgia del giudaismo ellenistico e la novella 146 di Giustiniano, Annali di Storia del Diritto, 8 (1964), pp. 1980; Linder, Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, pp. 403-404; K. Treu, Die Bedeutung des Griechischen fr die Juden im rmischen Reich, Kairos 15 (1973), pp. 12344; S. Simonsohn, The Hebrew Revival among Early Medieval European Jews in S. 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: Giur, 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: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk and Neukirchener Verlag, 1983), pp. 205-206; P. Gray, Palestine and Justinians Legislation on Non-Christian Religions, in B. Halpern and D. Hobson (eds.), Law, politics and Society in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Sheeld: Sheeld Academic 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 historisch entwickelt (Frankfurt: J. Kaufmann, 2nd edn, 1892), p. 11. 4 Juster, Les Juifs dans lEmpire Romaine, I, pp. 372-74; A.I. Baumgarten, Justinian and the Jews, in L. Landman (ed.), Rabbi Joseph H. Lookstein Memorial Volume (New York: Ktav, 1980), pp. 3744 (38). 4 Tnr Grrr Scrirrrrs xn rnr Rxnnis rabbinic Judaismwas intended in the Novella, is not known to have denied any of these. The modern reception of the Novella shows an ongoing struggle to align the various aspects of the Novella in a coherent reading. Scholars disagree on virtually every aspect of the Novella: the identity of those who initiated the dispute, the context of the controversy, and Justinians objectives. Above all the unhinged nature of the Novella always required explanation where Justianian ventures into vehement criticism of Jewish practices and beliefs. Krauss, for example, harmonised the disparate el- ements of the Novella by shifting the focus of Justinian's ire from the synagogue to the seat of rabbinic learning, the academy, where the emperor would have attempted to prohibit the Mishna. The focus on the synagogue was a clerical mistake in his opinion. 5 While his interpretaion failed to convince, it demonstrates the problem of interpreting the Novella in a coherent way. An early answer to the problem relates the unbalanced composition of the Novella to Justinians religious fervour. In this view, Justinian addressed a controversy about the exclusive use of Hebrew (or Greek) as the language of reading the Tora in the Byzantine Diaspora, while simul- taneously seizing the opportunity to address other issues the Christianem- peror had with Judaism. 6 The Preamble sets out the petitions to Justinian, Chapter One his decree, Chapter Two details further prohibitions, Chapter Three an expression of hope that access to the Scriptures in ones native tongue contributes to choosing what is better, and an epilogue once more setting out the punishments for those who defy God and Empire. It is not implausible to maintain that the Novella has the permissable languages for the Scriptures as a trigger for legislation, with a set of subsidiary or supplementary objectives following from his Christian faith. It is true that those prohibitions and exhortations which are unrelated to liturgical languages do not receive a mention in the preamble. On the other hand, there is the opening exhortation that the Hebrews are not to stick to the 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 goal 5 S. Krauss, Studienzur ByzantischJdischenGeschichte, Jahresbericht der Israelitisch- Theologischen Lehranstalt 21 (1914), pp. 60-62. 6 Juster, Les Juifs dans lEmpire Romaine, I, p. 369. Jsriixs Novriix 146 s Corrrorxr. Jnxis 5 is the appropriate use of language for the Scriptures, but frequently the facilitationof conversionto Christianity is identiedas a secondobjective. 7 In recent years some scholars promoted the second objective to the primary one, in part because of the references to Jews grasping the true meaning of the prophecies, inpart because a newsensitivity tothe hermeneu- tic character of the Novella raised questions about the Novellas socio- historical accuracy. After all, the Novella would not seem to portray Jews as they 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 synagogue is a pretext to facilitate the conversion to Christianity, focusing on the prohibition of rabbinic teaching. There never was a Jewish petition to Justinian. The severe penalties against those who deny the resurrection or the judgment, or the work of God, or that angels are part of creation in the second chapter are literary topoi which reect the Christian perception of Jews as informed by the New Testament rather than religious tenets of Byzantine Jewry. Justinian's aim, in his view, was to facilicitate the conversion 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 Tora or even with contemporary Judaism. Either the purport of the Novella is rooted in the JewishChristian debate, or alternatively the Novella's facts are fabricated in support of the emperor's own objectives. As such, his references to Jewish practices and beliefs are hermeneutical. 8 But even on 7 So, 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 Verbot des Targumsvortrags in Justinians Politik, in M. Hengel and A.M. Schwemer (eds.), Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum (WUNT, 72; Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1994), pp. 116-30 (123); C. Barber, The Truth in Painting: Iconoclasmand Identity in Early- Medieval Art, Speculum 72 (1997), pp. 10191036 (1034-35). 8 Veltri, 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 the Christian Roman Empire (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), pp. 385-407. For hermeneutic Jews in Late Antique literature, see J. Lieu, Image and Reality: The Jews in the World of the Christians in the Second Century (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996); P. Fredriksen, Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism (New York: Doubleday, 2008). 6 Tnr Grrr Scrirrrrs xn rnr Rxnnis 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 more transparent and balanced when it is considered as Justinians legal re- sponse to two Jewish parties with conicting claims and beliefs. Central to this viewis the recognition that the second chapter addresses non-rabbinic but contemporary Jewish beliefs and that Justinian addresses the claims and accusations of repulsive interpretations and beliefs of both parties who petition him. I will oer an interpretation which inexhaustively appreciates the legal terminology of the Novella in the light of the other Novellae, briey focuses on the nature of the conict about language and nally reconsiders the second chapter of the Novella. Novella 146 as a Novella Since Justinian combined imperial with Christian authority, he rst de- nes his position in legal and, whenever relevant, religious terms in the prefaces to the Novellae. 9 An innovative emperor, he viewed legislation as his God-given tool for mending legal or administrative inadequacies and imposing religious orthodoxy on his subjects. 10 The tone is set immedi- ately with the opening remark: It was right and proper that the Hebrews (;&#"<4,1), when listening to the Holy Books, should not stick to the bare letters (3*$451 !#40-)-67.("* -451 8#'%%"0*() but look for the prophecies contained in them, through which they announce the Great God and the Saviour of the humanrace, Jesus Christ. Such insistence on non-literal readings is not unique for this Novella. In the preface of Nov. 97, he addresses nuptial contracts and malpractice, rejecting the notion that equality is to be sought in words and bare letters alone (=( >6%"-<4*1 %?(4*1 7"@ 8#'%%"0* 3*$451) and not in the things themselves. 11 In his Digests Justinian directs his ire at literal interpre- tations of a legal nature with a vocabulary that does not discriminate 9 Cf. the opening of Nov. 140: A'%4, 0)%(?-)#4( B(C#D!4*1 4E+.( =0-*(, =F 4G !"5+)1 7"@ -H( =I)FJ1 8)(H( +*"+4K"@ K/#</( There is nothing more honorable among men than marriage, from which spring children and remoter descendants... (p. 701 ll. 16-18). 10 M. Maas, Roman History and Christian Ideology in Justinianic ReformLegislation, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 40 (1986), pp. 1731 (29-31). 11 Nov. 97, p. 469 l. 36. For 8#'%%"0* 3*$451, cf. 3*$451 !#40-)-67.("* -451 8#'%%"0*( (Nov. 146, p. 714 l. 15) and 3*$451 +L !#40.K)*( -451 8#'%%"0*( (Nov. 146, p. 717 ll. 7-8). Jsriixs Novriix 146 s Corrrorxr. Jnxis 7 between misleading jurists and Jewish interpreters. 12 In Nov. 146's preface, the prophecies announce Jesus who fullled them, and if only the Jews abandoned their literalism, they too would come to reason. For Justinian, the greater good of recognizing the Saviour is inextricably linked to the issue about scriptural translation that follows. Translation is the road to understanding the Scriptures, which should go beyond the naked letter to encompass the more divine sense. 13 From his perspective, there is no discrepancy between the language selection of scriptural recitation and the evil of the commentators. The prefaces tend to open with a brief description of a case or issue, and may refer to requests, petitions or supplications (!#40.$),0*1 and M7)-)N/) which parties addressed to Justinian wherever relevant. 14 In the reform novels, written during the time that Tribonian served as Justinian's quaestor, 15 the novels are characterised by their long historical prefaces, but the later ones do not refer to antiquity and simply refer to petitions as the cause for the new law. 16 In this relatively late law, the emperor descibes a fault-line within the Jewish communities with petitions as his source of information (146, pp. 714-15): 12 E. Klingenberg, Justinians Novellae Concerning the Jews, in E. Goldman (ed.), The Jerusalem 1994 Conference Volume (Jewish Law Association Studies, 8; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), pp. 7999 (97-99), referring (among other things) to Justinian's Digest, 1.3 and the quotation of Celsus: Scire leges non est verba earum tenere, sed vim ac potestatem. 13 Nov. 146.3 (p. 717 ll. 7-9). 14 For 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 Supplement to 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 in addition to those listed by Liddell, Scott and Jones. For petitions generally, see D. Feissel and J. Gascou (eds.), La ptition Byzance (Centre de Recherche d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, Monographies, 14; Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d'Histoire et Civilisation 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)-)<"*1 (10; p. 93 l. 33); for M7)-)O" see 10 pref. (p. 92 l. 21) and epilogue as above; 18 (p. 130 l. 35); 133 pref. (p. 666 l. 17). 15 T. Honor, Tribonian (London: Duckworth, 1978), pp. 47-48, 57-58, 236-37. 16 Maas, Roman History and Christian Ideology, pp. 1731. For legal prefaces, see also G. Ries, Prolog und Epilog in Gesetzen des Altertums (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1983). 8 Tnr Grrr Scrirrrrs xn rnr Rxnnis However, although they have erred from the right doctrine till today, given as they are to senseless interpretations, when we learnt that they dispute among themselves 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 in reading the Holy Books others consider it right to admit Greek as well, and they have already been quarreling among themselves about this for a long time. 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. 18 References to disputes between parties by the verb B%I*0&6-./, which more than once triggered Justinian's legislative action, are a common feature 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 to leave them with an unresolved controversy, which is comparable to the following words of Novella 82: These considerations have rightly moved us to enact the present law, since we consider the interests of our subjects and desire that legal conicts be decided quickly and without delay. 21 17 Keenly aware of the inadequacy of previous laws, the Novellae reformmany previous laws or address legal uncertainties. See, e.g., Nov. 73 Ch. 1 concerning safe deposits which are only safeguarded by writing, the authenticity of which may be challenged and could render the dispute undecided (B7#O-4,, cf. Nov. 146, Pref., p. 714 l. 22); witnesses, however, could verify the authenticity of the document in question. 18 Gray, Palestine and Justinians Legislation, p. 269. This applies in general to all Roman emperors, starting from Augustus. See F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (London: Duckworth, 1992). 19 See for example Nov. 73, Pref. and Epilogue (p. 364 l. 29; p. 369 l. 32); for further examples, 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. Lokin and B.H. Stolte (eds.), Novella constitutio: Studies in Honour of Nicolaas van der Wal (Subseciva Groningana, 4; Groningen: Egbert Forsten and Het Groningsch Rechthistorisch Fonds, 1990), pp. 117-30 (120). 20 See Nov. 78 pref. P!)*+2 +L B)< -* 7#)5--4( !)#@ -H( Q%)-.#/( R!67?/( &4,$),?%)(4* Since we always think of improving the condition of our subjects (p. 384 ll. 3-6). 21 See Nov. 82: -"S-" Q%T1 )U7?-/1 )U1 -V( !"#?(-" (?%4( B(.0-60) -H( Q%)-.#/( R!67?/( 76+4%.(4,1 7"@ &4,$4%.(4,1 "E-451 7"@ -W =!@ -"51 +<7"*1 )X74$' -) )Y("* 7"@ >Z+*" 7"@ K/#@1 [!'061 B("&4$J1 +*"$\)0C"* (p. 401 ll. 12-16). Jsriixs Novriix 146 s Corrrorxr. Jnxis 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 is one 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 that such generalisations carry little value. Since records of proceedings were not kept, we have no means to verify actual Jewish use of petitions and litigation through the State courts, but the possibility cannot be ruled out. In the previous century, Jews petitioned Theodosius II and gained the favourable imperial decision of April 9, 423 , which banned the occupation and burning of synagogues. 23 Following Justinian's Code of 534 , Jews had to go to the State courts in any litigation including those that concern their superstition unless both parties involved in civil aairs agreed to accept inner-Jewish arbitration. 24 Regardless of the much- disputed ambiguity of this revision of the Code of Theodosian, the State could get involved if inner-Jewish arbitration had failed, as the preface suggests, with possible conicts about positions, ownership of community facilities and the like as a consequence. 22 Veltri (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 similar disadvantageous position, as W. Horbury mentioned to me, Christians sent petitions to the emperor before the reign of Constantine. 23 Codex Theodosianus 16.8.26; Linder, Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, p. 291. 24 Cod. 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 with the omission of non is the law's explicit recognition of Jewish courts. See Linder, Jews in Roman Imperial legislation, pp. 204-207; C. Brewer, The Status of the Jews in Roman Legislation: The Reign of Justinian 527-565 CE, European Judaism 38 (2005), pp. 127139 (132-33). 10 Tnr Grrr Scrirrrrs xn rnr Rxnnis Justinians Novellae frequently include the expression we learnt. 25 In the context of the Novellae, and its frequent occurrences in the prefaces, 26 %"(C'(/ learn has a legal connotation, 27 as knowledge acquired in the process 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 addressed to him. Justinian's prefaces do sometimes invent or use historical data selectively as a precedent for present legislation, 28 to conceal the innovative nature of his legislation behind the references to antiquity, but there is no similar evidence for contrived controversies in the prefaces. Nor is the information concerning the language selection in scriptural recitation a topic 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 had information at his disposal. The Novellas conformation to legal language 25 See, 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<"( =%'C4%)( -H( Q%)-.#/( B('F*4( K#?(/( We have learnt from reports made to us in various ways that wrongs unworthy of our times are committed in Mesopotamia and Osroena. The verb 8*8(^07/would seemto be synonymous with %"(C'(/. For _8(/%)(, see Nov. 7 (p. 61 l. 12); 14 pref. (p. 106 l. 2); 32 pref. (p. 240 l. 2); 40 (p. 259 l. 9); 55 pref. (p. 309 ll. 7-8); 66 (p. 341 l. 31); 75 pref. (p. 379 l. 14); 82 (p. 406 l. 29); 87 pref. (p. 423 l. 17); 110, I (p. 520 l. 20), etc. A variant phrase is: `$C)( )U1 8(H0*( -J1 Q%)-.#"1 8"$6(?-6-41 It has come to the notice of our Serenity (Nov. 115 Pref., p. 534 ll. 30-31). 26 See Archi and Colombo, Novellae Pars Graeca, IV, pp. 1650-51. 27 See the preface of Nov. 88 (p. 425 ll. 21-25): a<761 _("8K41 B7#4/%.(/( Q%H( (-4S-4 b!)# =!@ -H( &"0*$)</( +6%40<c 7"Cd%)(4* !4$$'7*1 !#'--4%)() B()I\6 -*1 ed-60*1. f( +*)$\0"%)( "E-<7" -4*"S-"+L %"C?(-)1 =!*0,%&"<()*( !4$$W74*(g7"@ 8)(*7g (?%h +*4#<0"* -"S-" +<7"*4( R!)$'&4%)(. This word does not occur in Avotins, On the Greek of the Novels or in Idem, On the Greek of the Code of Justinian: A Supplement to Liddell-Scott-Jones Together with Observations on the Inuence of Latin on Legal Greek (Altertumswissenschaftliche Texte und Studien, 17; Hildesheim: OlmsWeidman, 1989). For a selection of additional examples, see Nov. 3 pref. (p. 19 l. 9); 7 pref. (p. 51 l. 21); 26.3.1 (p. 206 ll. 22 and 30); 61 pref. (p. 329 ll. 24-25); 79 pref. (p. 388 l. 7); 137 pref. (p. 695 l. 13); 145 pref. (p. 711 l. 23). 28 Maas, Roman History and Christian ideology, p. 24. 29 N. de Lange, The Hebrew Language in the European Diaspora, Te!uda 12 (1996), pp. 111-37 (133). Jsriixs Novriix 146 s Corrrorxr. Jnxis 11 and Justinians explicit references to the reasons for legislation, whether suggestions from ocials around him or petitions from his subjects, does not preclude the possibility that the controversy and petition of the preamble have been invented for the occasion, but it renders the notion of a wholesale fabrication less self-evident. The Parties in the Conict The 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 the appellation ;&#"541 Hebrew(s), which occurs six times in this decree, 31 but only once in the remainder of the Novellae. 32 The adjective :&#"i+)1 occurs twice and only in Novella 146. 33 The noun may have been used as a mere synonym of j4,+"5k1, which is customary in Justinian's Codex, but occurs in only two of the Novellae, 34 while the adjective j4,+"l7k1 occurs in three. 35 Nowthe meaning of Jew and Jewish is as problematic as that of Hebrew. 36 Even if the term Hebrews, as argued by some, carried subtle connotations of geographical provenance, religious orientation (towards the rabbinic Judaism) or language selection, 37 and even if we would restrict such connotations to certain times or sources, it should be observed that in Novella 146 both factions among the Jews are addressed as Hebrews, 30 a* "E-H( 8W# -H( !#40)(6()8%.(/( Q%5( !#40)$)\0)/( =%'C4%)(, with Hebrews as antecedent. 31 Nov. 146 pp. 714 ll. 7, 14; 715 ll. 14, 15; 717 ll. 3, 28. 32 Nov. 139, preface, p. 700 l. 15: -4m1 B!V n*(+\41 -J1 7D%61 7"@ -4m1 ;&#"<4,1 -J1 -H( o,#</( the inhabitants of the village of Syndya and the Jews in Tyre. 33 Nov. 146, pp. 715 ll. 3, 23. 34 Nov. 45 (p. 277, ll. 16 and 30) and 131 (p. 663 ll. 12 and 18). 35 Nov. 103 (p. 497 l. 2); 109 pref. (p. 517 l. 28); 115 (p. 541 l. 30). 36 H. Solin, Juden und Syrer im westlichen Teil der rmischen Welt, ANRW II 29, 2 (1983), pp. 647-51. Contrast R.S. Kraemer, On the Meaning of the Term Jew in Graeco- Roman Inscriptions, HTR 82 (1989), pp. 3543, on which see Van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs, pp. 68-70. See also A.T. Kraabel, The Roman Diaspora: Six Questionable Assumptions, JJS 33 (1982), pp. 445 64. 37 D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe. II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 12; G. Harvey, The True Israel: Uses of the Names Jew, Hebrew, and Israel in Ancient Jewish and Early Christian Literature (AGJU, 35; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996), pp. 267-73; idem, Synagogues of the Hebrews: Good Jews in the Diaspora, in S. Jones and S. Pearce (eds.), Jewish Local Patriotism and Self-Identication in the Graeco-Roman Period (Sheeld: Sheeld Academic Press, 1998), pp. 13247 (135). 12 Tnr Grrr Scrirrrrs xn rnr Rxnnis which resolutely undercuts any specic connotation for the termHebrew as a party of linguistic or religious preference in this context. 38 The Novella refers three times to liturgical language preferences, twice in the preface and once in the ocial decree of the rst chapter. The conict centers on the use of Hebrew versus Greek, but its mono- or bilingual nature remains vague: is the conict about Hebrewversus Greek, or Hebrew versus Hebrew and Greek? We do know that the Novella still presumes a Hebrewreading practice, whether or not universal in character, thus ruling out the oft-repeated opinion that Justinian prohibits the use of Hebrew altogether. Admittedly, an anonymous synopsis of the Novels produced in the ninth or tenth century suggests as much, but the more contemporary sixth-century abridgement of the Novels by Theodoros Hermopolitanus calls for a bilingual reading practice in which the Hebrew recitation should be followed by a translation into Greek or any other vernacular. 39 The Epitome by Athanasios of Emesa, compiled between 572 and 577 , refers to a recitation in Greek or any other language alongside Hebrew (!"#W -2( p&#"l72(), 40 which could impy a bilingual practice, but as it follows the summary that the Jews (;&#"<4*1) are permitted to read the Holy Scriptures as they wish in Greek, Latin or any other language commoninany place, it would seemto convey that any language is allowed in addition to Hebrew, hence imply a monolingual practice that varies from place to place. The Novella does not permit any rm conclusion about the monolin- gual or bilingual nature of the reading practice Justinian prescribed. On the one hand, the verb !"#"$"%&q()*(, used for Greek in this connection, does not mean to addwhich would imply a bilingual practicebut to use. 41 The same verb is used when Justinian decrees that there shall 38 Pace Rutgers, Justinian's Novella 146, p. 399: Hebrews were not just Jews. They were Jews who knew Hebrew. 39 A. Linder, The Jews in the Legal Sources of the Early Middle Ages (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1997), pp. 154, 32. 40 D. Simon und Sp. Troianos (eds.), Das Novellensyntagma des Athanasios von Emesa (Frankfurt am Main: Lowenklau-Gesellschaft, 1993), p. 130 (3.5); see also n. 69 above. 41 Colorni, Luso del greco, p. 51 n. 222, followed by Lanata, Aliud vates, aliud interpres, p. 121. See Nov. 146, p. 715 ll. 2-5 and ll. 7-12. The possibility of reciting a Hebrew text translitterated into Greek characters, as Rabello mentions (Rabello, Giustiniano, Ebrei, Samaritani, p. 816, must be deemed unlikely in the context of hearers (-451 B74\4,0*() which imply an oral delivery, not a script of writing (p. 715 ll. 7-12). Jsriixs Novriix 146 s Corrrorxr. Jnxis 13 be no license to the commentators which they have, who employ the Hebrew language alone to falsify it at their will: %k(6( -2( :&#"i+" !"#"$"%&q(4,0*. Consequently, the verb does not imply a bilingual read- ing practice. On the other hand, Codex Marcianus reads !#40$"%&q()*( to add instead, a reading the editors of the Novellae have not deemed original at this point. Both the Latin translation of the Authenticum and Codex Laurentianus, which is otherwise considered less authoritative than Codex Marcianus, support the former reading. 42 Still, the existence of the reading !#40$"%&q()*( suggests that the Novella was understood by some to refer to a bilingual practice, as did Theodoros Hermopolitanus. Moreover, the Novella refers to the wish of the Greek-speaking Jews to use Greek as well (4M +L 7"@ -2( p$$6(<+" !"#"$"%&'()*( BF*4S0*), 43 which would seem to preclude a monolingual Greek recitation unless we assume that 7"@ means indeed at this point. 44 This variation in textual history and reception history should not be neutralised too easily. Even if Justinian would seem to refer to a bilingual preference, that only follows if a single community is in view. Were Justinians objectives to transcend any particular local conict, as well may point to practices that vary from community to community, hence suggest practices that vary between monolingual and bilingual readings. There is in fact support for such variety in the Novella, for Justinian explicitly orders to change the language according to context when he permits the use of Greek, or Italian, or simply all the other languages, changing language and reading according to the dierent places (r 7"@ -H( s$$/( [!$H1, -451 -?!4*1 0,%%)-"&"$$4%.(61 -J1 8$D--61 7"@ -J1 +* "E-J1 B("8(D0)/1). 45 Accordingly, the Novella neither prohibits nor prescribes a bilingual practice. 42 See Lanata, Aliud vates, aliud interpres, pp. 121-22; edn. Schll and Kroll, p. 715 l. 5. For an account of the textual history of the Novellae, see T.G. Kearley, The Creation and Transmission of Justinians Novels, Law Library Journal 102 (2010), pp. 377-97. The Authenticum reads tradere, which is typical for its 7"-W !k+"1 style of translation and almost certainly reects the reading !"#"$"%&'()*(; for the Authenticum's translation strategy, see H.J. Scheltema, 'Subseciva XI: Das Athenticum', Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 31 (1963), pp. 275-279; Idem, Opera minora ad iuris historiam pertinentia (Groningen: Chimaira, 2004). 43 Contrast the qualications %?(61 and %k(6( for the Hebrew-speaking Jews. 44 So De Lange, The Hebrew Language, p. 134. 45 P. 715 ll. 13-21. 14 Tnr Grrr Scrirrrrs xn rnr Rxnnis The novel describes the preference for Hebrew among some Jews in terms that suggest Hebrew was more than a scriptural language: some hold on to the Hebrew language alone and want to use it for the reading of the Holy Books. 46 This description is not a tautology, but contains two complementary clauses in contrast to that of their opponents: others are of the opinion that Greek may also be used. 47 Discounting the notion that they stuck to Hebrew as a vernacular, Hebrew apparently had an enshrined 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 and Palestine. Because the novel is addressed to the praetorian prefect of the East, the law applies to a wide geographical area that spans the Eastern Balkans, Asia Minor and the Levantine including Palestine. Although Hebrew lost ground as a vernacular almost everywhere in the second century, it underwent a revival as a learned and liturgical language. 48 As a liturgical and academic language, Hebrew was to last in the long term but, unsurprisingly, the revival came with jolts and tugs, as is evident from the appearance and disappearance of Hebrew inscriptions in Southern Italy during the rst millennium . 49 In Egypt, Hebrew papyri appear from the beginning of the fth c. in a cultural revolution among Jews in the Diaspora. 50 Hebrew eventually made inroads in the Byzantine heartland as well, but our evidence unfortunately dates from a later period, and we know next to nothing about the use of Hebrew in Asia Minor around this time. 51 If waxing rabbinic inuence, or if not specically rabbinic, a more widely sustained process of Hebraisation stand behind the Novella, the original conict could have been anywhere in the realm. Justinian refers 46 P. 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(-"*. 47 P. 715 l. 5: 4M +L 7"@ -J( p$$6(O+" !"#"$"%&q()*( BF*4S0*. 48 N. de Lange, The Revival of the Hebrew Language in the Third Century , JSQ 3 (1996), pp. 34258. 49 See M. Williams, The Jews of Early Byzantine Venusia: The family of Faustinus I, the Father, JJS 50 (1999), pp. 3852. 50 V. Tcherikover, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (3 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, and Harvard University Press, 19571963), vol. I, p. 102. 51 N. de Lange, AThousandYears of HebrewinByzantium, inW. Horbury (ed.), Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999), pp. 147-61. Jsriixs Novriix 146 s Corrrorxr. Jnxis 15 with some uncertainty to 4M !"# "E-451 B#K*I)#)75-"* r !#)0&\-)#4* -,KV( r+*+'07"$4* !#40"84#),?%)(4*, those whoare calledamong themArchipherek- itae, or possibly Presbyters or Didascaloi, 52 perhaps reecting some of the terms used in dierent parts of his Empire while creating a Jewish parallel to similar listings of ecclesiastical authorities like bishops, monks and clergymen. Some of these terms, namely B#K*I)#)75-"* (= !"#$ %&#) and +),-.#/0*1, originated in Palestine, they could have been exported, which +),-.#/0*1 evidently was (see below). Perhaps more signicantly, we have no indication that Hebrew was used in Asia Minor during the early centuries . Paul, who hailed from Asia Minor, and the early Christians used the Septuagint or revisions thereof. Written Greek translations were explicitly permitted by the Tannaim, a permission which was challenged but never revoked by the Amoraim. The identication of selected names in the 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 these Hellenistic areas. 53 R. Meirs reported visit to Minor Asia signals that he did not nd a megilla written in Hebrew. 54 While circumstantial in nature, the evidence suggests that a dearthof Hebrewwas longstanding inthis area well into the Byzantine era. From a regional and long-term point of view, the use of Greek for Scriptural readings was probably widespread before the practice caved in to a Hebrew-only one. Given Justinian's antics, it may seem today that only the faction advo- cating the use of Greek could reasonably have believed to stand a chance of success, forcing their opponents to follow suit and le their own petition in response. But the Novella does not indicate who took the initiative to petition the emperor and such generalisations are of little use. At a local level, it all depends on who were in control of the synagogue, and who challenged which customs, which may have gone either way and no evidence currently in our possession can sway the argument. The Prohibitions 52 The term B#K*I)#)75-"* may be honoric: Linder, Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, p. 411 n. 8. See also Rabello, Giustiniano, Ebrei, Samaritani, II, p. 823 n. 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. 54 t. Meg. 2.5; cf. y. Meg. 4.1, 74d; b. Meg. 18b; b. Ber. 36.8. See also Lieberman, !'$()' *+)%$, , V, p. 1143. 16 Tnr Grrr Scrirrrrs xn rnr Rxnnis Reading Novella 146 is odd for the distinct windows it provides on con- temporary Judaism. On the whole, Justinian places as much emphasis on proper biblical interpretation as on the use of Bible translations in the synagogue. The Novella opens with reference to Jewish adherence to the bare letters and chapter three deals entirely with the hope that the Jews shall turn from the bare letters to the better matters. All this is perhaps not surprising, but requires explanation. However, the focus on interpretation and recitation is compounded with some of Justinians more surprising dos and donts: the prohibitions of the deuterosis in chapter one and three specic beliefs in chapter two. How to account for the 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 had realised 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 is the counterpart of the decisionthat the Hebrews are to read the Scriptures in 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 Christianclaims that the Church represents the true Israel under recourse to the Septuagint, bolstered their claimto truthby their unique possessionof the Oral Tora. This companion to 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. As early as the 4th c. a counter-claimis attested in the Tractatus super Psalmos 2.2-3 by Bishop Hilary of Poitiers, who claimed that anesoteric oral tradition, reaching back to Moses, informed the translation of 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, 55 Baumgarten, Justinian and the Jews, pp. 39-40. So also Parkes, The Church and the 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. 56 M. Bregman, Mishnah and LXX as Mystery: An Example of Jewish-Christian Polemic 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. Jsriixs Novriix 146 s Corrrorxr. Jnxis 17 exclusively of earthly origin, words that are reminiscent of Jerome's ideas about 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 chapter introduces a subject that does not t well withinthe Novella's general focus: And if there are some people among them who shall attempt to introduce ungodly nonsense, denying either the resurrection or the last judgment or that the angels exist as God's work andcreation, we want these people expelled 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 rabbis do not deny any of these notions. Indeed, some scholars have argued that this chapter attacks virtual Jews moulded after the New Testament's and Josephuss portrayal of the Sadducees to highlight their erroneous ways. 58 Whether on his own or in consultation with some clerical advisers, Justinian constructed a Judaism informed by the New Testament and his advisors rather than by real-life observation. Admittedly, such a stereo- typical attack would come as no surprise from an active legislator wont to have late-night discussions with theologians, 59 but its prominent and seemingly isolated position within the Novella begs the question what it is doing there. Perhaps Justinian merely projected unacceptable beliefs that some Christians may have held on an external party, the Jews, in his endeavours to dene Christian orthodoxy, as he was wont to do, and to eectively exclude heresies by making these notions part of the old adversarys belief. As there is no hint whatsoever in the Novella for such concerns with contemporary Christianity, the question what triggered its inclusion remains unanswered. Did Jews actually hold any of the beliefs Justinian accused them of? Some scholars thought that some Jews probably did and argued that Sadducaean concepts may have lingered on, as they also may have had an 57 Baumgarten, Justinian and the Jews, p. 42. 58 So Veltri, Die Novelle 146, pp. 119-20; Rutgers, Justinian's Novella 146, p. 405. For the New Testament, see Mat. 22.23; Marc 12.18; Luke 20.27; Acts 23.8. 59 Gray, Palestine and Justinians Legislation, p. 252, citing Procopius, De bello gothico 3.32.9. 18 Tnr Grrr Scrirrrrs xn rnr Rxnnis impact on the early Karaites. 60 This aspect should be viewed in a wider context of similar charges as Justinians in rabbinic literature itself, such as the locus classicus of m. San. 10.1 with its charge against denial of the resurrection, also commonly ascribed to the Sadducees. 61 But the notions challenged by Justinian and the rabbis should not be ascribed to the Sadducees too rashly. A highly theologically charged dispute between Cain and Abel, sup- plemented to and interwoven with the translation of Gen. 4.8 in targumic literature, has often been aligned with the dierences of opinion between Sadducees and Pharisees. 62 In its various guises, the targumic tradition has 60 Rabello, Giustiniano, Ebrei, Samaritani, p. 824 n. 23. 61 H. 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 Dead for Understanding Rabbinic Polemics, in L.M. Teugels and R. Ulmer (eds.), Midrash and Context: Proceedings of the 2004 and 2005 SBL Consultation on Midrash (Judaism in Context, 5; Piscataway: Gorgias, 2007), pp. 1-15. 62 For the Targums, see J. Ramon Daz, Dos notas sobre el Targum palestinense, Sefarad 19 (1959), pp. 13336; P. Grelot, Les Targums de Pentateuch. Etude comparative daprs Gense 4,3-16, Semitica 9 (1959), pp. 5988; R. le Daut, Traditions targumiques dans le Corpus Paulinien?, Biblica 42 (1961), pp. 2848; G. Vermes, The Targumic Version of Genesis IV 3-16, Aluos 3 (19611962), pp. 82114; M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib, 27; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1966), pp. 156-60; A. D. Macho, Deux nouveaux fragments du TargumpalestinienNewYork, inStudi sul lOriente e la Bibbia oerti a P. Giovanni Rinaldi (Geneva: Studio e Vita, 1967), I, pp. 175 178; J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature: An Introduction to Jewish Interpretations of Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), pp. 132-41; A. Dez Macho, Un nuevo fragmento del Targum palestinense a Genesis, Augustinianum 9 (1969), pp. 120 23; 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 the Mouths of Cain and Abel, Beth Mikra 44 (1971), pp. 583585 (Hebrew); G.J. Kuiper, The Pseudo-Jonathan Targumand Its Relationship to targumOnkelos (Rome: Gregorian University Press, 1972), pp. 49-67; A. Rodriguez Carmona, Targum y resurrecin: Estudio de los textos del 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 Comparative Study 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 de polmica antisaduce, Associaci Bblica de Catalunya 23 (1983); J. Bassler, Cain and Abel in the Palestinian Targums, JSJ 17 (1986), pp. 5664(9); B.B. Levy, Targum Neophyti 1: A Textual Study, (Lanham: University Press of America, 19861987), I, pp. 105-109; U. Glemer, Jsriixs Novriix 146 s Corrrorxr. Jnxis 19 Cain and Abel dispute the last judgment, the world to come, and reward and punishment. 63 In the version of Targum Neoti, where two dierent strands of the tradition come together (which we do not have to date and disentangle 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, and there is no other world, and no giving of good reward to the righteous, and there is no exacting of vengeance from the wicked. Abel spoke up and said to Cain, 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 exacting of vengeance from the wicked in the world to come. The two of them were disputing over the business of this matter on the surface of the eld when Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. The similarity between these topics and those of the PharisaicSadducean disagreements was not lost on scholars, which played a prominent part in dating the various targumic versions of this dispute, although the dispute 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 polemicizing against Hellenized Jews or Judaized Christians. 65 In Shinans view, how- ever, we have here a topos of heresy rather than a specic accusation in contemporary polemics. 66 Should the disputed views necessarily be ascribed to Sadducees, or if not against them, be considered a controversy long done and dusted? Mere tradition, 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 disputed Entstehung und Entwicklung der Targume zum Pentateuch als literarkritisches Problem, dargestellt am 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 Versions of Genesis 4.316, JAB 1 (1999), pp. 12546. 63 See further TargumMal. 3.6 (below) and the PalTgs to Gen. 25.34 (29): Sysling, Tehiyyat Ha-Metim, pp. 104-35; C.T.R. Hayward, A Portrait of the Wicked Esau in the Targum of Codex Neoti 1, in M. McNamara and D. Beattie (eds.), The Aramaic Bible (Sheeld: JSOT, 1994), pp. 291309. 64 See Shinan, -&./0#)'/ 1% -'20!, pp. 303-304, 346. 65 Bassler, Cain and Abel, p. 62; cf. p. 58. 66 Shinan, -&./0#)'/ 1% -'20!, p. 346; Hayward, A Portrait of the Wicked Esau, p. 300. 20 Tnr Grrr Scrirrrrs xn rnr Rxnnis views, because the promoted views had been universally accepted, their prominent 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 this argument, both in general and in particular. In particular, the assumption that the controversy lost its relevance when the sects of the Pharisees and Sadducees disappeared from the scene of history is overly schematic, 68 while it is also questionable that these views were strictly Sadducaean. In general, the argument of self-denition should be checked against the possibility that some contemporaries actually held the denounced articles of faith. If some would deny the last judgement, the World to Come or reward and punishment, there is a very real reason to disseminate these traditions in the synagogue to challenge contemporary dissidents in propagandizing 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 that angels are God's creation. This latter denial subtly diers 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 existence of angels but the beatic afterlife of the righteous as angels, never made this specic point as far as we know (Acts 23.8 is our only source in this regard). 70 The dierence is subtle yet decisive, for the creation of angels is not a topic in the SadduceePharisee opposition, but in the rabbinic 67 See E. Iricinschi and H.M. Zellentin, (eds.) Heresy and Identity in Late Antiquity (TSAJ,119; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). 68 See M. Goodman, Sadducees and Essenes after 70 CE, in S.E. Porter, P. Joyce and D.E. Orton (eds.), Crossing the Boundaries. Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder (Leiden: Brill, 1994), pp. 347-56. 69 See 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, 121-22 (Basilica); p. 155 (Synopsis). 70 Acts 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, should not 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 have understood this text as a straightforward Sadducean denial of the existence of angels. Jsriixs Novriix 146 s Corrrorxr. Jnxis 21 portrayal of the heresy of the Two Powers. 71 There is ample evidence that Gods creation of angels, or their independent existence, represents an issue in rabbinic literature, but one which has no bearing on the belief system of the Sadducees but on what we may loosely term gnostic notions of a divided spiritual realm, in which Gods control over and creation of all angels was challenged. The three disowned beliefs are closely interrelated, even though Jus- tinians third does not feature in the Targums. Bodily resurrection and a nal day of reckoning complement each other in the doctrine of retri- bution and resurrection, which rst appears in apocalyptic circles of the second 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. 73 But not everyone shared these beliefs. These beliefs were challenged by dualists who held that spirit and matter could not truly coexist. Whoever deniedbodily resurrectionhadlittle time for a nal day of reckoning. The correlation between both concepts is negatively expressed in 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, you think that whoever dies in this world has his judgement ceased. 74 Whoever the targumist had in mind, it was not an insignicant group. For gnostics, resurrection was not an eschatological event but at best a metaphor for the ight of the soul from the body. 75 Justinians third notion points to believers in a divided heavenly realm, who extended the docetic challenge to Gods creation to the denial that angels are created. The reference to heretics in Gen. R. 1.7, who claimed that two powers created the world, springs to mind. Who the minimin the rabbinic references to many powers 71 On this heresy, and the creation of angels, see A.F. Segal, Two Powers In Heaven: Early Rabbinic 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 the University of Bristol (London: Routledge, 2002), p. 43. 73 K.J. Madigan and J.D. Levenson, Resurrection: The Power of God for Christians and Jews (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), p. 20. 74 See R.P. Gordon, The Targumists as Eschatologists, SVT 29 (1978), pp. 113-30, who argues that TgJon reects the situation prior to the destruction of the Second Temple. 75 Madigan and Levenson, Resurrection, p. 228. For views on creation, see also E.P. Meijering, God Cosmos History. Christian and Neo-Platonic Views on Divine Revelation, Vigiliae Christianae 28 (1974), pp. 248-276. 22 Tnr Grrr Scrirrrrs xn rnr Rxnnis are remains obcure, since our rabbinic sources are hardly interested in proper descriptions. 76 There is some epigraphical evidence that the variations inthe beliefs of beatic afterlife at the turnof the CommonEra didnot vanishaltogether in the 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 inscription from Jerusalem which states: No one can go up [from the grave]. 78 Some inscriptions appear to distinguish between the %$. and the */%., with the former being laid to peace and the latter being wished eternal life. 79 The concepts of astral immortality, bodily ascension to heaven, and a shadowy existence in the underworld still may have had their believers during the classical rabbinic period. Targumic traditions attest to a largely suppressed form of astral immortality, without bodily resurrection, whereas others reect the belief that the righteous had become angels. 80 According to one of the Jewish Palestinian Aramaic poems, Moses complains at Adam's tomb that he has to die because of the latter's sin, whereuponAdam, stirred from his sleep by Moses's power, ironically retorts from his grave that Moses had been marked for death in the Tora that preceded him by two thousand yearsthe very Tora which he boasted to have brought down to earth. 81 This tradition reects the old belief in a state of shady existence in the netherworld. Another of these Aramaic poems reects the same 76 See Y.Y. Teppler, Birkat haMinim: Jews and Christians in Conict in the Ancient World (TSAJ, 120; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), Ch. 5. 77 For the epigraphical evidence, see the survey by P.W. van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs: An introductory Survey of a Millennium of Jewish Funerary Epigraphy (300 bce700 ce) (CBET, 2; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1991), pp. 114-26. 78 F.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 Pauline Literature (WUNT, 121; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), p. 152. 80 See, e.g., TgJon Judg. 5.31; 2 Sam. 23.4; Isa. 30.26; TosTg 1 Sam. 17.43; TgPsJ Gen. 5.24; Num. 25.12. See W.F. Smelik, On Mystical Transformation of the Righteous into Light in Judaism, JSJ 26 (1995), pp. 12244; J.H. Charlesworth, The Portrayal of the Righteous as 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.E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity (Cambridge, : Harvard University Press, expanded edn. 2006). 81 See Sokolo and Yahalom, !3#4/ &.3 '#&%, no. 40, p. 242. The irony is twofold, because Moses boasts that he brought down Tora from heaven. Jsriixs Novriix 146 s Corrrorxr. Jnxis 23 belief of the grave as an eternal prison as the epitaph referred to above: the angel of death consigns its victims to never-ending imprisonment when he overturns villages and destroys cities / and makes them desolate of residents; / He constrains the population in his prison / He imprisons them forever and ever, and to use the explicit chire of death, he places the maggot in their clothes. 82 Throughout this poem death is irreversible while the afterlife and God receive no mention whatsoever. 83 That the nal couplet suddenly and unexpectedly refers to the reward good deeds bring about smacks of a late revisionof the original poem, and evenso, these nal lines 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 remain rare. More typical of what we know to represent contemporary rabbinic beliefs is a poem which entails a discussion between body and soul and Gods retort that both will be sentenced together on the day of nal reckoning, views which are rmly located in the rabbinic outlook on the hereafter. But elsewhere, too, there are hints of alternative views. Flesher has demonstrated that the author responsible for the compilation of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan seems to have ruled out explicit references to the resurrection of the dead, even when they were present in his sources; 84 exactly why he omitted such references remains unclear, but that alternative understandings of beatic afterlife were in play is plausible. Some Jews, including rabbis, denied the resurrection altogether. Most prominent among their ranks was Elisha ben Abuya, who came to the conclusion that there is no reward and no resurrection of the dead. 85 Elisha may well have become a chire for heresy, 86 but whatever Elisha's 82 M. Sokolo and Y. Yahalom, 1!#%& 5#! &2)*& 1% -&&/#! -&#&% :!3#4/ &.3 '#&% '&+.6&3* *$)"'3 (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1999), no. 58. 83 See M. Kister, */)14 *#&% 1% */1)43 -&+3&* - !3#4/ &.3 '#&%, Tarbiz 76 (2008), pp. 105-84. 84 P.V.M. Flesher, The Theology of the Afterlife in the Palestinian Targums to the Pentateuch: 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 powers in heaven became a completely conventional, stereotypic term. It no longer referred to 24 Tnr Grrr Scrirrrrs xn rnr Rxnnis personal views really were, these traditions point to belief notions which some rabbis once shared with the Sadducees or later exponents of similar beliefs. It follows that Justinians second chapter was probably not directed against the Sadducees as a chire for the perdious beliefs of the Jews, for Sadducees did not deny the creation of angels whereas others, particularly gnostics, or otherwise heretic Jews, did. Certainly it cannot have been adressed at rabbinic Jews, although Justinian did not discriminate between rabbinic Judaism and other Jewish factions, all of whom he simply called Hebrews 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 with the translated Scriptures in the rst chapter obviously took aim at the camp that sought to impose a Hebrew-only recitation on Greek-speaking communities. Conversely, it stands to reason that the second chapter had the Hellenist faction in its sight which held views about resurrection and creation that rabbinic Judaism had come to discard but which had been credible in the Graeco-Roman world before Christianity came to power. The division of the prohibitions over two chapters corresponds to the two factions that petitioned him. Where did he glean these data from? His sources will always remain a matter of speculation, whether we deem the situation his Novella refers to ctional or not. But following the legal model, it is likely that each of the Jewish factions included in what must have been desperate petitions incriminating information about the opposition. The party accused of suppressing a Greek translation would have found itself in a very dicult position to defend to the Greek-speaking emperor, but could have hit back by pointing out that their adversaries maintained a conception of afterlife, justice and creation which contradicted not only rabbinic thought but also central tenets of Christian faith. That would provide the most natural explanation for the inclusion of this chapter in the Novella. By way of contrast, their opponents could point to the rabbinic concept of the Oral Tora that had come to undermine the revelation of the Septuagint and the parity of Christian claims with Jewish ones to representing the true one group (if it ever did) and became relevant to a whole series of groups, becoming a homologous term with those who say there is no power in heaven and those who say there are many powers in heaven. Jsriixs Novriix 146 s Corrrorxr. Jnxis 25 Israel. When Justinian wrote that he had learnt from their petitions, he learnt more about contemporary Judaism than the conict that required his attention in the rst place. The self-image of Justinian as a benign Emperor certainly masks his less than magnanimous attitude towards his Jewish subjects. But even one not particularly known for his pro-Jewish attitudes adheres at this point to both the legal genre and judicial procedures, advocating a middle course which even permits the use of Aquilas version, although of a gentile (=heathen) nature. 87 Aquilas translation was still widespread in Justinians time. 88 These aspects of the law are far less imaginary or tendentious than its claims of Jews given to senseless interpretations. The Novella is not caesaropapism, but legal consequentialism. A Balancing Act Our increased awareness of the importance of literary images in the creation 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 does not rule out reality. Christians were well aware of the synagogue, which according to third and fourth century Church Fathers proved so attractive to many of their coreligionists that they even attended their services. Nor were they unaware of the centrality of reading the Scriptures on Shabbat. 90 Evenif the Novella wouldhave toldus more about the Christianperception of the Jews than about their internal disagreements, this assumption does not warrant the conclusion that Justinian invented an internal Jewish controversy about the suitable languages of Bible recitation as a pretext for his hidden agendas. Justinian's decree, despite its bias, reects a judicious balance between the demands of two parties. It provides a legal place for Greek without 87 The word B$$?I,$41, foreigner, used to describe Philistines in the , here stands for non-believer in contrast to those Jews who produced the Septuagint as if illuminated by a prophetic grace. 88 See now N. de Lange, The Greek Bible Translations of the Byzantine Jews, in P. Magdalino and R. Nelson (eds.), The Old Testament in Byzantium (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2010), pp. 39-54. 89 See also S.J. Shoemaker, Let Us Go and Burn Her Body: The Image of the Jews in the Early Dormition Traditions, Church History 68 (1999), pp. 775823 (783-86). 90 W. Horbury, Early Christians on Synagogue Prayer and Imprecation, in Idem, Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998), pp. 226-43. 26 Tnr Grrr Scrirrrrs xn rnr Rxnnis denying Hebrew its liturgical role, and gives permission to use also Aquila's translation, although he was a gentile and in some readings diers not a little from the Septuagint. Justinians accommodation of a literal translation endorsed by the rabbis looks like a concession to the Hebraists, while he comes down in favour on the Hellenists' side otherwise. 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 sense that the Novella is witness to the rabbinic inuence on reading practices and 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 Justinians less than enthusiastic perception of Jewish practices, the Novellas legal terminology and judicious verdict show that Colornis take should not be dismissed as naive. Justinians give and take, while obviously ltered by his own Christian convictions, was informed by the allegations that had been dropped at his door by the Jewish parties involved.