The Historians of Late Antiquity (35 page)

The glorification of monasticism and of monastic deeds over words brought those who spoke neither Greek nor Latin into historiography in a new way. Many of the monks of Egypt spoke only Coptic. Both Sozomen and Theodoret give special prominence to the monk Ephrem and to the fact that he spoke and wrote only in Syriac (Soz. 3.16; Theod. 4.29.1–3). Sozomen claims that the works of the Greek fathers translated into Syriac would lose their force, but that translations of Ephrem into Greek had been quite successful. Theodoret adds that Ephrem was able to refute the falsehoods of the Greeks in his writing despite his ignorance of the language.

When the emperor Valens asked the monk Aphrahat what he was doing on the road, he said that he was praying for the safety of the empire, according to an anecdote told by Theodoret (4.26). Valens suggested that he should return to his monastery and pray there, but Aphrahat said that his presence was necessary, likening the empire under the persecution of Valens to a neighbor’s house which was on fire. One of the emperor’s attendants who spoke insultingly to the monk paid the price shortly thereafter when he was scalded to death while preparing a bath. Theodoret approves of
the involvement of monks in political and ecclesiastical disputes, saying that the best monks knew when to remain in the desert and when to head to the city (4.27.5).

One way in which the historians demonstrate the piety of an emperor is by noting his favorable attitude toward monks. Socrates describes the exploits of the monk Eutychian, who miraculously freed from chains an imperial official who had been unjustly imprisoned (1.13.1–10). Eutychian then journeyed to Constantinople to plead for the man’s pardon, and Constantine granted his request. The monk Telemachus, according to Theodoret, attended a gladiatorial game while visiting Rome and descended into the arena to separate the combatants (5.26). While the audience was enraged, the emperor Honorius took the lesson to heart, and he abolished the games shortly thereafter.

Sozomen credits the monks with leading the resistance to Arianism (6.27.8–10). In his view, their simplicity and steadfastness ensured the survival of correct doctrine. His praise of their simplicity was in accordance with a predominant theme of the church histories, which held that the complexities of overly sophisticated heretics threatened the purity of true belief. Sozomen also champions the boldness of Ephrem, who preached against the rich men of Edessa during a famine (3.16.12–15). The city leaders were sufficiently chagrined to present him with money to distribute for the feeding of the poor.

Boldness and simplicity could yield less ideal result, as well. Sozomen describes how the followers of Eustathius of Armenia went too far in their teachings about poverty and virginity (3.14.31–7). Some refused even to meet with married people and denounced the rich excessively, and some women acolytes went so far as to cut their hair and dress in men’s clothing. Sozomen also says that while John Chrysostom was favorable toward monasticism and a friend to the monks who lived in the desert, he was hostile toward the monks who lived in the city and meddled in urban affairs (8.9.4–6).

Socrates is particularly critical of the monks of Egypt who insisted on an anthropomorphic view of God, claiming that he possessed eyes, ears, feet, and hands (6.7). Exploiting their belief, Theophilus of Alexandria led a crusade against Origen, who had held, correctly in Socrates’ view, that God was incorporeal. The monks’ views were the result, says Socrates, of their ignorance, illiteracy, and simplicity. Socrates is also critical of the behavior of these same monks during a riot in Alexandria, when they assaulted the prefect Orestes (7.14). Socrates connects this riot to the murder of
the philosopher Hypatia, the daughter of Theron (7.15). He reflects that “nothing is further from the spirit of Christ than allowing killings, fights, and occurrences of that sort” (7.15.6).

Ammianus’ history was composed prior to the great wave of monastic violence at the turn of the fifth century, and so contains no specific mention of monks. Eunapius, however, reveals the attitude of a partisan pagan to the growing influence of monks (Bartelink 1969). Eunapius claims that barbarians entered the empire disguised as monks, a disguise which was not at all difficult, in his view, since merely wearing a gray cloak and tunic marked one out as a monastic “scoundrel” (
fr
. 48.2). Whoever wore this cloak, Eunapius complains, had tyrannical power to destroy religious monuments and temples (
fr
. 56). Those who were called monks, he adds, were men in appearance, but pigs in their way of life. The Christian piety, simplicity, and rejection of urban life at the heart of monastic life which Christian historians celebrated were the very traits which sophisticated pagans found so unfathomable and disgraceful.

Judaism

Late antiquity was a period of rapid change for Judaism as well as for Christianity (Simon 1964/86; Feldman 1993). The destruction of the Jewish Temple in AD 70, and the exclusion of Jews from Jerusalem after the failure of the Bar Kochba revolt in 135, paradoxically invigorated Judaism by strengthening the universal aspects of the religion over the national or ethnic aspects. In the second and third centuries, Judaism was a proselytizing religion which was attractive to many pagans and which competed directly with Christianity for converts. Roman imperial policy had been protective of the Jews, but the legal codes show a gradual shift throughout the fourth century after the conversion of Constantine. The fourth-century emperors alternated between the protection of Jews and the imposition of legal burdens upon them. By the turn of the fifth century, Judaism was in increasing disfavor with Roman authorities; for example, laws were passed in 404 and 418 prohibiting Jews from holding imperial positions. The compilations of the Jerusalem Talmud at the end of the fourth century and of the Babylonian Talmud a few decades later were symbolic of the triumph of a more inward-looking and self-protective form of Judaism in the face of the imperial onslaught. The center of gravity of Judaism itself migrated over the border into Persia, and the
fate of the Jews in the Byzantine east and post-Roman west became increasingly grim as the governments became increasingly theocratic.

Pagan historians had long been contemptuous of the Jews, who were generally characterized as quarrelsome “haters of mankind,” and whose ritual practices, particularly circumcision, were alternately mocked and abhorred (Stertz 1998). Ammianus has very little to say about the Jews, and his account of Julian’s attempt to rebuild the Jewish Temple is curiously lacking in information on the importance of the Temple to either Jews or to Christians (23.1). In a confused passage, Ammianus does quote Marcus Aurelius condemning the Jews as “filthy and rebellious”; while the numerous uprisings of the Jews against Roman rule explain the latter epithet, his criticism of the Jews as “filthy” seems to lack any parallel and still demands scholarly explanation (22.5.5).

Victor’s only substantive mention of the Jews is in connection with the poorly documented revolt in Palestine in 351 or 352, which he attributes to the criminal leadership of a self-styled king, “Patricius” (42.11). This has been alternatively considered a Messianic uprising or a simple attempt at imperial usurpation (Geiger 1979/80). The revolt was quickly crushed by Gallus, according to the short passages on the subject by Socrates (2.33) and Sozomen (4.7.5–6). It has been suggested that Ammianus’ neglect of Gallus’ role in suppressing these disturbances is an example of his bias against the Caesar. Talmudic sources, however, reveal that Ammianus’ patron, Ursicinus, was the commander of the forces which defeated the Jews. It is therefore certain that Ammianus was not motivated by bias in this case, and probable that he related Ursicinus’ success in the lost book 13 (Geiger 1979).

Rufinus treats the Jews only in the context of the attempted rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem under Julian’s sponsorship (10.38–40; Thélamon 1981: 294–309). This carefully crafted section requires, for the sake of narrative suspense, a display of supreme arrogance by the Jews, who are pitted against the wisdom of the bishop Cyril and his interpretation of the Book of Daniel. This portrayal recapitulates an original Christian complaint against the Jews, their inability to properly interpret Scripture so as to identify Jesus as the Messiah. Sozomen begins his history in amazement at this failure: all of the signs were there, yet the Jews stubbornly and inexplicably refused to understand them (1.1.1–8). In reality, the absence of the attempted rebuilding of the Temple from Jewish sources suggests that the Jews were considerably less
enthralled by the plan than Christian sources suggest, perhaps because existing power relationships would be upset by a restoration of the Temple priesthood (Levenson 1990a).

Marcel Simon points out that one of the attractions Judaism had for non-Jews was its festival days, which were publicly celebrated, particularly in the cities of the east (Simon 1964/86: 312–13). The church sought, therefore, to firmly distinguish Easter from Passover in purpose and in date. Socrates reproduces letters from Constantine which rejoice in a synod’s decision to celebrate Easter by the Roman and not the Jewish calendar. But Socrates’ inclusion of a lengthy digression on the controversies arising over the proper date for the celebration of Easter suggests that the coordination of the holiday with Passover remained attractive in later centuries (5.22.1–29). Some Christians even celebrated the Passover seder, arguing, according to Socrates, that they were following in the footsteps of Jesus himself. The historian insists that Jesus’ actions are to be understood only symbolically. His charge that the Jews are too literal-minded and do not understand allegorical readings of history and the Bible is a frequent one in early Christian thought. The danger of “Judaizing” is further revealed by the case of Sabbatius, who according to Socrates led a group of schismatics to celebrate Passover. It appears that God did not approve of their innovation, for a sudden panic arose and seventy people were trampled to death (7.5).

Another attraction of Judaism for the Christians was the reputed skills of Jews in magic and healing. Amulets and charms belonging to non-Jews which contain sometimes garbled versions of “Yahweh” or Jewish prayers have been found throughout the empire. In a story perhaps designed to counteract the popular belief in these Jewish skills, Socrates presented the success of the bishop Atticus, who healed a paralytic Jew by baptism after the prayers of his fellow Jews had failed (7.4).

In cases of strife between Jews and Christians, Socrates tends to favor peace and the secular authorities, despite the fact that imperial authorities were more likely to protect the Jews from Christian mob violence. After repeated conflicts between Jews and Christians in Alexandria, Bishop Cyril led a mob to drive the Jews out of the city and to plunder their belongings (7.13). Socrates’ remark that Jews had inhabited the city since the time of Alexander the Great does not seem triumphant but rather poignant. Orestes, the prefect of the city, was angered by Cyril’s lawless act and complained to the emperor. Five hundred monks from the desert showed up to support Cyril, and one bloodied Orestes with a thrown rock. After
this monk was tortured to death by the secular authorities, Cyril gathered his remains and installed him in a church as a martyr. At this point Socrates says that even good Christians will reject this sort of honor for someone who in no way was killed for refusing to renounce Christ. Socrates reveals his idea of the proper way to deal with violent outbreaks in his description of an incident which took place in Syria (7.16). A group of drunken Jews, he claims, beat and then crucified a young boy. Conflict arose between the Jews and Christians of the area, but as soon as matters were handled through proper channels and the emperor was informed, the malefactors were dealt with promptly.

Socrates includes several more interesting anecdotes about the Jews in his last book, where most of his Jewish material is concentrated. He describes a Jew who repeatedly underwent baptism with different Christian groups, collecting a payment from each one (7.17). This story is designed to boost the reputation of the Novatians, Socrates’ favored sect, since it was a Novatian bishop who discovered the fraud when the baptismal font refused to fill with water. The story suggests that the conversion of a Jew could win a Christian leader considerable renown, since Socrates describes a large crowd gathered around to witness the miracle. Socrates is also the only writer to describe the activities of a certain pseudo-Moses in Crete (7.38). This false messiah convinced many Jews of the island that he would lead them to the promised land, and after abandoning their property they followed him to a cliff and began to hurl themselves into the sea. Socrates concludes by claiming that many of the Jews who survived, disgusted by their own credulousness, converted to Christianity. The story seems to repeat in an allegorical form the traditional charges of literal-mindedness and stubbornness pressed against the Jews.

Sozomen shows his knowledge of the law regarding the Jews in a passage on religious legislation under the sons of Constantine. Jews were forbidden from purchasing a non-Jewish slave, and the punishment for a Jew circumcising his slave was death (3.17.4–5). Sozomen explains that this legislation was designed to prevent Jewish proselytizing and to thereby ensure that pagans were converted to Christianity rather than to Judaism, which was clearly seen as an attractive rival to the church. Elsewhere Sozomen provides a typical piece of anti-Jewish polemic when he claims that Jews are rather close to paganism, and are in danger of backsliding into sacrifice because of their insufficiently allegorical understanding of the Bible (5.22.3).

It is perhaps symptomatic of Orosius’ western origins that in his complex, biblically based system of history the Jews play so small a role. By tying Christianity so tightly to Rome, it seems that he has loosened the connection between Christianity and Judaism which preoccupied Greek thinkers. Unlike the eastern Greek church historians, for whom Jews were a constant presence and possible threat, for Orosius the Jews remain a national group and not an ideological challenge. Orosius does, of course, see the defeat of the Jews by Titus and the destruction of the Temple in providential terms, as just punishment for the Jewish role in the crucifixion (7.9.2). In Orosius’ history, however, all disasters are considered just punishment for some sin or other. The sins of the Jews were in no way as interesting to the historian as the sins of the pagans and the Christians, and the disasters these sins brought upon the west.