Duvduv

When the Theodosian Codes talk about forbidding marriage between "Christians" and Jews, conversion of Christians to Judaism, punishing Jews for interfering with a Jew converting to "Christianity" ("the sacred cult"), while at the same time guaranteeing the rights of Jews based on old Roman law, WHICH "Christians" does the code actually mean in the late 4th century?

Given the fact that the orthodox were supposedly at war with "heretics," how did the regime determine who was a "Christian" and who wasn't for purposes of such laws? Were they only referring to card-carrying members of the Constantinian church, or does it include various heretics who were not even deemed "Christians"?

Canons from the Laodicea councils forbade "Christians" from accepting matzah from Jews on Passover, attending synagogues, and wearing phylacteries. I find this very hard to understand since the NT and doctrines are very clear about the distinctions between Judaism and Christianity in terms at least of following the Law.
Besides, it is highly unlikely that someone believing in "Christ" would be interested in all this, and that a Jew would offer his tefillin or matzah to someone who is not Jewish and who believes in salvation by Christ.

It all sounds rather peculiar. Perhaps these texts suggest that a "Christian" is merely a non-Jew who is attracted to Judaism but who is nominally a Christian because he says he believes in Jesus. But given all the conflicts of christology and doctrine in the 4th century, it's hard to know whether this definition would even be satisfactory either for the regime or for the clergy.

Toto

In order to be considered a heretic, you must be a Christian. If you do not claim to be a Christian, you cannot be a heretic.

Roman laws did not actually concern themselves with things that actually were problems, and were not necessarily enforced as written.

I think you are creating a problem where none exists.

Duvduv

But if Christianity meant an orthodox believer, then someone who never was an orthodox believer could never have been a Christian. The heresiologist propaganda would intend to assume that other sects had originally followed their orthodox path and then veered away. But in fact sects never were part of the orthodox to begin with and therefore couldn't be deemed to be "Christians" under the codes etc.

What's your view of the other issue about Judaism?

mountainman

This is a logical fallacy. Any opinion that was not orthodox (canonical) christian was (deemed) heretical.




The Barbarians, Scythians, Hellenes, Jews, Stoics, Platonists and Pythagoreans were NOT christians.





What?



They were just scribal practice?



If you fail to perceive the possibility that the heretics were not necessary Christian, then you dont see the problem in the first place.

sotto voce

In order to be considered a heretic, you must call yourself a Christian. If you do not claim to be a Christian, you cannot be a heretic. "Heretics!" is what heretics call each other in order to disguise their heresy.

aa5874

Your post does NOT make much sense. It must be expected that Roman Laws did concern themselves with problems and it was that for PRECISE reason why the LAWS were implemented.

It is completely unrealistic and illogical that Romans Laws were WILDLY implemented and for NO reason.

Duvduv

However, when prohibitions were made in relation to "Christians" pertaining to contact with Jews, if a sect did not follow the official church, how could they be considered "Christian" especially when it is not clear that all sects that believed in Jesus called themselves that? So if Arian or Appolonians had relationships with Jews, why would they fall under a prohibition that assumes uniformity of faith, which doesn't seem to fit in the 4th century at all??

sotto voce

Prohibition is only as good as the policing that gives it significance. If Arians or other 'heretics' could be forced to do anything at all, they could be forced to be 'orthodox'.

Toto

definition of hereticI know Pete has that one link that lists everything as a heresy, and I have not taken the time to investigate it, but the first is the standard definitions. A pagan is not a heretic. A Jew is not a heretical Christian, although a professed Christian who adopts Jewish beliefs may be. All through history, up to and including the present, some Christians have been attracted to Jewish beliefs and practices, which has at times created issues for orthodoxy.

This distinction is important in understanding the Inquisition, and is the generally accepted use of the term for the purposes of history and religious studies. If you want to use an alternate meaning, you need to clarify what you are talking about.

Duvduv

Toto, what would have been the definition of a Christian who fell under the rules of the canons or Theodosian code? Presumably an Arian would say he never belonged to the established church and that an Arian was not a "Christian." Is it possible such laws are anachronistic to the 4th century and came much later when there was an established Christian church that just about everybody was a part of?