andrewcriddle

This is a good discussion of Deuterosis in Christian usage.

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley

Here's the way I pick the Novella apart, keeping in mind that we are dealing with a translation, and one that we see was not averse to add interpretation to the translation:

	from James Parkes: The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism, (New York: JPS, 1934), 392-393	G R S Mead, Did Jesus Live 100 BC? page 86-87:
	8.ii.553. Nov.146. Justinian to Areobindas, P.P.	Justinian, who, as early as 553 A.D., honoured it [the Talmud] by a special interdictory Novella
1	A Permission granted to the Hebrews to read [aloud] the Sacred Scriptures according to Tradition [in their synagogues], in Greek, Latin or any other Language,	[see 11-17]
2	and an Order to expel from their community those who do not believe in the judgment, the Resurrection, and the Creation of Angels.	[see 29-39]
3	Preface. Necessity dictates that when the Hebrews listen to their sacred texts [being read]	[see 1]
4	they should not confine themselves to the meaning of the letter,	[interpret by semantics, see 18-21]
5	but should also devote their attention to those sacred prophecies which are hidden from them,	[by not also being read in a language known to the listeners, see 16]
6	and which announce the mighty Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.	[see 16]
7	And though, by surrendering themselves to senseless interpretations, they still err from the true doctrine,	[see 18-21]
8	yet, learning that they disagree among themselves [about the proper language for reading scriptures], we have not permitted this disagreement to continue without a ruling on our part.	[excuse for Interdiction]
9a	From their own complaints which have been brought to us, we have understood that
9b	some only speak Hebrew, and wish to use it for the sacred books,
9c	and others [who do not speak Hebrew] think that a Greek translation should [also] be added,
9d	and that they have been disputing about this for a long time.
10	Being apprised of the matter at issue, we give judgment in favour of those who wish to use Greek also for the reading of the sacred scriptures, or any other tongue which in any district allows the hearers better to understand the text.	[Justinian renders his judgement]
11	Ch. I. We therefore sanction that, wherever there is a Hebrew [i.e., Jewish] congregation, those who wish it may, in their synagogues, read the sacred books [the Law & Prophets] to those who are present in Greek, or even Latin, or any other tongue.	[Mead is apparently in error in asserting "By this outrageous Novella the wretched Hebrews … were strictly forbidden to read the Law in Hebrew"]
12	For the language changes in different places, and the reading changes with it, so that all present may understand, and live and act according to what they hear.	[Justinian's commentary as to why comprehending what is written is the better way]
13	Thus there shall be no opportunity for their interpreters [i.e., the commentators], who make use only of the Hebrew [books of the Law and Prophets incl Psalms], to corrupt it in any way they like, since the ignorance of the public conceals their depravity.	[this could refer to either the mishna or the gemara]
14	We make this proviso that those who use Greek shall use the text of the seventy interpreters,	[technically, the "seventy" were those who translated the five books of the Law]
15	which is the most accurate translation, and the one most highly approved, since it happened that the translators, divided into two groups, and working in different places, all produced exactly the same text.	[this is the story as recounted in the Letter of Aristeas which recounts the translation of only the Law. See R H Charles, APOT vol 2 pg 83ff]
16a	i. Moreover who can fail to admire those men, who, writing long before the saving revelation of our mighty Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,	["those men" = the translators of the Prophets and Writings]
16b	yet as though they saw its coming with their eyes [they] completed the translation of [all] the sacred books as if the prophetic grace was illuminating them.	[thus allowing "Christianity" to have developed among gentiles]
17a	This* therefore they shall primarily use,	[*i.e., Greek translations of Law & Prophets under the acronym "Septuagint" = the Christian OT]
17b	but that we may not seem to be forbidding all other texts we allow the use of that of Aquila, though he was not of their people, and his translation differs not slightly from that of the Septuagint [Lxx].	[Aquila was said to have been a convert to Judaism]
18	ii. But [that which] they call […] the second tradition, we prohibit entirely.	Per Meade, "This 'second edition' can hardly mean anything else than the Mishna and its completions, for the Greek equivalent of mishna was deuterwsis, generally taken by those imperfectly acquainted with Hebrew to signify some 'second rank' or form of the Law, instead of 'learning' in the secondary sense of 'repetition.' "
19	For it is not part of the sacred books,	[see 14]
20	nor is it handed down by divine inspiration through the prophets,	[see 16]
21	but the handiwork of man, speaking only of earthly things, and having nothing of the divine in it.	[reason why the second tradition is prohibited]
22	But let them read the holy words [of scriptures in translation] themselves [in community],	[reason why a second language known to the hearers should also be read aloud]
23	rejecting the commentaries,	[see 4, 18 & 21]
24	and not concealing what is said in the sacred writings,	[by not reading them in the language understood by the listeners]
25	and disregarding the vain writings which do not form a part of them, which have been devised by them themselves for the destruction of the simple.	[see 4, 18 & 21]
26	By these instructions we ensure that no one shall be penalised or prohibited who reads the Greek or any other language.	[the "teeth" in the ruling]
27	And their elders, Archiphericitae and presbyters, and those called magistrates, shall not by any machinations or anathemas have power to refuse this right,	[the "teeth" in the ruling]
28	unless by chance they wish to suffer corporal punishment [flogging] and the confiscation of their goods, before they yield to our will and to the commands which are better and clearer to God which we enjoin.	[the "teeth" in the ruling]
29	Ch.II. If any among them seek to introduce impious vanities, denying the resurrection or the judgment, or the work of God, or that angels are part of creation, we require them everywhere to be expelled forthwith;	[See 2. This could be a ruling aimed at Jewish Gnostics]
30	that no backslider raise his impious voice to contradict the evident purpose of God. Those who utter such sentiments shall be put to death, and thereby the Jewish people shall be purged of the errors which they introduced.	[the "evident purpose of God" clearly means "the revelation of Jesus Christ"]
31	Ch. III. We pray that when they hear the reading of the books in one or the other language,	[Justinian's wish]
32	they may guard themselves against the depravity of the interpreters,	[see 18 & 23]
33	and, not clinging to the literal words,	[see 4]
34	come to the point of the matter, and perceive their diviner meaning,	[that you see things the way Christians do]
35	so that they may start afresh to learn the better way,	[that you see things the way Christians do]
36	and may cease to stray vainly, and to err in that which is most essential, we mean hope in God.	[that you see things the way Christians do]
37	For this reason we have opened the door for the reading of the scriptures in every language, that all may henceforth receive its teaching, and become fitter for learning better things.	[If you live in the USA, imagine this kind of law being imposed on Jews today, or requiring that Sunni mosques to provide Shia hadith to contrast their own, or vice versa, etc]
38	For it is acknowledged that he, who is nourished upon the sacred scriptures and has little need of direction, is much readier to discern the truth, and to choose the better path,	[that you see things the way Christians do]
39	than he who understands nothing of them, but clings to the name of his faith alone, and is held by it as by a sacred anchor, and believes that what can be called heresy in its purest form is divine teaching.	[see 4, 18 & 23]
40	Epilogue. This is our sacred will and pleasure, and your Excellency and your present colleague and your staff shall see that it is carried out, and shall not allow the Hebrews [the Jews] to contravene it.	[that you see things the way Christians do]
41	Those who resist it or try to put any obstruction in its way, shall first suffer corporal punishment [flogging], and then be compelled to live in exile, forfeiting also their property, that they flaunt not their impudence against God and the empire.	[that you see things the way Christians do]
42	You shall also circulate our law to the provincial governors, that they learning its contents may enforce it in their several cities, knowing that it is to be strictly carried out under pain of our displeasure.	[in order to ensure that the Hebrews come to see things the way Christians do]

What a tangle! Justinian introduced himself into the "long time dispute" about whether the scriptures should be read only in Hebrew, or read in both Hebrew and/or a translation comprehended by the listeners, siding with those who sought the latter. However, by adding the prohibition of interpretation of the read passages from a secondary source, it seems he hoped that it would force Jews to see what the "interpreters" are "hiding" from them, the obvious superiority of the Christian understanding of God's plan for the world (amen).

DCH

Duvduv

But he wasn't promuigating a general law about Jews, he was only referring to the case at hand. And I understood that he was also trying to be helpful to Jews to eliminate internal Jewish heretics from Jewish communities. And the issues relating to the Greek language have nothing directly to do with what kind of commentaries or teachings there are in Jewish law that had never been interfered with in law since the time of Constantine.
That's why the whole thing sounds so confusing.
i also read Andrew's link but still don't follow the point. What was ever changed by Justinian or any other emperor in the observance of the Jews based on the Torah and halacha? The Christians presumably always had these negative views about the halacha, but it didn't affect the observances of the Jews under law. There was never any law outlawing the observance of rabbinic Judaism. And in this case it is directed to one realm or community of Areobindus, but is presented as something brand new.

DCHindley

Politicians have done this for ages: One one hand to give something to one side (Jews who opposed Minim and those who wanted to read the scriptures in a language understood by the listeners) and take away with the other hand (prohibit interpretation of scriptures from the mishna).

Until this edict, that is. In the article, Edgecomb makes a distinction between the meaning of deuterwsis before and after it took on the nature of a technical term for the Jewish "mishna" in the 5th century.

I think you miss the point that the Civil Law was a compilation of earlier laws, often cited under the name of the juror who defined it. Justinian ruled 527 to 565.

Depends on which Areobindus he was referring to. The first Areobindus to be named Consul was a Goth who became part of the political class of the Eastern Roman Empire, and was consul 434. His son Dagalaiphus was consul in 461. But his grandson Areobindus Dagalaiphus Areobindus held the consulate in 506. The Areobindas in the Novella was a Praetorian Prefect (Praetorian prefecture of the East) in 553 CE, so I don't think it was either the first or second ones noted above, although he may have had some kinship relationship.

DCH

Duvduv

If it's confusing and even outright bunk, then why would historians waste time confusing people and presenting "proofs" for absolutely nothing as in this case??!

To sum up, this little case of Justinian is useless and means absolutely nothing except some kind of propaganda. After all, did Aerobindus call out the Empire's version of the Red Guards or KGB and destroy Jewish books here or anywhere else in the empire? Was this followed up with anything in Roman law? The answer is no. So what good is it?!

DCHindley

FWIW, I updated that earlier post.

I guess folks read into things what they want to. The reason I broke things down like I did was to make it easier to determine whether the things folks like Mead or others say about this Novella are possible or even likely. I don't know enough about Latin in general, or the Greek of this period, to tell if there are a number of interpretations woven into the translation. I know it was done to bolster the interpretation of "deuterwsis" as meaning the mishna, but whether his translation is also trying to counter the idea that Justinian didn't want them reading their scripture in Hebrew I cannot say. The way this translation comes off, it looks like Justinian used an opportunity to adjudicate between Jewish factions over the value of the Greek translations in worship, to indoctrinate Jews with the Greek scriptures the Christians used to form their theology about Jesus Christ.

When he ordered that "[the Jewish] elders, Archiphericitae and presbyters, and those called magistrates, shall not by any machinations or anathemas have power to refuse this right [to read the Greek translations, etc]," Justinian gave it teeth: "your Excellency [Areobindus] and your present colleague and your staff shall see that it is carried out, and shall not allow the Hebrews [the Jews] to contravene it."

I'm not sure what you're getting upset about. Whether it was unfair or not means only that in 553, in a matter relating to the jurisprudence of the eastern empire, Justinian told a legal prefect to do this in his prefecture, where Greek was the common language of both pagans and Jews. The way I look at it, though, it may be bunk but it is what it was.

DCH

Duvduv

Sorry, Dave. I wasn't getting upset. I just increasingly find myself not appreciating more cases of interpretations of professional historians when it is relevant to ancient Jewish matters. Similarly, a historian can present information without discussing the implications within a context, such as the idea that gentiles would be using phylacteries or mikvehs, thereby taking statements by ancient sources at face value.

mountainman

This may be tangential to your previous mention of Justinian, however ....

From the archives: Annotated Justinian Code online :


Followed by a link to (Ancient Forgeries -- by lawful decree)


Here is clear evidence of ancient forgery and manufacturing of narratives for political (legal) purposes.


That these people also forged and manufactured narratives for religious purposes is therefore to be expected.

Duvduv

In this case we are only talking about a letter which is not a law or decree, which is internally contradictory, and which actually makes no sense

So based on the idea of invented laws, we can say that it is all the moreso the case here.
It also makes it worthwhile to examine laws themselves as forgeries.
And perhaps the canons of ecumenical councils as well.
As I mentioned earlier, some of those canons make no sense at all.
And alleged complaints by john Chrysostom make even less sense.

mountainman

Bullneck's Christian forgery mill was commissioned and Justinian inherited it.


Over the course of many centuries it was used to harmonize history.

"We must not see the fact of usurpation;
law was once introduced without reason,
and has become reasonable. We must make
it regarded as authoritative, eternal, and
conceal its origin, if we do not wish that
it should soon come to an end."

~ Blaise Pascal, Pensees