Between Cross & Crescent: Did the Jews of Syria and Palestine Aid Islam’s Rise?
.jpg)
The seventh century was an age when the boundaries between faith, politics, and survival dissolved in the dust of armies. As the Roman and Sasanian empires bled from decades of war, another question flickered across the Levantine horizon: did the Jews of Syria and Palestine—the long-persecuted remnant of an ancient people—assist the advancing Muslims?
For more than a millennium, Christian & Muslim chroniclers have whispered this, and modern historians have wrestled with its plausibility. It is a claim rooted not merely in the clash of religions, but in the collapse of imperial certainties. To understand it, one must descend into the twilight world left behind by Justinian’s persecutions, Heraclius’ triumphs and retributions, and the disillusion of Jewish communities caught between an empire that oppressed them and a new power promising God’s justice.
After the Justinianic era (6th century), Jewish life in the East Mediterranean had already been scarred by waves of forced conversion, synagogue closures, and heavy taxation. Justinian’s obsession with theological unity—his drive to purify the empire under Chalcedonian orthodoxy—made Jews permanent outsiders within the Roman oikoumene. Even their economic resilience in Galilee, Tiberias, and the Golan could not mask the erosion of their civic rights.
Then came the Heraclian age (610–641 CE), which began in fire and ended in exhaustion. The Final Roman–Persian war (602–628) devastated the Near East; when the Persians overran Palestine and Syria, Jewish militias reportedly joined them, avenging centuries of Roman discrimination. The Chronicon Paschale and later Christian sources accused Jews of participating in the massacre of Christians in Jerusalem in 614 CE—a charge mingled with propaganda, fear, and memory. But when Heraclius reconquered the region, his retribution was merciless: punitive taxes, expulsion from Jerusalem, and mass forced baptisms sanctioned by imperial decree.
Thus, by the time Islam emerged from Arabia, the Jews of the Levant were living amid imperial debris—disillusioned, dispossessed, and spiritually alienated from Constantinople. For them, the Roman “Christian Empire” had become the symbol not of divine order but of historical humiliation. It is in this landscape—of crushed rebellions, ruined synagogues, and theological despair—that later Muslim chroniclers would place the idea of a Jewish–Muslim understanding, a supposed “pact” that opened the gates of Syria and Palestine to Islam’s armies, but was this alliance real? Or merely a myth?
This post will probe the evidence—Greek, Syriac, and Arabic—to test whether Jewish “collaboration” was strategic, spontaneous, or entirely imagined.
In the ashes of two empires, could the Jews of Palestine have glimpsed in Islam not conquest—but deliverance?
I. The Justinianic Legacy – Law, Heresy, and the Jewish Condition
🕊️ When Justinian I ascended the throne in 527 CE, the Roman world stood at once in majesty and in ruin. From Constantinople, the marble citadel of the Bosporus, the emperor surveyed an empire stretched from the Balkans and Asia Minor ➜ to Syria, Egypt, and the deserts of Arabia, yet haunted by insecurity and fracture. As Peter Sarris observes, Justinian inherited not Augustus’ confident empire but a wounded one—bereft of Rome, Gaul, and Africa, shadowed by “a profound sense of anxiety, failure, and insecurity.” Determined to restore the grandeur of the ancient Caesars, Justinian launched colossal wars of reconquest, rebuilt his capital in splendor, and redefined the very ideology of rulership. But in his ambition to forge a Christian Rome, he did not merely conquer provinces—he sought to conquer souls.
⚖️ In his vast legal overhaul—the Corpus Juris Civilis—Justinian did what no ruler before him dared: he codified faith into law. Every heresy became sedition; every dissent, treason. His empire was to be not just Roman but Orthodox, a republic of salvation ruled through decree. Under this vision, the Jews, once a tolerated though restricted community, became an anomaly to be legislated away. They were the people of the old covenant, now seen as obstinate deniers of truth within a state that claimed to embody God’s new order.
🔥 Synagogues were shuttered, rabbinic courts curtailed, and the reading of the Torah in Hebrew was forbidden in certain regions unless interpreted according to imperial doctrine. The Justinianic laws of the Codex and the Novellae transformed Judaism into a civic disability. The emperor’s zeal was not a spontaneous act of malice—it was systematic theology turned to policy, a fusion of Roman autocracy + Christian exclusivism ➜ the birth of medieval intolerance.
🕎 For the Jews of Palestine, Syria, and Egypt, this marked a turning point in their thousand-year survival under empire. Once the heirs of ancient Jerusalem, they now lived as stateless natives within their ancestral land, their sacred texts subject to imperial scrutiny, their leaders stripped of recognition, their faith tolerated only as a living memory of divine rejection. Justinian’s rule, cloaked in the rhetoric of order and piety, thus achieved something profound: it made religious marginality a condition of Roman citizenship.
⚔️ The stage was set. By welding law, empire, and theology into one iron structure, Justinian not only shaped Rome—he created the psychological prison from which many Jews would later see deliverance in the unlikeliest of powers: the armies from Arabia.
⚖️ I.A – The Codex and the Curse: How Justinian Legislated Judaism
🕎 Between April and July of 527 CE, as the aged Emperor Justin I prepared to die and his nephew Justinian rose beside him as co-Augustus, a new decree was issued from Constantinople—a document deceptively framed as a restoration of old laws, but in truth the opening salvo of an ideological war.
This edict was the first explicit piece of legislation of Justinian’s reign, jointly signed by uncle and nephew. Its timing was deliberate: a statement of intent before the younger emperor seized full power. The law barred Jews, Samaritans, and all “heretics”—Manichaeans, pagans, and dissenting Christians—from holding public office, practicing law, or participating in civic administration. It also privileged Orthodox Christians in family disputes, ensuring that the Orthodox parent would always control the religious upbringing and inheritance of children.
📜 What at first seems administrative—who can hold office—was in reality a theological revolution. Justinian and Justin declared that the empire’s unity depended on spiritual purity:
“We call heretic everyone who is not devoted to the Catholic Church and to our Orthodox and holy Faith.”
This was a redefinition of citizenship itself. Orthodoxy became the measure of civic worth; deviation became contagion. The edict went so far as to label non-Orthodox believers as pollutants—their very touch “defiling,” their names “not to be spoken.” Jews and Samaritans, grouped with pagans and Manichaeans, were formally declared unworthy of the imperial service and thus excluded from the machinery of the state.
🕎 Between April and July of 527 CE, as the aged Emperor Justin I prepared to die and his nephew Justinian rose beside him as co-Augustus, a new decree was issued from Constantinople—a document deceptively framed as a restoration of old laws, but in truth the opening salvo of an ideological war.
This edict was the first explicit piece of legislation of Justinian’s reign, jointly signed by uncle and nephew. Its timing was deliberate: a statement of intent before the younger emperor seized full power. The law barred Jews, Samaritans, and all “heretics”—Manichaeans, pagans, and dissenting Christians—from holding public office, practicing law, or participating in civic administration. It also privileged Orthodox Christians in family disputes, ensuring that the Orthodox parent would always control the religious upbringing and inheritance of children.
📜 What at first seems administrative—who can hold office—was in reality a theological revolution. Justinian and Justin declared that the empire’s unity depended on spiritual purity:
“We call heretic everyone who is not devoted to the Catholic Church and to our Orthodox and holy Faith.”
This was a redefinition of citizenship itself. Orthodoxy became the measure of civic worth; deviation became contagion. The edict went so far as to label non-Orthodox believers as pollutants—their very touch “defiling,” their names “not to be spoken.” Jews and Samaritans, grouped with pagans and Manichaeans, were formally declared unworthy of the imperial service and thus excluded from the machinery of the state.
🏛️ From Tolerance to Theocracy
Earlier emperors, from Theodosius II to Anastasius, had occasionally imposed restrictions on Jews but rarely enforced them consistently. Jewish officials, physicians, and tax collectors still operated within the Roman system, especially in provincial cities such as Tiberias, Caesarea, and Antioch. Justinian’s decree changed that.
It revived dormant prohibitions—long “fallen into desuetude,” as the law itself confessed—and made them active instruments of persecution. Henceforth, the empire’s bureaucratic ladder was a ladder of faith: Jews could not climb it; Samaritans were chained to its lowest rung, the Cohortalins, municipal servitors bound by hereditary obligation. This was not merely exclusion—it was degradation, a legal caste system of belief.
The law’s language drips with triumphalism and paranoia in equal measure:
“It shall then be possible for all to perceive that even what pertains to human advantages is withheld from those who do not worship God rightfully.”
To Justinian, divine favor and civic privilege were one and the same. Those who rejected Orthodox Christianity did not merely err—they forfeited the blessings of the empire itself. The emperor saw his own justice as a mirror of God’s, his laws as the earthly reflection of heavenly order.
Earlier emperors, from Theodosius II to Anastasius, had occasionally imposed restrictions on Jews but rarely enforced them consistently. Jewish officials, physicians, and tax collectors still operated within the Roman system, especially in provincial cities such as Tiberias, Caesarea, and Antioch. Justinian’s decree changed that.
It revived dormant prohibitions—long “fallen into desuetude,” as the law itself confessed—and made them active instruments of persecution. Henceforth, the empire’s bureaucratic ladder was a ladder of faith: Jews could not climb it; Samaritans were chained to its lowest rung, the Cohortalins, municipal servitors bound by hereditary obligation. This was not merely exclusion—it was degradation, a legal caste system of belief.
The law’s language drips with triumphalism and paranoia in equal measure:
“It shall then be possible for all to perceive that even what pertains to human advantages is withheld from those who do not worship God rightfully.”
To Justinian, divine favor and civic privilege were one and the same. Those who rejected Orthodox Christianity did not merely err—they forfeited the blessings of the empire itself. The emperor saw his own justice as a mirror of God’s, his laws as the earthly reflection of heavenly order.
🔥 Faith as Bureaucracy, Punishment as Piety
The decree’s reach extended beyond the state into the household. In mixed-faith families, if one parent was Orthodox and the other was not, the Orthodox parent’s will “was the stronger.” The law ordered that any child choosing Orthodoxy must be supported financially by their non-Orthodox parent—forcing apostasy by economic dependency. Even dowries were regulated to reward conversion and punish dissent.
💡 Imperial ideology thus invaded the home, the synagogue, and the conscience.
It weaponized inheritance law to manufacture conformity and transformed fatherhood itself into an instrument of religious discipline.
At the same time, the law deputized the Church hierarchy to monitor enforcement. The patriarch of Constantinople and the metropolitans of the provinces were commanded to ensure that civil authorities obeyed the edict. Bishops became imperial informants, fusing the ecclesiastical and the administrative into one coercive arm.
This was more than legislation—it was a blueprint for total Christian empire:
-
🏛️ Law became catechism.
-
⛪ The Church became police.
-
⚔️ The emperor became high priest.
The decree’s reach extended beyond the state into the household. In mixed-faith families, if one parent was Orthodox and the other was not, the Orthodox parent’s will “was the stronger.” The law ordered that any child choosing Orthodoxy must be supported financially by their non-Orthodox parent—forcing apostasy by economic dependency. Even dowries were regulated to reward conversion and punish dissent.
💡 Imperial ideology thus invaded the home, the synagogue, and the conscience.
It weaponized inheritance law to manufacture conformity and transformed fatherhood itself into an instrument of religious discipline.
At the same time, the law deputized the Church hierarchy to monitor enforcement. The patriarch of Constantinople and the metropolitans of the provinces were commanded to ensure that civil authorities obeyed the edict. Bishops became imperial informants, fusing the ecclesiastical and the administrative into one coercive arm.
This was more than legislation—it was a blueprint for total Christian empire:
-
🏛️ Law became catechism.
-
⛪ The Church became police.
-
⚔️ The emperor became high priest.
🌍 The Logic and the Hope Behind the Law
Why such severity? To Justinian, the answer was clear. His empire, fragmented by wars, schisms, and heresies, was teetering between divine order and chaos. By purging heresy, he believed he could restore cosmic balance. The law was meant to demonstrate that the world itself was not stable unless it was Orthodox. In his mind, the restriction of Jews and Samaritans was an act of mercy—discipline designed to bring about their eventual enlightenment.
In this delusion lay the paradox of Justinian’s piety:
He persecuted in the name of salvation, believing coercion could heal the soul.
Justinian’s hope, if one can call it that, was eschatological. To him, the empire was the vessel of divine truth, its unity a precondition for the Second Coming. By legislating uniform faith, he was hastening the redemption of the world. To resist was to obstruct salvation itself. Thus, the Jew and the Samaritan were not merely non-citizens—they were cosmic obstacles.
Why such severity? To Justinian, the answer was clear. His empire, fragmented by wars, schisms, and heresies, was teetering between divine order and chaos. By purging heresy, he believed he could restore cosmic balance. The law was meant to demonstrate that the world itself was not stable unless it was Orthodox. In his mind, the restriction of Jews and Samaritans was an act of mercy—discipline designed to bring about their eventual enlightenment.
In this delusion lay the paradox of Justinian’s piety:
He persecuted in the name of salvation, believing coercion could heal the soul.
Justinian’s hope, if one can call it that, was eschatological. To him, the empire was the vessel of divine truth, its unity a precondition for the Second Coming. By legislating uniform faith, he was hastening the redemption of the world. To resist was to obstruct salvation itself. Thus, the Jew and the Samaritan were not merely non-citizens—they were cosmic obstacles.
🕯️ A Shadow Cast Forward
Justinian’s first law against the Jews thus did more than regulate bureaucracy; it rewrote the metaphysics of citizenship. In this “Orthodox Republic,” one could be loyal to the empire only by confessing its creed. To be a Jew was to live in contradiction—Roman by law, rejected by law.
This was the psychological scar left upon the Jewish communities of Palestine and Syria. When, a century later, Arab armies appeared on the horizon, those who remembered these decrees knew the price of Roman mercy. To them, the empire’s law had become a sermon of exclusion.
Justinian’s first law against the Jews thus did more than regulate bureaucracy; it rewrote the metaphysics of citizenship. In this “Orthodox Republic,” one could be loyal to the empire only by confessing its creed. To be a Jew was to live in contradiction—Roman by law, rejected by law.
This was the psychological scar left upon the Jewish communities of Palestine and Syria. When, a century later, Arab armies appeared on the horizon, those who remembered these decrees knew the price of Roman mercy. To them, the empire’s law had become a sermon of exclusion.
💰 I.B – Blood and Belief: The Law of Orthodox Children Inheriting from Jewish and Samaritan Parents
📜 Between 527 and 528 CE, barely a year after the edict that expelled Jews and Samaritans from public service, another law quietly emerged from the imperial chancery. Preserved in the Constitutionum Ecclesiasticarum Collectio and placed by editors between Codex Justinianus 1:5:12 (527) and 1:5:19 (529), this decree extended Justinian’s persecution from the courtroom to the cradle, from civic service to family inheritance.
Though unsigned, its spirit bears Justinian’s unmistakable hand: a fusion of legal precision and theological absolutism. Drawing heavily on an earlier law of Valentinian III (426 CE), it confirmed and expanded the privileges of Orthodox children born to heretical, Jewish, or Samaritan parents. The empire had already excluded non-Orthodox citizens from office; now it penetrated the household, decreeing that faith, not kinship, determined the right to inherit.
📜 Between 527 and 528 CE, barely a year after the edict that expelled Jews and Samaritans from public service, another law quietly emerged from the imperial chancery. Preserved in the Constitutionum Ecclesiasticarum Collectio and placed by editors between Codex Justinianus 1:5:12 (527) and 1:5:19 (529), this decree extended Justinian’s persecution from the courtroom to the cradle, from civic service to family inheritance.
Though unsigned, its spirit bears Justinian’s unmistakable hand: a fusion of legal precision and theological absolutism. Drawing heavily on an earlier law of Valentinian III (426 CE), it confirmed and expanded the privileges of Orthodox children born to heretical, Jewish, or Samaritan parents. The empire had already excluded non-Orthodox citizens from office; now it penetrated the household, decreeing that faith, not kinship, determined the right to inherit.
⚖️ The Law in Brief – Faith Over Blood
The text is concise, chillingly so:
“The Orthodox children of heretics, who have not sinned against them, shall receive undiminished what is due to them in intestacy; a last will done in violation of this shall be invalidated… The same also in regard to Jews and Samaritans.”
The clauses carried revolutionary implications:
➡️ A. Faith guaranteed inheritance.
Orthodox heirs were to receive their full legal share (amēiōton lambanousi), even if their non-Orthodox parents disinherited them by will. Any testament contravening this was nullified by the state.
➡️ B. Apostasy was rewarded, piety penalized.
A Jewish or Samaritan child who converted to Orthodoxy was legally favored over siblings who remained faithful to their ancestral law.
➡️ C. Even rebellion could not sever the bond.
Should the Orthodox child “sin against” his parents—denouncing them or opposing their beliefs—he still retained a quarter of the inheritance. The law rewarded betrayal with security.
➡️ D. Religion, not relationship, defined legitimacy.
Faith became the true kinship recognized by the state; family bonds were valid only if sanctified by Orthodoxy.
The text is concise, chillingly so:
“The Orthodox children of heretics, who have not sinned against them, shall receive undiminished what is due to them in intestacy; a last will done in violation of this shall be invalidated… The same also in regard to Jews and Samaritans.”
The clauses carried revolutionary implications:
➡️ A. Faith guaranteed inheritance.
Orthodox heirs were to receive their full legal share (amēiōton lambanousi), even if their non-Orthodox parents disinherited them by will. Any testament contravening this was nullified by the state.
➡️ B. Apostasy was rewarded, piety penalized.
A Jewish or Samaritan child who converted to Orthodoxy was legally favored over siblings who remained faithful to their ancestral law.
➡️ C. Even rebellion could not sever the bond.
Should the Orthodox child “sin against” his parents—denouncing them or opposing their beliefs—he still retained a quarter of the inheritance. The law rewarded betrayal with security.
➡️ D. Religion, not relationship, defined legitimacy.
Faith became the true kinship recognized by the state; family bonds were valid only if sanctified by Orthodoxy.
🏛️ The Logic of Coerced Salvation
To Justinian’s mind, this law was not theft—it was salvific correction. A parent who rejected Orthodoxy forfeited divine favor and thus the moral right to transmit property. The emperor’s reasoning followed a stark syllogism:
1️⃣ Only those who worship rightly live rightly.
2️⃣ Property, as a gift of Providence, belongs to the righteous.
3️⃣ Therefore, only the Orthodox may inherit the fruits of divine order.
Behind the cold phrasing of Codex Justinianus 1:5:13 lay a chilling theology of possession: the empire as executor of God’s will. Wealth and inheritance were no longer civil matters—they were sacraments of allegiance.
Justinian’s project, in essence, transformed conversion into a fiscal incentive. By rewarding Orthodox offspring and invalidating the wills of Jewish or Samaritan parents, he sought to fragment communities from within, making loyalty to empire more profitable than loyalty to one’s family or faith.
To Justinian’s mind, this law was not theft—it was salvific correction. A parent who rejected Orthodoxy forfeited divine favor and thus the moral right to transmit property. The emperor’s reasoning followed a stark syllogism:
1️⃣ Only those who worship rightly live rightly.
2️⃣ Property, as a gift of Providence, belongs to the righteous.
3️⃣ Therefore, only the Orthodox may inherit the fruits of divine order.
Behind the cold phrasing of Codex Justinianus 1:5:13 lay a chilling theology of possession: the empire as executor of God’s will. Wealth and inheritance were no longer civil matters—they were sacraments of allegiance.
Justinian’s project, in essence, transformed conversion into a fiscal incentive. By rewarding Orthodox offspring and invalidating the wills of Jewish or Samaritan parents, he sought to fragment communities from within, making loyalty to empire more profitable than loyalty to one’s family or faith.
💔 The Human Cost – Families Torn by Creed
Imagine the implications in the towns of Tiberias, Neapolis, and Caesarea, where Jewish and Samaritan communities still held ancestral property and communal estates. A single conversion—an Orthodox son or daughter—could legally seize the inheritance of the entire family, aided by Christian courts eager to enforce imperial law.
💠 A father faithful to the Torah could not trust his own will.
💠 A Samaritan mother could not protect her children’s patrimony unless they accepted the creed of Constantinople.
💠 A convert could profit from parental piety, while parents were forced to subsidize their own displacement.
This was not an accidental cruelty; it was a policy of engineered apostasy. The empire no longer needed the sword—it could now convert through the pen.
Imagine the implications in the towns of Tiberias, Neapolis, and Caesarea, where Jewish and Samaritan communities still held ancestral property and communal estates. A single conversion—an Orthodox son or daughter—could legally seize the inheritance of the entire family, aided by Christian courts eager to enforce imperial law.
💠 A father faithful to the Torah could not trust his own will.
💠 A Samaritan mother could not protect her children’s patrimony unless they accepted the creed of Constantinople.
💠 A convert could profit from parental piety, while parents were forced to subsidize their own displacement.
This was not an accidental cruelty; it was a policy of engineered apostasy. The empire no longer needed the sword—it could now convert through the pen.
🕯️ The Meaning Behind the Measure
This second law reveals the true heart of Justinian’s program: control through moral economy. The emperor’s ambition was not merely to punish unbelief but to reshape social inheritance itself, binding faith to wealth, lineage, and legitimacy.
By regulating inheritance, Justinian placed the family under surveillance—the last frontier of private conscience. The empire now decided who was a true son or daughter, not by birth, but by belief.
To be “Orthodox” was no longer a confession of faith—it was a license to inherit civilization itself.
This second law reveals the true heart of Justinian’s program: control through moral economy. The emperor’s ambition was not merely to punish unbelief but to reshape social inheritance itself, binding faith to wealth, lineage, and legitimacy.
By regulating inheritance, Justinian placed the family under surveillance—the last frontier of private conscience. The empire now decided who was a true son or daughter, not by birth, but by belief.
To be “Orthodox” was no longer a confession of faith—it was a license to inherit civilization itself.
⚖️ Legacy and Foreshadowing
This law, issued in the twilight between Justin’s death and Justinian’s coronation, prefigures the entire moral economy of late Rome, an empire where salvation was bureaucratized, where law became a mirror of creed, and where the children of dissenters were taught to inherit not their fathers’ lands, but their emperor’s faith.
For the Jews and Samaritans of the Near East, these measures confirmed what experience already whispered: that under Roman rule, justice had become a theological monopoly.
This law, issued in the twilight between Justin’s death and Justinian’s coronation, prefigures the entire moral economy of late Rome, an empire where salvation was bureaucratized, where law became a mirror of creed, and where the children of dissenters were taught to inherit not their fathers’ lands, but their emperor’s faith.
For the Jews and Samaritans of the Near East, these measures confirmed what experience already whispered: that under Roman rule, justice had become a theological monopoly.
⚖️ I.C – Flesh and Faith: The Law Forbidding Jews and Pagans from Owning Christian Slaves
Between the first waves of Justinian’s legal reforms, a new decree emerged from the imperial chancery — terse, moralizing, and absolute.
Preserved in Codex Justinianus 1:10:2, this law forbade pagans, Jews, Samaritans, and all heretics from possessing Christian slaves, ordering that such slaves be immediately freed and imposing a crushing fine of thirty gold pounds on their former masters.
Though its inscription is fragmentary, its intent is unmistakable:
👉 to place ownership itself under the surveillance of Orthodoxy.
Justinian’s empire had already invaded the household through inheritance law; now it reached into the marketplace, sanctifying freedom not as a human right, but as a privilege of creed.
Between the first waves of Justinian’s legal reforms, a new decree emerged from the imperial chancery — terse, moralizing, and absolute.
Preserved in Codex Justinianus 1:10:2, this law forbade pagans, Jews, Samaritans, and all heretics from possessing Christian slaves, ordering that such slaves be immediately freed and imposing a crushing fine of thirty gold pounds on their former masters.
Though its inscription is fragmentary, its intent is unmistakable:
👉 to place ownership itself under the surveillance of Orthodoxy.
Justinian’s empire had already invaded the household through inheritance law; now it reached into the marketplace, sanctifying freedom not as a human right, but as a privilege of creed.
⚖️ The Text in Brief – Creed Over Property
“A pagan, Jew, Samaritan, or anyone not Orthodox cannot possess a Christian slave. For that slave shall be freed, and the possessor shall give thirty pounds to the Private Properties.”
This brief decree contained a theology of dominion in miniature:
➡️ A. Orthodoxy defined ownership.
Property rights were now conditional upon the owner’s faith. To be non-Orthodox was not simply heretical — it was legally disqualifying.
➡️ B. Christian slaves of Jews or pagans were granted automatic freedom.
The state claimed divine jurisdiction over the souls of slaves: a Christian could not remain under the authority of an unbeliever, for bondage to heresy was deemed worse than bondage itself.
➡️ C. The empire fined the master, not for cruelty, but for impiety.
The punishment was fiscal theology — a thirty-pound penalty to the imperial treasury (the Privatae), turning confiscation into a ritual of atonement.
➡️ D. Ownership became a sacrament of faith.
The decree implied that only the Orthodox could truly possess — all others held property illegitimately before God.
“A pagan, Jew, Samaritan, or anyone not Orthodox cannot possess a Christian slave. For that slave shall be freed, and the possessor shall give thirty pounds to the Private Properties.”
This brief decree contained a theology of dominion in miniature:
➡️ A. Orthodoxy defined ownership.
Property rights were now conditional upon the owner’s faith. To be non-Orthodox was not simply heretical — it was legally disqualifying.
➡️ B. Christian slaves of Jews or pagans were granted automatic freedom.
The state claimed divine jurisdiction over the souls of slaves: a Christian could not remain under the authority of an unbeliever, for bondage to heresy was deemed worse than bondage itself.
➡️ C. The empire fined the master, not for cruelty, but for impiety.
The punishment was fiscal theology — a thirty-pound penalty to the imperial treasury (the Privatae), turning confiscation into a ritual of atonement.
➡️ D. Ownership became a sacrament of faith.
The decree implied that only the Orthodox could truly possess — all others held property illegitimately before God.
🩸 The Logic of Doctrinal Dominion
In Justinian’s vision, the marketplace was a reflection of the cosmos — every hierarchy had to mirror divine order.
Thus, if Orthodoxy alone was truth, then only the Orthodox could rule over others. The law rested on a grim syllogism:
1️⃣ Those outside Orthodoxy live in spiritual darkness.
2️⃣ No Christian soul may serve darkness.
3️⃣ Therefore, heretics and Jews must be deprived of Christian servants.
Behind this reasoning lay a theology of ownership-as-evangelism:
by depriving Jews and pagans of Christian slaves, the emperor claimed to “liberate” bodies in order to preserve souls. In reality, he reinforced a social apartheid where Orthodox dominance became synonymous with divine justice.
In Justinian’s vision, the marketplace was a reflection of the cosmos — every hierarchy had to mirror divine order.
Thus, if Orthodoxy alone was truth, then only the Orthodox could rule over others. The law rested on a grim syllogism:
1️⃣ Those outside Orthodoxy live in spiritual darkness.
2️⃣ No Christian soul may serve darkness.
3️⃣ Therefore, heretics and Jews must be deprived of Christian servants.
Behind this reasoning lay a theology of ownership-as-evangelism:
by depriving Jews and pagans of Christian slaves, the emperor claimed to “liberate” bodies in order to preserve souls. In reality, he reinforced a social apartheid where Orthodox dominance became synonymous with divine justice.
💔 The Human Cost – Households Undone
The law’s effects rippled through the eastern Mediterranean:
💠 In Antioch, Jewish households engaged in trade and domestic service suddenly found their servants declared free — a loss of labor and livelihood cloaked in piety.
💠 In Gaza and Caesarea, Christian slaves owned by Samaritan families became instruments of surveillance; a single denunciation could bankrupt an entire household.
💠 In Alexandria, where Jews still held positions in commerce, Orthodox merchants gained new leverage — the law became both theological decree and economic weapon.
This was not emancipation. It was selective liberation, freedom dictated by creed and confiscation — a performance of justice in which the empire played both savior and thief.
The law’s effects rippled through the eastern Mediterranean:
💠 In Antioch, Jewish households engaged in trade and domestic service suddenly found their servants declared free — a loss of labor and livelihood cloaked in piety.
💠 In Gaza and Caesarea, Christian slaves owned by Samaritan families became instruments of surveillance; a single denunciation could bankrupt an entire household.
💠 In Alexandria, where Jews still held positions in commerce, Orthodox merchants gained new leverage — the law became both theological decree and economic weapon.
This was not emancipation. It was selective liberation, freedom dictated by creed and confiscation — a performance of justice in which the empire played both savior and thief.
🕯️ The Meaning Behind the Measure – The Moral Economy of Dominion
This law reveals Justinian’s obsession with purity through possession.
To him, the empire was a living church — a hierarchy of sanctified ownership in which faith dictated rights.
The Jewish merchant and the Samaritan farmer, who once lived under imperial tolerance, now found their faith transformed into a civil disability.
By fusing theological purity with economic control, Justinian ensured that heresy would no longer merely damn the soul — it would also impoverish the household.
This law reveals Justinian’s obsession with purity through possession.
To him, the empire was a living church — a hierarchy of sanctified ownership in which faith dictated rights.
The Jewish merchant and the Samaritan farmer, who once lived under imperial tolerance, now found their faith transformed into a civil disability.
By fusing theological purity with economic control, Justinian ensured that heresy would no longer merely damn the soul — it would also impoverish the household.
🏛️ Legacy and Foreshadowing
This decree would echo for centuries in Roman and Western law, embedding the principle that religious hierarchy justified social inequality.
For the Jews of Syria and Palestine, the message was unmistakable:
their property, their livelihoods, even their servants, could be confiscated in the name of Orthodoxy.
It was a spiritual caste system written into law — a prelude to the alienation that would define their existence on the eve of Islam’s rise.
This decree would echo for centuries in Roman and Western law, embedding the principle that religious hierarchy justified social inequality.
For the Jews of Syria and Palestine, the message was unmistakable:
their property, their livelihoods, even their servants, could be confiscated in the name of Orthodoxy.
It was a spiritual caste system written into law — a prelude to the alienation that would define their existence on the eve of Islam’s rise.
⚖️ I.D – Truth on Trial: The Disqualification of Jews and Heretics as Witnesses Against Orthodox Christians
Addressed to Johannes, Praefectus Praetorio of the East, this decree — preserved in Codex Justinianus 1:5:21 — answers a question posed by judges themselves:
👉 Could heretics, Jews, or pagans testify in trials involving Orthodox Christians?
The emperor’s response was unequivocal: No.
He declared that those “who practice the Jewish superstition” or any heresy could not bear witness against the Orthodox in any case — civil or criminal — even if the Orthodox party was only one side in the dispute.
The law was not merely procedural. It was a theological manifesto disguised as jurisprudence — a statement that truth itself belonged to the Church.
Addressed to Johannes, Praefectus Praetorio of the East, this decree — preserved in Codex Justinianus 1:5:21 — answers a question posed by judges themselves:
👉 Could heretics, Jews, or pagans testify in trials involving Orthodox Christians?
The emperor’s response was unequivocal: No.
He declared that those “who practice the Jewish superstition” or any heresy could not bear witness against the Orthodox in any case — civil or criminal — even if the Orthodox party was only one side in the dispute.
The law was not merely procedural. It was a theological manifesto disguised as jurisprudence — a statement that truth itself belonged to the Church.
⚖️ The Law in Brief – Creed as Criterion of Credibility
“We determine that there shall be no participation of a heretic, or even of those who practise the Jewish superstition, in testimonies against Orthodox litigants…”
Justinian then outlined a hierarchy of admissibility:
➡️ A. Jews and heretics were barred from testifying against any Orthodox.
Their oaths were deemed unreliable because they lacked “right belief.” Legal testimony, once a civic duty, became an act of faith.
➡️ B. Jews and heretics could testify only among themselves.
In disputes within their own communities, their words were valid — but only within the quarantined space of unbelief.
➡️ C. Manichaeans, Borborites, pagans, Samaritans, Montanists, Tascodrogites, and Ophites were excluded entirely.
They were considered outside law itself — incapable of performing any juridical act. Their voices were not merely untrusted; they were legally annihilated.
➡️ D. Testamentary and contractual testimony was allowed “for necessity’s sake.”
In matters of wills and contracts, practical need forced the emperor to tolerate Jewish and heretical witnesses — but only as an exception to avoid bureaucratic paralysis.
“We determine that there shall be no participation of a heretic, or even of those who practise the Jewish superstition, in testimonies against Orthodox litigants…”
Justinian then outlined a hierarchy of admissibility:
➡️ A. Jews and heretics were barred from testifying against any Orthodox.
Their oaths were deemed unreliable because they lacked “right belief.” Legal testimony, once a civic duty, became an act of faith.
➡️ B. Jews and heretics could testify only among themselves.
In disputes within their own communities, their words were valid — but only within the quarantined space of unbelief.
➡️ C. Manichaeans, Borborites, pagans, Samaritans, Montanists, Tascodrogites, and Ophites were excluded entirely.
They were considered outside law itself — incapable of performing any juridical act. Their voices were not merely untrusted; they were legally annihilated.
➡️ D. Testamentary and contractual testimony was allowed “for necessity’s sake.”
In matters of wills and contracts, practical need forced the emperor to tolerate Jewish and heretical witnesses — but only as an exception to avoid bureaucratic paralysis.
🩸 The Logic of Theological Evidence
This law revealed Justinian’s deepest ambition: not simply to rule bodies, but to monopolize truth.
His reasoning ran like this:
1️⃣ Only the Orthodox confess the true God.
2️⃣ Only truth proceeds from the true faith.
3️⃣ Therefore, testimony from the unfaithful cannot reveal truth in law.
Thus, courtroom credibility became a sacrament of Orthodoxy. The witness stand became an altar where faith and law were indistinguishable.
To be a Jew or a heretic was to live under a permanent presumption of falsehood — not because of moral failing, but because one’s creed invalidated one’s conscience.
This law revealed Justinian’s deepest ambition: not simply to rule bodies, but to monopolize truth.
His reasoning ran like this:
1️⃣ Only the Orthodox confess the true God.
2️⃣ Only truth proceeds from the true faith.
3️⃣ Therefore, testimony from the unfaithful cannot reveal truth in law.
Thus, courtroom credibility became a sacrament of Orthodoxy. The witness stand became an altar where faith and law were indistinguishable.
To be a Jew or a heretic was to live under a permanent presumption of falsehood — not because of moral failing, but because one’s creed invalidated one’s conscience.
💔 The Human Cost – The Silenced and the Suspect
Imagine the consequences in the markets of Tiberias or the courts of Caesarea:
💠 A Jewish merchant cheated by an Orthodox debtor could no longer swear an oath against him — his word had no legal standing.
💠 A Samaritan victim of assault could not testify against his attacker if the assailant was Orthodox.
💠 A Christian heretic — a Monophysite or Nestorian — could defend neither himself nor another against a Chalcedonian accuser.
The courtroom, once the last refuge of the powerless, became an extension of the Church nave — where unbelief was inaudible.
This law thus weaponized silence: it rendered whole communities mute before imperial justice.
Imagine the consequences in the markets of Tiberias or the courts of Caesarea:
💠 A Jewish merchant cheated by an Orthodox debtor could no longer swear an oath against him — his word had no legal standing.
💠 A Samaritan victim of assault could not testify against his attacker if the assailant was Orthodox.
💠 A Christian heretic — a Monophysite or Nestorian — could defend neither himself nor another against a Chalcedonian accuser.
The courtroom, once the last refuge of the powerless, became an extension of the Church nave — where unbelief was inaudible.
This law thus weaponized silence: it rendered whole communities mute before imperial justice.
🕯️ The Meaning Behind the Measure – The Empire as Arbiter of Truth
This law illuminates Justinian’s conception of law as theology.
He did not see himself as silencing Jews — he saw himself as protecting truth from impurity.
In practice, however, the decree institutionalized a hierarchy of humanity:
Orthodox Christians spoke truth; Jews and heretics spoke noise.
It was a spiritualized caste system where speech itself required salvation.
This law illuminates Justinian’s conception of law as theology.
He did not see himself as silencing Jews — he saw himself as protecting truth from impurity.
In practice, however, the decree institutionalized a hierarchy of humanity:
Orthodox Christians spoke truth; Jews and heretics spoke noise.
It was a spiritualized caste system where speech itself required salvation.
🏛️ Legacy and Foreshadowing – From Law to Memory
By expelling Jewish voices from the courtroom, Justinian set a precedent that echoed through Roman and later canon law.
The Jew was no longer just an outsider in faith — he became an outsider to truth, a figure whose words could neither accuse nor defend.
For the Jews of Palestine and Syria, this silencing deepened the alienation already bred by taxation, exclusion, and forced conversions. When the armies of Islam later crossed the desert, they did not find a Jewish people loyal to Constantinople — they found one long rendered voiceless by its laws.
⚖️ I.E – Chains of Faith: The Interdiction on Jewish, Pagan, and Heretical Ownership of Christian Slaves
Addressed to Johannes, Praefectus Praetorio of the East, this decree — preserved in Codex Justinianus 1:3:54 (56) — followed closely upon the imperial reconquest of Vandal Africa.
It was not only a moral pronouncement but a political manifesto: a declaration that faith now defined the limits of ownership.
Justinian, fresh from restoring imperial rule to North Africa, learned that Jews still held Christian slaves in Carthage and the surrounding provinces — a scandal in the emperor’s eyes, for it inverted the divine hierarchy of master and believer.
Thus, he reissued and expanded earlier prohibitions:
👉 No Jew, pagan, or heretic may possess a Christian slave.
Those found guilty would lose their human property — the slaves were to be freed immediately, “according to the tenor of our previous laws.”
But Justinian went further still. He introduced a startling new clause:
Even non-baptized slaves owned by Jews or pagans who desired to become Orthodox were to be emancipated the moment they converted.
Faith itself became the key to freedom.
⚖️ The Law in Brief – Orthodoxy as the Measure of Ownership
“We order in a repeated law that no Jew, pagan, or heretic shall have Christian slaves. If found in such guilt, we determine the slaves are free in any way whatsoever… And if the masters later convert, they shall not retake into slavery those who preceded them into the Orthodox faith.”
➡️ A. Renewed Prohibition – The emperor reaffirmed existing bans (dating back to Theodosius II) forbidding Jews, pagans, or heretics from holding Christian slaves. Any violation annulled ownership ipso facto.
➡️ B. Liberation Through Conversion – If an unbaptized slave under a Jewish, pagan, or heretical master desired baptism, that act itself dissolved the bond of servitude. The bishop or provincial governor was ordered to enforce emancipation.
➡️ C. Irreversibility Clause – Should a Jewish master later accept baptism, he could not reclaim the freed convert. The Christian slave’s spiritual seniority conferred permanent legal freedom.
➡️ D. Enforcement and Penalties – Governors, Church protectors (defensores ecclesiae), and bishops were made responsible for policing these laws.
Contempt of the edict was punishable by confiscation, heavy fines — and even death.
💥 The Divine Economy – When Salvation Rewrote Property Law
Justinian’s decree transformed salvation into a legal transaction.The act of conversion became not only spiritual liberation but civil manumission.
A slave’s baptism voided his master’s title — a theological revolution with economic consequences.
This logic fused Church and State into a single mechanism:
1️⃣ The Church granted baptism.
2️⃣ The Empire enforced freedom.
3️⃣ The convert became both a new soul and a new citizen — liberated in body and belief.
Yet this sanctified freedom was profoundly conditional.
It was granted only when conversion aligned with Orthodoxy.
A Jew who freed a Christian was not virtuous — he was criminal.
A Christian who enslaved a Jew was not cruel — he was faithful.
Justice was measured not by mercy, but by creed.
🩸 The Human Scene – Carthage After the Cross
Picture Africa, 534 CE:
Belisarius’ banners still flutter over Carthage. The Vandals’ Arian churches lie silent. The synagogues are half-closed, their leaders weary of new decrees.
Now comes the edict — a fusion of sword and sermon:
💠 A Jewish merchant in Hippo Regius loses his household slaves because one declares, “I believe.”
💠 A catechumen owned by a pagan landholder finds in baptism both his God and his legal emancipation.
💠 A bishop stands beside the governor’s court, declaring with triumph, “Faith frees the body as it frees the soul.”
But beneath this triumph lay terror. Freedom became a reward for denunciation — a slave’s faith could destroy his master.
Religion became both shield and weapon, and baptism, the empire’s most powerful act of confiscation.
🔥 The Theology of Dominion – When Mastery Required Orthodoxy
Justinian’s law assumed a sacred hierarchy:
-
The Orthodox command.
-
The heretic obeys.
-
The Jew endures.
-
The pagan disappears.
Ownership itself became a theological privilege.
A slave’s faith could now outweigh his master’s wealth.
In this way, the emperor sacralized social order while simultaneously subverting it — the “lowly” convert could, by divine right, rise above his unbaptized master.
To the emperor, this was divine justice.
To the Jews of Carthage, it was legalized dispossession.
The empire’s theology of ownership left no middle ground:
You could be Orthodox and free, or unbelieving and unfit to rule — even over your own household.
⚖️ I.F – The Shattered Altars: Justinian’s Edict on Jews, Pagans, and Heretics in Africa
Addressed to Salomon, Praefectus Praetorio of Africa, and drafted by Tribonian, the emperor’s jurist and architect of sacred tyranny, this decree (Novellae 37) descended upon Africa less than a year after its reconquest from the Vandals.
The Council of Carthage (early 535), led by Reparatus, bishop of Carthage, had petitioned the emperor for harsher measures against Arians — the defeated faith of the Vandal kingdom. The result was this law: a manifesto of religious purification masquerading as restoration.
🕍 Its declared aim: to “restore the venerable churches of Justinian's Carthage and all the sacrosanct churches of the African diocese.”
⚔️ Its true operation: to extinguish every unorthodox breath beneath the shadow of the Cross.
What began as a campaign of reconstruction ended as an inquisition of possession, prayer, and presence.
📜 The Law in Brief – The Emperor’s Will Over Africa
“We order that neither Arians, Donatists, Jews, nor any who do not observe the Orthodox religion shall have any participation in ecclesiastical rites...
Their synagogues shall not stand; they shall be transformed into churches...
And the heretics shall neither baptize, nor ordain, nor perform any sacred rite whatsoever.”
➡️ A. The Reconstruction of Churches – All properties, ornaments, and vessels once belonging to Orthodox churches — and now held by Arians, pagans, or others — were to be confiscated and “forcibly restored” to the Church. No delay, no compensation, no appeal.
➡️ B. Exclusion of the Unorthodox – Arians, Donatists, Jews, and pagans were banned entirely from “ecclesiastical rites.” The law demanded not only their absence but their erasure: “no license shall be given them to ordain bishops, baptize, or drag anyone to their madness.”
➡️ C. Civic Disqualification – All heretics were expelled from public life: “They shall not administer any public office… nor rule over the Orthodox, for it is enough that they live.”
This chilling phrase — “sufficit eis vivere” — reduced the existence of every dissenter to mere tolerance of their breath.
➡️ D. The Jewish Prohibitions – Two clauses singled out the Jews:
1️⃣ They shall not possess Christian slaves or catechumens.
2️⃣ Their synagogues shall not stand, but shall be converted into churches.
➡️ E. The Abolition of Pagan Spaces – Even caves, shrines, or remote sanctuaries (“speluncas”) used for worship were banned. No altar was too hidden, no god too forgotten to escape imperial cleansing.
➡️ F. Privileges to the Church of “Justinian Carthage” – The city, renamed after the emperor himself, was elevated to metropolitan status and crowned with “imperial privileges.” Its bishops were endowed with the same authority as the patriarchs of the East — guardians now of both faith and law.
➡️ G. Sanctuary and Control – Churches became sites of legal asylum for all but three crimes: murder, rape of virgins, and violation of the Christian faith.
Even mercy, in Justinian’s empire, wore the stamp of creed.
💥 The Mechanism of Suppression – Faith as Civil Architecture
This law was not a local measure — it was the architecture of orthodoxy, built brick by brick across the African coast.
The emperor’s design was total:
-
To cleanse the land of heterodoxy,
-
To fuse Church and State in a single hand,
-
And to leave no legal or physical space for rival faiths to breathe.
🩸 Possession became proof of sanctity; belief became property.
The confiscation of Arian and Jewish holdings served not merely economic ends — it was sacramental plunder, sanctified by imperial signature.
Each church restored to the Orthodox was a symbol of subjugation — a monument to the empire’s new theology of conquest:
To conquer the soul is to inherit the land.
🕎 Against the Jews – The Law of Unbelonging
The Jewish communities of Carthage, Hippo, and Tripolitania — heirs to centuries of settlement since Roman times — were targeted as both religious and social threats.
Their faith was called nefanda (“abominable”), their rites madness, their sanctuaries illegal architecture.
-
Their synagogues were to be seized and reformed “into the figure of churches.”
-
Their slaves, if Christian or catechumen, were to be taken.
-
Their rituals, circumcisions, and gatherings were criminalized.
The language of the decree transforms law into exorcism:
“We do not suffer Jews, pagans, or heretics to have caves or perform any rite… for it is absurd to permit impious men to deal with sacred matters.”
In this single clause, centuries of coexistence collapsed into prohibition.
No more shared markets. No more parallel sanctuaries. No more equal souls.
The Jew was no longer a citizen under Rome — he was a living remnant under Justinian: tolerated, watched, forbidden to gather, forbidden to pray.
⛓️ The Political Mask – A Law for All, a Weapon for One
Though Justinian’s text appears to strike at all non-Orthodox — pagans, Jews, Donatists, Arians — the true target was the Arian population that had ruled Africa for nearly a century under the Vandals.
Historians like Saumagne and Juster perceived the disguise: the emperor used the universal language of orthodoxy to mask a regional purge.
The decree was not only theological — it was strategic.
By outlawing every creed but his own, Justinian severed every possible allegiance other than to the throne and the Orthodox altar.
But the policy backfired.
By 536, Africa exploded in mutiny — soldiers, heretics, and townsfolk rising together against the imperial yoke.
Carthage burned again, not for heresy, but for humiliation.
🔥 The Theology of Property – Churches, Souls, and Spoils
The law fused faith with economics.
Where the Vandals had stripped the Orthodox churches, Justinian reversed the theft — but sanctified his own plunder.
“We do not permit the sacred vessels or ornaments of the venerable churches to be held by pagans or by others.”
The emperor’s justice moved like a balance beam of heaven — measuring gold by belief.
If a property lay in Arian hands, it was theft.
If seized by the Orthodox, it was restitution.
Each act of confiscation thus became an act of worship.
🩸 Carthage – The City of the Emperor’s Name
Renamed “Justinian's Carthage”, the city became both symbol and experiment — a model of imperial religion carved into Africa’s reborn soil.
Churches multiplied where synagogues fell.
The bishop of Carthage, now backed by Belisarius’ army and imperial edict, reigned as both spiritual overseer and political prefect.
From dawn to dusk, the city heard a new rhythm:
⛪ Churches ringing,
🔥 Shrines silenced,
🕎 Synagogues stripped,
📜 Edicts read aloud at every forum gate.
The emperor promised Carthage would “blossom adorned with imperial privileges.”
But the flower that bloomed was watered with fear.
⚖️ The Human Cost – When Orthodoxy Devoured Compassion
Consider the empire through the eyes of its victims:
-
A Jewish craftsman watching his synagogue torn down, its stones repurposed for a basilica.
-
An Arian mother, forbidden to baptize her child.
-
A Donatist farmer, stripped of his land because his faith had “expired.”
For them, the emperor’s “law of piety” was a decree of disappearance.
The law called it reform.
History calls it obliteration.
💔 Legacy – The African Night of 535
This was no mere administrative act — it was the theological colonization of Africa.
Its echoes would ripple through centuries:
-
The forced conversion of Berber tribes,
-
The extinction of Arian identity,
-
The silent flight of Jews to the desert,
-
The collapse of Africa’s pluralism into imperial uniformity.
And yet, within that silence, something stirred — the memory of a faith that could not be legislated.
When Pope Agapetus congratulated Justinian that autumn — “for his pious action in Africa” — he blessed not liberation but the triumph of coercion.
Faith, once born of choice, now knelt under law.
The emperor had reclaimed the land.
But in doing so, he had unchained the oldest paradox of empire:
🕯️ When truth is enforced, it ceases to be true.
By expelling Jewish voices from the courtroom, Justinian set a precedent that echoed through Roman and later canon law.
The Jew was no longer just an outsider in faith — he became an outsider to truth, a figure whose words could neither accuse nor defend.
For the Jews of Palestine and Syria, this silencing deepened the alienation already bred by taxation, exclusion, and forced conversions. When the armies of Islam later crossed the desert, they did not find a Jewish people loyal to Constantinople — they found one long rendered voiceless by its laws.
Addressed to Johannes, Praefectus Praetorio of the East, this decree — preserved in Codex Justinianus 1:3:54 (56) — followed closely upon the imperial reconquest of Vandal Africa.
It was not only a moral pronouncement but a political manifesto: a declaration that faith now defined the limits of ownership.
Justinian, fresh from restoring imperial rule to North Africa, learned that Jews still held Christian slaves in Carthage and the surrounding provinces — a scandal in the emperor’s eyes, for it inverted the divine hierarchy of master and believer.
Thus, he reissued and expanded earlier prohibitions:
👉 No Jew, pagan, or heretic may possess a Christian slave.
Those found guilty would lose their human property — the slaves were to be freed immediately, “according to the tenor of our previous laws.”
But Justinian went further still. He introduced a startling new clause:
Even non-baptized slaves owned by Jews or pagans who desired to become Orthodox were to be emancipated the moment they converted.
Faith itself became the key to freedom.
⚖️ The Law in Brief – Orthodoxy as the Measure of Ownership
“We order in a repeated law that no Jew, pagan, or heretic shall have Christian slaves. If found in such guilt, we determine the slaves are free in any way whatsoever… And if the masters later convert, they shall not retake into slavery those who preceded them into the Orthodox faith.”
➡️ A. Renewed Prohibition – The emperor reaffirmed existing bans (dating back to Theodosius II) forbidding Jews, pagans, or heretics from holding Christian slaves. Any violation annulled ownership ipso facto.
➡️ B. Liberation Through Conversion – If an unbaptized slave under a Jewish, pagan, or heretical master desired baptism, that act itself dissolved the bond of servitude. The bishop or provincial governor was ordered to enforce emancipation.
➡️ C. Irreversibility Clause – Should a Jewish master later accept baptism, he could not reclaim the freed convert. The Christian slave’s spiritual seniority conferred permanent legal freedom.
➡️ D. Enforcement and Penalties – Governors, Church protectors (defensores ecclesiae), and bishops were made responsible for policing these laws.
Contempt of the edict was punishable by confiscation, heavy fines — and even death.
The act of conversion became not only spiritual liberation but civil manumission.
A slave’s baptism voided his master’s title — a theological revolution with economic consequences.
This logic fused Church and State into a single mechanism:
1️⃣ The Church granted baptism.
2️⃣ The Empire enforced freedom.
3️⃣ The convert became both a new soul and a new citizen — liberated in body and belief.
Yet this sanctified freedom was profoundly conditional.
It was granted only when conversion aligned with Orthodoxy.
A Jew who freed a Christian was not virtuous — he was criminal.
A Christian who enslaved a Jew was not cruel — he was faithful.
Justice was measured not by mercy, but by creed.
🩸 The Human Scene – Carthage After the Cross
Picture Africa, 534 CE:
Belisarius’ banners still flutter over Carthage. The Vandals’ Arian churches lie silent. The synagogues are half-closed, their leaders weary of new decrees.
Now comes the edict — a fusion of sword and sermon:
💠 A Jewish merchant in Hippo Regius loses his household slaves because one declares, “I believe.”
💠 A catechumen owned by a pagan landholder finds in baptism both his God and his legal emancipation.
💠 A bishop stands beside the governor’s court, declaring with triumph, “Faith frees the body as it frees the soul.”
But beneath this triumph lay terror. Freedom became a reward for denunciation — a slave’s faith could destroy his master.
Religion became both shield and weapon, and baptism, the empire’s most powerful act of confiscation.
🔥 The Theology of Dominion – When Mastery Required Orthodoxy
Justinian’s law assumed a sacred hierarchy:
-
The Orthodox command.
-
The heretic obeys.
-
The Jew endures.
-
The pagan disappears.
Ownership itself became a theological privilege.
A slave’s faith could now outweigh his master’s wealth.
In this way, the emperor sacralized social order while simultaneously subverting it — the “lowly” convert could, by divine right, rise above his unbaptized master.
To the emperor, this was divine justice.
To the Jews of Carthage, it was legalized dispossession.
The empire’s theology of ownership left no middle ground:
You could be Orthodox and free, or unbelieving and unfit to rule — even over your own household.
Addressed to Salomon, Praefectus Praetorio of Africa, and drafted by Tribonian, the emperor’s jurist and architect of sacred tyranny, this decree (Novellae 37) descended upon Africa less than a year after its reconquest from the Vandals.
The Council of Carthage (early 535), led by Reparatus, bishop of Carthage, had petitioned the emperor for harsher measures against Arians — the defeated faith of the Vandal kingdom. The result was this law: a manifesto of religious purification masquerading as restoration.
🕍 Its declared aim: to “restore the venerable churches of Justinian's Carthage and all the sacrosanct churches of the African diocese.”
⚔️ Its true operation: to extinguish every unorthodox breath beneath the shadow of the Cross.
What began as a campaign of reconstruction ended as an inquisition of possession, prayer, and presence.
📜 The Law in Brief – The Emperor’s Will Over Africa
“We order that neither Arians, Donatists, Jews, nor any who do not observe the Orthodox religion shall have any participation in ecclesiastical rites...
Their synagogues shall not stand; they shall be transformed into churches...
And the heretics shall neither baptize, nor ordain, nor perform any sacred rite whatsoever.”
➡️ A. The Reconstruction of Churches – All properties, ornaments, and vessels once belonging to Orthodox churches — and now held by Arians, pagans, or others — were to be confiscated and “forcibly restored” to the Church. No delay, no compensation, no appeal.
➡️ B. Exclusion of the Unorthodox – Arians, Donatists, Jews, and pagans were banned entirely from “ecclesiastical rites.” The law demanded not only their absence but their erasure: “no license shall be given them to ordain bishops, baptize, or drag anyone to their madness.”
➡️ C. Civic Disqualification – All heretics were expelled from public life: “They shall not administer any public office… nor rule over the Orthodox, for it is enough that they live.”
This chilling phrase — “sufficit eis vivere” — reduced the existence of every dissenter to mere tolerance of their breath.
➡️ D. The Jewish Prohibitions – Two clauses singled out the Jews:
1️⃣ They shall not possess Christian slaves or catechumens.
2️⃣ Their synagogues shall not stand, but shall be converted into churches.
➡️ E. The Abolition of Pagan Spaces – Even caves, shrines, or remote sanctuaries (“speluncas”) used for worship were banned. No altar was too hidden, no god too forgotten to escape imperial cleansing.
➡️ F. Privileges to the Church of “Justinian Carthage” – The city, renamed after the emperor himself, was elevated to metropolitan status and crowned with “imperial privileges.” Its bishops were endowed with the same authority as the patriarchs of the East — guardians now of both faith and law.
➡️ G. Sanctuary and Control – Churches became sites of legal asylum for all but three crimes: murder, rape of virgins, and violation of the Christian faith.
Even mercy, in Justinian’s empire, wore the stamp of creed.
💥 The Mechanism of Suppression – Faith as Civil Architecture
This law was not a local measure — it was the architecture of orthodoxy, built brick by brick across the African coast.
The emperor’s design was total:
-
To cleanse the land of heterodoxy,
-
To fuse Church and State in a single hand,
-
And to leave no legal or physical space for rival faiths to breathe.
🩸 Possession became proof of sanctity; belief became property.
The confiscation of Arian and Jewish holdings served not merely economic ends — it was sacramental plunder, sanctified by imperial signature.
Each church restored to the Orthodox was a symbol of subjugation — a monument to the empire’s new theology of conquest:
To conquer the soul is to inherit the land.
🕎 Against the Jews – The Law of Unbelonging
The Jewish communities of Carthage, Hippo, and Tripolitania — heirs to centuries of settlement since Roman times — were targeted as both religious and social threats.
Their faith was called nefanda (“abominable”), their rites madness, their sanctuaries illegal architecture.
-
Their synagogues were to be seized and reformed “into the figure of churches.”
-
Their slaves, if Christian or catechumen, were to be taken.
-
Their rituals, circumcisions, and gatherings were criminalized.
The language of the decree transforms law into exorcism:
“We do not suffer Jews, pagans, or heretics to have caves or perform any rite… for it is absurd to permit impious men to deal with sacred matters.”
In this single clause, centuries of coexistence collapsed into prohibition.
No more shared markets. No more parallel sanctuaries. No more equal souls.
The Jew was no longer a citizen under Rome — he was a living remnant under Justinian: tolerated, watched, forbidden to gather, forbidden to pray.
⛓️ The Political Mask – A Law for All, a Weapon for One
Though Justinian’s text appears to strike at all non-Orthodox — pagans, Jews, Donatists, Arians — the true target was the Arian population that had ruled Africa for nearly a century under the Vandals.
Historians like Saumagne and Juster perceived the disguise: the emperor used the universal language of orthodoxy to mask a regional purge.
The decree was not only theological — it was strategic.
By outlawing every creed but his own, Justinian severed every possible allegiance other than to the throne and the Orthodox altar.
But the policy backfired.
By 536, Africa exploded in mutiny — soldiers, heretics, and townsfolk rising together against the imperial yoke.
Carthage burned again, not for heresy, but for humiliation.
🔥 The Theology of Property – Churches, Souls, and Spoils
The law fused faith with economics.
Where the Vandals had stripped the Orthodox churches, Justinian reversed the theft — but sanctified his own plunder.
“We do not permit the sacred vessels or ornaments of the venerable churches to be held by pagans or by others.”
The emperor’s justice moved like a balance beam of heaven — measuring gold by belief.
If a property lay in Arian hands, it was theft.
If seized by the Orthodox, it was restitution.
Each act of confiscation thus became an act of worship.
🩸 Carthage – The City of the Emperor’s Name
Renamed “Justinian's Carthage”, the city became both symbol and experiment — a model of imperial religion carved into Africa’s reborn soil.
Churches multiplied where synagogues fell.
The bishop of Carthage, now backed by Belisarius’ army and imperial edict, reigned as both spiritual overseer and political prefect.
From dawn to dusk, the city heard a new rhythm:
⛪ Churches ringing,
🔥 Shrines silenced,
🕎 Synagogues stripped,
📜 Edicts read aloud at every forum gate.
The emperor promised Carthage would “blossom adorned with imperial privileges.”
But the flower that bloomed was watered with fear.
⚖️ The Human Cost – When Orthodoxy Devoured Compassion
Consider the empire through the eyes of its victims:
-
A Jewish craftsman watching his synagogue torn down, its stones repurposed for a basilica.
-
An Arian mother, forbidden to baptize her child.
-
A Donatist farmer, stripped of his land because his faith had “expired.”
For them, the emperor’s “law of piety” was a decree of disappearance.
The law called it reform.
History calls it obliteration.
💔 Legacy – The African Night of 535
This was no mere administrative act — it was the theological colonization of Africa.
Its echoes would ripple through centuries:
-
The forced conversion of Berber tribes,
-
The extinction of Arian identity,
-
The silent flight of Jews to the desert,
-
The collapse of Africa’s pluralism into imperial uniformity.
And yet, within that silence, something stirred — the memory of a faith that could not be legislated.
When Pope Agapetus congratulated Justinian that autumn — “for his pious action in Africa” — he blessed not liberation but the triumph of coercion.
Faith, once born of choice, now knelt under law.
The emperor had reclaimed the land.
But in doing so, he had unchained the oldest paradox of empire:
🕯️ When truth is enforced, it ceases to be true.
💍 Section I.G — Mercy for a Price: Justinian’s Alleviation of Sanctions on the Jews of Tyre (537 CE)
I. The Climate of Control — Empire in the Shadow of the Cold Sun 🌒
I. The Climate of Control — Empire in the Shadow of the Cold Sun 🌒
The year was 537 CE — the empire’s sky had dimmed.
A veil of volcanic dust, unleashed a year before, still hung over the world. Crops failed, the air grew chill, and even the Sun itself seemed diminished. Historians now call it the onset of the Late Antique Little Ice Age, a period of climatic upheaval that would reshape empires, economies, and souls alike. 🌍❄️
In Constantinople, Emperor Justinian I ruled with unmatched ambition — rebuilding the Hagia Sophia even as famine and plague whispered at the edges of the empire. His codifiers, led by Tribonian, were still chiseling divine law into the marble of human life.
And in this world of tightening order, one city — Tyre, ancient Phoenician jewel turned Roman harbor — found itself the subject of an imperial paradox: a decree that punished through forgiveness.
The year was 537 CE — the empire’s sky had dimmed.
A veil of volcanic dust, unleashed a year before, still hung over the world. Crops failed, the air grew chill, and even the Sun itself seemed diminished. Historians now call it the onset of the Late Antique Little Ice Age, a period of climatic upheaval that would reshape empires, economies, and souls alike. 🌍❄️
In Constantinople, Emperor Justinian I ruled with unmatched ambition — rebuilding the Hagia Sophia even as famine and plague whispered at the edges of the empire. His codifiers, led by Tribonian, were still chiseling divine law into the marble of human life.
And in this world of tightening order, one city — Tyre, ancient Phoenician jewel turned Roman harbor — found itself the subject of an imperial paradox: a decree that punished through forgiveness.
II. The Law Before the Law — Novel 12 and the “Abominable Marriages” 💔📜
Two years earlier, on 16 May 535, Justinian had issued Novel 12, a sweeping moral law forbidding what he termed ἀθέμιτοι γάμοι — “abominable marriages.”
These included:
-
Marriages within forbidden degrees of kinship, violating both Roman and ecclesiastical norms.
-
Polygamous unions, which imperial Christianity regarded as abominations inherited from “barbarian” or “Judaic” custom.
The penalties were brutal: confiscation of property and dowry, loss of public office, corporal punishment, and even banishment. Only those who voluntarily annulled such marriages and paid a ¼ fine of their property within two years could escape harsher judgment.
For the empire, this was a campaign of purification — a bid to remake private life in the image of imperial orthodoxy. But for the Jews of Tyre and the villagers of Syndus, it was an existential trap. 💍⚖️
Two years earlier, on 16 May 535, Justinian had issued Novel 12, a sweeping moral law forbidding what he termed ἀθέμιτοι γάμοι — “abominable marriages.”
These included:
-
Marriages within forbidden degrees of kinship, violating both Roman and ecclesiastical norms.
-
Polygamous unions, which imperial Christianity regarded as abominations inherited from “barbarian” or “Judaic” custom.
The penalties were brutal: confiscation of property and dowry, loss of public office, corporal punishment, and even banishment. Only those who voluntarily annulled such marriages and paid a ¼ fine of their property within two years could escape harsher judgment.
For the empire, this was a campaign of purification — a bid to remake private life in the image of imperial orthodoxy. But for the Jews of Tyre and the villagers of Syndus, it was an existential trap. 💍⚖️
III. The Petition — Tears from Tyre 💧🏛️
By 537 CE, the deadline loomed. In Tyre, a community of Jews — some already “in the third age,” the text says, fathers of grown children — faced the ruin of family, home, and lineage. To obey the law meant dissolving their marriages, disowning their wives, and branding their children as illegitimate.
So they pleaded. The law itself records their cry:
“They supplicated with tears that they shall not be forced now to send away their wives but that they shall keep them and have the children born to them… as their heirs.”
It was not rebellion but desperation. And for once, Justinian listened.
By 537 CE, the deadline loomed. In Tyre, a community of Jews — some already “in the third age,” the text says, fathers of grown children — faced the ruin of family, home, and lineage. To obey the law meant dissolving their marriages, disowning their wives, and branding their children as illegitimate.
So they pleaded. The law itself records their cry:
“They supplicated with tears that they shall not be forced now to send away their wives but that they shall keep them and have the children born to them… as their heirs.”
It was not rebellion but desperation. And for once, Justinian listened.
IV. The Imperial Response — Forgiveness at Ten Pounds of Gold 🪙👑
Justinian’s answer, preserved in Novella 139, came as a curious blend of divine mercy and fiscal logic. He granted exemption to these Jews and to the villagers of Syndus — but at a price.
“We ordain, therefore, that they shall give each ten gold pounds for this concession… only they shall be exempted from the greater punishment.”
They would be allowed to:
-
Keep their wives and marriages.
-
Legitimize their children as rightful heirs.
-
Escape all corporal and civic penalties.
But — and here the imperial theology of mercy curdled into a cold economy — this act was not a precedent. The emperor warned:
“We do not ordain this as an example to others… If anyone ask for a similar grant, he shall lose his property, suffer corporal punishment, and live in everlasting banishment.”
The message was unmistakable: this was no mercy of principle, but of purchase. Justice itself had become a transaction. 💰
Justinian’s answer, preserved in Novella 139, came as a curious blend of divine mercy and fiscal logic. He granted exemption to these Jews and to the villagers of Syndus — but at a price.
“We ordain, therefore, that they shall give each ten gold pounds for this concession… only they shall be exempted from the greater punishment.”
They would be allowed to:
-
Keep their wives and marriages.
-
Legitimize their children as rightful heirs.
-
Escape all corporal and civic penalties.
But — and here the imperial theology of mercy curdled into a cold economy — this act was not a precedent. The emperor warned:
“We do not ordain this as an example to others… If anyone ask for a similar grant, he shall lose his property, suffer corporal punishment, and live in everlasting banishment.”
The message was unmistakable: this was no mercy of principle, but of purchase. Justice itself had become a transaction. 💰
V. The Meaning — Tyre’s Tears, the Empire’s Logic 🏛️🕯️
This law reveals the soul of Justinian’s Christian empire at its most contradictory.
On one hand, a ruler invoking Christ’s name and divine mercy. On the other, a bureaucratic mind that measured tears in pounds of gold.
Tyre, once a maritime powerhouse of the Phoenicians and later a stronghold of Hellenized Judaism, had long been a symbol of wealth and resilience. To extract gold from its suffering was both poetic and cruel — a final subjugation of a proud city under the weight of the cross and coin alike. ⛓️💠
Yet, in another light, the law also shows a strange endurance of the human plea — that even amid the empire’s machinery, the petition of the heart could momentarily soften an emperor’s will.
Justinian’s court, austere and unbending, still paused at the sight of Jewish fathers weeping for their children’s legitimacy. There was humanity, but conditional — purchased, bounded, and surveilled.
This law reveals the soul of Justinian’s Christian empire at its most contradictory.
On one hand, a ruler invoking Christ’s name and divine mercy. On the other, a bureaucratic mind that measured tears in pounds of gold.
Tyre, once a maritime powerhouse of the Phoenicians and later a stronghold of Hellenized Judaism, had long been a symbol of wealth and resilience. To extract gold from its suffering was both poetic and cruel — a final subjugation of a proud city under the weight of the cross and coin alike. ⛓️💠
Yet, in another light, the law also shows a strange endurance of the human plea — that even amid the empire’s machinery, the petition of the heart could momentarily soften an emperor’s will.
Justinian’s court, austere and unbending, still paused at the sight of Jewish fathers weeping for their children’s legitimacy. There was humanity, but conditional — purchased, bounded, and surveilled.
VI. The Broader Climate — Law, Faith, and the Cold Earth 🌫️📉
This decree emerged not in a vacuum but in a world reeling from climate catastrophe. The volcanic winter of 536–540 CE led to failed harvests, famine, and social breakdown across the Mediterranean.
In such times, empires tighten — they legislate morality as a substitute for stability.
So too did Justinian. His “Laws of God” sought to bind heaven to the empire, but they also betrayed an insecurity: a need to prove divine favor in an age of darkness.
And what better way to do so than by controlling marriage itself — the most intimate covenant between human beings?
This decree emerged not in a vacuum but in a world reeling from climate catastrophe. The volcanic winter of 536–540 CE led to failed harvests, famine, and social breakdown across the Mediterranean.
In such times, empires tighten — they legislate morality as a substitute for stability.
So too did Justinian. His “Laws of God” sought to bind heaven to the empire, but they also betrayed an insecurity: a need to prove divine favor in an age of darkness.
And what better way to do so than by controlling marriage itself — the most intimate covenant between human beings?
VII. The Moral Question — When Mercy Is Sold 🕊️⚖️
Was this law a gesture of clemency — or of domination?
Did Justinian’s ten-gold-pound reprieve reflect compassion, or the monetization of sin?
The answer lies, perhaps, in the emperor’s warning: no one else would ever receive such mercy. This was not equality before law; it was hierarchy before grace. The Jews of Tyre had bought peace, but only as tolerated exceptions — their lives, their loves, and even their legitimacy hanging on imperial whim.
What does it mean when love becomes illegal, and mercy becomes purchasable?
This law whispers the unsettling truth of empire: that even forgiveness can be weaponized. 💔👑
Was this law a gesture of clemency — or of domination?
Did Justinian’s ten-gold-pound reprieve reflect compassion, or the monetization of sin?
The answer lies, perhaps, in the emperor’s warning: no one else would ever receive such mercy. This was not equality before law; it was hierarchy before grace. The Jews of Tyre had bought peace, but only as tolerated exceptions — their lives, their loves, and even their legitimacy hanging on imperial whim.
What does it mean when love becomes illegal, and mercy becomes purchasable?
This law whispers the unsettling truth of empire: that even forgiveness can be weaponized. 💔👑
VIII. Echoes Across Time — The Price of Legitimacy 📜⏳
The Jews of Tyre fade from history after this law. We do not know their names, their children, or whether those ten pounds of gold secured peace or poverty. But we do know this:
In the cold summer of 537 CE, beneath the dimmed sun and trembling earth, the empire taught its subjects that mercy was not free.
In that shadowed age — of stone cathedrals, frozen skies, and golden coins — the words of the law still echo:
“Let no one harass those found worthy of our special generosity, or their wives, or their children, or their property, now and in the future…”
It was not justice. It was permission to endure.
The Jews of Tyre fade from history after this law. We do not know their names, their children, or whether those ten pounds of gold secured peace or poverty. But we do know this:
In the cold summer of 537 CE, beneath the dimmed sun and trembling earth, the empire taught its subjects that mercy was not free.
In that shadowed age — of stone cathedrals, frozen skies, and golden coins — the words of the law still echo:
“Let no one harass those found worthy of our special generosity, or their wives, or their children, or their property, now and in the future…”
It was not justice. It was permission to endure.
💬 “They supplicated with tears…” — that phrase is the heart of this document.
For beneath the rhetoric of divine justice and imperial authority lies a human story: a people pleading not for privilege, but for the right to keep their families whole.
And that is the eternal question Justinian’s empire leaves us:
When faith and law collide — who pays the price of survival?
💬 “They supplicated with tears…” — that phrase is the heart of this document.
For beneath the rhetoric of divine justice and imperial authority lies a human story: a people pleading not for privilege, but for the right to keep their families whole.
And that is the eternal question Justinian’s empire leaves us:
When faith and law collide — who pays the price of survival?
Section I.H — Servants of the City, Shadows of the Law: Justinian on the Duty and Testimony of Jews and Heretics (537 CE)
I. The Emperor’s Restless Summer ☀️🕰️
I. The Emperor’s Restless Summer ☀️🕰️
The same sunless years still hung over the empire — 537 CE, the second year of the dimmed sky, when the cold winds of the Late Antique Little Ice Age continued to haunt the Mediterranean world. Famine spread; plague whispered; the imperium itself trembled.
And yet, in the marble halls of Constantinople, Emperor Justinian I kept legislating as if law could outshine the darkness.
Barely months after granting the Jews of Tyre a costly reprieve (📜 see Section I.H), he now turned again to them — and to all “heretics” — to settle a question of civic duty and legal worth:
Could Jews, Samaritans, and others outside the Orthodox faith serve in the curial class, and could their testimony be accepted in court?
The same sunless years still hung over the empire — 537 CE, the second year of the dimmed sky, when the cold winds of the Late Antique Little Ice Age continued to haunt the Mediterranean world. Famine spread; plague whispered; the imperium itself trembled.
And yet, in the marble halls of Constantinople, Emperor Justinian I kept legislating as if law could outshine the darkness.
Barely months after granting the Jews of Tyre a costly reprieve (📜 see Section I.H), he now turned again to them — and to all “heretics” — to settle a question of civic duty and legal worth:
Could Jews, Samaritans, and others outside the Orthodox faith serve in the curial class, and could their testimony be accepted in court?
II. The Curial Burden — Civic Chains of Empire 🏛️🔗
In the late Roman world, the curia was both honor and trap.
To be a decurion (curial) meant belonging to the municipal elite — those responsible for maintaining city taxes, public works, and civic festivals.
But by the 6th century, this duty had become a curse. Endless taxation, decaying cities, and imperial requisitions turned curial service into hereditary bondage. Families ruined themselves to avoid it.
Thus, many sought escape through religion — claiming clerical status, imperial favor, or, in this case, conversion to a despised faith.
Johannes of Cappadocia, Justinian’s iron-fisted Praefectus Praetorio Orientis, wrote to the emperor:
“Some among the decurions happen to be Jews, or Samaritans, or Montanists… and because we hate heretics, they think that on this pretext they are free from the curial liturgies.”
It was a bureaucrat’s dilemma wrapped in a theological paradox. Could unbelief exempt one from service to the Christian empire?
In the late Roman world, the curia was both honor and trap.
To be a decurion (curial) meant belonging to the municipal elite — those responsible for maintaining city taxes, public works, and civic festivals.
But by the 6th century, this duty had become a curse. Endless taxation, decaying cities, and imperial requisitions turned curial service into hereditary bondage. Families ruined themselves to avoid it.
Thus, many sought escape through religion — claiming clerical status, imperial favor, or, in this case, conversion to a despised faith.
Johannes of Cappadocia, Justinian’s iron-fisted Praefectus Praetorio Orientis, wrote to the emperor:
“Some among the decurions happen to be Jews, or Samaritans, or Montanists… and because we hate heretics, they think that on this pretext they are free from the curial liturgies.”
It was a bureaucrat’s dilemma wrapped in a theological paradox. Could unbelief exempt one from service to the Christian empire?
III. Justinian’s Answer — Enforced Service Without Honor 💼🔥
Justinian’s reply, issued on 18 August 537, is a masterclass in imperial double-speak — a blend of contempt and logic, piety and punishment.
“All such as these shall serve as decurions even if they bitterly wail… and no superstition shall discharge them from this order.”
The emperor’s logic was cruelly symmetrical:
-
The Jews, Samaritans, and heretics must bear the curial duties, contributing taxes and public service.
-
But they would enjoy none of the honors or privileges attached to the role.
-
They could be beaten, summoned, and dragged to court like commoners.
-
They were to remain in dishonor, “in the same shame in which they desired their souls to be.”
🌀 In other words: serve the city, but never belong to it.
Pay the price of citizenship, but never taste its dignity.
This was a theology of civic participation stripped of human reciprocity — a tax in place of trust.
Justinian’s reply, issued on 18 August 537, is a masterclass in imperial double-speak — a blend of contempt and logic, piety and punishment.
“All such as these shall serve as decurions even if they bitterly wail… and no superstition shall discharge them from this order.”
The emperor’s logic was cruelly symmetrical:
-
The Jews, Samaritans, and heretics must bear the curial duties, contributing taxes and public service.
-
But they would enjoy none of the honors or privileges attached to the role.
-
They could be beaten, summoned, and dragged to court like commoners.
-
They were to remain in dishonor, “in the same shame in which they desired their souls to be.”
🌀 In other words: serve the city, but never belong to it.
Pay the price of citizenship, but never taste its dignity.
This was a theology of civic participation stripped of human reciprocity — a tax in place of trust.
IV. Testimony Twisted — When Truth Itself Becomes Conditional 🗣️⚖️
The law did not stop there. Johannes had also asked:
Could Jews or heretics testify in cases where the state accused Orthodox citizens of evading curial duty?
Justinian’s reasoning here reveals the strange moral geometry of his empire.
He had already ruled (in 531 CE) that Jewish or heretical testimony could not be used against Orthodox Christians — only for them. But now the state itself was a litigant.
So the emperor reasoned:
“If a man drags to the curia those who are decurions but deny their order and he summons heretics to testify, does he not do it for the State? And as the State is Orthodox… so those who testify for it testify for Orthodox.”
🔄 By redefining the State as inherently Orthodox, Justinian redefined loyalty as faith. To testify for the government — even against another Christian — was to testify “for Orthodoxy.”
Thus, Jewish witnesses were now acceptable, not because they were truthful, but because their truth served Orthodoxy’s machinery.
It was not faith in their words, but use of their voices — tools in the empire’s legal engine.
The law did not stop there. Johannes had also asked:
Could Jews or heretics testify in cases where the state accused Orthodox citizens of evading curial duty?
Justinian’s reasoning here reveals the strange moral geometry of his empire.
He had already ruled (in 531 CE) that Jewish or heretical testimony could not be used against Orthodox Christians — only for them. But now the state itself was a litigant.
So the emperor reasoned:
“If a man drags to the curia those who are decurions but deny their order and he summons heretics to testify, does he not do it for the State? And as the State is Orthodox… so those who testify for it testify for Orthodox.”
🔄 By redefining the State as inherently Orthodox, Justinian redefined loyalty as faith. To testify for the government — even against another Christian — was to testify “for Orthodoxy.”
Thus, Jewish witnesses were now acceptable, not because they were truthful, but because their truth served Orthodoxy’s machinery.
It was not faith in their words, but use of their voices — tools in the empire’s legal engine.
V. The Irony of Inclusion — “In the Service, but Not of It” 🕯️📜
For Jews and other non-Orthodox in 537 CE, this law had a bitter irony.
They were included in the empire’s duties but excluded from its rights.
They were trusted to testify when it suited the State but silenced when their words might defend themselves.
This was conditional inclusion — a form of civic captivity.
Their labor and truth were admissible only when serving the Orthodox order.
The emperor concluded with paternal pride:
“Our State is righteous and already full of the Orthodox faith, loathing all other heresy by nature.”
To the imperial mind, this was a confession of purity.
To the marginalized, it was a sentence of perpetual otherness.
For Jews and other non-Orthodox in 537 CE, this law had a bitter irony.
They were included in the empire’s duties but excluded from its rights.
They were trusted to testify when it suited the State but silenced when their words might defend themselves.
This was conditional inclusion — a form of civic captivity.
Their labor and truth were admissible only when serving the Orthodox order.
The emperor concluded with paternal pride:
“Our State is righteous and already full of the Orthodox faith, loathing all other heresy by nature.”
To the imperial mind, this was a confession of purity.
To the marginalized, it was a sentence of perpetual otherness.
VI. The Empire as Church — The Mind of Justinian 🕊️👑
Behind the harshness lies Justinian’s vision — a seamless unity of empire and faith, the Christian politeia.
In his theology, there could be no neutral ground: every act of civic life — taxation, testimony, even speech — had to align with Orthodoxy.
His empire was not merely governed; it was consecrated.
The State was the Church, and to serve the State was to serve God — even if one did not believe in Him.
Thus, when Jews were ordered to bear curial burdens “in dishonor,” it was not administrative cruelty alone, but a symbolic drama: the empire enacting its spiritual hierarchy upon the social body.
Behind the harshness lies Justinian’s vision — a seamless unity of empire and faith, the Christian politeia.
In his theology, there could be no neutral ground: every act of civic life — taxation, testimony, even speech — had to align with Orthodoxy.
His empire was not merely governed; it was consecrated.
The State was the Church, and to serve the State was to serve God — even if one did not believe in Him.
Thus, when Jews were ordered to bear curial burdens “in dishonor,” it was not administrative cruelty alone, but a symbolic drama: the empire enacting its spiritual hierarchy upon the social body.
VII. The Human Cost — Duty Without Dignity 💰🕯️
For the Jewish families of Antioch, Tiberias, or Tyre, this law deepened a long twilight.
Already banned from building new synagogues, from holding public office, from offering testimony against Christians — now they were bound to civic service without recognition, their taxes feeding an empire that denied their worth.
It was the final inversion of citizenship: responsibility without respect.
Their work built the city, but their faith unbuilt their humanity.
The emperor’s “justice” thus became a cold arithmetic of participation and exclusion.
For the Jewish families of Antioch, Tiberias, or Tyre, this law deepened a long twilight.
Already banned from building new synagogues, from holding public office, from offering testimony against Christians — now they were bound to civic service without recognition, their taxes feeding an empire that denied their worth.
It was the final inversion of citizenship: responsibility without respect.
Their work built the city, but their faith unbuilt their humanity.
The emperor’s “justice” thus became a cold arithmetic of participation and exclusion.
VIII. The Hidden Hope — Order as Salvation? 🌅📜
And yet, in Justinian’s own vision, there was hope — or at least, the illusion of it.
His mind, trained in the theology of cosmic order, saw law as the instrument of divine harmony.
If Jews and heretics were forced to serve, perhaps — so he thought — they might eventually see the light of Orthodoxy through their civic duties.
In his words:
“They sit in darkness and do not perceive the true mysteries.”
Perhaps, he reasoned, service could become salvation.
It was a cruel hope — but to Justinian, coercion was pedagogy, and hierarchy the hand of God.
And yet, in Justinian’s own vision, there was hope — or at least, the illusion of it.
His mind, trained in the theology of cosmic order, saw law as the instrument of divine harmony.
If Jews and heretics were forced to serve, perhaps — so he thought — they might eventually see the light of Orthodoxy through their civic duties.
In his words:
“They sit in darkness and do not perceive the true mysteries.”
Perhaps, he reasoned, service could become salvation.
It was a cruel hope — but to Justinian, coercion was pedagogy, and hierarchy the hand of God.
IX. Reflection — The Law of Two Shadows 🕯️⚖️
💬 “They shall serve as decurions even if they bitterly wail.”
This line captures the empire’s paradox: inclusion through subjection, mercy through control, faith through fear.
For the Jews of the Roman East, this law meant living as citizens in shadow — their labor visible, their souls invisible.
They were to serve the city, testify for the empire, and bear the burden of belonging to a world that never truly accepted them.
And for Justinian, the emperor of the dimmed sun, it was another step toward a theocratic ideal — a world where law and light were one, even as the sky above his empire grew darker each year. 🌒
💬 “They shall serve as decurions even if they bitterly wail.”
This line captures the empire’s paradox: inclusion through subjection, mercy through control, faith through fear.
For the Jews of the Roman East, this law meant living as citizens in shadow — their labor visible, their souls invisible.
They were to serve the city, testify for the empire, and bear the burden of belonging to a world that never truly accepted them.
And for Justinian, the emperor of the dimmed sun, it was another step toward a theocratic ideal — a world where law and light were one, even as the sky above his empire grew darker each year. 🌒
🕍 I.I — “In the Shadow of Pestilence: The Interdiction on Alienation of Churches to Jews and the Ban on New Synagogues” (March 18, 545 CE)
🌒 Prologue: An Empire Under Plague, A Soul Under Judgment
By the year 545 CE, the Roman Empire was no longer the radiant giant of Justinian’s early reign. The Justinianic Plague (541 CE) had swept through Constantinople like an invisible army, killing thousands a day. Corpses filled the streets. The air smelled of decay. 🦠💀
The emperor himself fell ill — trembling between life and death — and when he recovered, he saw his survival as divine mercy, a reprieve from Heaven. But mercy demanded repayment. Justinian’s theology of empire required that he appease God through law, purifying the empire’s faith to heal its body. ⚖️🙏
It was less a civil regulation than a spiritual quarantine — a legal exorcism of “impurity” from the body of the state. 🕯️
⚖️ The Law’s Content: “Let No Heretic Touch the Sacred Ground”
Justinian commands, in his own solemn cadence:
“We order that no heretic shall receive real estate from any holiest church or another venerable place… If a Jew or Samaritan shall dare to build a new synagogue, the holy church of the place shall vindicate it to its own ownership.”
It was a spectacle of moral theater: the empire purging its own sins while branding others as contagion.
💭 Imperial Logic: Law as Medicine for a Diseased World
To understand this law, we must see it not merely as intolerance — but as fear institutionalized.
The plague had shattered the illusion of imperial control. The Nile failed, trade collapsed, and armies mutinied in Italy and Africa. To Justinian, such disasters were not random — they were God’s wrath for impurity within the empire.
Justinian’s legal mind turned theology into geography. Every church, every consecrated stone became a frontier post of divine order — and Jews were outsiders by law, not merely by faith.
🕎 Impact on the Jews: From Subjects to Shadows
For the Jewish communities of Palestine, Tyre, Antioch, and Alexandria, this law struck at the heart of survival.
Under earlier emperors, Jews had owned property adjacent to churches, sometimes even leasing farmland or homes near sacred sites. The 545 decree ended that possibility. It criminalized coexistence — turning everyday transactions into acts of treason against Christendom.
⛓️ The Moral Paradox: Mercy by Exclusion
Justinian’s illness had made him pious, but his piety was punitive. He believed that by restricting others’ faith, he could save their souls through discipline. In his logic:
“If the empire sins by tolerating heresy, God will punish all. But if I, as emperor, purge impurity, I save both the righteous and the wicked from wrath.”
It was the logic of a physician-king—curing the empire by bleeding its subjects. 🩸
🕯️ Conclusion: An Empire Cleansed, or Consumed?
But in so doing, he made the Jews and other minorities the scapegoats of a dying world, projecting the empire’s sickness upon their bodies and faith.
📜 I.J —Languages, Prophecies, and Control: Justinian’s Edict on Hebrew, Greek, and Sacred Reading
🌒 Prologue: Empire, Language, and Divine Guidance
By 553 CE, Justinian’s reign had entered a new phase. Wars had ravaged the west, the plague had returned intermittently, and the empire’s social fabric was stretched thin. 🦠⚔️
The emperor’s attention now fell upon the Hebrews (Jews) — a community that had historically been tolerated but increasingly separated from Hellenistic culture, asserting its own language, traditions, and religious autonomy.
Thus, the law was framed as a divine pedagogy: a way to expose the “lost” to salvation through accessible language. 🕊️📖
⚖️ The Law’s Content: “Open the Books, Open the Minds”
Justinian begins with theological critique:
“In listening to the sacred books, the Hebrews ought not to cling to the bare words of the text… but should look at the prophecies stored up in them, which proclaim our Lord Jesus Christ.”
The law then resolves linguistic disputes within Jewish communities:
He explicitly forbade the practice of “deuterosis” (additional interpretive glosses or targumic expansions), viewing these as human inventions that corrupted divine truth. ⚠️📜
“Open the actual sacred books, and read the actual sacred utterances, without concealing what is said and introducing extraneous babblings.”
🧠 Imperial Logic: Control Through Comprehension
This law is a masterstroke of cultural and religious policy. Justinian’s goals were multifaceted:
-
Theological: He framed the empire as guardian of salvation, ensuring that Jews could access the prophecies pointing to Christ. ✝️
-
Cultural: By encouraging Greek and Latin readings, he maintained Hellenic cohesion, countering a drift toward Jewish linguistic separatism. 🏛️➡️📚
-
Political: Law functioned as soft coercion — giving Jews choice in language, but mandating imperial oversight, threatening property confiscation or exile for defiance. ⚖️💀
In essence: control through comprehension. By opening sacred texts to vernacular understanding, Justinian hoped to lead Jewish communities toward Christian orthodoxy, while punishing those who resisted.
💔 Effects and Implications on Jewish Communities
For Jews in Palestine, southern Italy, Alexandria, and beyond, the law:
Ironically, this law, intended to bring Jews closer to Christianity, may have strengthened Jewish identity and resistance, as communities sought to preserve Hebrew literacy and ritual independence.
🔮 Conclusion: The Final Jewish Law of Justinian
Law 146 stands as Justinian’s ultimate intervention in Jewish life:
It is the culmination of decades of imperial policy toward Jews: from property regulation (I.J, 545 CE) to interpretive control (I.K, 553 CE). Justinian’s empire sought to reshape thought as much as land, merging salvation and sovereignty. 🌒⚖️
📖 In essence: Justinian’s final Jewish law was not merely legal — it was a program of spiritual engineering, wrapped in the authority of the emperor, the weight of Greek language, and the ever-present threat of imperial wrath. ⚔️🕯️📚
🕎 I.K – Between Esau and Justinian: Jewish Perceptions of Rome and the Burden of Empire
🏛️ 1️⃣ The Birth of a Theological Rivalry
From the ashes of the Second Temple to the reign of Justinian, Jewish thought wrestled with one overwhelming question: What is Rome in the eyes of God?
The empire that conquered Judea, burned the Temple, and scattered Israel across the Mediterranean became more than a political oppressor—it became a cosmic antagonist, the other twin born from the same womb of divine history.
As Katell Berthelot and Nicholas de Lange emphasize, Jewish perceptions of Rome were not monolithic hatred but layered theology—part lament, part reflection, part hope. The rabbis did not see Rome simply as “the enemy.” They saw in it a mirror—a distorted, dangerous reflection of Israel’s own vocation.
In rabbinic literature, this paradox took the form of a grand allegory:
🧔♂️ Jacob (Israel) → The people of God, chosen but afflicted.🧔♀️ Esau (Edom) → The Roman Empire, powerful but profane.
Rome was thus not Babylon, a mere tyrant doomed to fall. It was Esau, Israel’s brother and rival—a twin who shared divine favor but wielded it for worldly dominion.
⚔️ 2️⃣ Rome as the Fourth Beast and the Twin of Israel
The earliest midrashim—Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Sifre Deuteronomy, and Leviticus Rabbah—read the empire through Daniel’s vision of the four beasts. Babylon, Media, and Greece had come and gone. Rome was the fourth and dreadful beast, “terrifying and exceedingly strong,” devouring the whole earth (Daniel 7:7).
Yet even as the rabbis inserted Rome into the succession of empires, they refused to see it as just another empire. As Berthelot notes, rabbinic commentators both normalized and singled out Rome: it was “just one kingdom among many”—and yet, the only one strong enough to destroy the Temple and claim Israel’s inheritance.
Leviticus Rabbah 13:5 goes further:
“Rome is equivalent to the three empires combined.”
It thus became the summation of history, the last empire before God’s final rule—the last “Edom” before the Messianic dawn.
This duality—Rome as ordinary and exceptional, a beast yet a brother—defined the Jewish understanding of the empire across centuries.
✡️ 3️⃣ Esau and the Jewish Mind of Late Antiquity
The identification of Rome with Esau/Edom appears as early as the first century CE, hinted at in 4 Ezra, Josephus, and Philo of Alexandria.
-
Philo, reflecting on Numbers 20, sees “Edom” as the worldly kingdom blocking Israel’s path to the Promised Land—a metaphor easily read as Rome.
-
Josephus, interpreting Balaam’s oracle, suggests that Israel will one day triumph over “Edom”—an oblique prophecy that later readers understood as the fall of Rome.
-
In 4 Ezra, the angel Uriel declares:
“Esau is the end of this age, and Jacob is the beginning of the age that follows.”
Here Rome and Israel are successive epochs of history—the empire of the sword giving way to the kingdom of the spirit.
By the third century CE, this theology had crystallized in the Palestinian rabbinic academies. The rabbis no longer simply cursed Rome; they studied it, mapped it onto Scripture, and endowed it with metaphysical meaning.
In the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, each exile of Israel corresponds to a divine test—and Rome, identified as Edom, is the last exile before redemption. The Shekhinah itself, God’s Presence, accompanies Israel into Rome’s dominion, a profound statement of endurance: God goes into exile with His people.
💭 4️⃣ The Esau Paradigm: Rivalry, Resemblance, and Fear
This was not a choice of convenience but of psychological depth. Esau and Jacob shared blood, blessing, and destiny. Their struggle was intra-familial, not foreign. By naming Rome “Edom,” the rabbis made a bold claim:
“Rome is not alien to us. It is the other side of our own calling.”
As Israel Yuval notes, the preacher of Genesis Rabbah sensed this uncanny similarity:
“The preacher may have felt a similarity between the triumphalist imperialism of Rome and the universal messianic aspirations of Judaism.”
Thus, Rome was both brother and usurper—a spiritual counterfeit of Israel’s destiny.
⛪ 5️⃣ From Pagan Rome to Christian Rome: The Shift of Esau
Christian exegetes—beginning with Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, and flourishing in the age of Origen and Eusebius—reversed the rabbinic typology. They declared:
Jacob = Christ and His ChurchEsau = the Jews, the elder brother rejected by God
⚖️ 6️⃣ Enter Justinian: The Imperial Jacob
By the time Justinian ascended the throne (527 CE), this centuries-old dialectic between Jacob and Esau had hardened into imperial policy.
In the sixth century, the old rabbinic equation was tragically reversed.
-
For the rabbis, Rome was Esau, the brother who stole the blessing.
-
For Justinian, the Jews were Esau, the brother who rejected the true faith.
His Codex, especially 1:5:12–19, effectively redefined the relationship between the empire and its Jewish subjects: no longer twin rivals under Heaven, but an eternal hierarchy—Rome redeemed, Israel damned.
Justinian’s self-image as “Emperor of the Orthodox” embodied the Christian reinterpretation of Jacob’s supremacy:
“The elder shall serve the younger.”In Christian eyes, this prophecy was now fulfilled—Israel served Rome, and Rome served Christ.
Under this logic, the Jews of Justinian’s empire became a living allegory, tolerated as the defeated Esau, preserved only as evidence of divine justice.
🕯️ 7️⃣ The Persistence of the Old Memory
Yet the rabbis did not forget. Even in Justinian’s day, the liturgical poets of Palestine—Yannai, Eleazar Qillir, and others—continued to echo the ancient dichotomy. Their piyyutim speak of Esau’s arrogance, of Rome’s empire fattened like a serpent, of fire devouring Edom’s fields.
These were not mere laments; they were acts of theological resistance. While Justinian’s courts legislated that Jews could no longer serve in office or freely interpret Scripture, the synagogue became the last arena where Israel could still name Rome for what it was—Edom, the false brother.
-
The twin brothers struggling in the womb of history.
-
The empire claiming divine election.
-
The persecuted remnant holding to the promise that “the elder shall serve the younger.”
🔯 8️⃣ Conclusion – From Edom to Rome
Across half a millennium, Jewish thought transformed Rome from a geopolitical adversary into a mystical category of evil and imitation—a brotherly rival who mirrored Israel’s mission while perverting its purpose.
In Justinian’s reign, that symbolism came full circle. The Christian empire now stood where Israel once stood: legislating faith, claiming divine mandate, and suppressing dissent.
II. Heraclius and the Final Roman–Persian War – Vengeance, Collaboration, and Retribution
For three generations—from Justinian’s accession in 527 to the fall of Maurice in 602—the Jews of the Roman world had lived under the shadow of an empire that legislated their inferiority. 📜✡️ Stripped of office, barred from public life, and humiliated by imperial theology that branded them as the “elder brother rejected,” they endured a century of subjection cloaked in Christian triumphalism. From Caesarea to Tiberias, communities that had once flourished under Roman tolerance now faced confiscations, forced conversions, and the degradation of their synagogues. Yet, when the tide of history turned—when Xusro II of Persia unleashed his devastating campaign in 602 CE, annihilating Roman armies and seizing Syria, Palestine, and Egypt—these long-oppressed populations suddenly saw divine justice on the horizon. ⚖️🔥
As Roman fortresses fell one by one, Jewish insurgents in Palestine and Syria rose in revolt, interpreting Persia’s victories as heaven’s retribution for a century of Christian arrogance. In Caesarea, Tiberias, and Jerusalem, riots broke out; Jewish militias joined Persian columns, guiding them through familiar terrain, avenging decades of persecution under Justinianic law and its successors. 🗡️✡️ For the first time since the Bar Kokhba catastrophe five centuries earlier, Jewish arms openly confronted Rome—not as rebels against pagan emperors, but against the Christian Empire that had claimed to be the “New Israel.”
Yet this moment of vengeance would prove fleeting. The Jewish hope that Persia’s triumph might herald a messianic reversal—the fall of “Edom” at last—would instead give way to betrayal, massacre, and expulsion when Heraclius returned in fury. 🩸⚔️ The war between Rome and Persia (602–628 CE) thus became not only the last great conflict of Antiquity, but also a grim theater where theology, politics, and revenge intertwined—culminating in the tragic dance of collaboration and retribution that defined the twilight of Roman rule in the Holy Land
✡️ II.A – The Jewish Uprisings of 607–610 CE: Between Pogrom and Persian Advance
✡️ II.A – The Jewish Uprisings of 607–610 CE: Between Pogrom and Persian Advance
⚔️ 607–608 CE – Revolt, Persecution, and the Chaos of Phocas’ Reign
According to Theophanes the Confessor (AM 6101), a Jewish uprising broke out in Antioch in 608 CE, prompting the tyrant Emperor Phocas to dispatch generals Bonosus and Cottanas to crush the rebellion. 🩸 Yet, as modern historians like Ilkka Syvänne and David M. Olster have shown, this was far from a simple case of Jewish sedition. Instead, the Levant had descended into a perfect storm of religious factionalism, imperial terror, and civil war.
The Chronicle of Zuqnin reports that Phocas had ordered the forced baptism of all Jews in Jerusalem, under a prefect named George, a policy that can only be described as religious coercion weaponized by desperation. ⛓️✝️ Whether the Jews truly conspired with the Persians or merely reacted to these pogroms remains uncertain—but the result was the same: Phocas’ cruelty drove them into Persian arms.
Meanwhile, across the cities of Syria and Palestine, Christian sects and political factions turned on each other. The notorious Blue and Green factions of the Hippodrome extended their rivalries into street warfare. In Antioch, Chalcedonians clashed with Miaphysites, while in Egypt, supporters of the exiled Patriarch Theodosius defied Phocas’ brutal regime. 🟩🟦 The chronicler John of Nikiu describes these scenes in blood-chilling detail:
“They slew many people in the church till they had filled all the edifices with blood… and this frightful massacre extended to Palestine and Egypt.”
It was amid this collapse of imperial authority that Jewish communities—already persecuted, distrusted, and armed with little to lose—saw a fleeting chance for deliverance.
According to Theophanes the Confessor (AM 6101), a Jewish uprising broke out in Antioch in 608 CE, prompting the tyrant Emperor Phocas to dispatch generals Bonosus and Cottanas to crush the rebellion. 🩸 Yet, as modern historians like Ilkka Syvänne and David M. Olster have shown, this was far from a simple case of Jewish sedition. Instead, the Levant had descended into a perfect storm of religious factionalism, imperial terror, and civil war.
The Chronicle of Zuqnin reports that Phocas had ordered the forced baptism of all Jews in Jerusalem, under a prefect named George, a policy that can only be described as religious coercion weaponized by desperation. ⛓️✝️ Whether the Jews truly conspired with the Persians or merely reacted to these pogroms remains uncertain—but the result was the same: Phocas’ cruelty drove them into Persian arms.
Meanwhile, across the cities of Syria and Palestine, Christian sects and political factions turned on each other. The notorious Blue and Green factions of the Hippodrome extended their rivalries into street warfare. In Antioch, Chalcedonians clashed with Miaphysites, while in Egypt, supporters of the exiled Patriarch Theodosius defied Phocas’ brutal regime. 🟩🟦 The chronicler John of Nikiu describes these scenes in blood-chilling detail:
“They slew many people in the church till they had filled all the edifices with blood… and this frightful massacre extended to Palestine and Egypt.”
It was amid this collapse of imperial authority that Jewish communities—already persecuted, distrusted, and armed with little to lose—saw a fleeting chance for deliverance.
🏛️ The Mission of Bonosus – The “Hyena of the East”
Phocas’ answer was ruthless. He sent his general Bonosus, whom John of Nikiu calls “a man malignantly tempered, like a fierce hyena,” to restore order. 🐾 Marching through Cilicia into Syria, Bonosus assembled a brutal force of Isaurian mountaineers, whose savagery became legendary. He unleashed terror across the Levant, burning, strangling, and drowning those accused of rebellion—Jews, Monophysites, and Greens alike. Entire monasteries were plundered, and the cities of Antioch, Phoenicia, and Palestine bled under his reprisals.
This campaign blurred every line: Jews and Miaphysites stood accused as Persian collaborators, while Chalcedonian loyalists became Phocas’ enforcers. The distinction between religion and rebellion evaporated. The empire that had once prided itself on being the Christian oikoumene had now become a civil war of the faithful.
Phocas’ answer was ruthless. He sent his general Bonosus, whom John of Nikiu calls “a man malignantly tempered, like a fierce hyena,” to restore order. 🐾 Marching through Cilicia into Syria, Bonosus assembled a brutal force of Isaurian mountaineers, whose savagery became legendary. He unleashed terror across the Levant, burning, strangling, and drowning those accused of rebellion—Jews, Monophysites, and Greens alike. Entire monasteries were plundered, and the cities of Antioch, Phoenicia, and Palestine bled under his reprisals.
This campaign blurred every line: Jews and Miaphysites stood accused as Persian collaborators, while Chalcedonian loyalists became Phocas’ enforcers. The distinction between religion and rebellion evaporated. The empire that had once prided itself on being the Christian oikoumene had now become a civil war of the faithful.
🏙️ 610 CE – Caesarea and Antioch: Between Rumor and Reality
By 610 CE, as Shahin, one of Xusro’s greatest generals, advanced deep into Cappadocia, the chaos intensified. When his Persian army approached Caesarea, the Christian inhabitants fled, but the local Jews went out to welcome the invaders. 🕎🤝 Theophanes records this as a moment of infamy—proof, in his eyes, of Jewish treachery. Yet his narrative, written centuries later, reeks of theological propaganda more than objective history.
The truth, reconstructed from Sebeos, Theophanes, and Syvänne, suggests something subtler: the Jews of Caesarea and Antioch saw the Persians not as foreign conquerors, but as liberators from an empire that had outlawed their very existence. ✡️⚖️
At Antioch, resistance lingered longer. The Chalcedonian patriarch was slain amidst the chaos—yet the infamous tale that Jews murdered and mutilated him was almost certainly fabricated. 🩸🕯️ As Syvänne makes clear, this was an anti-Semitic canard, a way for Roman chroniclers to channel the trauma of defeat into a familiar scapegoat. In reality, Antioch had fallen not to Jewish rebels, but to civil war and imperial collapse.
By 610 CE, as Shahin, one of Xusro’s greatest generals, advanced deep into Cappadocia, the chaos intensified. When his Persian army approached Caesarea, the Christian inhabitants fled, but the local Jews went out to welcome the invaders. 🕎🤝 Theophanes records this as a moment of infamy—proof, in his eyes, of Jewish treachery. Yet his narrative, written centuries later, reeks of theological propaganda more than objective history.
The truth, reconstructed from Sebeos, Theophanes, and Syvänne, suggests something subtler: the Jews of Caesarea and Antioch saw the Persians not as foreign conquerors, but as liberators from an empire that had outlawed their very existence. ✡️⚖️
At Antioch, resistance lingered longer. The Chalcedonian patriarch was slain amidst the chaos—yet the infamous tale that Jews murdered and mutilated him was almost certainly fabricated. 🩸🕯️ As Syvänne makes clear, this was an anti-Semitic canard, a way for Roman chroniclers to channel the trauma of defeat into a familiar scapegoat. In reality, Antioch had fallen not to Jewish rebels, but to civil war and imperial collapse.
🕯️ A World Crumbling
Between 607 and 610 CE, the Eastern Empire was not simply invaded—it was internally undone. The Jews, hemmed in by centuries of degradation and now forced to choose between baptism and survival, became the unwilling protagonists of an apocalypse they had not designed.
Their brief alignment with Persia was not an act of betrayal—it was a desperate gamble born of oppression, an attempt to find agency in a world that denied them dignity. Yet, as history would show, this choice would echo ominously in Roman memory: the legend of “Jewish collaboration” would survive long after the cities themselves were reduced to ash. 🏺🔥
Between 607 and 610 CE, the Eastern Empire was not simply invaded—it was internally undone. The Jews, hemmed in by centuries of degradation and now forced to choose between baptism and survival, became the unwilling protagonists of an apocalypse they had not designed.
Their brief alignment with Persia was not an act of betrayal—it was a desperate gamble born of oppression, an attempt to find agency in a world that denied them dignity. Yet, as history would show, this choice would echo ominously in Roman memory: the legend of “Jewish collaboration” would survive long after the cities themselves were reduced to ash. 🏺🔥
🏙️ II.B – The Fall of Jerusalem (614 CE): Liberation, Massacre, and the Price of Vengeance
The fall of Jerusalem in the spring of 614 CE was one of the most shocking and transformative events in Late Antiquity. ⚔️ It resounded across the Mediterranean world, from the monasteries of Judea to the cathedral schools of Spain, and was remembered as both a miracle of deliverance and a nightmare of retribution—depending on who told the story. ✡️✝️
The armies of Shahrbaraz, the brilliant Persian general of Xusro II Parwēz, had already overrun Syria, Damascus, and Caesarea. Now, before them lay the Holy City—Jerusalem, the crossroads of prophecy, empire, and millennia of suffering. The city’s Christian leaders feared annihilation; its Jewish population, long oppressed and humiliated under Roman rule, saw the advancing Persians as possible agents of divine justice.
Yet, as the chroniclers would reveal, this moment of supposed redemption would spiral into an inferno of vengeance, confusion, and myth-making that would scar all three faiths for centuries to come.
The fall of Jerusalem in the spring of 614 CE was one of the most shocking and transformative events in Late Antiquity. ⚔️ It resounded across the Mediterranean world, from the monasteries of Judea to the cathedral schools of Spain, and was remembered as both a miracle of deliverance and a nightmare of retribution—depending on who told the story. ✡️✝️
The armies of Shahrbaraz, the brilliant Persian general of Xusro II Parwēz, had already overrun Syria, Damascus, and Caesarea. Now, before them lay the Holy City—Jerusalem, the crossroads of prophecy, empire, and millennia of suffering. The city’s Christian leaders feared annihilation; its Jewish population, long oppressed and humiliated under Roman rule, saw the advancing Persians as possible agents of divine justice.
Yet, as the chroniclers would reveal, this moment of supposed redemption would spiral into an inferno of vengeance, confusion, and myth-making that would scar all three faiths for centuries to come.
⚔️ Prelude to Catastrophe: Jews, Persians, and the Fractured City
By early 614 CE, Jerusalem was under Persian suzerainty, having peacefully submitted months earlier to Persian authority. The arrangement was carefully negotiated between Patriarch Zacharias and Persian envoys, who were lodged in the city to oversee its administration. In exchange for gifts and compliance, Shahrbaraz promised peace.
➡️ Yet peace was fragile. Factional hatred simmered beneath the surface.
The Blues and Greens, the rival circus factions that had once filled the Hippodrome of Constantinople, now carried their rivalries into the streets of Jerusalem. 🟩🟦 On Easter (March 30, 614 CE), when Christian fervor was at its height, violence erupted. Rumors spread that the city’s Jewish minority, emboldened by Persian favor, had conspired with the occupiers.
The factions turned on both the Persian commissioners and the Jews, killing the Persian envoys and massacring Jewish residents in the streets. Blood ran through the alleys of the Holy City. 🩸 Those Jews who survived leapt from the city walls and fled to Shahrbaraz, who was stationed at Caesarea Maritima, pleading for vengeance.
The rebellion had spread: Jericho, Ptolemais, and Tyre reportedly joined in revolt against Persian rule. Panic swept through Palestine.
Shahrbaraz acted swiftly. Gathering his army—battle-hardened veterans of Mesopotamia and cavalry from the Iranian plateau—he marched on Jerusalem.
Patriarch Zacharias, horrified, urged surrender. But the young zealots of the factions refused. To them, resistance was an act of faith; to the Persians, it was rebellion. The stage was set for the siege of the sacred city. ⚔️
By early 614 CE, Jerusalem was under Persian suzerainty, having peacefully submitted months earlier to Persian authority. The arrangement was carefully negotiated between Patriarch Zacharias and Persian envoys, who were lodged in the city to oversee its administration. In exchange for gifts and compliance, Shahrbaraz promised peace.
➡️ Yet peace was fragile. Factional hatred simmered beneath the surface.
The Blues and Greens, the rival circus factions that had once filled the Hippodrome of Constantinople, now carried their rivalries into the streets of Jerusalem. 🟩🟦 On Easter (March 30, 614 CE), when Christian fervor was at its height, violence erupted. Rumors spread that the city’s Jewish minority, emboldened by Persian favor, had conspired with the occupiers.
The factions turned on both the Persian commissioners and the Jews, killing the Persian envoys and massacring Jewish residents in the streets. Blood ran through the alleys of the Holy City. 🩸 Those Jews who survived leapt from the city walls and fled to Shahrbaraz, who was stationed at Caesarea Maritima, pleading for vengeance.
The rebellion had spread: Jericho, Ptolemais, and Tyre reportedly joined in revolt against Persian rule. Panic swept through Palestine.
Shahrbaraz acted swiftly. Gathering his army—battle-hardened veterans of Mesopotamia and cavalry from the Iranian plateau—he marched on Jerusalem.
Patriarch Zacharias, horrified, urged surrender. But the young zealots of the factions refused. To them, resistance was an act of faith; to the Persians, it was rebellion. The stage was set for the siege of the sacred city. ⚔️
🏰 The Siege of Jerusalem – April 15 to May 17, 614 CE
From 15 April to 5 May 614 CE, Jerusalem endured a siege of nineteen to twenty days, a short but apocalyptic confrontation.
Shahrbaraz encircled the city with siege towers, artillery, and engineers. His men hurled stones and fire from catapults and mined the walls from beneath. Smoke and dust filled the sky; prayers and screams mingled in the streets.
Inside the city, Patriarch Zacharias sent Modestus, abbot of St. Theodosius, to Jericho to beg for reinforcements—but the Roman garrison there fled upon seeing the might of the Persian army.
Antiochus Strategius, a monk of St. Sabas and an eyewitness to the siege, described the horror in words that have echoed through the centuries:
“The evil foemen entered the city like enraged beasts and serpents… they spared neither priest nor virgin, neither child nor elder… the crosses were trampled, and the churches ran with blood.”
For three days, the Persians stormed the city, cutting down resistance wherever they found it. Those who sought refuge in churches were slaughtered at the altars. Monks and nuns were butchered or enslaved. ⛓️
By the fourth day, the fury ebbed. Shahrbaraz ordered the killing to cease and proclaimed amnesty for those who emerged from hiding.
When the survivors crept out of the cisterns and caves, they found a city in ruins. Hundreds of churches burned, and bodies littered the streets.
From 15 April to 5 May 614 CE, Jerusalem endured a siege of nineteen to twenty days, a short but apocalyptic confrontation.
Shahrbaraz encircled the city with siege towers, artillery, and engineers. His men hurled stones and fire from catapults and mined the walls from beneath. Smoke and dust filled the sky; prayers and screams mingled in the streets.
Inside the city, Patriarch Zacharias sent Modestus, abbot of St. Theodosius, to Jericho to beg for reinforcements—but the Roman garrison there fled upon seeing the might of the Persian army.
Antiochus Strategius, a monk of St. Sabas and an eyewitness to the siege, described the horror in words that have echoed through the centuries:
“The evil foemen entered the city like enraged beasts and serpents… they spared neither priest nor virgin, neither child nor elder… the crosses were trampled, and the churches ran with blood.”
For three days, the Persians stormed the city, cutting down resistance wherever they found it. Those who sought refuge in churches were slaughtered at the altars. Monks and nuns were butchered or enslaved. ⛓️
By the fourth day, the fury ebbed. Shahrbaraz ordered the killing to cease and proclaimed amnesty for those who emerged from hiding.
When the survivors crept out of the cisterns and caves, they found a city in ruins. Hundreds of churches burned, and bodies littered the streets.
🕎 The Jewish Role: Between Collaboration and Scapegoat
It was here, in the ashes of Jerusalem, that the controversy over Jewish involvement reached its most bitter point.
Christian sources like Antiochus Strategius and later Eutychius claimed that Jews “bought Christian prisoners from the Persians to kill them”, and that they had burned churches and desecrated the Holy Sepulchre. These tales—colored by grief, outrage, and centuries of hostility—became the foundation for medieval anti-Jewish legends.
But the historical record, when sifted carefully, paints a more complex picture. 🕯️
➡️ The Khuzistan Chronicle, an early Persian Christian source, confirms that some Jewish groups indeed joined the Persians, believing this would end Roman persecution. They reportedly torched churches—but crucially, it also states that Shahrbaraz was deceived by Jewish collaborators into destroying sacred sites, believing treasure was hidden beneath them.
➡️ When Xusro II learned of this, he was enraged. Acting on the advice of his Christian official Yazdin, he ordered the confiscation of Jewish property and the crucifixion of those responsible. The Jews were expelled from Jerusalem, and Modestus was appointed acting Patriarch to oversee the city’s rebuilding.
➡️ As Sebeos and Howard-Johnston both note, Xusro’s reaction was decisive and political—he wanted to keep Christian opinion within his empire stable and to present Persia as a legitimate power, not a pagan destroyer.
Thus, the Persians punished their former Jewish allies, an act that destroyed the fragile Persian–Jewish partnership that had begun in hope only a few years earlier.
It was here, in the ashes of Jerusalem, that the controversy over Jewish involvement reached its most bitter point.
Christian sources like Antiochus Strategius and later Eutychius claimed that Jews “bought Christian prisoners from the Persians to kill them”, and that they had burned churches and desecrated the Holy Sepulchre. These tales—colored by grief, outrage, and centuries of hostility—became the foundation for medieval anti-Jewish legends.
But the historical record, when sifted carefully, paints a more complex picture. 🕯️
➡️ The Khuzistan Chronicle, an early Persian Christian source, confirms that some Jewish groups indeed joined the Persians, believing this would end Roman persecution. They reportedly torched churches—but crucially, it also states that Shahrbaraz was deceived by Jewish collaborators into destroying sacred sites, believing treasure was hidden beneath them.
➡️ When Xusro II learned of this, he was enraged. Acting on the advice of his Christian official Yazdin, he ordered the confiscation of Jewish property and the crucifixion of those responsible. The Jews were expelled from Jerusalem, and Modestus was appointed acting Patriarch to oversee the city’s rebuilding.
➡️ As Sebeos and Howard-Johnston both note, Xusro’s reaction was decisive and political—he wanted to keep Christian opinion within his empire stable and to present Persia as a legitimate power, not a pagan destroyer.
Thus, the Persians punished their former Jewish allies, an act that destroyed the fragile Persian–Jewish partnership that had begun in hope only a few years earlier.
⛓️ Massacre, Deportation, and the Loss of the True Cross
The sack lasted three days, the Persian occupation twenty-one. When order was restored, the victors began the grim process of division:
-
Artisans, architects, and skilled workers were deported to Ctesiphon and Weh-Ardashir.
-
Civilians were herded to the Mamilla pool, just outside the city walls, where Persian soldiers and Jewish collaborators selected prisoners for execution.
-
Patriarch Zacharias was taken captive, leading his people in chains to Mesopotamia.
The casualty figures vary wildly:
-
Sebeos: ~17,000 dead and 35,000 enslaved.
-
Antiochus: 66,509 dead.
-
West Syrian tradition: as high as 90,000.
Even the lowest figures mark the greatest massacre of Christians in the Near East before the Crusades.
The Persians looted Jerusalem’s treasures, melting gold and silver into ingots for transport eastward. But the most devastating loss was spiritual:
➡️ The True Cross, the most sacred relic of Christendom, was seized after torture forced clergy to reveal its hiding place.
➡️ It was taken to Dastgird, Xusro’s palace-city near Ctesiphon, and locked in his treasury beside the imperial diadems.
This was not merely plunder—it was symbolic conquest. The cross that Constantine had once raised over the Empire now lay in the hands of its oldest enemy. ✝️➡️☀️
The sack lasted three days, the Persian occupation twenty-one. When order was restored, the victors began the grim process of division:
-
Artisans, architects, and skilled workers were deported to Ctesiphon and Weh-Ardashir.
-
Civilians were herded to the Mamilla pool, just outside the city walls, where Persian soldiers and Jewish collaborators selected prisoners for execution.
-
Patriarch Zacharias was taken captive, leading his people in chains to Mesopotamia.
The casualty figures vary wildly:
-
Sebeos: ~17,000 dead and 35,000 enslaved.
-
Antiochus: 66,509 dead.
-
West Syrian tradition: as high as 90,000.
Even the lowest figures mark the greatest massacre of Christians in the Near East before the Crusades.
The Persians looted Jerusalem’s treasures, melting gold and silver into ingots for transport eastward. But the most devastating loss was spiritual:
➡️ The True Cross, the most sacred relic of Christendom, was seized after torture forced clergy to reveal its hiding place.
➡️ It was taken to Dastgird, Xusro’s palace-city near Ctesiphon, and locked in his treasury beside the imperial diadems.
This was not merely plunder—it was symbolic conquest. The cross that Constantine had once raised over the Empire now lay in the hands of its oldest enemy. ✝️➡️☀️
🏚️ Aftermath – The Fires of Jerusalem and the Persian Reversal
Archaeological evidence confirms the devastation: mass graves near the Mamilla Pool, charred remains of churches, and scattered coins of Phocas mark the layer of destruction. 🪦🔥
Yet, amid the ruins, life resumed. Modestus, the new Patriarch, rebuilt churches and restored worship under Persian permission. The Persians, recognizing the diplomatic cost of the massacre, financed a partial reconstruction.
Meanwhile, elsewhere, Jewish hopes crumbled. The Persians, under pressure from Christian clergy and their own need for stability, revoked Jewish privileges and expelled them from the city. What had begun as a Jewish dream of liberation ended in renewed exile.
In the months that followed, the Levant dissolved into anarchy. Bedouin tribes ravaged the countryside. Tyre, Caesarea, and Ptolemais rose and fell in new revolts, while Persians and Romans struggled for control of the coast.
And in Constantinople, the horror of Jerusalem’s fall hardened hearts. The loss of the True Cross was seen not merely as a military failure—but as a cosmic humiliation.
Archaeological evidence confirms the devastation: mass graves near the Mamilla Pool, charred remains of churches, and scattered coins of Phocas mark the layer of destruction. 🪦🔥
Yet, amid the ruins, life resumed. Modestus, the new Patriarch, rebuilt churches and restored worship under Persian permission. The Persians, recognizing the diplomatic cost of the massacre, financed a partial reconstruction.
Meanwhile, elsewhere, Jewish hopes crumbled. The Persians, under pressure from Christian clergy and their own need for stability, revoked Jewish privileges and expelled them from the city. What had begun as a Jewish dream of liberation ended in renewed exile.
In the months that followed, the Levant dissolved into anarchy. Bedouin tribes ravaged the countryside. Tyre, Caesarea, and Ptolemais rose and fell in new revolts, while Persians and Romans struggled for control of the coast.
And in Constantinople, the horror of Jerusalem’s fall hardened hearts. The loss of the True Cross was seen not merely as a military failure—but as a cosmic humiliation.
✝️ Epilogue – A Cross Carried to Babylon
When news reached the imperial capital, Nicetas, Heraclius’ cousin and general in Egypt, recovered two relics—the Holy Sponge and Holy Spear—from Persian hands, displaying them in Constantinople to restore morale.
But the great Cross of Christ remained in Persia, and to the Roman mind, the world itself seemed inverted: the city of David burned, its Christians enslaved, its Cross lost.
For the Jews of Palestine, the brief Persian interlude would forever haunt their memory. Liberation had turned to ashes. They had survived the Justinianic age only to be crushed in the Heraclian one.
And for Rome, the loss of Jerusalem marked the darkest night before the dawn—for from these ashes would rise Heraclius’ apocalyptic campaign, and beyond it, the armies of Islam, who would inherit a land already bled dry by vengeance. 🌙⚔️
When news reached the imperial capital, Nicetas, Heraclius’ cousin and general in Egypt, recovered two relics—the Holy Sponge and Holy Spear—from Persian hands, displaying them in Constantinople to restore morale.
But the great Cross of Christ remained in Persia, and to the Roman mind, the world itself seemed inverted: the city of David burned, its Christians enslaved, its Cross lost.
For the Jews of Palestine, the brief Persian interlude would forever haunt their memory. Liberation had turned to ashes. They had survived the Justinianic age only to be crushed in the Heraclian one.
And for Rome, the loss of Jerusalem marked the darkest night before the dawn—for from these ashes would rise Heraclius’ apocalyptic campaign, and beyond it, the armies of Islam, who would inherit a land already bled dry by vengeance. 🌙⚔️
✝️ II.C – The Return of the Empire (628–630 CE): The Cross Restored, the Oath Broken, and the Massacre of the Jews
When Heraclius returned from the Persian frontiers in 628 CE, the world he beheld was unrecognizable. The twenty-five-year nightmare between Rome and Persia had ended — but it had left behind a wasteland of burned cities, broken faiths, and unhealed hatreds. ⚔️🔥
The Roman emperor’s victory was absolute: Xusro Parwēz was overthrown and executed by his son Kawad II; the True Cross, stolen from Jerusalem fourteen years earlier, was returned in triumph. Yet beneath the hymns of thanksgiving and the illuminated processions, a darker tide was rising — a tide of vengeance, sanctified and total.
After generations of humiliation under Justinianic decrees, persecution under Phocas, and decades of war and collaboration, the Jewish communities of the Levant now faced the full fury of a resurgent Christian Empire.
When Heraclius returned from the Persian frontiers in 628 CE, the world he beheld was unrecognizable. The twenty-five-year nightmare between Rome and Persia had ended — but it had left behind a wasteland of burned cities, broken faiths, and unhealed hatreds. ⚔️🔥
The Roman emperor’s victory was absolute: Xusro Parwēz was overthrown and executed by his son Kawad II; the True Cross, stolen from Jerusalem fourteen years earlier, was returned in triumph. Yet beneath the hymns of thanksgiving and the illuminated processions, a darker tide was rising — a tide of vengeance, sanctified and total.
After generations of humiliation under Justinianic decrees, persecution under Phocas, and decades of war and collaboration, the Jewish communities of the Levant now faced the full fury of a resurgent Christian Empire.
🌅 Jerusalem, 630 CE – The Cross Restored, the Oath Broken
On March 30th, 630 CE, Heraclius entered Jerusalem in solemn procession. It was the most exalted ceremony of his reign — and, in retrospect, one of the most catastrophic for interreligious relations in Late Antiquity.
Theophanes records that Heraclius had:
“....restored the venerable and life-giving Cross to its proper place. After giving many thanks to God, he drove the Jews out of the Holy City and ordered that they should not have the right to come within three miles of it.”
The Cross — seized by Shahrbaraz in 614 — was carried before him in a triumphal procession through the city’s ruined gates. Priests swung censers, choirs sang psalms of victory, and the emperor himself — barefoot and clad in a simple robe — bore the relic to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, restoring it to its altar. ✝️🌿
But outside the city, a darker scene unfolded.
As Eutychius of Alexandria and the Egyptian historian al-Maqrīzī later recount, delegations of Jews from Tiberias and Galilee met the emperor on his approach to Palestine. Bearing costly gifts, they begged for amān (safe-conduct) and pledged loyalty to the empire. Heraclius, moved or perhaps calculating, swore to protect them, granting them a written covenant of security.
He then entered Jerusalem to thunderous Christian acclaim — only to be met with searing reminders of what had transpired sixteen years earlier.
The Christian clergy and laity poured forth their tales: how the Jews had, with Persian arms, slaughtered Christians, desecrated the Sepulchre, and bathed the streets of Jerusalem in blood. They implored the emperor for vengeance, urging him to see divine justice in Jewish extinction.
Heraclius hesitated. He had sworn an oath. Breaking it, he knew, would be an act of iniuria, a grave injustice in both Roman and Christian law. As Milka Levy-Rubin notes, the emperor’s words, reveal a man torn between conscience and fury:
“How could I consider it lawful to kill them after I have given them amān and written an agreement to that effect? You know what is incumbent upon one who breaks the covenant! If I break it, it will be a disgrace and a great defamation for me.”
But the patriarchs, bishops, and monks of Jerusalem — still haunted by 614 — pressed harder. They reminded Heraclius that his oath had been won by deceit, that he had been tricked by “those who crucified the Lord.”
And so, as al-Maqrīzī’s al-Khiṭaṭ describes in chilling detail, the emperor allowed himself to be absolved of his oath. The clergy, seeking to erase his guilt, declared that they and all Christendom would atone for the broken promise by fasting one week each year, forever — the “Week of Heraclius.”
“Then Heraclius unleashed a terrible slaughter upon the Jews — a massacre so great that none were left alive in the Roman dominions of Syria and Egypt save those who concealed themselves or fled. And the patriarchs and bishops wrote to all lands to enjoin the Christians to fast one week every year, to this day known as the ‘Fast of Heraclius.’” (al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ)
On March 30th, 630 CE, Heraclius entered Jerusalem in solemn procession. It was the most exalted ceremony of his reign — and, in retrospect, one of the most catastrophic for interreligious relations in Late Antiquity.
Theophanes records that Heraclius had:
“....restored the venerable and life-giving Cross to its proper place. After giving many thanks to God, he drove the Jews out of the Holy City and ordered that they should not have the right to come within three miles of it.”
The Cross — seized by Shahrbaraz in 614 — was carried before him in a triumphal procession through the city’s ruined gates. Priests swung censers, choirs sang psalms of victory, and the emperor himself — barefoot and clad in a simple robe — bore the relic to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, restoring it to its altar. ✝️🌿
But outside the city, a darker scene unfolded.
As Eutychius of Alexandria and the Egyptian historian al-Maqrīzī later recount, delegations of Jews from Tiberias and Galilee met the emperor on his approach to Palestine. Bearing costly gifts, they begged for amān (safe-conduct) and pledged loyalty to the empire. Heraclius, moved or perhaps calculating, swore to protect them, granting them a written covenant of security.
He then entered Jerusalem to thunderous Christian acclaim — only to be met with searing reminders of what had transpired sixteen years earlier.
The Christian clergy and laity poured forth their tales: how the Jews had, with Persian arms, slaughtered Christians, desecrated the Sepulchre, and bathed the streets of Jerusalem in blood. They implored the emperor for vengeance, urging him to see divine justice in Jewish extinction.
Heraclius hesitated. He had sworn an oath. Breaking it, he knew, would be an act of iniuria, a grave injustice in both Roman and Christian law. As Milka Levy-Rubin notes, the emperor’s words, reveal a man torn between conscience and fury:
“How could I consider it lawful to kill them after I have given them amān and written an agreement to that effect? You know what is incumbent upon one who breaks the covenant! If I break it, it will be a disgrace and a great defamation for me.”
But the patriarchs, bishops, and monks of Jerusalem — still haunted by 614 — pressed harder. They reminded Heraclius that his oath had been won by deceit, that he had been tricked by “those who crucified the Lord.”
And so, as al-Maqrīzī’s al-Khiṭaṭ describes in chilling detail, the emperor allowed himself to be absolved of his oath. The clergy, seeking to erase his guilt, declared that they and all Christendom would atone for the broken promise by fasting one week each year, forever — the “Week of Heraclius.”
“Then Heraclius unleashed a terrible slaughter upon the Jews — a massacre so great that none were left alive in the Roman dominions of Syria and Egypt save those who concealed themselves or fled. And the patriarchs and bishops wrote to all lands to enjoin the Christians to fast one week every year, to this day known as the ‘Fast of Heraclius.’” (al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ)
Was this massacre real? Could such a campaign of vengeance—imperial, ecclesiastical, and social—truly have erupted across the Roman Near East in 630 CE?
The convergence of Greek, Syriac, Coptic, and Arabic traditions—each with its own confessional lens—suggests that something immense, bloody, and morally shattering did in fact occur. Far from being a myth spun in later centuries, the evidence points to a sequence of progressive escalations: from tension and mistrust, to oath and reprieve, to massacre and forced conversion.
💀 A Broader Policy of Persecution – Forced Baptisms and Empire-Wide Edicts
By 630, Heraclius’s vengeance against the Jews of Palestine had crystallized into a systematic imperial policy—one that extended beyond retribution and entered the realm of enforced salvation. What began as a localized campaign of punishment for wartime betrayal soon evolved into an empire-wide effort to eliminate Judaism as a political and spiritual rival.
Modern scholarship, particularly the meticulous reconstruction of Remus Mihai Feraru, confirms that Heraclius’s anti-Jewish violence was not confined to the Levant. It was, rather, the outward expression of a broader imperial vision—a vision that fused political vengeance, religious unity, and apocalyptic expectation into a single project of forced conversion.
🕎 From Vengeance to Vision: Heraclius’s Ideological Turn
After March 630, immediately following the solemn restoration of the True Cross to Jerusalem, Heraclius’s stance toward the Jewish population “changed drastically.” What had begun as imperial clemency at Tiberias—where Heraclius had promised safety to Jewish leaders—transformed into a theology of eradication.
The Jews, now perceived not merely as collaborators but as existential subversives, became identified with the spiritual enemy within—the shadow that had allowed Persia to triumph and desecrate the Holy City in 614.
As Eutychius of Alexandria records, the emperor, “overwhelmed with remorse” for breaking his solemn oath of protection to the Galilean Jews, sought expiation through a week of fasting. Yet even in this act of penitence, he issued new orders of massacre and forced conversion throughout Palestine, thus intertwining remorse with repression.
In the emperor’s mind, vengeance and salvation were not opposites—they were phases of the same divine mission.
✝️ Heraclius’s Theological Logic: Saving the Empire by Saving Israel
Feraru summarizes Heraclius’s reasoning succinctly:
“According to Heraclius’s vision, the danger that the Hebrews posed for the Empire would disappear the moment they embraced Christianity.”
That conviction—rooted as much in apocalyptic theology as in statecraft—led him to decree the forced christening of all Jews across the Roman world. The decision was likely announced shortly after March 630, when the Cross was reinstalled in Jerusalem, and when the emperor stood at the symbolic apex of divine favor.
In Heraclius’s mind, this was not mere vengeance—it was eschatological repair. By compelling the Jews to accept baptism, he believed he was fulfilling St. Paul’s prophecy in Romans 11: “And so all Israel shall be saved.” The act would not only heal the divisions of the empire but usher in the long-awaited age of Christian unity before the end of time.
As Paul Magdalino explains, Heraclius’s decree must be read against the ideological atmosphere of the early 630s, when the emperor—flushed with victory over Persia—believed himself divinely chosen to restore harmony to a redeemed oikoumene.
The empire’s enemies—Persians, heretics, and Jews—were all, in his mind, obstacles to this final unification of Christendom. The doctrine of Monenergism, developed with Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople, embodied this same aspiration: a single divine-human energy mirroring a single empire and single faith.
Thus, forced conversion became a theological corollary to doctrinal unification. The conquest of Persia healed the body of the empire; the baptism of Israel would heal its soul.
🌍 “Tens of Thousands of Souls” – The Enforcement at Carthage (632 CE)
While the decree itself was universal in scope, its most brutal enforcement occurred in North Africa, in 632 CE, on the day of Pentecost, the imperial prefect George of Africa carried out Heraclius’s command in the provincial capital of Carthage. Maximus the Confessor, who witnessed or received firsthand reports of the event, writes with horror:
“The blessed servant of God and illustrious prefect, returning from Constantinople, baptized all the Hebrews and Samaritans—natives and foreigners alike—at the order of our faithful Emperors, together with their women, children, and servants. They were taken by force to the holy baptism—tens of thousands of souls in total—on the day of the Holy Pentecost of the fifth indiction. I hear that the same was done throughout the entire Roman Empire, which terrifies me tremendously.”
The prefect’s zeal turned baptism into spectacle: men, women, and children were herded en masse into the fonts. The act was not catechetical—it was administrative. There were no confessions of faith, no instruction in creed, only the imperial command to convert or die.
The Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati—a text written in 640 CE by a Palestinian convert living in Carthage—confirms this picture. It describes a community of forcibly baptized Jews, some despairing, some defiant, others inwardly clinging to their old faith. It explicitly names the emperor’s order as universal: all Jews in the empire were to be baptized “without exception,” on pain of death by burning.
Cartagena, Feraru notes, was a logical crucible for this imperial policy: an economically thriving hub with a large, cosmopolitan Jewish community—many of whom had fled from the east after the Persian wars, seeking refuge from Roman persecution. They had escaped one empire’s vengeance, only to fall into another’s.
🕯️ A Church Torn Between Obedience and Horror
The Church’s response to this imperial crusade of forced baptism was one of uneasy silence. Officially, there were no recorded synodal condemnations. The patriarchates of Constantinople and Alexandria were absorbed in theological controversies over Monenergism and Monothelitism, both imperial projects meant to consolidate unity.
Yet voices of protest did rise. Saint Maximus the Confessor, the same monk-theologian who would later defy emperors over Monothelitism, was the sole ecclesiastical figure to condemn Heraclius’s coercive zeal.
Writing to Abbot John of Cyzicus, Maximus expressed disgust at what he had seen or learned:
“This terrible event revolts me. Conversion by force infringes the freedom of the baptized and corrupts the purity of the faith. Those compelled to convert remain Jews in secret, while others will desecrate the holy sacraments openly.”
For Maximus, forced baptism profaned both Christian liberty and Christian mystery. It was not salvation—it was sacrilege.
He warned that such actions would bring not unity but apostasy—that the empire’s blending of coercion and creed would precipitate the very apocalypse it sought to prevent. In his apocalyptic letters, Maximus likened the mass conversions to the reign of Antichrist, a false harmony masking spiritual ruin.
⚡ Heraclius’s Political Theology: Eschatology as Policy
Paul Magdalino’s interpretation situates Heraclius’s policy in its full ideological context: a moment when the Roman Empire, fresh from its triumph over Persia, believed itself to stand on the threshold of the End Times.
In this climate, both Jews and Christians were steeped in eschatological expectation. For many Jews, the Persian victory over the Romans in 614 had seemed to herald the coming of the Messiah. Apocalyptic texts such as Sefer Zerubbabel and contemporary piyyutim envisioned a Jewish kingdom centered in Jerusalem, a messianic temple, and the final defeat of Rome.
For Christians, Heraclius’s reconquest in 628–630 marked the opposite: the final vindication of Christ’s empire, the dawn of the “Day without Evening” foretold by Roman poets like George of Pisidia.
In both apocalyptic imaginations, Heraclius himself occupied the central symbolic role—seen by Jews as Armilus, the Antichrist, and by Christians as the New Constantine, or even the Messianic Emperor.
Magdalino argues that Heraclius’s forced baptism of the Jews in 632 was not a mere reprisal but an attempt to collapse eschatology into policy—to fulfill Paul’s prophecy that “all Israel will be saved” and thereby inaugurate the Christian millennium.
“Heraclius was not trying to destroy Israel,” writes Magdalino, “but to redeem it—to ensure that the transition from the Roman Empire to the Kingdom of Christ occurred smoothly, without the violent regime change of the Antichrist.”
In Heraclius’s imagination, the conversion of the Jews was not only a political act but an apocalyptic necessity—the final step in completing the cosmic plan before the end of time.
⚖️ Heraclius and the Eschatological Empire
This vision explains both the severity and the symbolism of Heraclius’s policy. The mass baptism at Pentecost—the feast commemorating the descent of the Holy Spirit and the conversion of nations—was no coincidence. It dramatized the empire’s belief that the “fullness of the Gentiles” had come in, and that now, as St. Paul promised, “all Israel shall be saved.”
To the emperor, this was the consummation of history: the Christian Roman Empire becoming, in his mind, the eternal Fifth Kingdom of Daniel’s prophecy—the “Kingdom of the Saints” that would endure until the end of time.
But to men like Maximus, it was blasphemy: a coercive parody of Pentecost, a baptism without Spirit, a salvation without faith.
🕯️ The Backlash of History
The tragedy of Heraclius’s policy was not only its cruelty but its futility. The Doctrina Jacobi vividly records the psychological aftermath: newly baptized Jews in Carthage weeping, fasting, and secretly studying the Torah, questioning whether they had lost or found their souls.
“Ever since I was baptized,” laments one convert, “day and night, in tears and fasting, I read the Law and the Prophets in Greek, borrowing the holy books from my Christian friends, to understand whether I was lost after being baptized.”
Thus, Heraclius’s coercive salvation accelerated precisely what he most feared: the alignment of Jewish messianic hope with the early Muslim movement.
Within a few years, the empire he had sought to sanctify through baptism began to disintegrate before the armies of Islam.
🕎 Epilogue – From Empire to Amān: The Jews Between Cross and Crescent (602–632 CE)
Between 602 and 632 CE, the Jews of Syria and Palestine endured three empires in one generation—Roman, Persian, and Roman again. In barely thirty years, their world was turned and overturned by conquest, reprisal, and holy vengeance. Each regime promised order; each delivered upheaval and death.
When Xusro II’s Persian armies swept into the Levant in 614 CE, Jewish communities—long oppressed under Roman rule—saw in them not invaders but avengers. They rose against imperial garrisons, reopened synagogues, and even, for a brief moment, governed Jerusalem. But vengeance under Persia proved fleeting: by 628, the tide had turned.
The Romans returned, and with them, Heraclius, bearing the True Cross and the fury of divine retribution. From the Galilee to Gaza, the Jews now paid for their rebellion in blood. Those who had once welcomed the Persians were branded traitors to the Empire, enemies of the Cross.
Greek, Syriac, and Coptic sources converge upon this moment of reckoning. Theophanes, Sebeos, and Eutychius alike record expulsions, pogroms, and decrees that banished Jews from Jerusalem “not to come within three miles of the Holy City.” The emperor who once promised them amān in Tiberias now issued edicts of annihilation and baptism by force.
What modern historians call the “Heraclius Massacre” was thus both historical event and spiritual symbol—the final convulsion of an empire purging its own shadow. For Heraclius, vengeance was penitence; forced conversion was salvation; and blood was the price of purification. He believed that through baptism by compulsion, he could redeem the betrayal of Jerusalem and fulfill the prophecy that “all Israel shall be saved.”
Yet in this theology of coercion lay a fatal irony. The empire that claimed to restore Christ’s relic had, in the eyes of Maximus the Confessor, crucified Christ’s mercy itself. The monk’s lament resounds like a prophecy: faith turned to force, and empire to idolatry.
Within scarcely a decade, the same provinces that Heraclius had “cleansed”—Syria, Palestine, Egypt—fell, almost without resistance, to a new power from the south. Its leaders spoke of a covenant (amān) that could never be broken, of a God who keeps His promises, and of a law that forbade vengeance against those under protection.
Thus ended the world of Heraclius: triumphant in war, shattered in spirit. The Jews who had passed between the Cross and the Fire now stood at the threshold of a new dispensation—the dawn of Islam.
For them, and for the Near East entire, the seventh century was an age of apocalyptic reversal: empires collapsed, faiths convulsed, and history turned on its hinge. Between Cross and Crescent, in the ruins of oath and empire alike, a new order was rising—one that would forever change the world. 🌙⚖️
III. The Muslim Conquests – Fact, Rumor, and the Search for Agency
In the very year Emperor Heraclius reentered Jerusalem (630 CE), bearing the True Cross and unleashing vengeance upon its surviving Jews, another ruler entered his own holy city to the south — the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, returning to Mecca not as a conqueror of blood, but as a bringer of forgiveness. Where Heraclius expelled and baptized by force, Muḥammad forgave his former enemies, declaring, “Go, for you are free.” It was a moment of moral inversion across the world’s two great civilizations: as Roman purged its own, Arabia reconciled its own.
Yet the Prophet’s mission was not inward alone. Having fought his own wars with the Jewish tribes of Medina, Khaybar, and Taymaʾ — conflicts born of broken treaties and shifting loyalties — he now turned his gaze northward, toward the frontier of the Roman world. The expedition to Tabūk in 630 CE marked the first direct encounter between Islam and Rome. Though no battle was fought, it signaled a new phase in Near Eastern history: one empire retreating into vengeance and exhaustion, another civilization ascending through covenant and conviction.
Within just 10 years of Heraclius’s triumph, the balance of power would be overturned. As Muslim armies entered Syria and Palestine (634–640 CE), rumors spread — both among Muslims and their Roman foes — that the Jews, long broken and exiled, had risen again, aiding the newcomers in hopes of liberation. Whether truth or legend, this claim reveals a deeper search for agency amid collapse, as every community — Arab, Greek, Syriac, Jewish — sought to explain how the unthinkable had happened: the fall of the oldest empire on earth, and the rise of a new one under the banner of Islam.
In the very year Emperor Heraclius reentered Jerusalem (630 CE), bearing the True Cross and unleashing vengeance upon its surviving Jews, another ruler entered his own holy city to the south — the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, returning to Mecca not as a conqueror of blood, but as a bringer of forgiveness. Where Heraclius expelled and baptized by force, Muḥammad forgave his former enemies, declaring, “Go, for you are free.” It was a moment of moral inversion across the world’s two great civilizations: as Roman purged its own, Arabia reconciled its own.
Yet the Prophet’s mission was not inward alone. Having fought his own wars with the Jewish tribes of Medina, Khaybar, and Taymaʾ — conflicts born of broken treaties and shifting loyalties — he now turned his gaze northward, toward the frontier of the Roman world. The expedition to Tabūk in 630 CE marked the first direct encounter between Islam and Rome. Though no battle was fought, it signaled a new phase in Near Eastern history: one empire retreating into vengeance and exhaustion, another civilization ascending through covenant and conviction.
Within just 10 years of Heraclius’s triumph, the balance of power would be overturned. As Muslim armies entered Syria and Palestine (634–640 CE), rumors spread — both among Muslims and their Roman foes — that the Jews, long broken and exiled, had risen again, aiding the newcomers in hopes of liberation. Whether truth or legend, this claim reveals a deeper search for agency amid collapse, as every community — Arab, Greek, Syriac, Jewish — sought to explain how the unthinkable had happened: the fall of the oldest empire on earth, and the rise of a new one under the banner of Islam.
III.A – The Tabūk Campaign & the Case for Authenticity
📜 The Traditional Narrative: The Prophet’s Treaty Network
As recorded by the 9th-century historian Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā al-Balādhurī in his Futūḥ al-Buldān (The Conquest of the Lands), the Prophet Muhammad’s expedition to Tabūk in 9 AH (630–1 CE) was a pivotal moment. It was not a battle, but a dramatic projection of power to the fringes of the Roman Empire. The campaign resulted in a series of treaties with communities in southern Jordan, establishing a template for Islamic rule over non-Muslims.
Key agreements included:
➡️ Ayla (modern Aqaba): Made peace with its chief, Yuhanna ibn Ru'ba. The jizya was set at 1 dinar per adult per year, totaling 300 dinars. The people were to entertain Muslim travelers. ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz later upheld this exact amount.
➡️ Adhruḥ & Jarbā: Paid a yearly tribute of 100 dinars and jizya, respectively.
➡️ Maqnā (A Jewish Community): Agreed to a unique tax in kind: a quarter of their fish catch, spun thread, horses, coats of mail, and fruits. The Prophet granted them a written document, witnessed by ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, guaranteeing them "the protection (dhimma) of God and His Messenger," freedom from oppression, and self-administration under his ultimate authority.
Modern scholar Fred Astren presents a formidable critique of these accounts. He argues that the Tabūk treaties are not historical documents from 630 CE but are "anachronistic" projections from the Abbasid era (8th–9th centuries CE). His core arguments are:
⚖️ Systemic Anachronism: The treaties show a "regularized" system of jizya (poll tax) and kharāj (land tax) that only developed centuries later. Lump-sum payments and the clear distinction between taxes are signs of "ʿAbbāsid-era administration and theological thought."
🏛️ Centralization Fallacy: Such sophisticated treaties require a "centralized and orderly administration," which did not exist in Muhammad's time, where "tribal organization and personal ties dominated."
📜 "Muhammadan Constitutionalism": These stories were created to provide a "paradigmatic law-giver" and "legal precedent" for later Islamic law (sharīʿa), framing the Prophet as the originator of all statecraft.
🧱 Lack of Corroboration: He suggests the Jews in these towns might not have even existed in the 7th century, and their presence in the narratives simply justifies their later status under Abbasid rule.
While Astren’s methodological caution is valuable, his conclusions are overly skeptical and fail to account for the dynamic, sophisticated, and documented political reality of the late antique frontier.
📜 The Traditional Narrative: The Prophet’s Treaty Network
As recorded by the 9th-century historian Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā al-Balādhurī in his Futūḥ al-Buldān (The Conquest of the Lands), the Prophet Muhammad’s expedition to Tabūk in 9 AH (630–1 CE) was a pivotal moment. It was not a battle, but a dramatic projection of power to the fringes of the Roman Empire. The campaign resulted in a series of treaties with communities in southern Jordan, establishing a template for Islamic rule over non-Muslims.
Key agreements included:
➡️ Ayla (modern Aqaba): Made peace with its chief, Yuhanna ibn Ru'ba. The jizya was set at 1 dinar per adult per year, totaling 300 dinars. The people were to entertain Muslim travelers. ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz later upheld this exact amount.
➡️ Adhruḥ & Jarbā: Paid a yearly tribute of 100 dinars and jizya, respectively.
➡️ Maqnā (A Jewish Community): Agreed to a unique tax in kind: a quarter of their fish catch, spun thread, horses, coats of mail, and fruits. The Prophet granted them a written document, witnessed by ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, guaranteeing them "the protection (dhimma) of God and His Messenger," freedom from oppression, and self-administration under his ultimate authority.
Modern scholar Fred Astren presents a formidable critique of these accounts. He argues that the Tabūk treaties are not historical documents from 630 CE but are "anachronistic" projections from the Abbasid era (8th–9th centuries CE). His core arguments are:
⚖️ Systemic Anachronism: The treaties show a "regularized" system of jizya (poll tax) and kharāj (land tax) that only developed centuries later. Lump-sum payments and the clear distinction between taxes are signs of "ʿAbbāsid-era administration and theological thought."
🏛️ Centralization Fallacy: Such sophisticated treaties require a "centralized and orderly administration," which did not exist in Muhammad's time, where "tribal organization and personal ties dominated."
📜 "Muhammadan Constitutionalism": These stories were created to provide a "paradigmatic law-giver" and "legal precedent" for later Islamic law (sharīʿa), framing the Prophet as the originator of all statecraft.
🧱 Lack of Corroboration: He suggests the Jews in these towns might not have even existed in the 7th century, and their presence in the narratives simply justifies their later status under Abbasid rule.
While Astren’s methodological caution is valuable, his conclusions are overly skeptical and fail to account for the dynamic, sophisticated, and documented political reality of the late antique frontier.
🚨 Point-by-Point Refutation 🚨
1. ➡️ AGAINST: "The treaties are anachronistically systematic."-✅ OUR CASE: They are pragmatic, ad-hoc, and perfectly suited to a frontier polity.Astren sees Abbasid bureaucracy; we see the clever statecraft of a rising power leveraging late antique norms.
Bold Contrast in Terms: Compare the treaties themselves:
Ayla & Adhruḥ: Simple, lump-sum cash payments. 💰
Maqnā: A complex, in-kind tax on specific goods (fish, thread, armor). This is not a standardized system! It’s a bespoke agreement tailored to a community's economic base. A later Abbasid bureaucrat would have standardized this into a cash equivalent.
The "Jizya" Was a Late Antique Norm: The concept of a tributary payment from a weaker party to a stronger one in exchange for protection and non-aggression was universal in the late Roman and Persian worlds. The Quranic command to "fight until they pay the jizya" (Quran 9:29) presupposes a known concept. The Prophet was using a familiar diplomatic instrument, not inventing a brand-new, anachronistic one.
The "Dhimma" as a Tribal Pact: The concept of dhimma (protection) is deeply rooted in pre-Islamic Arab tribal custom. A powerful tribe would grant its dhimmah to a weaker one. The Prophet was translating a tribal paradigm into an imperial one, a natural evolution for a leader who was both a prophet and a tribal shaykh.
2. ➡️ AGAINST: "Muhammad lacked a centralized administration."-✅ OUR CASE: He led a sophisticated supra-tribal confederacy with the tools for this exact task.This is perhaps Astren's weakest point, stemming from a misunderstanding of the Islamic polity at the time of Tabūk.
🎯 The Hijra was a State-Founding Act: The Quran itself marks the Hijra as the start of the Islamic era. By Year 9, the Islamic community in Medina was not a loose tribal band. It was a nascent state that had defeated Mecca, absorbed its power, and united most of Arabia under its banner.
👥 A Multi-Ethnic Bureaucracy: Astren ignores the composition of the Muslim community. It included:
Former Jews and Christians who understood Syriac, Greek, and the administrative practices of the empires.
Persian converts like Salmān al-Fārisī, who brought knowledge of Sasanian systems.
Literate Arabs capable of drafting treaties. The Maqnā document is explicitly attributed to ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib.
🤝 Southern Jordan was an Arab Zone: The towns of Ayla, Adhruḥ, and Maqnā were not isolated Roman fortresses. They were deeply integrated into the Arab tribal network. The tribes of ʿĀmila, Lakhm, and Judhām (mentioned by al-Balādhurī as the Prophet's targets) were the dominant powers. Making treaties with them through familiar intermediaries was the opposite of an administrative stretch; it was the most logical form of diplomacy.
3. ➡️ AGAINST: "This is just 'Muhammadan Constitutionalism'—a backward projection."-✅ OUR CASE: The anomalies and specifics argue FOR early origin.If Abbasid scholars were inventing perfect precedents, why would they create such messy, specific, and non-standardized treaties?
The Maqnā Treaty is Embarrassingly Specific: An Abbasid forger seeking to create a perfect legal precedent would not have invented a tax on "a quarter of what you catch with your fishing rods." 🎣 He would have set a clean, monetary jizya rate. The very peculiarity of the Maqnā terms is a powerful mark of its authenticity, reflecting a real negotiation with a specific community.
The 300-Dinar Figure for Ayla: Al-Balādhurī specifically notes that the Caliph ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (r. 717-720 CE) later upheld this exact, seemingly arbitrary figure. This is not the action of a later ruler under a "systematized" Abbasid system; it's the preservation of an early, specific covenant (ʿahd), which held immense symbolic and legal weight.
Astren Contradicts Himself: He claims the treaties are too systematic, yet he acknowledges that conquest-era agreements were a "hodge-podge" and "ad hoc." The Tabūk treaties are exactly that hodge-podge! A cash payment here, a share of goods there. This variability is evidence for their early, pragmatic origin, not against it.
4. ➡️ AGAINST: "The Jews might not have been there, and the dates are suspect."-✅ OUR CASE: The historical context and archaeology make their presence likely.The Hijri Date is Core to Islamic Identity: The use of the Hijri date (Year 9) is not an anachronism; it's a fundamental marker of the new Islamic era, which began the moment the state was founded in Medina. Its presence in the tradition is entirely plausible.
Jewish Presence in Southern Palestine: Astren's suggestion that Jews might not have been in the region is refuted by his own source, Moshe Gil, and by a mountain of other evidence. Southern Palestine and the Transjordan were home to robust Jewish and Judeo-Arab communities for centuries. The towns mentioned were on trade routes connecting the Hijaz to Palestine. Their presence is historically expected.
The "Gibeonite" Echo: The terms for the Jewish community of Maqnā—surrendering and accepting a protected but subservient role in exchange for safety—powerfully echo the biblical story of the Gibeonites (Joshua 9). This does not make it a fabrication; it shows how both the Jews and the Muslims may have understood their new relationship through a shared scriptural lens.
Astren sees Abbasid bureaucracy; we see the clever statecraft of a rising power leveraging late antique norms.
Bold Contrast in Terms: Compare the treaties themselves:
Ayla & Adhruḥ: Simple, lump-sum cash payments. 💰
Maqnā: A complex, in-kind tax on specific goods (fish, thread, armor). This is not a standardized system! It’s a bespoke agreement tailored to a community's economic base. A later Abbasid bureaucrat would have standardized this into a cash equivalent.
The "Jizya" Was a Late Antique Norm: The concept of a tributary payment from a weaker party to a stronger one in exchange for protection and non-aggression was universal in the late Roman and Persian worlds. The Quranic command to "fight until they pay the jizya" (Quran 9:29) presupposes a known concept. The Prophet was using a familiar diplomatic instrument, not inventing a brand-new, anachronistic one.
The "Dhimma" as a Tribal Pact: The concept of dhimma (protection) is deeply rooted in pre-Islamic Arab tribal custom. A powerful tribe would grant its dhimmah to a weaker one. The Prophet was translating a tribal paradigm into an imperial one, a natural evolution for a leader who was both a prophet and a tribal shaykh.
This is perhaps Astren's weakest point, stemming from a misunderstanding of the Islamic polity at the time of Tabūk.
🎯 The Hijra was a State-Founding Act: The Quran itself marks the Hijra as the start of the Islamic era. By Year 9, the Islamic community in Medina was not a loose tribal band. It was a nascent state that had defeated Mecca, absorbed its power, and united most of Arabia under its banner.
👥 A Multi-Ethnic Bureaucracy: Astren ignores the composition of the Muslim community. It included:
Former Jews and Christians who understood Syriac, Greek, and the administrative practices of the empires.
Persian converts like Salmān al-Fārisī, who brought knowledge of Sasanian systems.
Literate Arabs capable of drafting treaties. The Maqnā document is explicitly attributed to ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib.
🤝 Southern Jordan was an Arab Zone: The towns of Ayla, Adhruḥ, and Maqnā were not isolated Roman fortresses. They were deeply integrated into the Arab tribal network. The tribes of ʿĀmila, Lakhm, and Judhām (mentioned by al-Balādhurī as the Prophet's targets) were the dominant powers. Making treaties with them through familiar intermediaries was the opposite of an administrative stretch; it was the most logical form of diplomacy.
If Abbasid scholars were inventing perfect precedents, why would they create such messy, specific, and non-standardized treaties?
The Maqnā Treaty is Embarrassingly Specific: An Abbasid forger seeking to create a perfect legal precedent would not have invented a tax on "a quarter of what you catch with your fishing rods." 🎣 He would have set a clean, monetary jizya rate. The very peculiarity of the Maqnā terms is a powerful mark of its authenticity, reflecting a real negotiation with a specific community.
The 300-Dinar Figure for Ayla: Al-Balādhurī specifically notes that the Caliph ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (r. 717-720 CE) later upheld this exact, seemingly arbitrary figure. This is not the action of a later ruler under a "systematized" Abbasid system; it's the preservation of an early, specific covenant (ʿahd), which held immense symbolic and legal weight.
Astren Contradicts Himself: He claims the treaties are too systematic, yet he acknowledges that conquest-era agreements were a "hodge-podge" and "ad hoc." The Tabūk treaties are exactly that hodge-podge! A cash payment here, a share of goods there. This variability is evidence for their early, pragmatic origin, not against it.
The Hijri Date is Core to Islamic Identity: The use of the Hijri date (Year 9) is not an anachronism; it's a fundamental marker of the new Islamic era, which began the moment the state was founded in Medina. Its presence in the tradition is entirely plausible.
Jewish Presence in Southern Palestine: Astren's suggestion that Jews might not have been in the region is refuted by his own source, Moshe Gil, and by a mountain of other evidence. Southern Palestine and the Transjordan were home to robust Jewish and Judeo-Arab communities for centuries. The towns mentioned were on trade routes connecting the Hijaz to Palestine. Their presence is historically expected.
The "Gibeonite" Echo: The terms for the Jewish community of Maqnā—surrendering and accepting a protected but subservient role in exchange for safety—powerfully echo the biblical story of the Gibeonites (Joshua 9). This does not make it a fabrication; it shows how both the Jews and the Muslims may have understood their new relationship through a shared scriptural lens.
Fred Astren's hyper-skepticism throws the baby out with the bathwater. He correctly identifies that later Islamic scholars viewed these events through a legalistic lens, but he incorrectly assumes this means the events themselves are fictional.
The Tabūk treaties are entirely plausible as 7th-century historical documents because they reflect:
A Pragmatic Fusion: The fusion of Arab tribal diplomacy (dhimma), late antique tributary practice (jizya), and bespoke economic agreements.
A Sophisticated Polity: The nascent Islamic state, far from being a primitive band, was a complex, multi-ethnic confederacy capable of high-level diplomacy and record-keeping.
A Frontier Reality: The context was not a vacuum but the highly connected Arab-Roman frontier, where such agreements were the currency of power.
The Tabūk campaign did not create a finished, Abbasid-style bureaucracy. It created a series of powerful precedents. The later Islamic state did not invent these stories to justify its systems; it built its systems upon the foundational, pragmatic agreements made by its founder. The memory of Tabūk is not an anachronistic fantasy, but the authentic kernel from which the Islamic law of nations grew. 🌱 → ⚖️
Fred Astren's hyper-skepticism throws the baby out with the bathwater. He correctly identifies that later Islamic scholars viewed these events through a legalistic lens, but he incorrectly assumes this means the events themselves are fictional.
The Tabūk treaties are entirely plausible as 7th-century historical documents because they reflect:
A Pragmatic Fusion: The fusion of Arab tribal diplomacy (dhimma), late antique tributary practice (jizya), and bespoke economic agreements.
A Sophisticated Polity: The nascent Islamic state, far from being a primitive band, was a complex, multi-ethnic confederacy capable of high-level diplomacy and record-keeping.
A Frontier Reality: The context was not a vacuum but the highly connected Arab-Roman frontier, where such agreements were the currency of power.
The Tabūk campaign did not create a finished, Abbasid-style bureaucracy. It created a series of powerful precedents. The later Islamic state did not invent these stories to justify its systems; it built its systems upon the foundational, pragmatic agreements made by its founder. The memory of Tabūk is not an anachronistic fantasy, but the authentic kernel from which the Islamic law of nations grew. 🌱 → ⚖️
III.B – The Pact of Hims: A Plausible Defiance in an Exhausted Land
📜 The Narrative: A Refund and a Vow
As the storm clouds gathered before the apocalyptic Battle of the Yarmuk in 636 CE, the Muslim general Abū ʿUbayda made a decision that, on its face, seems like a tactical blunder. Al-Balādhurī records:
When Heraclius gathered his armies against the Muslims... they paid back to the people of Ḥomṣ the kharāj they had taken from them, saying, ‘We are too preoccupied to support you or protect you and you must look after yourselves.’
The response from the people of Ḥomṣ was stunning. The Christians declared, “Your rule and your justice are dearer to us than the oppression and tyranny we suffered before.” Then, the Jews stood and swore, “By the Torah, no agent of Heraclius will enter the city of Ḥomṣ unless we are overcome and exhausted!” They locked the gates. Other cities with similar treaties followed suit. After the Muslim victory, these communities celebrated, "came out with cymbals," and promptly paid their taxes.
🕵️♂️ The Skeptical Challenge: Fred Astren's "Ideological Shaping"
Fred Astren dismisses this account as a later, ideological fabrication. His arguments are:
🚫 Logistical Implausibility: "It would be poor military leadership to dispose of funds immediately before an important battle." Refunding taxes on the eve of a climactic fight is strategically nonsensical.
🗣️ Anachronistic Language: The phrase "rule and justice" is "standard Muslim political terminology as it evolved over later centuries," not 7th-century speech.
🏛️ Administrative Preoccupation: The story's focus on the kharāj (land tax) reflects "later literary shaping in the interest of regularized administration."
🎭 Triumphalist Ideology: The narrative is a "topos" designed to show universal preference for Muslim rule, which he finds suspect, arguing there's no reliable evidence that non-Chalcedonian Christians or Jews actually welcomed the conquerors.
🎯 The Rebuttal: Context is Everything
Astren’s critique, while methodologically cautious, fails the fundamental test of historical empathy. It analyzes the story through the lens of a stable, bureaucratic state, not a war-ravaged, theologically fractured frontier at its breaking point. When viewed in its true 7th-century context, the Pact of Ḥomṣ becomes not just plausible, but a brilliant masterstroke of psychological and political warfare.
📜 The Narrative: A Refund and a Vow
As the storm clouds gathered before the apocalyptic Battle of the Yarmuk in 636 CE, the Muslim general Abū ʿUbayda made a decision that, on its face, seems like a tactical blunder. Al-Balādhurī records:
When Heraclius gathered his armies against the Muslims... they paid back to the people of Ḥomṣ the kharāj they had taken from them, saying, ‘We are too preoccupied to support you or protect you and you must look after yourselves.’
The response from the people of Ḥomṣ was stunning. The Christians declared, “Your rule and your justice are dearer to us than the oppression and tyranny we suffered before.” Then, the Jews stood and swore, “By the Torah, no agent of Heraclius will enter the city of Ḥomṣ unless we are overcome and exhausted!” They locked the gates. Other cities with similar treaties followed suit. After the Muslim victory, these communities celebrated, "came out with cymbals," and promptly paid their taxes.
🕵️♂️ The Skeptical Challenge: Fred Astren's "Ideological Shaping"
Fred Astren dismisses this account as a later, ideological fabrication. His arguments are:
🚫 Logistical Implausibility: "It would be poor military leadership to dispose of funds immediately before an important battle." Refunding taxes on the eve of a climactic fight is strategically nonsensical.
🗣️ Anachronistic Language: The phrase "rule and justice" is "standard Muslim political terminology as it evolved over later centuries," not 7th-century speech.
🏛️ Administrative Preoccupation: The story's focus on the kharāj (land tax) reflects "later literary shaping in the interest of regularized administration."
🎭 Triumphalist Ideology: The narrative is a "topos" designed to show universal preference for Muslim rule, which he finds suspect, arguing there's no reliable evidence that non-Chalcedonian Christians or Jews actually welcomed the conquerors.
🎯 The Rebuttal: Context is Everything
Astren’s critique, while methodologically cautious, fails the fundamental test of historical empathy. It analyzes the story through the lens of a stable, bureaucratic state, not a war-ravaged, theologically fractured frontier at its breaking point. When viewed in its true 7th-century context, the Pact of Ḥomṣ becomes not just plausible, but a brilliant masterstroke of psychological and political warfare.
🚨 Point-by-Point Refutation 🚨
1. ➡️ AGAINST: "Refunding taxes before a battle is poor military leadership."
✅ OUR CASE: It was a strategic masterstroke that secured the Muslim rear and exploited Roman weakness.
Astren sees a foolish forfeiture of resources. We see a profound investment in stability and morale.
The "Fog of War" Investment: The Muslims were outnumbered and falling back. Their greatest vulnerability was not a lack of dinars, but the threat of a fifth column. If the inhabitants of major Syrian cities like Ḥomṣ, Damascus, and others had opened their gates to Heraclius's advancing army, the Muslim force would have been trapped and annihilated. The refund was a calculated risk to purchase the loyalty of the urban population and ensure their own rear was secure. It was a payment for non-belligerence, the most valuable strategic commodity at that moment.
The Exhausted Tax Base: We must remember the state of Syria and Palestine after three decades of continuous war and persecution. The region had been bled dry by the Roman-Persian War (602-628), the Jewish revolts and the Heraclian Massacre (c. 630), and now the Muslim invasions. The amount of kharāj collected from a single, war-torn city was likely negligible compared to the strategic value of its loyalty. The Muslims were investing their last denarius in a psychological victory.
A Contract Honored: The refund powerfully demonstrated that the Muslim covenant (dhimma) was a two-way street. It wasn't just a demand for submission; it was a contract of protection. By admitting they could not currently protect the people of Ḥomṣ, and refunding the payment, Abū ʿUbayda was proving his integrity. This built immense trust, contrasting sharply with the "oppression and tyranny" of the recent past.
2. ➡️ AGAINST: "The language of 'rule and justice' is a later Abbasid insertion."
✅ OUR CASE: The concepts are precisely what defined the pre-Islamic experience and made Muslim rule a relief.
The people of Ḥomṣ didn't need to read an Abbasid political manual to know what injustice was. They had lived it.
The Justinianic Legacy: For a century, since the laws of Justinian, non-Orthodox Christians (Miaphysites, Nestorians) and Jews had been systematically marginalized, taxed, and persecuted. Their churches and synagogues were closed, their testimony in court was invalid, and they were barred from public life.
The Heraclian Finale: Heraclius's forced baptisms and massacres of Jews were not ancient history; they were a fresh, bloody memory from less than a decade prior. For the Jews of Ḥomṣ, the vow to defend the city was not necessarily pro-Muslim; it was profoundly anti-Heraclian. They were not fighting for the Arabs; they were fighting against a return to the empire that had tried to exterminate them.
Earliest Syriac Opinions Confirm the "Preference": Michael Philip Penn's analysis of the earliest Syriac sources provides critical, near-contemporary corroboration.
The Account of 637 matter-of-factly notes that Emessa (Ḥomṣ) "received assurances for their lives"—an early record of a peaceful capitulation.
Most importantly, Catholicos Ishoʿyahb III, writing in the 650s, explicitly states that God had given rule to the Ṭayyāyē and that they were not hostile to the Christian religion. This is a powerful, early ecclesiastical voice attesting to the generally benevolent nature of early Muslim rule, directly supporting the sentiment expressed in al-Balādhurī.
The Khuzistan Chronicle reinforces this, stating the conquests' victory "was from God." These are not later triumphalist insertions; they are the genuine, theologically-framed reactions of a population that saw the new rulers as a preferable alternative to the exhausting, century-long cycle of Roman-Persian violence and religious persecution.
3. ➡️ AGAINST: "The story is shaped by later administrative concerns."
-✅ OUR CASE: The story's power lies in its ad-hoc, situational nature, not its bureaucratic precision.If this were a neat, Abbasid-era parable, it would be far cleaner.
A Pact, Not a Policy: The refund at Ḥomṣ is presented as a specific, dramatic response to a unique crisis, not as a standardized clause in a tax code. This is exactly the kind of memorable, foundational story that would be remembered and that would later inform policy. The principle—protection in exchange for tribute—is established in a moment of high drama.
The "Cymbals" of Reality: The image of the people coming out with "cymbals" and music players to pay the kharāj is not the sterile imagery of a tax collector. It is the vibrant, almost carnivalesque picture of a populace celebrating both their survival and the confirmation of a bargain that had, against the odds, paid off. This is the texture of real history.
4. ➡️ AGAINST: "The idea of widespread collaboration is triumphalist legend."
-✅ OUR CASE: Collaboration was not ideological love for Islam, but rational self-interest born of exhaustion.Astren is right to be suspicious of blanket statements of universal joy. But he misses the nuance. The people of Syria did not necessarily "prefer" Muslim rule in the abstract; they actively preferred it to the imminent return of Heraclius's armies.
A Coalition of the Disaffected: The defense of Ḥomṣ was likely a coalition of convenience:
Local Miaphysite Christians: Who had been persecuted as heretics by the Chalcedonian orthodoxy of Constantinople.
Jews: For whom Heraclius was a genocidal enemy.
The Urban Poor & Elites: Exhausted by war and heavy imperial taxation.
Not Treason, Survival: This was not a "clash of civilizations." As Penn's work shows, the earliest Syriac sources don't see it that way. For them, it was another in a long line of imperial conflicts. Throwing their lot in with the new, seemingly more tolerant power was a pragmatic calculation for survival and communal preservation. The silence of Greek writers denouncing traitors, which Astren notes, is telling. It suggests that the situation on the ground was so complex and Roman authority so fragmented that clear-cut "treason" was an unworkable concept.
1. ➡️ AGAINST: "Refunding taxes before a battle is poor military leadership."
✅ OUR CASE: It was a strategic masterstroke that secured the Muslim rear and exploited Roman weakness.
Astren sees a foolish forfeiture of resources. We see a profound investment in stability and morale.
The "Fog of War" Investment: The Muslims were outnumbered and falling back. Their greatest vulnerability was not a lack of dinars, but the threat of a fifth column. If the inhabitants of major Syrian cities like Ḥomṣ, Damascus, and others had opened their gates to Heraclius's advancing army, the Muslim force would have been trapped and annihilated. The refund was a calculated risk to purchase the loyalty of the urban population and ensure their own rear was secure. It was a payment for non-belligerence, the most valuable strategic commodity at that moment.
The Exhausted Tax Base: We must remember the state of Syria and Palestine after three decades of continuous war and persecution. The region had been bled dry by the Roman-Persian War (602-628), the Jewish revolts and the Heraclian Massacre (c. 630), and now the Muslim invasions. The amount of kharāj collected from a single, war-torn city was likely negligible compared to the strategic value of its loyalty. The Muslims were investing their last denarius in a psychological victory.
A Contract Honored: The refund powerfully demonstrated that the Muslim covenant (dhimma) was a two-way street. It wasn't just a demand for submission; it was a contract of protection. By admitting they could not currently protect the people of Ḥomṣ, and refunding the payment, Abū ʿUbayda was proving his integrity. This built immense trust, contrasting sharply with the "oppression and tyranny" of the recent past.
2. ➡️ AGAINST: "The language of 'rule and justice' is a later Abbasid insertion."
✅ OUR CASE: The concepts are precisely what defined the pre-Islamic experience and made Muslim rule a relief.
The people of Ḥomṣ didn't need to read an Abbasid political manual to know what injustice was. They had lived it.
The Justinianic Legacy: For a century, since the laws of Justinian, non-Orthodox Christians (Miaphysites, Nestorians) and Jews had been systematically marginalized, taxed, and persecuted. Their churches and synagogues were closed, their testimony in court was invalid, and they were barred from public life.
The Heraclian Finale: Heraclius's forced baptisms and massacres of Jews were not ancient history; they were a fresh, bloody memory from less than a decade prior. For the Jews of Ḥomṣ, the vow to defend the city was not necessarily pro-Muslim; it was profoundly anti-Heraclian. They were not fighting for the Arabs; they were fighting against a return to the empire that had tried to exterminate them.
Earliest Syriac Opinions Confirm the "Preference": Michael Philip Penn's analysis of the earliest Syriac sources provides critical, near-contemporary corroboration.
The Account of 637 matter-of-factly notes that Emessa (Ḥomṣ) "received assurances for their lives"—an early record of a peaceful capitulation.
Most importantly, Catholicos Ishoʿyahb III, writing in the 650s, explicitly states that God had given rule to the Ṭayyāyē and that they were not hostile to the Christian religion. This is a powerful, early ecclesiastical voice attesting to the generally benevolent nature of early Muslim rule, directly supporting the sentiment expressed in al-Balādhurī.
The Khuzistan Chronicle reinforces this, stating the conquests' victory "was from God." These are not later triumphalist insertions; they are the genuine, theologically-framed reactions of a population that saw the new rulers as a preferable alternative to the exhausting, century-long cycle of Roman-Persian violence and religious persecution.
3. ➡️ AGAINST: "The story is shaped by later administrative concerns."
If this were a neat, Abbasid-era parable, it would be far cleaner.
A Pact, Not a Policy: The refund at Ḥomṣ is presented as a specific, dramatic response to a unique crisis, not as a standardized clause in a tax code. This is exactly the kind of memorable, foundational story that would be remembered and that would later inform policy. The principle—protection in exchange for tribute—is established in a moment of high drama.
The "Cymbals" of Reality: The image of the people coming out with "cymbals" and music players to pay the kharāj is not the sterile imagery of a tax collector. It is the vibrant, almost carnivalesque picture of a populace celebrating both their survival and the confirmation of a bargain that had, against the odds, paid off. This is the texture of real history.
4. ➡️ AGAINST: "The idea of widespread collaboration is triumphalist legend."
Astren is right to be suspicious of blanket statements of universal joy. But he misses the nuance. The people of Syria did not necessarily "prefer" Muslim rule in the abstract; they actively preferred it to the imminent return of Heraclius's armies.
A Coalition of the Disaffected: The defense of Ḥomṣ was likely a coalition of convenience:
Local Miaphysite Christians: Who had been persecuted as heretics by the Chalcedonian orthodoxy of Constantinople.
Jews: For whom Heraclius was a genocidal enemy.
The Urban Poor & Elites: Exhausted by war and heavy imperial taxation.
Not Treason, Survival: This was not a "clash of civilizations." As Penn's work shows, the earliest Syriac sources don't see it that way. For them, it was another in a long line of imperial conflicts. Throwing their lot in with the new, seemingly more tolerant power was a pragmatic calculation for survival and communal preservation. The silence of Greek writers denouncing traitors, which Astren notes, is telling. It suggests that the situation on the ground was so complex and Roman authority so fragmented that clear-cut "treason" was an unworkable concept.
⚖️ Conclusion: A Covenant Forged in Crisis
The Pact of Ḥomṣ is not an anachronistic fairy tale. It is a story that makes perfect sense only in the specific, traumatized context of the 630s.
The tax refund was a brilliant, counter-intuitive gamble to secure a strategic rear.
The vow of the Jews was a credible act of defiance against a known persecutor.
The language of justice was not Abbasid political theory, but the heartfelt cry of populations brutalized by a century of Justinianic legislation and Heraclian vengeance.
The "preference" for Muslim rule was, as the earliest Syriac sources imply, a divine judgment or, more practically, a weary acceptance of a less oppressive status quo.
The story survives not because later Abbasid administrators needed a tax precedent, but because it captured a foundational truth of the Islamic conquests: for many in the weary lands of the Levant, the new order was not a catastrophe, but a calculable improvement. The gates of Ḥomṣ were locked not for love of Muhammad, but for a profound and justified fear of Heraclius. In the calculus of survival, that was more than enough. 🤝 ➡️ 🏛️
The Pact of Ḥomṣ is not an anachronistic fairy tale. It is a story that makes perfect sense only in the specific, traumatized context of the 630s.
The tax refund was a brilliant, counter-intuitive gamble to secure a strategic rear.
The vow of the Jews was a credible act of defiance against a known persecutor.
The language of justice was not Abbasid political theory, but the heartfelt cry of populations brutalized by a century of Justinianic legislation and Heraclian vengeance.
The "preference" for Muslim rule was, as the earliest Syriac sources imply, a divine judgment or, more practically, a weary acceptance of a less oppressive status quo.
The story survives not because later Abbasid administrators needed a tax precedent, but because it captured a foundational truth of the Islamic conquests: for many in the weary lands of the Levant, the new order was not a catastrophe, but a calculable improvement. The gates of Ḥomṣ were locked not for love of Muhammad, but for a profound and justified fear of Heraclius. In the calculus of survival, that was more than enough. 🤝 ➡️ 🏛️
III.C – The Repopulation of Tripoli: Umayyad Realpolitik and the Jewish Role
📜 The Narrative: A Ghost City and a New Population
Following the Roman evacuation of the fortified city of Tripoli by sea, the Muslim commander Sufyān b. Mujīb al-Azdī found a strategic prize lying empty. Al-Balādhurī records the critical aftermath:
"He entered it and wrote to Muʿāwiya about the conquest. Muʿāwiya settled a large number of Jews there in the area which is al-Mīnā (the port) today."
This simple statement reveals a deliberate policy of repopulation, with Jews as its primary instrument.
🕵️♂️ The Skeptical Challenge: Fred Astren's "Myth of Origins"
Fred Astren casts doubt on this account, questioning the agency and causality:
🤔 Causality is Unclear: Did a Jewish informer (a detail from the later historian Ibn `Asākir) cause Muʿāwiya to settle Jews, or did the later Jewish presence itself generate a "myth of origins" to explain their community?
📚 A Literary Topos: The story uses a known trope—the informer who aids in a conquest.
⚖️ Plausible but Unknowable: He concludes that within the literary tradition, the story is "plausible" but that "there is not enough information to know one way or another," effectively dismissing its historical value.
Astren's skepticism, while cautious, fails to engage with the powerful logic of the story when viewed through the lens of 7th-century Umayyad statecraft and the condition of the Jewish diaspora. The repopulation of Tripoli with Jews is not a mysterious legend; it is a textbook example of early Islamic imperial policy.
📜 The Narrative: A Ghost City and a New Population
Following the Roman evacuation of the fortified city of Tripoli by sea, the Muslim commander Sufyān b. Mujīb al-Azdī found a strategic prize lying empty. Al-Balādhurī records the critical aftermath:
"He entered it and wrote to Muʿāwiya about the conquest. Muʿāwiya settled a large number of Jews there in the area which is al-Mīnā (the port) today."
This simple statement reveals a deliberate policy of repopulation, with Jews as its primary instrument.
🕵️♂️ The Skeptical Challenge: Fred Astren's "Myth of Origins"
Fred Astren casts doubt on this account, questioning the agency and causality:
🤔 Causality is Unclear: Did a Jewish informer (a detail from the later historian Ibn `Asākir) cause Muʿāwiya to settle Jews, or did the later Jewish presence itself generate a "myth of origins" to explain their community?
📚 A Literary Topos: The story uses a known trope—the informer who aids in a conquest.
⚖️ Plausible but Unknowable: He concludes that within the literary tradition, the story is "plausible" but that "there is not enough information to know one way or another," effectively dismissing its historical value.
Astren's skepticism, while cautious, fails to engage with the powerful logic of the story when viewed through the lens of 7th-century Umayyad statecraft and the condition of the Jewish diaspora. The repopulation of Tripoli with Jews is not a mysterious legend; it is a textbook example of early Islamic imperial policy.
🚨 Point-by-Point Refutation 🚨
1. ➡️ AGAINST: "The story is a later 'myth of origins' for a Jewish community."-✅ OUR CASE: It is a credible record of a deliberate Umayyad demographic strategy.The settlement was not a random act of charity; it was a cold, calculated move to solve multiple problems at once.
The Strategic Vacuum: Coastal cities like Tripoli were the soft underbelly of the new Islamic state. They were vulnerable to Roman naval reconquest. Leaving them empty was an invitation for disaster. Muʿāwiya needed to garrison and repopulate them with reliable elements. The local Christian population had just demonstrated their ultimate loyalty to Constantinople by fleeing. They could not be trusted.
The "Reliable" Element: Who were the most demographically available and politically reliable non-Muslims in the region?
Jews had no loyalty to Constantinople. The Roman Empire was, as established in Section I.L, their theological antagonist "Edom" and, as per Section II.C, their recent genocidal persecutor.
They were urban, commercial, and literate. Perfect for reviving a port city and its economy.
They were stateless and needed protection. Their survival was now tied directly to the Umayyad regime that protected them. This created a powerful bond of mutual interest.
A Documented Umayyad Policy: Astren himself concedes that al-Balādhurī "explicitly describes the caliphal policy under the Umayyads of resettlement of the Mediterranean coastal cities." This isn't an isolated, suspicious story; it is a single, named example of a widespread and attested strategy. Tripoli is a case study, not an anomaly.
2. ➡️ AGAINST: "The Jewish informer is a literary topos."-✅ OUR CASE: The "informer" is a plausible detail, but the core story stands without it.Let's separate the later embellishment (Ibn `Asākir's informer) from the core event (Muʿāwiya's settlement).
The Core is Unshaken: Even if we completely discard the story of a lone Jewish informer as a literary device, the central fact reported by al-Balādhurī remains: Muʿāwiya settled a large number of Jews in Tripoli after its conquest. This core claim is perfectly logical on its own merits, as outlined above.
Plausibility of the "Topos": Furthermore, the idea of a remaining Jewish inhabitant is not far-fetched. In a panicked, nocturnal evacuation by sea, it is entirely plausible that individuals or small communities—especially those not integrated into the Christian power structure—could have been left behind. A Jew, with little love for the fleeing Romans, would have every reason to cooperate with the new Muslim authorities. The "topos" works precisely because it reflects a common-sense reality of warfare and occupation.
3. ➡️ AGAINST: "There is not enough information to know."-✅ OUR CASE: We have enough context to see a clear and rational policy in action.We must connect the dots from the preceding centuries:
From Justinian to Heraclius: The Jews of the Eastern Mediterranean were a pre-conditioned, available demographic resource. A century of Justinianic legal persecution (Section I) culminating in the Heraclian massacres (Section II.C) had created a population that was displaced, alienated, and seeking stability.
The Umayyad Offer: Muʿāwiya's policy offered them what the Roman Empire had denied them for over a century: a place in the city, a recognized economic role, and security under a binding covenant (dhimma).
A Symbiotic Relationship: This was not merely a one-sided "myth." It was a symbiotic bargain:
For the Umayyads: They secured a strategically vital port with a loyal, non-secessionist population and activated a commercial hub. 🏹 ➡️ 🏘️
For the Jews: They were lifted from a state of persecution and statelessness to one of protected agency and community rebuilding. ⛓️ ➡️ 🤝
The settlement was not a random act of charity; it was a cold, calculated move to solve multiple problems at once.
The Strategic Vacuum: Coastal cities like Tripoli were the soft underbelly of the new Islamic state. They were vulnerable to Roman naval reconquest. Leaving them empty was an invitation for disaster. Muʿāwiya needed to garrison and repopulate them with reliable elements. The local Christian population had just demonstrated their ultimate loyalty to Constantinople by fleeing. They could not be trusted.
The "Reliable" Element: Who were the most demographically available and politically reliable non-Muslims in the region?
Jews had no loyalty to Constantinople. The Roman Empire was, as established in Section I.L, their theological antagonist "Edom" and, as per Section II.C, their recent genocidal persecutor.
They were urban, commercial, and literate. Perfect for reviving a port city and its economy.
They were stateless and needed protection. Their survival was now tied directly to the Umayyad regime that protected them. This created a powerful bond of mutual interest.
A Documented Umayyad Policy: Astren himself concedes that al-Balādhurī "explicitly describes the caliphal policy under the Umayyads of resettlement of the Mediterranean coastal cities." This isn't an isolated, suspicious story; it is a single, named example of a widespread and attested strategy. Tripoli is a case study, not an anomaly.
Let's separate the later embellishment (Ibn `Asākir's informer) from the core event (Muʿāwiya's settlement).
The Core is Unshaken: Even if we completely discard the story of a lone Jewish informer as a literary device, the central fact reported by al-Balādhurī remains: Muʿāwiya settled a large number of Jews in Tripoli after its conquest. This core claim is perfectly logical on its own merits, as outlined above.
Plausibility of the "Topos": Furthermore, the idea of a remaining Jewish inhabitant is not far-fetched. In a panicked, nocturnal evacuation by sea, it is entirely plausible that individuals or small communities—especially those not integrated into the Christian power structure—could have been left behind. A Jew, with little love for the fleeing Romans, would have every reason to cooperate with the new Muslim authorities. The "topos" works precisely because it reflects a common-sense reality of warfare and occupation.
We must connect the dots from the preceding centuries:
From Justinian to Heraclius: The Jews of the Eastern Mediterranean were a pre-conditioned, available demographic resource. A century of Justinianic legal persecution (Section I) culminating in the Heraclian massacres (Section II.C) had created a population that was displaced, alienated, and seeking stability.
The Umayyad Offer: Muʿāwiya's policy offered them what the Roman Empire had denied them for over a century: a place in the city, a recognized economic role, and security under a binding covenant (dhimma).
A Symbiotic Relationship: This was not merely a one-sided "myth." It was a symbiotic bargain:
For the Umayyads: They secured a strategically vital port with a loyal, non-secessionist population and activated a commercial hub. 🏹 ➡️ 🏘️
For the Jews: They were lifted from a state of persecution and statelessness to one of protected agency and community rebuilding. ⛓️ ➡️ 🤝
⚖️ Conclusion: The Logic of a New Imperial Order
The story of Tripoli’s repopulation is not a baffling mystery that requires skeptical dismissal. It is a clear and logical piece of the puzzle that is the early Islamic state.
It fits the strategic necessity of securing the coastline.
It aligns with the documented Umayyad policy of demographic engineering.
It leverages the unique political position of the Jewish diaspora as a community alienated from the old empire and bound to the new one.
The settlement of Jews in Tripoli was a quintessential act of Umayyad Realpolitik. It was smart, practical, and exploited the fractures of the late antique world. The story survives not because it serves as a quaint "myth of origins," but because it records a foundational moment in the transformation of the Levant—a moment where the new Caliphate, and a resurgent Jewish community, found their interests powerfully aligned. 🏛️➕🕍
The story of Tripoli’s repopulation is not a baffling mystery that requires skeptical dismissal. It is a clear and logical piece of the puzzle that is the early Islamic state.
It fits the strategic necessity of securing the coastline.
It aligns with the documented Umayyad policy of demographic engineering.
It leverages the unique political position of the Jewish diaspora as a community alienated from the old empire and bound to the new one.
The settlement of Jews in Tripoli was a quintessential act of Umayyad Realpolitik. It was smart, practical, and exploited the fractures of the late antique world. The story survives not because it serves as a quaint "myth of origins," but because it records a foundational moment in the transformation of the Levant—a moment where the new Caliphate, and a resurgent Jewish community, found their interests powerfully aligned. 🏛️➕🕍
III.D – The Fall of Caesarea: The "Topos" of the Informant and the Reality of a Fractured City
📜 The Narrative: A Seven-Year Siege and a Jewish Key
Caesarea Maritima, the formidable Roman capital of Palestine, resisted the Muslim armies for seven years. Al-Balādhurī records its final fall in 640 CE, attributing the breakthrough to a critical act of betrayal:
"The reason that he was able to conquer it was that a Jew called Yūsuf came to the Muslims by night and offered to guide them through a tunnel in which the water came up to a man’s waist in return for a safe-conduct for himself and his family. Muʿāwiya acted on it and the Muslims went through it at night and cried, ‘God is great!’ inside."
This single act of a man named Yūsuf ended the long stalemate, leading to a conquest by force (ʿanwatan), the capture of thousands, and the city's sacking.
Fred Astren dismisses this account as a literary fabrication, a "topos" designed to serve later administrative and legal purposes:
📖 A Recurring Pattern: He argues the "informer" story is a recurring literary trope found in narratives of Damascus, Babylon (Egypt), Alexandria, and Tustar. Its repetition is "strong evidence for the reshaping of narratives."
⚖️ Legal, Not Historical Motive: The story's primary function, he claims, was to justify the city's legal status as ʿanwa (conquered by force), which had major implications for taxation and property rights under later Umayyad and Abbasid law. The story is about "proper administration," not factual history.
🤔 Plausible but Unreliable: While he concedes the story is "completely plausible" given Roman anti-Jewish policies, its literary form overrides its historical value. "Literary reshaping... create[s] a textual environment in which critical suspicion should be entertained."
🎯 The Rebuttal: Confusing a Common Tactic for a Literary Cliché
Astren makes a critical error here. He mistakes a universal and logical reality of siege warfare for a literary contrivance. In his drive to identify patterns in the texts, he ignores the patterns on the ground. The "informer topos" is not a fiction; it is a reflection of the most consistent and exploitable reality of warfare in fractured, multi-ethnic cities.
📜 The Narrative: A Seven-Year Siege and a Jewish Key
Caesarea Maritima, the formidable Roman capital of Palestine, resisted the Muslim armies for seven years. Al-Balādhurī records its final fall in 640 CE, attributing the breakthrough to a critical act of betrayal:
"The reason that he was able to conquer it was that a Jew called Yūsuf came to the Muslims by night and offered to guide them through a tunnel in which the water came up to a man’s waist in return for a safe-conduct for himself and his family. Muʿāwiya acted on it and the Muslims went through it at night and cried, ‘God is great!’ inside."
This single act of a man named Yūsuf ended the long stalemate, leading to a conquest by force (ʿanwatan), the capture of thousands, and the city's sacking.
Fred Astren dismisses this account as a literary fabrication, a "topos" designed to serve later administrative and legal purposes:
📖 A Recurring Pattern: He argues the "informer" story is a recurring literary trope found in narratives of Damascus, Babylon (Egypt), Alexandria, and Tustar. Its repetition is "strong evidence for the reshaping of narratives."
⚖️ Legal, Not Historical Motive: The story's primary function, he claims, was to justify the city's legal status as ʿanwa (conquered by force), which had major implications for taxation and property rights under later Umayyad and Abbasid law. The story is about "proper administration," not factual history.
🤔 Plausible but Unreliable: While he concedes the story is "completely plausible" given Roman anti-Jewish policies, its literary form overrides its historical value. "Literary reshaping... create[s] a textual environment in which critical suspicion should be entertained."
🎯 The Rebuttal: Confusing a Common Tactic for a Literary Cliché
Astren makes a critical error here. He mistakes a universal and logical reality of siege warfare for a literary contrivance. In his drive to identify patterns in the texts, he ignores the patterns on the ground. The "informer topos" is not a fiction; it is a reflection of the most consistent and exploitable reality of warfare in fractured, multi-ethnic cities.
🚨 Point-by-Point Refutation 🚨
1. ➡️ AGAINST: "The informant is a literary topos found in multiple conquest narratives."-✅ OUR CASE: It was a standard military reality, especially in the religiously divided cities of the 7th century.Astren sees a suspicious pattern in the books. We see a predictable pattern in history.
Siege Warfare 101: The use of traitors, guides, and informants is one of the oldest and most reliable tactics in military history, from the Trojan Horse to medieval crusades. To label this a "topos" is to misunderstand the fundamental nature of pre-modern warfare. Commanders actively sought defectors; defenders lived in fear of them.
The Fractured City: Caesarea was not a monolithic bloc. It was a microcosm of the exhausted and divided late antique world, containing:
A Roman Chalcedonian Elite: The ruling class and garrison, loyal to Constantinople.
A Large Jewish Population: Fresh from the trauma of the Heraclian Massacres (c. 630 CE). For them, the Roman authorities were not protectors; they were recent persecutors. The idea that a Jew named Yūsuf would see an opportunity for vengeance and salvation is not a literary trope; it is a profoundly human and historically grounded act.
Samaritans & Miaphysites: Other groups with their own grievances against imperial orthodoxy.
The "Topos" is a Tactic: The reason the "informer" motif appears in stories of Damascus, Alexandria, and Caesarea is not because scribes were lazy. It's because this is how cities with internal divisions frequently fell. The pattern in the sources exists because it reflects a pattern in reality.
2. ➡️ AGAINST: "The story's purpose is to justify the legal status of 'ʿanwa'."-✅ OUR CASE: The seven-year siege and violent capture are what justified the 'ʿanwa' status; the informant story simply explains how it happened.Astren reverses cause and effect.
The Primacy of the Siege: The core, undisputed fact is the seven-year siege. A city that holds out for seven years and is taken by storm is, by definition, an ʿanwa conquest. The legal status is a consequence of the historical event, not the other way around.
The Informant Explains the Victory: The story of Yūsuf the Jew doesn't create the ʿanwa status; it provides the crucial narrative link explaining how a seemingly impregnable city finally fell after such a long resistance. It answers the obvious historical question: "After seven years, what changed?"
A Story Too Specific to be a Cliché: The detail of the tunnel "in which the water came up to a man’s waist" is not a generic trope. It is a specific, gritty, and plausible detail. Caesarea was famous for its sophisticated Roman aqueduct and sewer systems. An knowledge of these subterranean networks is exactly what a local inhabitant—perhaps one involved in their maintenance—would possess. 🏛️ → 🚰 → 🕳️
3. ➡️ AGAINST: "There is no corroborating evidence to accept the narrative at face value."-✅ OUR CASE: The context is the corroboration, and Astren himself provides a crucial piece of it.We do not need a signed receipt from Yūsuf to find this story credible. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
The Perfect Storm of Motives: As we have detailed in previous sections, the Justinianic Legacy (Section I) of legal persecution and the Heraclian Massacre (Section II.C) created a Jewish population with zero loyalty to the Roman state. Their motivation to collaborate was immense.
Astren's Own Admission: Astren himself concedes that "Roman anti-Jewish policies make the story seem plausible." This is the heart of the matter! He acknowledges the historical conditions that make the event likely, but then lets his literary theory override that historical logic.
Michael the Syrian's Corroboration: Astren notes that the Syriac chronicler Michael the Syrian (12th cent.) confirms the ʿanwa narrative. While a later source, it represents an independent Christian tradition that also remembered Caesarea's fall as a violent conquest, consistent with the Islamic sources.
Archaeology of a Violent End: While Astren claims the archaeology is "contested," the consensus has shifted. The initial view of a peaceful transition has been overturned by later analysis, including by archaeologist Kenneth Holum, who reversed his own earlier position to argue for evidence of destruction and violent conquest in the mid-7th century, directly aligning with al-Balādhurī's account.
Astren sees a suspicious pattern in the books. We see a predictable pattern in history.
Siege Warfare 101: The use of traitors, guides, and informants is one of the oldest and most reliable tactics in military history, from the Trojan Horse to medieval crusades. To label this a "topos" is to misunderstand the fundamental nature of pre-modern warfare. Commanders actively sought defectors; defenders lived in fear of them.
The Fractured City: Caesarea was not a monolithic bloc. It was a microcosm of the exhausted and divided late antique world, containing:
A Roman Chalcedonian Elite: The ruling class and garrison, loyal to Constantinople.
A Large Jewish Population: Fresh from the trauma of the Heraclian Massacres (c. 630 CE). For them, the Roman authorities were not protectors; they were recent persecutors. The idea that a Jew named Yūsuf would see an opportunity for vengeance and salvation is not a literary trope; it is a profoundly human and historically grounded act.
Samaritans & Miaphysites: Other groups with their own grievances against imperial orthodoxy.
The "Topos" is a Tactic: The reason the "informer" motif appears in stories of Damascus, Alexandria, and Caesarea is not because scribes were lazy. It's because this is how cities with internal divisions frequently fell. The pattern in the sources exists because it reflects a pattern in reality.
Astren reverses cause and effect.
The Primacy of the Siege: The core, undisputed fact is the seven-year siege. A city that holds out for seven years and is taken by storm is, by definition, an ʿanwa conquest. The legal status is a consequence of the historical event, not the other way around.
The Informant Explains the Victory: The story of Yūsuf the Jew doesn't create the ʿanwa status; it provides the crucial narrative link explaining how a seemingly impregnable city finally fell after such a long resistance. It answers the obvious historical question: "After seven years, what changed?"
A Story Too Specific to be a Cliché: The detail of the tunnel "in which the water came up to a man’s waist" is not a generic trope. It is a specific, gritty, and plausible detail. Caesarea was famous for its sophisticated Roman aqueduct and sewer systems. An knowledge of these subterranean networks is exactly what a local inhabitant—perhaps one involved in their maintenance—would possess. 🏛️ → 🚰 → 🕳️
We do not need a signed receipt from Yūsuf to find this story credible. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
The Perfect Storm of Motives: As we have detailed in previous sections, the Justinianic Legacy (Section I) of legal persecution and the Heraclian Massacre (Section II.C) created a Jewish population with zero loyalty to the Roman state. Their motivation to collaborate was immense.
Astren's Own Admission: Astren himself concedes that "Roman anti-Jewish policies make the story seem plausible." This is the heart of the matter! He acknowledges the historical conditions that make the event likely, but then lets his literary theory override that historical logic.
Michael the Syrian's Corroboration: Astren notes that the Syriac chronicler Michael the Syrian (12th cent.) confirms the ʿanwa narrative. While a later source, it represents an independent Christian tradition that also remembered Caesarea's fall as a violent conquest, consistent with the Islamic sources.
Archaeology of a Violent End: While Astren claims the archaeology is "contested," the consensus has shifted. The initial view of a peaceful transition has been overturned by later analysis, including by archaeologist Kenneth Holum, who reversed his own earlier position to argue for evidence of destruction and violent conquest in the mid-7th century, directly aligning with al-Balādhurī's account.
⚖️ Conclusion: Yūsuf's Choice in a World of Broken Oaths
The story of Yūsuf the Jew is not a sterile "topos" invented by Abbasid bureaucrats. It is the echo of a real choice made in the shadows of a besieged city.
It is the story of a man who, weighing seven years of siege against a century of persecution, made a rational calculation. The Roman Empire had broken its covenant with his people. The Muslim army, in offering a safe-conduct (amān), was presenting a new one. His action was not mere "betrayal"; it was an act of agency and survival for himself and his family in a world where the old order had proven itself tyrannical.
To dismiss this as a literary device is to ignore the lived trauma and complex allegiances of the 7th-century Levant. The "informer" narratives are not suspicious for their similarity; they are credible for their consistency with the fractured social and military landscape of the time. The fall of Caesarea was not a legal category waiting for a story; it was a brutal, protracted historical event, and the story of Yūsuf provides the most plausible explanation for its dramatic conclusion. 🗝️ → 🏰 → ⚔️
The story of Yūsuf the Jew is not a sterile "topos" invented by Abbasid bureaucrats. It is the echo of a real choice made in the shadows of a besieged city.
It is the story of a man who, weighing seven years of siege against a century of persecution, made a rational calculation. The Roman Empire had broken its covenant with his people. The Muslim army, in offering a safe-conduct (amān), was presenting a new one. His action was not mere "betrayal"; it was an act of agency and survival for himself and his family in a world where the old order had proven itself tyrannical.
To dismiss this as a literary device is to ignore the lived trauma and complex allegiances of the 7th-century Levant. The "informer" narratives are not suspicious for their similarity; they are credible for their consistency with the fractured social and military landscape of the time. The fall of Caesarea was not a legal category waiting for a story; it was a brutal, protracted historical event, and the story of Yūsuf provides the most plausible explanation for its dramatic conclusion. 🗝️ → 🏰 → ⚔️
⌛ III.F -📜 The Secrets of Rabbi Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai (Nistarot de-Rabbi Shimʿon bar Yoḥai)
In just thirty years, the Jewish people had seen the world turn upside down — from Roman humiliation and massacre under Heraclius (630 CE) to Persian collapse, and now the astonishing rise of a new Arab power that proclaimed monotheism, covenant, and justice. The Roman Empire, seen as “Edom” (Esau) in Jewish eschatology, had persecuted Jews for centuries — from Justinian’s anti-Jewish laws to Heraclius’s mass killings and forced baptisms.
So when this apocalypse — The Secrets of Rabbi Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai — appeared, it was not merely an esoteric vision. It was a cry of relief, a midrash of survival, and the first recorded Jewish theological interpretation of Islam’s rise.
In just thirty years, the Jewish people had seen the world turn upside down — from Roman humiliation and massacre under Heraclius (630 CE) to Persian collapse, and now the astonishing rise of a new Arab power that proclaimed monotheism, covenant, and justice. The Roman Empire, seen as “Edom” (Esau) in Jewish eschatology, had persecuted Jews for centuries — from Justinian’s anti-Jewish laws to Heraclius’s mass killings and forced baptisms.
So when this apocalypse — The Secrets of Rabbi Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai — appeared, it was not merely an esoteric vision. It was a cry of relief, a midrash of survival, and the first recorded Jewish theological interpretation of Islam’s rise.
🌙 A Vision of Deliverance – Ishmael as God’s Instrument
The text opens with Rabbi Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai — the great 2nd-century sage, hero of the Bar Kokhba generation — in hiding from Rome, praying for deliverance.
But what he “sees” is not his own age: it is the 7th century.
“When he understood that the kingdom of Ishmael would come upon [Israel], he said, ‘Is it not enough, what the wicked kingdom of Edom has done to us, that we must also endure the kingdom of Ishmael?’”
➡️ This initial despair captures the Jewish trauma of 630–640 CE — a people battered by Edom’s pogroms, now witnessing Arab armies sweeping through their ancestral lands.
But then the archangel Metatron, the “Prince of the Presence,” answers:
“Do not be afraid, mortal, for the Holy One, blessed be He, is bringing about the kingdom of Ishmael only for the purpose of delivering you from that wicked one [Edom]. He shall raise up over them a prophet according to His will… and they shall restore the land with grandeur. Great enmity will exist between them and the children of Esau.”
🔥 This is revolutionary:
Here, the Arab conquests are not seen as calamity — but as divine justice. Ishmael (the Arabs) is God’s chosen instrument to destroy Edom (Rome) and avenge Israel’s suffering.
The text opens with Rabbi Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai — the great 2nd-century sage, hero of the Bar Kokhba generation — in hiding from Rome, praying for deliverance.
But what he “sees” is not his own age: it is the 7th century.
“When he understood that the kingdom of Ishmael would come upon [Israel], he said, ‘Is it not enough, what the wicked kingdom of Edom has done to us, that we must also endure the kingdom of Ishmael?’”
➡️ This initial despair captures the Jewish trauma of 630–640 CE — a people battered by Edom’s pogroms, now witnessing Arab armies sweeping through their ancestral lands.
But then the archangel Metatron, the “Prince of the Presence,” answers:
“Do not be afraid, mortal, for the Holy One, blessed be He, is bringing about the kingdom of Ishmael only for the purpose of delivering you from that wicked one [Edom]. He shall raise up over them a prophet according to His will… and they shall restore the land with grandeur. Great enmity will exist between them and the children of Esau.”
🔥 This is revolutionary:
Here, the Arab conquests are not seen as calamity — but as divine justice. Ishmael (the Arabs) is God’s chosen instrument to destroy Edom (Rome) and avenge Israel’s suffering.
🕌 Ishmael’s Prophet and the One Who Rides the Camel
➡️ The vision continues:
“When the one who rides on the camel comes, through him the kingdom of the one who rides on a donkey has emerged.”
This extraordinary passage compares The Prophet Muḥammad (“the one riding the camel”) to the Messiah (“the one riding the donkey,” cf. Zechariah 9:9).
⚖️ The logic is mystical yet profound:
The coming of Islam — monotheistic, iconoclastic, opposed to Rome — is not the end of Israel’s hope, but the prelude to redemption. The Prophet Muḥammad’s appearance signals that God is again moving in history, dismantling the persecuting empires that had enslaved Israel since Titus and Hadrian.
🕊️ In this reading, Ishmael’s empire becomes a stage in salvation history — not a rival to Israel, but a divine ally against Rome’s tyranny.
➡️ The vision continues:
“When the one who rides on the camel comes, through him the kingdom of the one who rides on a donkey has emerged.”
This extraordinary passage compares The Prophet Muḥammad (“the one riding the camel”) to the Messiah (“the one riding the donkey,” cf. Zechariah 9:9).
⚖️ The logic is mystical yet profound:
The coming of Islam — monotheistic, iconoclastic, opposed to Rome — is not the end of Israel’s hope, but the prelude to redemption. The Prophet Muḥammad’s appearance signals that God is again moving in history, dismantling the persecuting empires that had enslaved Israel since Titus and Hadrian.
🕊️ In this reading, Ishmael’s empire becomes a stage in salvation history — not a rival to Israel, but a divine ally against Rome’s tyranny.
🧱 The Friend of Israel and the Rebuilding of the Temple
“The second king [Umar] who will arise from Ishmael will be a friend to Israel.
He will repair their breaches and the breaches of the Temple.
He will shape Mount Moriah and make it level.
He will build for himself there a place of worship over the Foundation Stone.”
✨ This is almost certainly a memory of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb’s visit to Jerusalem in 637 CE — when, according to early Islamic and Christian sources alike, the caliph cleared the ruins of the Temple Mount, prayed upon it, and established the first wooden prayer house.
To Jewish eyes traumatized by centuries of Roman bans forbidding them from even approaching the Mount, this act was nothing short of miraculous. For the first time since 135 CE, Jews were again permitted to set foot on the Temple Mount — under an Arab ruler who, unlike Heraclius, offered protection rather than persecution.
🕍 Hence the apocalypse describes ʿUmar as “a friend to Israel” and as one who “repairs their breaches.”
➡️ In a single image, this encapsulates the Jewish experience of Islam’s arrival:
Rome (Edom) destroyed them; Ishmael restored them.
“The second king [Umar] who will arise from Ishmael will be a friend to Israel.
He will repair their breaches and the breaches of the Temple.
He will shape Mount Moriah and make it level.
He will build for himself there a place of worship over the Foundation Stone.”
✨ This is almost certainly a memory of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb’s visit to Jerusalem in 637 CE — when, according to early Islamic and Christian sources alike, the caliph cleared the ruins of the Temple Mount, prayed upon it, and established the first wooden prayer house.
To Jewish eyes traumatized by centuries of Roman bans forbidding them from even approaching the Mount, this act was nothing short of miraculous. For the first time since 135 CE, Jews were again permitted to set foot on the Temple Mount — under an Arab ruler who, unlike Heraclius, offered protection rather than persecution.
🕍 Hence the apocalypse describes ʿUmar as “a friend to Israel” and as one who “repairs their breaches.”
➡️ In a single image, this encapsulates the Jewish experience of Islam’s arrival:
Rome (Edom) destroyed them; Ishmael restored them.
⚔️ Prophecy and Politics – From Hope to Disillusion
The text continues prophetically:
“A great king from Ḥaẓarmāweth [i.e., ʿUthmān] will reign for a short while, and the sons of Kedar will rise up against him and kill him. Then they will bring to power another king, and his name will be MRYʿW [Muʿāwiya]. And they will take him from following after flocks and mule herds and elevate him to the kingship.”
📜 This is astoundingly specific — it correctly reflects the succession of early caliphs and the political turbulence of the First Fitna (656–661 CE).
It even recognizes Muʿāwiya’s Syrian base and humble pre-caliphal origins.
➡️ Such accuracy shows that the apocalypse was written by someone living through these events — a Jewish observer in Palestine or Syria around 660 CE, integrating them into a messianic framework.
Yet note the tone: still hopeful, still viewing Ishmael’s rule as divinely sanctioned.
The text sees no contradiction between Jewish chosenness and Ishmaelite dominion — the latter exists to prepare the way for redemption.
The text continues prophetically:
“A great king from Ḥaẓarmāweth [i.e., ʿUthmān] will reign for a short while, and the sons of Kedar will rise up against him and kill him. Then they will bring to power another king, and his name will be MRYʿW [Muʿāwiya]. And they will take him from following after flocks and mule herds and elevate him to the kingship.”
📜 This is astoundingly specific — it correctly reflects the succession of early caliphs and the political turbulence of the First Fitna (656–661 CE).
It even recognizes Muʿāwiya’s Syrian base and humble pre-caliphal origins.
➡️ Such accuracy shows that the apocalypse was written by someone living through these events — a Jewish observer in Palestine or Syria around 660 CE, integrating them into a messianic framework.
Yet note the tone: still hopeful, still viewing Ishmael’s rule as divinely sanctioned.
The text sees no contradiction between Jewish chosenness and Ishmaelite dominion — the latter exists to prepare the way for redemption.
🕎 Contextual Reading – Between Despair and Deliverance
This apocalypse belongs to a family of “Apocalypses of Edom”, written in the wake of the Roman persecutions.
Like the Apocalypse of Zerubbabel (c. 628 CE), it reads geopolitics through the lenses of Daniel, Isaiah, and Zechariah — where every empire is a beast to be slain, and every fall is a sign that God still rules history.
But The Secrets of Rabbi Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai goes further than any before it.
It dares to praise Ishmael — not as Israel’s rival, but as her rescuer.
🔥 In this, it offers a mirror image of the Christian rhetoric of Heraclius’s time.
Where Christian theologians saw Islam as a scourge from God for Christian sins, Jews saw it as a deliverance from Rome for Israel’s wounds.
This apocalypse belongs to a family of “Apocalypses of Edom”, written in the wake of the Roman persecutions.
Like the Apocalypse of Zerubbabel (c. 628 CE), it reads geopolitics through the lenses of Daniel, Isaiah, and Zechariah — where every empire is a beast to be slain, and every fall is a sign that God still rules history.
But The Secrets of Rabbi Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai goes further than any before it.
It dares to praise Ishmael — not as Israel’s rival, but as her rescuer.
🔥 In this, it offers a mirror image of the Christian rhetoric of Heraclius’s time.
Where Christian theologians saw Islam as a scourge from God for Christian sins, Jews saw it as a deliverance from Rome for Israel’s wounds.
⚖️ Conclusion – A Covenant Reversed
By 661 CE, the Jewish world of the Levant had lived through:
-
Heraclius’s pogroms (629–632 CE);
-
Arab liberation of Jerusalem (637 CE);
-
The birth of a new monotheistic power proclaiming “lā ilāha illā Allāh.”
➡️ In this swirl of violence and renewal, The Secrets of Rabbi Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai reinterpreted the chaos as cosmic justice.
✨ The empires of Edom (Rome) and Persia had fallen; Ishmael now stood ascendant. For the first time in centuries, Jews could hope not for destruction, but for protection — even partnership — under a new Abrahamic covenant.
As Metatron tells Rabbi Shimʿōn:
“The Holy One, blessed be He, is bringing about the kingdom of Ishmael only for the purpose of delivering you from that wicked one.”
💫 Thus, in the shadow of Heraclius’s vengeance and amidst Islam’s dawn, the Jews of the 7th century imagined not apocalypse, but apokatastasis — a restoration of justice and divine order through Ishmael’s rise.
By 661 CE, the Jewish world of the Levant had lived through:
-
Heraclius’s pogroms (629–632 CE);
-
Arab liberation of Jerusalem (637 CE);
-
The birth of a new monotheistic power proclaiming “lā ilāha illā Allāh.”
➡️ In this swirl of violence and renewal, The Secrets of Rabbi Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai reinterpreted the chaos as cosmic justice.
✨ The empires of Edom (Rome) and Persia had fallen; Ishmael now stood ascendant. For the first time in centuries, Jews could hope not for destruction, but for protection — even partnership — under a new Abrahamic covenant.
As Metatron tells Rabbi Shimʿōn:
“The Holy One, blessed be He, is bringing about the kingdom of Ishmael only for the purpose of delivering you from that wicked one.”
💫 Thus, in the shadow of Heraclius’s vengeance and amidst Islam’s dawn, the Jews of the 7th century imagined not apocalypse, but apokatastasis — a restoration of justice and divine order through Ishmael’s rise.
III.G ✝️ – Maximus the Confessor’s Letter from Carthage (c. 637 CE)
At the moment of writing this letter, Maximus the Confessor — the most brilliant theologian of the 7th century — was in Carthage, the great Roman metropolis of North Africa. The Eastern Empire was collapsing:
-
In the East, Heraclius’s exhausted armies were losing city after city to the advancing Arab armies (635–638 CE).
-
In the West, imperial governors like George of Africa still administered provinces scarred by the forced conversions of Jews (632 CE).
-
And across the Mediterranean, news of the fall of Damascus (635), Jerusalem (637), and Emesa (636) reached North Africa like echoes of the end of the world.
It is amid this apocalyptic mood that Maximus wrote Letter 143 to Peter the Illustrious, a Roman administrator in Numidia.
At the moment of writing this letter, Maximus the Confessor — the most brilliant theologian of the 7th century — was in Carthage, the great Roman metropolis of North Africa. The Eastern Empire was collapsing:
-
In the East, Heraclius’s exhausted armies were losing city after city to the advancing Arab armies (635–638 CE).
-
In the West, imperial governors like George of Africa still administered provinces scarred by the forced conversions of Jews (632 CE).
-
And across the Mediterranean, news of the fall of Damascus (635), Jerusalem (637), and Emesa (636) reached North Africa like echoes of the end of the world.
It is amid this apocalyptic mood that Maximus wrote Letter 143 to Peter the Illustrious, a Roman administrator in Numidia.
⚔️ A Cry of Despair: “This Barbarous People from the Desert…”
“To see this barbarous people from the desert overrunning another’s lands as if they were their own!
And to see this civilized polity devoured by savage and raging beasts, who have the mere appearance of only the form of a human beings!”
➡️ Here Maximus is unmistakably describing the Arab conquests — what Syriac writers called ṭayyāyē and Greek writers called Sarakenoi. The tone of horror, calling them beasts and barbarians from the desert, matches the Roman response elsewhere (cf. Sophronius’s sermons of 634–637).
This places the letter after 636 CE (Battle of Yarmuk) and before 641 CE (loss of Egypt) — most likely 637–638 CE, when reports of Jerusalem’s fall to Caliph ʿUmar were spreading.
“To see this barbarous people from the desert overrunning another’s lands as if they were their own!
And to see this civilized polity devoured by savage and raging beasts, who have the mere appearance of only the form of a human beings!”
➡️ Here Maximus is unmistakably describing the Arab conquests — what Syriac writers called ṭayyāyē and Greek writers called Sarakenoi. The tone of horror, calling them beasts and barbarians from the desert, matches the Roman response elsewhere (cf. Sophronius’s sermons of 634–637).
This places the letter after 636 CE (Battle of Yarmuk) and before 641 CE (loss of Egypt) — most likely 637–638 CE, when reports of Jerusalem’s fall to Caliph ʿUmar were spreading.
✡️ The Jews in Maximus’s Eyes – “They Are Most Ready to Welcome the Enemy Forces”
“And to see the Jewish people… most ready to welcome the enemy forces, ushering in, by every way and means, the advent of the evil one, and revealing by what they are doing the arrival of the Antichrist, since they ignored the true Savior.”
🔥 This is extraordinary — because it confirms the Islamic and Syriac accounts that Jewish communities aided or cooperated with the Arab armies during the early conquests, especially in Syria and Palestine.
Compare this with al-Balādhurī’s report that the Jews of Ḥimṣ (Emesa) swore to defend the city gates against Heraclius’s forces, declaring:
“By the Torah, no agent of Heraclius will enter the city unless we are overcome and exhausted.”
💬 Maximus’s words show this same phenomenon, but from the opposite side.
To him, Jewish participation was not pragmatic self-preservation — it was eschatological betrayal. He interprets their collaboration through apocalyptic lenses: welcoming the Arabs = welcoming the Antichrist.
“And to see the Jewish people… most ready to welcome the enemy forces, ushering in, by every way and means, the advent of the evil one, and revealing by what they are doing the arrival of the Antichrist, since they ignored the true Savior.”
🔥 This is extraordinary — because it confirms the Islamic and Syriac accounts that Jewish communities aided or cooperated with the Arab armies during the early conquests, especially in Syria and Palestine.
Compare this with al-Balādhurī’s report that the Jews of Ḥimṣ (Emesa) swore to defend the city gates against Heraclius’s forces, declaring:
“By the Torah, no agent of Heraclius will enter the city unless we are overcome and exhausted.”
💬 Maximus’s words show this same phenomenon, but from the opposite side.
To him, Jewish participation was not pragmatic self-preservation — it was eschatological betrayal. He interprets their collaboration through apocalyptic lenses: welcoming the Arabs = welcoming the Antichrist.
🔥 Theological Implications – Islam as an Eschatological Sign
For Maximus, this invasion was not just a geopolitical disaster; it was a spiritual event.
In his eyes:
-
The “barbarous people from the desert” (the Arabs) were a divine punishment — perhaps even the armies of Gog and Magog.
-
The Jews, by siding with them, had become the “ushers of the Antichrist.”
-
The fall of the Roman world symbolized the nearing of the end times.
💡 This aligns perfectly with what Paul Magdalino observed:
By the late 630s, many Roman elites saw the Arab victories as part of an apocalyptic drama.
Heraclius’s failed forced conversions (630–632) and now the Arab conquests (634–638) appeared as divine reversals — proof that the Empire’s oath-breaking and sacrilege had invited judgment.
For Maximus, this invasion was not just a geopolitical disaster; it was a spiritual event.
In his eyes:
-
The “barbarous people from the desert” (the Arabs) were a divine punishment — perhaps even the armies of Gog and Magog.
-
The Jews, by siding with them, had become the “ushers of the Antichrist.”
-
The fall of the Roman world symbolized the nearing of the end times.
💡 This aligns perfectly with what Paul Magdalino observed:
By the late 630s, many Roman elites saw the Arab victories as part of an apocalyptic drama.
Heraclius’s failed forced conversions (630–632) and now the Arab conquests (634–638) appeared as divine reversals — proof that the Empire’s oath-breaking and sacrilege had invited judgment.
🕯️ Date and Tone – “Nature Itself Teaches Us to Flee to God”
“For what is more precarious than the evils that beset the world today?
What is more terrible to those who understand than the things that are happening?”
🕰️ This anguished tone fits precisely the years after the Heraclian re-conquest collapsed and before the final loss of Egypt.
The phrasing — “the evils that beset the world today” — echoes the 7th-century sentiment of eschatological exhaustion, the sense that the sixth millennium of the world was ending.
Hence, this letter can be securely dated to around 637 CE.
“For what is more precarious than the evils that beset the world today?
What is more terrible to those who understand than the things that are happening?”
🕰️ This anguished tone fits precisely the years after the Heraclian re-conquest collapsed and before the final loss of Egypt.
The phrasing — “the evils that beset the world today” — echoes the 7th-century sentiment of eschatological exhaustion, the sense that the sixth millennium of the world was ending.
Hence, this letter can be securely dated to around 637 CE.
⚖️ Jewish Agency Reconsidered
From the imperial viewpoint, Jewish support for the Arabs was treason; from the Jewish viewpoint, as seen in the Secrets of Rabbi Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai, it was deliverance.
➡️ In this sense, Maximus’s letter and the Jewish apocalypse are mirror images:
Roman Perspective (Maximus) Jewish Perspective (Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai) The Arabs are “beasts from the desert.” The Ishmaelites are instruments of God. The Jews “welcome the enemy” and “usher the Antichrist.” The Jews are liberated from Edom’s oppression. The fall of Rome = spiritual catastrophe. The fall of Rome = divine justice.
Together, they testify to a shared moment of world-historical upheaval, interpreted through radically opposed eschatologies.
From the imperial viewpoint, Jewish support for the Arabs was treason; from the Jewish viewpoint, as seen in the Secrets of Rabbi Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai, it was deliverance.
➡️ In this sense, Maximus’s letter and the Jewish apocalypse are mirror images:
| Roman Perspective (Maximus) | Jewish Perspective (Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai) |
|---|---|
| The Arabs are “beasts from the desert.” | The Ishmaelites are instruments of God. |
| The Jews “welcome the enemy” and “usher the Antichrist.” | The Jews are liberated from Edom’s oppression. |
| The fall of Rome = spiritual catastrophe. | The fall of Rome = divine justice. |
Together, they testify to a shared moment of world-historical upheaval, interpreted through radically opposed eschatologies.
🏺 Historical Significance
This letter, written on the very eve of Islam’s emergence as an empire, is the earliest extant Greek Christian text that mentions both:
-
The Arab invasion as an ongoing catastrophe;
-
The Jews’ perceived cooperation with that invasion.
It thus provides an independent corroboration — from a contemporary observer — of the scenario depicted in both:
-
Muslim sources (al-Balādhurī, al-Wāqidī, al-Ṭabarī), and
-
Jewish apocalypses (Nistarot de-R. Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai).
This letter, written on the very eve of Islam’s emergence as an empire, is the earliest extant Greek Christian text that mentions both:
-
The Arab invasion as an ongoing catastrophe;
-
The Jews’ perceived cooperation with that invasion.
It thus provides an independent corroboration — from a contemporary observer — of the scenario depicted in both:
-
Muslim sources (al-Balādhurī, al-Wāqidī, al-Ṭabarī), and
-
Jewish apocalypses (Nistarot de-R. Shimʿōn b. Yoḥai).
✍️ In Summary
📜 Maximus’s Letter 143 is more than a personal appeal to piety.
It is a window into the apocalyptic consciousness of the late Heraclian world — a world where:
-
Rome’s faith in itself was breaking;
-
Islam’s rise was seen as the hand of God (or of Satan, depending on the observer);
-
And the Jews, long persecuted by the Empire, seized the moment to survive — and perhaps, to hope again.
In Maximus’s words we hear the last gasp of the old world.
In the voices he condemns — Jewish and Arab — we hear the birth of the new. 🌙📖
📜 Maximus’s Letter 143 is more than a personal appeal to piety.
It is a window into the apocalyptic consciousness of the late Heraclian world — a world where:
-
Rome’s faith in itself was breaking;
-
Islam’s rise was seen as the hand of God (or of Satan, depending on the observer);
-
And the Jews, long persecuted by the Empire, seized the moment to survive — and perhaps, to hope again.
In Maximus’s words we hear the last gasp of the old world.
In the voices he condemns — Jewish and Arab — we hear the birth of the new. 🌙📖
IV. The “Topoi” Problem – Beyond Copy-Paste: Islamic Historiography as Independent Administrative Memory
Fred Astren represents a dominant school of thought that views early Islamic historical sources with deep skepticism. His arguments form a formidable challenge:
⏳ The 150-Year Gap: The earliest extant texts were written 150-200 years after the events they describe. This gap, filled with oral transmission, opens the door for "unintentional and intentional reshaping," leading to "inconsistency and contradiction."
🏛️ Abbasid-Era Agenda: The historians wrote under the Abbasids, who needed to "justify its dawla" and create a "coherent imperial system." Their project was to "historicize and justify contemporary policies," not to document objective facts. As Chase Robinson summarizes, "In prescribing conquest arrangements, conquest history thus describes post-conquest history."
📖 The "Topos" Trap: Following Albrecht Noth, Astren argues that narratives are built from literary "topoi" (commonplace motifs). Stories of informants, tunnels, and city defenses are not historical records but reusable literary plot devices designed to fit themes, especially the legal distinction between conquest by force (ʿanwa) and by treaty (ṣulḥ).
🎭 Triumphalist Ideology: The sources are shaped by a "triumphalist and universal" Islamic vision, crafting a past that legitimizes the present. Stories of Jewish collaboration, therefore, serve to illustrate the divine favor and administrative order of the new regime.
In essence, Astren concludes that these sources tell us more about the 9th-century Abbasid mind than the 7th-century conquest reality. He urges a "hermeneutic of suspicion," implying that the Jewish agency we've documented is likely a literary phantom.
While Astren's methodological caution is valid, his conclusions represent a failure of historical imagination. The "topos" theory, when applied as a universal solvent, dissolves not just legend but genuine history. It mistakes patterns in human experience for patterns of literary fabrication.
⏳ The 150-Year Gap: The earliest extant texts were written 150-200 years after the events they describe. This gap, filled with oral transmission, opens the door for "unintentional and intentional reshaping," leading to "inconsistency and contradiction."
🏛️ Abbasid-Era Agenda: The historians wrote under the Abbasids, who needed to "justify its dawla" and create a "coherent imperial system." Their project was to "historicize and justify contemporary policies," not to document objective facts. As Chase Robinson summarizes, "In prescribing conquest arrangements, conquest history thus describes post-conquest history."
📖 The "Topos" Trap: Following Albrecht Noth, Astren argues that narratives are built from literary "topoi" (commonplace motifs). Stories of informants, tunnels, and city defenses are not historical records but reusable literary plot devices designed to fit themes, especially the legal distinction between conquest by force (ʿanwa) and by treaty (ṣulḥ).
🎭 Triumphalist Ideology: The sources are shaped by a "triumphalist and universal" Islamic vision, crafting a past that legitimizes the present. Stories of Jewish collaboration, therefore, serve to illustrate the divine favor and administrative order of the new regime.
🚨 Deconstructing the Skeptical Framework 🚨
1. ➡️ AGAINST: "The 150-year oral tradition makes the sources unreliable."-✅ OUR CASE: This dismisses the power of oral culture and the specific concerns of early Muslim society.Astren and Noth judge 7th-century Arabian oral culture by the standards of modern, literate societies. This is chronological chauvinism.
🎤 A Culture of Memory, Not Memos: As Russ Rodgers powerfully argues, "just because Noth could not memorize the majority of what a person said does not mean a Bedouin tribesman in the seventh century could not." In a non-literate society, memory is a highly trained faculty. Stories, genealogies, and treaties were drilled repetitively, like Patton reciting Bible chapters or Rommel memorizing logarithmic tables.
Administrative and Legal Necessity: The core information preserved—treaty terms, tax rates, and conquest status—was not just campfire lore. It was the legal and financial foundation of the new state. The terms of the Treaty of Ḥomṣ or the jizya for Ayla were as crucial as a modern constitution. Such details are precisely what oral traditions in administrative contexts are designed to preserve with high fidelity.
The "Garbled Message" Fallacy: The common schoolyard game of "telephone" is a false analogy. That game involves a single, careless whisper. Formal oral transmission involves structured, public, and verified recitation by professional narrators (ruwāt), whose reputation depended on accuracy.
2. ➡️ AGAINST: "The sources are just Abbasid propaganda for administrative law."-✅ OUR CASE: This confuses the application of history with its invention.The Abbasids used the past to legitimize their present. This does not mean they fabricated it wholesale.
Cause and Effect are Reversed: A seven-year siege of Caesarea (a historical fact) naturally results in an ʿanwa (by-force) legal status. The story of the Jewish informant explains how the siege ended. It is not a story created to justify the legal status; the legal status is a consequence of the historical event. The cart is placed before the horse.
The "Theme" is Not a "Fantasy": Donner, more credulous than Noth, argues that people naturally organize memories into "themes"—family, work, conquest. The existence of a "conquest theme" in Islamic historiography doesn't prove the data within it is fictitious; it proves that conquest was important to them. As Rodgers notes, "life is loaded with themes... [this] provides us little real information about what can be accepted and what should be rejected."
Contrast with Roman Polemic: Astren's theory collapses under comparative analysis. If Muslim historians were simply copying "topoi," why are their accounts of Jews so dry, administrative, and non-polemical? Compare this to Roman chronicles, where Jews are theological symbols of deicide and rejection. The Muslim sources are concerned with Yūsuf's utility in taking Caesarea, not with his role in salvation history. This fundamental difference in tone and purpose argues for independent tradition, not derivative copying.
3. ➡️ AGAINST: "Informants, tunnels, and city defenses are mere literary topoi."-✅ OUR CASE: This is a profound misunderstanding of warfare and human nature.This is the core of the failure. Noth and Astren see literary clichés where soldiers see standard operating procedure.
🚪 The "Informant Topos" is a Universal Reality of War: The use of traitors and guides is one of the oldest tactics in military history. It is not a literary invention; it is a rational exploitation of a defender's weakest point: internal division. That this "motif" appears in stories of Damascus, Alexandria, and Caesarea isn't evidence of fabrication; it's evidence that this is how divided cities frequently fall. To call this a "topos" is to ignore the consistent reality of siege warfare across all cultures and epochs.
⚔️ The "Mountain to the Back" Topos is Basic Tactics: Noth dismisses reports of Muslim armies placing mountains to their backs as inauthentic. Rodgers eviscerates this: "Noth displays a serious lapse regarding his knowledge of the military art and history." Using terrain as a tactical anchor is doctrine, not dogma, advised by every military thinker from Sun Tzu to Vegetius.
🏰 The "Tunnel" is a Specific, Plausible Detail: The tunnel in Caesarea "in which the water came up to a man’s waist" is not a generic trope. Caesarea was a Roman city with complex aqueduct and sewer systems. That a local might know of a navigable aqueduct conduit is entirely plausible. A generic "topos" would be "a secret gate." The specific, wet tunnel argues for authenticity.
4. ➡️ AGAINST: "We should reject these sources because they contain improbable events."-✅ OUR CASE: This confuses the "improbable" with the "impossible" and ignores the bizarre nature of reality.This is perhaps the most anti-historical stance of the skeptical school.
History is Bizarre: Rodgers provides the stunning example of WWI pilot Louis Strange, who fell out of his plane at 8,000 feet, dangled from his machine gun, and managed to climb back in and land. If this were in an ancient source, it would be dismissed as a miraculous "topos" of the heroic pilot. But it happened. The fact that an event is dramatic, symbolic, or unlikely does not make it false.
The Double Standard of Sources: Why is Caesar's Gallic War, based on manuscripts 900 years removed from the events, largely accepted, while al-Ṭabarī, working from manuscripts 120-300 years removed, is subjected to a "hermeneutic of suspicion"? Why are the rapid conquests of Alexander the Great accepted, but the similar-speed conquests of the Rashidun Caliphate questioned? This smacks of a cultural and religious bias that Rodgers identifies as "chronological chauvinism."
🎤 A Culture of Memory, Not Memos: As Russ Rodgers powerfully argues, "just because Noth could not memorize the majority of what a person said does not mean a Bedouin tribesman in the seventh century could not." In a non-literate society, memory is a highly trained faculty. Stories, genealogies, and treaties were drilled repetitively, like Patton reciting Bible chapters or Rommel memorizing logarithmic tables.
Administrative and Legal Necessity: The core information preserved—treaty terms, tax rates, and conquest status—was not just campfire lore. It was the legal and financial foundation of the new state. The terms of the Treaty of Ḥomṣ or the jizya for Ayla were as crucial as a modern constitution. Such details are precisely what oral traditions in administrative contexts are designed to preserve with high fidelity.
The "Garbled Message" Fallacy: The common schoolyard game of "telephone" is a false analogy. That game involves a single, careless whisper. Formal oral transmission involves structured, public, and verified recitation by professional narrators (ruwāt), whose reputation depended on accuracy.
Cause and Effect are Reversed: A seven-year siege of Caesarea (a historical fact) naturally results in an ʿanwa (by-force) legal status. The story of the Jewish informant explains how the siege ended. It is not a story created to justify the legal status; the legal status is a consequence of the historical event. The cart is placed before the horse.
The "Theme" is Not a "Fantasy": Donner, more credulous than Noth, argues that people naturally organize memories into "themes"—family, work, conquest. The existence of a "conquest theme" in Islamic historiography doesn't prove the data within it is fictitious; it proves that conquest was important to them. As Rodgers notes, "life is loaded with themes... [this] provides us little real information about what can be accepted and what should be rejected."
Contrast with Roman Polemic: Astren's theory collapses under comparative analysis. If Muslim historians were simply copying "topoi," why are their accounts of Jews so dry, administrative, and non-polemical? Compare this to Roman chronicles, where Jews are theological symbols of deicide and rejection. The Muslim sources are concerned with Yūsuf's utility in taking Caesarea, not with his role in salvation history. This fundamental difference in tone and purpose argues for independent tradition, not derivative copying.
🚪 The "Informant Topos" is a Universal Reality of War: The use of traitors and guides is one of the oldest tactics in military history. It is not a literary invention; it is a rational exploitation of a defender's weakest point: internal division. That this "motif" appears in stories of Damascus, Alexandria, and Caesarea isn't evidence of fabrication; it's evidence that this is how divided cities frequently fall. To call this a "topos" is to ignore the consistent reality of siege warfare across all cultures and epochs.
⚔️ The "Mountain to the Back" Topos is Basic Tactics: Noth dismisses reports of Muslim armies placing mountains to their backs as inauthentic. Rodgers eviscerates this: "Noth displays a serious lapse regarding his knowledge of the military art and history." Using terrain as a tactical anchor is doctrine, not dogma, advised by every military thinker from Sun Tzu to Vegetius.
🏰 The "Tunnel" is a Specific, Plausible Detail: The tunnel in Caesarea "in which the water came up to a man’s waist" is not a generic trope. Caesarea was a Roman city with complex aqueduct and sewer systems. That a local might know of a navigable aqueduct conduit is entirely plausible. A generic "topos" would be "a secret gate." The specific, wet tunnel argues for authenticity.
History is Bizarre: Rodgers provides the stunning example of WWI pilot Louis Strange, who fell out of his plane at 8,000 feet, dangled from his machine gun, and managed to climb back in and land. If this were in an ancient source, it would be dismissed as a miraculous "topos" of the heroic pilot. But it happened. The fact that an event is dramatic, symbolic, or unlikely does not make it false.
The Double Standard of Sources: Why is Caesar's Gallic War, based on manuscripts 900 years removed from the events, largely accepted, while al-Ṭabarī, working from manuscripts 120-300 years removed, is subjected to a "hermeneutic of suspicion"? Why are the rapid conquests of Alexander the Great accepted, but the similar-speed conquests of the Rashidun Caliphate questioned? This smacks of a cultural and religious bias that Rodgers identifies as "chronological chauvinism."
The "topos" model, as applied by Astren and Noth, is a critical tool that has been transformed into a wrecking ball. It is valuable for identifying legendary embellishment but catastrophic when used to dismiss the gritty, specific, and administrative core of the conquest narratives.
The early Islamic sources are not flawless, but they represent a unique and valuable form of administrative memory. Their primary concern is not theological moralizing but documenting the practical foundations of empire: treaties, taxes, and the status of cities.
The stories of Jewish collaboration—in Tabūk, Ḥomṣ, Tripoli, and Caesarea—are not a series of borrowed Christian tropes. They are a coherent set of accounts that make perfect sense in the exhausted, fractured world of the 7th-century Levant. They reflect the logical actions of a persecuted population seeking survival and a new political contract under a rising power.
To dismiss them as "topoi" is not just scholarly caution; it is a refusal to listen to the consistent testimony of history about how empires rise, how cities fall, and how people, when given a choice between a known persecutor and an unknown conqueror, will often make a rational—and historically significant—leap of faith. 🤝 🌅
The Jewish role in the early Islamic conquests is not a literary fantasy. It is a historical reality, preserved in the administrative memory of the new state that it helped, in its own small way, to bring into being.
V. Conclusion – Between Blame and Deliverance
🕰️ The Arc of History
From the marble halls of Justinian’s Constantinople to the blood-soaked streets of Heraclius’s Jerusalem, the Jews of Syria and Palestine endured a century of systematic degradation. This was not merely persecution; it was a state-sponsored project of erasure, meticulously engineered through law and theology. The Corpus Juris Civilis was more than a legal code—it was a metaphysical cage, transforming Jewish existence into a civic disability. When Heraclius, in a final, brutal epilogue, broke his oath and unleashed massacre, he confirmed a terrible truth: under the Christian Roman Empire, the Jew was forever the elder brother rejected, a living testament to divine displeasure in a polity that claimed to be the New Israel.
⚖️ The Calculus of Survival
In this light, the question of Jewish “collaboration” with the Muslim conquests must be entirely reframed. It was not an act of ideological allegiance to a new faith, nor a grand conspiracy. It was, rather, a profoundly rational calculus of survival.
➡️ For communities that had seen their synagogues shuttered, their courts silenced, and their children’s inheritance weaponized against them, the Roman Empire was not a protector. It was a persecutor.
➡️ For a people who had just witnessed the Heraclian massacre, the advancing armies of Persia and, later, Islam, did not represent an foreign invasion. They represented a counter-balance.
➡️ When the Muslims refunded the kharāj at Ḥomṣ, they were not just returning tax money; they were honoring a covenant. This stood in stark contrast to the empire that had just broken its most sacred oath. The choice was not between Christ and Muhammad, but between a known tyranny and an unknown contract.
🔗 The True Meaning of "Collaboration"
The narratives we have examined—from the treaties of Tabūk, to the locked gates of Ḥomṣ, to the repopulation of Tripoli, and the informant of Caesarea—are not, as skeptics argue, mere literary "topoi." They are the fragmented echoes of a profound historical shift.
The Jews did not "betray" Rome Rome had already betrayed them.
They did not "create" the Islamic conquests. They recognized in them a deliverance from the cycle of persecution.
Their actions were not those of a fifth column, but of a population seeking agency in the face of imperial collapse.
The concept of "collaboration" reveals far more about Roman anxiety than Jewish agency. It was the panic of an empire that, after centuries of claiming God’s exclusive favor, suddenly faced the terrifying possibility that divine grace had passed to another. The Jew, long the scapegoat within, became the convenient symbol for this cosmic insecurity.
🌱 From Endurance to Flourishing
It is crucial to distinguish the immediate context of the conquests from the centuries that followed. The Jews of the 630s did not choose Islam out of theological conviction; they chose survival and stability over persecution and chaos. The early Islamic state, for its part, offered what the empire could not: a legally defined place within the social order. The dhimma was a contract of protected inferiority, but it was a contract—something predictable, enforceable, and free of the theological obsession that had characterized Roman rule.
The subsequent flourishing of Jewish life in the Islamic world—the Gaonate of Baghdad, the poets of al-Andalus, the philosophers of Cairo—was the long-term fruit of this initial respite. It was not pre-ordained in the conquests, but it was made possible by them. Life under the Crescent was no paradise, but it was a world where, as the people of Ḥomṣ declared, "your rule and your justice are dearer to us than the oppression and tyranny we suffered before."
The Jews did not "betray" Rome Rome had already betrayed them.
They did not "create" the Islamic conquests. They recognized in them a deliverance from the cycle of persecution.
Their actions were not those of a fifth column, but of a population seeking agency in the face of imperial collapse.
History’s great tragedy is that the victims of empire are so often recast as its betrayers. The narrative of "the perfidious Jew" aiding the invader is a convenient fiction that absolves the empire of its own sins—its intolerance, its brutality, its failure to command the loyalty of its own people.
The Jews of Palestine, caught between the Cross that persecuted them and the Crescent that promised a measure of justice, were not actors in a grand theological drama. They were a people seeking the most fundamental of human needs: a place to endure.
They asked not for salvation, but for survival. Not for dominion, but for dignity. In the narrow space between two warring imperial truths, they sought only what the old empire had never granted them: the right to exist, to remember, and to hope.
THE END
History’s great tragedy is that the victims of empire are so often recast as its betrayers. The narrative of "the perfidious Jew" aiding the invader is a convenient fiction that absolves the empire of its own sins—its intolerance, its brutality, its failure to command the loyalty of its own people.
The Jews of Palestine, caught between the Cross that persecuted them and the Crescent that promised a measure of justice, were not actors in a grand theological drama. They were a people seeking the most fundamental of human needs: a place to endure.
They asked not for salvation, but for survival. Not for dominion, but for dignity. In the narrow space between two warring imperial truths, they sought only what the old empire had never granted them: the right to exist, to remember, and to hope.
📚 Works Cited
-
Primary Sources
al-Balādhurī, Ahmad b. Yaḥyā. History of the Arab Invasions: The Conquest of the Lands (A New Translation of al-Balādhurī’s Futūḥ al-Buldān). Translated and with historical commentary by Hugh Kennedy, I.B. Tauris, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2022.
al-Maqrīzī, Taqī al-Dīn. al-Mawāʿiẓ wa-al-Iʿtibār fī Dhikr al-Khiṭaṭ wa-al-Āthār (Exhortations and Reflections on the Quarters and Monuments). 2 vols, Bulaq, 1853.
al-Tabari, Muhammad ibn Jarir. Tarikh al-Tabari = Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk. Edited by Muhammad Abu al-Fadl Ibrahim, Dar al-Ma‘arif, Egypt, 1967.
al-Ṭurṭūshī, Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Walīd al-Fihrī. Sirāj al-Mulūk. Min Awāʾil al-Maṭbūʿāt al-ʿArabiyya, Miṣr, 1289 AH / 1872 CE.
Connolly, Serena, Simon Corcoran, Michael Crawford, John Noel Dillon, Dennis P. Kehoe, Noel Lenski, Thomas A. J. McGinn, Charles F. Pazdernik, and Benet Salway, editors. The Codex of Justinian: A New Annotated Translation, with Parallel Latin and Greek Text. Based on a translation by Justice Fred H. Blume, edited under the general editorship of Bruce W. Frier, with contributions by Timothy Kearley, Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Harrak, Amir, translator. The Chronicle of Zuqnin, Parts III and IV: A.D. 488–775. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1999.
al-Balādhurī, Ahmad b. Yaḥyā. History of the Arab Invasions: The Conquest of the Lands (A New Translation of al-Balādhurī’s Futūḥ al-Buldān). Translated and with historical commentary by Hugh Kennedy, I.B. Tauris, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2022.
al-Maqrīzī, Taqī al-Dīn. al-Mawāʿiẓ wa-al-Iʿtibār fī Dhikr al-Khiṭaṭ wa-al-Āthār (Exhortations and Reflections on the Quarters and Monuments). 2 vols, Bulaq, 1853.
al-Tabari, Muhammad ibn Jarir. Tarikh al-Tabari = Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk. Edited by Muhammad Abu al-Fadl Ibrahim, Dar al-Ma‘arif, Egypt, 1967.
al-Ṭurṭūshī, Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Walīd al-Fihrī. Sirāj al-Mulūk. Min Awāʾil al-Maṭbūʿāt al-ʿArabiyya, Miṣr, 1289 AH / 1872 CE.
Connolly, Serena, Simon Corcoran, Michael Crawford, John Noel Dillon, Dennis P. Kehoe, Noel Lenski, Thomas A. J. McGinn, Charles F. Pazdernik, and Benet Salway, editors. The Codex of Justinian: A New Annotated Translation, with Parallel Latin and Greek Text. Based on a translation by Justice Fred H. Blume, edited under the general editorship of Bruce W. Frier, with contributions by Timothy Kearley, Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Harrak, Amir, translator. The Chronicle of Zuqnin, Parts III and IV: A.D. 488–775. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1999.
Hoyland, Robert G., translator. Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam. Liverpool University Press, 2011. Translated Texts for Historians, vol. 57.
Mangō, Cyril, and Roger Scott, with the assistance of Geoffrey Greatrex. The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284–813. Clarendon Press, 1997.
Miller, David J. D., and Peter Sarris. The Novels of Justinian: A Complete Annotated English Translation. Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Moosa, Matti, translator. The Syriac Chronicle of Michael Rabo (The Great): A Universal History from the Creation. Beth Antioch Press, 2014.
Palmer, Andrew. The Seventh Century in the West Syrian Chronicles. Liverpool University Press, 1993.
Penn, Michael Philip, translator and editor. When Christians First Met Muslims: A Sourcebook of the Earliest Syriac Writings on Islam. University of California Press, 2015.
Shoemaker, Stephen J. A Prophet Has Appeared: The Rise of Islam Through Christian and Jewish Eyes, A Sourcebook. University of California Press, 2021.
Thomson, R. W., translator. The Armenian History Attributed to Sebeos. Translated with notes by R. W. Thomson, historical commentary by James Howard-Johnston, assistance from Tim Greenwood, Liverpool University Press, 1999.
Secondary Sources
Astren, Fred. “Re-reading the Arabic Sources: Jewish History and the Muslim Conquests.” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, vol. 36, 2009, pp. 1-22. The Max Schloessinger Memorial Foundation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Avni, Gideon. The Byzantine–Islamic Transition in Palestine: An Archaeological Approach. Oxford University Press, 2014.
Bcheiry, Iskandar. An Early Christian Reaction to Islam: Išū‘yahb III and the Muslim Arabs. Gorgias Press LLC, 2019.
Berthelot, Katell. Jews and Their Roman Rivals: Pagan Rome’s Challenge to Israel. Princeton University Press, 2021.
Bessard, Fanny. Caliphs and Merchants: Cities and Economies of Power in the Near East (700–950). Oxford University Press, 2020.
Borrut, Antoine, and Fred M. Donner, editors. Christians and Others in the Umayyad State. The University of Chicago, Oriental Institute, 2016.
Cohen, Mark R. Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. Princeton University Press, 1994.
Daryaee, Touraj. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris, 2023.
Feldman, Louis H. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian. Princeton University Press, 1993.
Ferarui, Remus Mihai. “The Religious Policy of Emperor Heraclius (610–641) in Regards to Hebrews: Premises, Acceptance and Consequences.” Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Theologia Orthodoxa, vol. 63, no. 1, 2018, pp. 27–40.
Furman, Yulia, and Dmitry Cherkashin. “‘Superiority Is Due to Us, and the King Should Come from Among Us’: The Arab Conquests and Conflicts of the Early Umayyad Era in a 7th-Century Syriac Universal History of Yoḥannān bar Penkāyē.” Der Islam, vol. 101, no. 2, 2024, pp. 346–382. De Gruyter.
Greatrex, Geoffrey, and Samuel N.C. Lieu, editors. The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars, Part II AD 363–630: A Narrative Sourcebook. Routledge, 2002.
Harper, Kyle. The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire. Princeton University Press, 2017.
Howard-Johnston, James. The Last Great War of Antiquity. Oxford University Press, 2021.
Hoyland, Robert G. Seeing Islam as Others Saw It, Gorgias Press LLC, 2019.
Kreiner, Jamie. Legions of Pigs in the Early Medieval West. Yale University Press, 2020
Levy-Rubin, Milka. Non-Muslims in the Early Islamic Empire: From Surrender to Coexistence. Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Levy-Rubin, Milka. “Were the Jews Prohibited from Settling in Jerusalem? On the Authenticity of al-Ṭabarī’s Jerusalem Surrender Agreement.” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam (JSAI), vol. 36, 2009.
Linder, Amnon, editor. The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation. Wayne State University Press and The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1987.
Lindstedt, Ilkka. Muḥammad and His Followers in Context: The Religious Map of Late Antique Arabia. Brill, 2023.
Maas, Michael, editor. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Marsham, Andrew. The Umayyad Empire. Edinburgh University Press, 2024.
Matthee, Rudi. Angels Tapping at the Wine-Shop’s Door: A History of Alcohol in the Islamic World. C. Hurst & Co. (Publishers) Ltd., 2023.
Miller, David J. D., and Peter Sarris. The Novels of Justinian: A Complete Annotated English Translation. Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Morony, Michael G. Iraq After the Muslim Conquest. Gorgias Press, 2005. (Facsimile reprint of the 1984 Princeton University Press edition.)
Newby, Gordon D. A History of the Jews of Arabia: From Ancient Times to Their Eclipse under Islam. University of South Carolina Press, 1988.
O’Donnell, J. J. The Ruin of the Roman Empire: A New History. Harper Perennial, 2009.
Payne, Richard E. A State of Mixture: Christians, Zoroastrians, and Iranian Political Culture in Late Antiquity. University of California Press, 2015.
Petersen, Leif Inge Ree. Siege Warfare and Military Organization in the Successor States (400–800 AD): Byzantium, the West and Islam. Brill, 2013.
Robinson, Chase F. "Neck-Sealing in Early Islam." Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, vol. 48, no. 3, 2005, pp. 401-41.
Rodgers, Russ. The Generalship of Muhammad: Battles and Campaigns of the Prophet of Allah. University Press of Florida, 2012.
Sarris, Peter. Justinian: Emperor, Soldier, Saint. Basic Books, 2023.
Sijpesteijn, Petra M. Shaping a Muslim State: The World of a Mid-Eighth-Century Egyptian Official. Oxford University Press, 2013.
Sijpesteijn, Petra M. “Shaving Hair and Beards in Early Islamic Egypt: An Arab Innovation?” Al-Masāq, vol. 30, no. 1, 2018
Simonsohn, Uriel I. A Common Justice: The Legal Allegiances of Christians and Jews under Early Islam. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.
Syvänne, Ilkka. The Military History of Late Rome AD 602–641. Pen & Sword Military, 2022.
Tolan, John, et al., editors. Jews in Early Christian Law: Byzantium and the Latin West, 6th-11th Centuries. Brepols, 2014.
Weitz, Lev E. Between Christ and Caliph: Law, Marriage, and Christian Community in Early Islam. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018.
Comments
Post a Comment