The Excerpta Valesiani on the Jews
The Excerpta Valesiani is the name given to two fragmentary pieces of an unknown historical work or works that was probably written around the year 390. They are usually published as part of Ammianus Marcellinus' 'Rerum Gestarum' following the Renaissance-era editor of Marcellinus' work Henri Vallois who added them as an appendix to the edition he brought out. In spite of the unknown authorship of the fragments: classicists have been able to determine that they are to be treated as reliable sources of information and as such they are frequently used as textual evidence on Rome's Ostrogothic period.
It is the second fragment that is of interest to us as it refers to the activities of the jews during the rule of Theodoric the Goth in Italy.
It tells us:
'Then Theodoric made Eutharicus consul and celebrated triumphs at Rome and at Ravenna. This Eutharicus was an excessively rough man, and an enemy to the Catholic faith. After this, while Theodoric was remaining at Verona through fear of the neighbouring peoples, strife arose between the Christians and the Jews of the city of Ravenna; accordingly the Jews, being unwilling to be baptised, often in sport threw the holy water that was offered to them into the water of the river. Because of this the people were fired with anger, and without respect for the king, for Eutharicus, or for Peter, who was bishop at the time, they rose against the synagogues and presently set them on fire. And this same thing happened in a similar affair at Rome.
Presently the Jews hastened to Verona, where the king was, and there the head-chamberlain Triwane acted on their behalf; he, too, as a heretic favoured the Jews, and cajoled the king into taking action against the Christians. Accordingly Theodoric, on the presumption that they had resorted to arson, presently gave orders that the whole Roman population should furnish money for the rebuilding of the synagogues of Ravenna which had been burned; and that those who did not have anything from which they could give should be whipped through the streets of the city while a herald made proclamation of their offence. This was in substance the order given to Eutharicus, Cilliga, and the Bishop Peter, and thus it was carried out.' (1)
Now clearly the author of the second fragment is highly partisan as a Catholic Christian who ascribes to the idea of Saint Cyprian that 'there can be no salvation outside the Holy Roman Church' and thus to him the different belief systems of the Arian Christians weren't even Christian but rather a form of heretical devil-worship. (2) However if we strip away the verbose highly politicised Christian language: it is clear that the author is referring to the jews as being a politically seditious people.
It also documents one of the earliest attempts by Christians to baptise jews as 'professors of error' by giving them 'holy' baptismal water (possibly also/or blessed oil) and thus probably attempting to 'show them the right path in Christ'. We should remember that at this time jews and Christians were still very much intertwined although they were becoming more distant ideologically from each other. (3) As time went on the giving of this 'holy' water to the jews probably evolved into the better known practice of forced mass baptisms of jews that have long been a subject of self-righteous flagellation by philo-Semites both inside and outside of Christianity.
That the jews 'often in sport threw the holy water that was offered to them into the water of the river' seems somewhat secondary at first glance to the idea of the inferable attempt to 'force' baptisms of jews: however it is actually of the first importance as it links in with the known proclivity of jews to desecrate Christian Churches, artefacts and ceremonies in the Middle Ages as well as to this day in Israel where fanatical Hasidim and ultra-Orthodox continue to do so to both Islamic and Christian faiths. (4)
In other words this represents an early reference to the jewish practice of host desecration: possibly even an earlier form of it in view of the fact that at this time the Eucharist bread was not given as much importance as it was in the Middle Ages and thus jews quite probably evolved their practice in line with the theological ideas from Christian thought to which they would have at least been partially exposed via their daily contact with gentile and jewish Christians. (5)
It gives the lie to the ideas propounded by jewish historians in particular - Cecil Roth being an excellent example - (6) that jews could 'never have done such things' and that those who accused them of such at the time were motivated by an animus against the jews, were malicious gossips and/or were mentally-ill lunatics. (7) The simple fact is that all our sources agree that jews did such things and they mention it on numerous occasions, in different times and locations: as such one cannot wave a proverbial magic wand and make them all liars, lunatics or just plain loopy. However this is what standard jewish historical work has done since its beginnings as an intellectual discipline in the 'Science of Judaism' movement of the early nineteenth century.
If we remove the presumption that all charges against jews of doing nasty things to other people are ipso facto false then the reaction of the people of Ravenna makes perfect sense. As what the jews had done was to throw urine and excrement - literally in this case as the river would have also been a public sewer - into the baptismal water: thus making a studied insult of truly biblical proportions. The only way to express this in the context of Judaism itself is to state that it was rather akin to someone taking out and burning a Torah scroll today. It is one of the worst sacrilegious acts one could possibly perform and as such the reaction would be predictably widespread and very violent.
Thus when the second fragment records that:
'Because of this the people were fired with anger, and without respect for the king, for Eutharicus, or for Peter, who was bishop at the time, they rose against the synagogues and presently set them on fire. And this same thing happened in a similar affair at Rome.' (8)
The gentile Catholic Christians came for the jews in a massive outburst of righteous hatred for the self-chosen people and burned down all the synagogues in Ravenna and Rome. It is also likely - although not specifically mentioned - that the Catholic Christians baptised and/or butchered any jew they found in both cities.
It is however clear that this bit of ancient ethnic cleansing was not very complete as immediately afterwards as the jews hastened to Verona where King Theodoric was residing: so that they could once again complain that they had 'done nothing' and that the Catholic Christians had abused and injured them was well as having committed arson in destroying their synagogues. The author of the second fragment clearly records that this lie was only possible and plausible because of the connivance of Theodoric's Arian Christian councillor: Triwane.
It is indeed probable that the jews were not purely counting on their charms and information manipulation to recommend them, but rather - as was somewhat normal at the time - they bribed Triwane to present a one-sided case to Theodoric upon which Theodoric judged that the inhabitants of Ravenna and Rome should pay for the rebuilding of the synagogues.
Such deliberately subversive use of jewish embassies and jews in close contact with the reigns of power to benefit specific jewish interests is not uncommon in jewish history as one such subversive use is documented in the Tanakh itself in the form of the story of Esther, Mordechai and Haman in the Book of Esther.
Another example in a Roman context is Herod Agrippa I who helped secure the Emperor Claudius on the Imperial throne and who then proceeded to manipulate this to his advantage by helping divert the blame from the jews for the Alexandrian riots caused by their avaricious behaviour. Agrippa then also used this same general cover to attempt to foment a revolt of the Eastern provinces lead once again by the jews. (9)
Another tactic - which may or may not have been the case with Theodoric and Triwane - was the use of 'Judaisers' to act as covert agents of the jews among those in power. Judaisers were gentiles who had; for various reasons, become enamoured with all things jewish and to do with Judaism. However Judaisers were not converts in the sense of becoming jewish per se (as there was the problem of their being born gentile much as there is in most forms of modern Judaism), but rather those who pledged to obey a few more basic jewish laws and serve the jews in all things as the earthly priesthood of Yahweh. As such they are the historical origin of what we now call the Noahides: i.e., those born gentile who swear to serve the jews body and soul on the understanding that they will go straight to Gan Eden with the jews when they die. The underlying and often unstated reasoning behind this inferior religious observance is the central tenet of Judaism that the jew is descended from Isaac where-as gentiles are descended from Esau (i.e., Esau's blood cannot become Isaac's blood). Thus the gentile is; to put it mildly, bodily impure to a jew.
What is rather different about 'Judaisers' is that the jews aggressively sought them and although this has been claimed to be out of a need to 'convert' non-jews (a-la the idea that Judaism was a confessional religion like most others) this is not the case as while there were converts: these were the exception not the rule. (10) In essence the 'Judaisers' and jews at court - including Imperial jewish slaves for example Augustus' wife Livia's handmaid Acme - (11) provided a sort of classical Israel Lobby: they interfered and directed Roman policy towards their perception of jewish interests and where different jewish groups (for example the Hellenizers and the Zealots) clashed in major jewish centres then there were knock-on struggles within the ancient Israel Lobby often leading to a temporary relaxation of jewish influence.
It was also not uncommon for Hellenizing jews like Herod Agrippa I to influence Roman domestic policy towards jews against other jewish factions that opposed them; for example in the revolt of the jewish zealots in Rome under the leadership of the jew Chrestus. (12)
Thus it should not be surprising that the jews got their way with King Theodoric through the embassies of Triwane and quite probably a whole gaggle of competing Judaisers and august jewish personages at Theodoric's court.
It is also symptomatic of the visceral instinct among the jews for revenge that those who could not pay them were ordered to 'whipped through the streets'. After all had they not offended the jews for daring to object to the jewish claim to earthly dominion over them in Yahweh's name?
That was surely the offence that 'the herald cried before them' as they were whipped through the streets of Rome and Ravenna: they were whipped to spread the fear of the jews among the gentiles.
The author of the second fragment also gives us a second example of this ancient Israel Lobby in action when he tells us that:
'Then Symmachus, an advocate and a Jew, at the order of a tyrant rather than a king, announced on an appointed day, which was a Wednesday, the 26th of August, in the fourth indiction, under the consulship of Olybrius, that on the following Sabbath the Arians would take possession of the Catholic churches. But He who does not allow his faithful worshippers to be oppressed by unbelievers soon brought upon Theodoric the same punishment that Arius, the founder of his religion, had suffered; for the king was seized with a diarrhoea, and after three days of open bowels lost both his throne and his life on the very same day on which he rejoiced to attack the churches. But before breathing his last he named his grandson Athalaric as his successor. During his lifetime he had made himself a mausoleum of squared blocks of stone, a work of extraordinary size, and sought out a huge rock to place upon it.' (13)
Once again we must strip away the obvious Catholic Christian perceptions and assumptions: such as the notion that Yahweh became a proverbial Zeus and hurled a thunderbolt of diarrhoea to kill King Theodoric. However when this pious Christian sheen is stripped away we find another example of this ancient Israel Lobby this time inciting and getting involved in a war of religion between the Arians and the Catholics: much as Revilo Oliver once suggested. (14)
Symmachus - an ancient jewish lawyer - obviously decided that whipping gentile Christians through the streets was not enough and successfully lobbied for the Arian Christians - of which King Theodoric was himself a member - to take possession of the Catholic Christian Churches on the next Sabbath. This would have been both an act of simple revenge (as it dispossessed the Catholic Christians) and one that would have directly pitted the Arian Christians against the Catholic Christians leading to a renewal of the inter-sect violence on - in all likelihood - a national scale. In other words the author of the second fragment is telling us that the jew Symmachus sought to stir up a religious war between Christians so that the Christians would be so busy killing each other that they would leave the jews alone and quite probably also allow the jews to improve their connections and influence on both sides.
The only circumstance that stopped this devious plan from actually working was the health of King Theodoric as had he lived in all probability there would have been a fresh religious war that would have benefited no one but the jews.
It all goes to show the truth of the proverb: beware jews bearing gifts.
References
(1) Amm. Val. (2) 14
(2) The author talks elsewhere in the second fragment of 'devils' in relation to Arians and their beliefs for example.
(3) Charles Freeman, 2009, 'A New History of Early Christianity', 1st Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven, pp. 118-119
(4) Elliot Horowitz, 2007, 'Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence', 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton, p. 165
(5) For a detailed discussion of this see: David Biale, 2007, 'Blood and Belief: The Circulation of a Symbol between Jews and Christians', 1st Edition, University of California Press: Santa Barbara.
(6) Cecil Roth, 1935, 'The Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew', 1st Edition, Woburn Press: London, pp. 15-16
(7) Horowitz, Op. Cit., pp. 170-171
(8) Amm. Val. (2) 14
(9) Harry Leon, 1960, 'The Jews of Ancient Rome', 1st Edition, Jewish Publication Society of America: Philadelphia, pp. 21-23
(10) Ibid, pp. 35-38
(11) Joseph. AJ 17.5.7.141
(12) Suet. Claud. 25.4
(13) Amm. Val. (2) 16
(14) Revilo Oliver, 2007, 'The Jewish Strategy', 1st Edition, Historical Review Press: Uckfield. pp. 63-68