Migrations of Byzantine Jewry

By Byzantine Jewry in the Mediterranean Economy by Joshua Holo

The process began with the reign of Heraclius and the military and political cateclysms that accompanied it. Deemed a watershed and historically marking the beginning of the Middle Byzantine period, the seventh century also witnessed the first major persecution of Jews since Hadrian. Still, these patterns of Jewish migration do not appear to have taken place in direct response to Heraclius' grave anti-Jewish policies [24].  As far as population estimates are concerned, the most recent scholarship, taking into account other sources beyond Benjamin, favours the higher end of the spectrum, even after the persecution took hold.[25] Apparently, Jews even remained in the capital during the persecution, a fact which a contemporary polemical tract Doctrina Jacobi suggests quite strongly.[26] This particular forced conversion and concomitant violence, terrible and precedent-setting though they were, did not plunge the Byzantine Jews as a whole into a panic. The Jews of North Africa suffered forced conversion and the Jews of Jerusalem were expelled, but the Jews of the Byzantine heartland appear to have bided their time, for many factors still kept them in place. The importance of Heraclius' seventh-century persecution lies, from a demographic point of view, not in its immediate result, but rather in the precedent that it set.[27] Future Emperors did not invoke Heraclius' policies as a justification for the conversion or expulsion of Jews. In other words, the seventh-century persecution did not set formal precedent, rather the shape and consciousness of the empire, in political and religious terms, shifted with the rise of Islam. In each of the following three centuries, Byzantine Jewry would face forced conversions of the type associated with Medieval Western Europe, and in each of these cases, some segment of the Jewish population would leave the empire.[28] In that context, Heraclius' persecution changed the politial vocabulary of their interaction. In a general sense, he opened the door for a violent expression of religious conflict that had remained basically latent until then. In the meantime, Heraclius' act of violent persecution had only a muted effect on contemporary patterns of Jewish population and migration.[29] Regarding the seventh-century, six cases potentially indicate that any emigration took place due to persecution. In fact, however, of these six cases, only two truly indicate, with unalloyed clarity, any emigration at all.

The twelfth-century testimony of the German Jewish traveller, Petahyah of Regensburg, provides the most dubious case. He describes the depopulated Jewish community of Armenia in which only a few Jews remain by his time; Petahyah relates, citing an unnamed source, that "in ancient times many Jews lived there. However they slew one another and separated and went to the cities of Banel, Media and Persia [30].This passage could conceivably relate to the persecution by Heraclius, but it could just as easily relate to another, later or unknown chapter of local Jewish history. As a result, it offers little orientation whatsoever.

The second source, the Doctrina Jacobi, raises more interesting problems, chief among them that of genre. The Doctrina purports to recount the story of the perfidious Jacob who repents and converts to Christianity. Its value as a source lies in the modern assumption that the Doctrina's author betrays in his offhand and unguarded moments, societal context that reflects and accurate or, at the very least, a plausible historical setting. Thus, when the Doctrina indicates that in Africa "the Jews were found to be forcibly ..."
genre and tone of the Doctrina, by corroborating the state of Roman North Africa as relates to professing Jews.
As relates to the absence of Judaism, both the Doctrina and Georgios emphasise two key points of relevance to demography. First, they locate events specifically and uniquely to North Africa. Second, the language of forced conversion indicates that Jews did not emigrate in the face of this threat. The introduction to the Doctrina describes how the Jews may not have had time to emigrate, finding themselves taken by surprise by the emperor's policy:

And when Georgios, who was Eparch, arrived in Africa, he ordered us, the leading Jews, to come together before him. When we had come together before him, he said to us: "Are you servants of the Emperor?" Then he said: "The gracious ruler has ordered you to be baptised." ... "We shall do no such thing, for this is not the time for holy baptism." ... We were however petrified with fear. Then he ordered us baptised. And we were baptised, willingly or not.

Crudely put, North Africa ceased to be home to Jews, not because they fled, but rather because they ceased to be counted as Jews. They were quickly and forcibly baptised, perhaps hoping to weather the storm in anticipation of a westward Muslim expansion.
Most remarkably of all, the ferocity of the persecution did not reach the capital. Even as it clearly refers to the utter totality of the conversion in North Africa, the Doctrina portrays Jacob as a professing Jew, dealing openly in Constantinople. When Jacob undertakes to sell the textiles of his rich, Christian acquaintance, he openly swears as a Jew "by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", to uphold his end of the bargain. One is hard pressed to imagine that Heraclius overlooked his own capital. Rather it seems more likely that the emperor, seeking to maintain unity in his weakened empire, targeted those lands which he considered most vulnerable to sedition, namely the Holy Land, and North Africa.
The fourth report comes from Theophanes, who descibes the Jews' expulsion from Jerusalem. Theophanes mention of the Jerusalem decree specifically points to the political symbolism of punishing the Jews for their having previously handed the city over to the Persians. Theophanes sets the scene
The fifth source, Sebeos, wrote in the mid-seventh-century, and therefore benefits from close proximity to the events; perhaps he even interviewed Armenian troops who participated in the battles of the day[38]. In his account, the Jews do not escape from persecution, but ally themselves with the Arabs in the face of Heraclius' advance. Sebeos claims

"the twelve tribes of all the clans of the Jews gathered at the city of Edessa. When they saw that the Persian army had departed and had left the city in peace, they shut the gate and fortified themselves within. They did not allow the army of the Roman Empire to entire among them. Then the Greek king Heraclius ordered it to be besieged. When they realised that they were unable to resist him in battle, they parleyed for peace with him. Opening the gates of the city, they went and stood before him. Then he ordered them to go and remain in each one's habitation, and they departed. Taking desert roads, they went to Tachkastan, to the sons of Ishmael, summoned them to their aid, and informed them of their blood relationship through the testament of scripture. But although the latter were persuaded of their close relationship, yet they were unable to bring about agreement within their great number, because their cults were divided from each other. [39]"

From this passage, Andrew Sharf unduly concludes that "as a result of [Heraclius'] persecution, Palestinian Jews fled to the advancing Arabs[40]. The testimony does not warrant Sharf's inference, because the fact of the siege, combined with the prior escape of the Persians, renders the account one of refugees from war, not victims of persecution. Moreoever, the origin of the Jews in Sebeos' account is decidedly vague. At most, if Heraclius began to turn against the Jews in 630 when he made his way back to Jerusalem,  and if he ultimately imposed mass conversion in 632, then the persecution may have influenced Sebeos' account, which does reflect some emigration, even if only of a military nature [41].

The sixth and final source, the twelfth-century Patriarch of Antioch, Michael the Syrian, writes of Jewish flight in unambiguous terms. In his version, Michael echoes Sebeos and, more importantly, expands on his account and links it to Heraclius' persecution. Michael describes the forced conversion throughout the empire, and adds that in 634, on account of that conversion "the Jews fled from the land of the Romans; they came first off to Edessa and, having once again been abused there, they fled to Persia." Michael dryly notes, as if an afterthought, that "a large number of them received baptism and became Christians". [42] Michael's text poses various problems. First the sheer length of time between the events and the author renders it a weak source; Michael writes almost 500 years after the events he relates. Second, Michael claims that the Jews in all the lands of the empire were forcibly converted. Theophanes does not even imply so much, and the Doctrina Jacobi contradicts this assertion, insofar as the Jews of Constantinople continued to live openly. Third, his recounting of the events at Edessa appears to rely upon, and perhaps exaggerate, Sebeos' version. Finally, Michael leaves unclear the magnitude of emigration, despite his implication of great numbers. Balancing the lucidity of his account with the inherent problems in it, one might conclude that Jews did indeed flee, as one would naturally expect under such conditions. However, his account, due to those difficulties, does not bear the historical weight of Theophanes, Sebeos, or, for that matter, of other accounts regarding later perseuctions under Leo III and Romanus Lecapenus.