This paper will consider four Christian sources from between the second and fourth centuries CE, all of which in their own way represent Roman law as to some degree dependant on, inspired by, or compatible with that of Moses. The nuanced viewpoints put forward by each writer, however, evidence more particular agendas and responses to the challenge of following both God’s laws and those of Rome. Whether authors were writing in the pre- or post-Christianised Empire was a factor in some cases, as was the perceived relationship of certain authors between Christianity and Judaism. I will argue firstly that Roman law was primarily for certain early Christian authors a polemical tool by which to argue for the distinction between Christianity and Judaism. Secondly, I will show that by directly or indirectly connecting the Mosaic and Roman laws, Christian authors were able to further both pro- and anti-Roman agendas.

To date, early Christian sources have drawn the scholarly attention of theologians, scholars of biblical commentary, and historians, but not of legal historians, presumably because such sources do not offer sufficiently substantial material for legal historical research. Nevertheless, a few studies have blended legal history and late antique Christianity, and an analysis of these studies shows they are based on a " centralist, " or " formalist–positivist, " conceptualization of law. In this paper I review the scholarship of legal traditions in the eastern Roman Empire— namely, Roman law and Greek legal traditions, the halakha in rabbinic literature , and the halakhic traditions in Qumranic literature and in the New Testament—and con-textualize it within developments in legal theory and legal sociology and anthropology (that is, the rise of legal pluralism). This review shows that developments in legal theory, in legal sociology and anthropology, and in legal history of the late antique world are producing new paradigms and models in the study of late antique legal history. These new models, together with new methods in reading early Christian non-legal texts of the eastern Roman Empire, can be utilized in the study of early Christianity, thereby opening gateways to the study of its legal traditions and revealing independent legal traditions that have remained hidden to date.

In 2022, an interdisciplinary, preliminary study analyzed for the first time Diocletian’s edict of persecution of Christianity, which was believed to be completely lost for 1700 years. Three imperial constitutions belonging to several manuscript traditions that come from 12 Byzantine and post-Byzantine Codes have been carefully studied from a legal-historical, legal-philological and critical-historical point of view. The selected documents have been examined under a comparative structured test that takes into consideration a selection of legal papyri from Roman Egypt as well as the Roman and Roman-Christian literary sources in order to assess their authenticity and the level of interpolation. The analysis of these documents seems to confirm what has been suggested in the recent studies on two unedited epistles of Maxentius, critically published for the first time in 2021. Maxentius’ first epistle is the edict of legality of Christianity, quoted by bishop Eusebius of Caesarea and issued around 307-308, which officially put an end to the persecutory edicts of Diocletian in the West. Maxentius’ second epistle, approximately dating back to 311-312 AD, is a rescript ruling against the first woman leading the Donatist schismatic Church, Lucilla of Carthage. Interestingly, Diocletian’s edict makes direct reference to the principles of religious pluralism and tolerance as well as it points out unedited information on the historical Jesus.

P. Oxy. XV 1814 provides the most direct evidence for the contents of the First Edition of the Justinian Code (the Novus Codex of 529). Providing the basis for a comparison with the Second Edition (the Codex repetitae praelectionis of 534), it reveals how in the later edition material was added, removed, replaced, and relocated. In particular, the papyrus throws light on imperial policy towards the pagans from its presentation of material under CJ 1.11 (On Pagans, Sacrifices, and Temples). Thus CJ(2 ed.) 1.11.9 = CJ(1 ed.) 1.11.10 is shown to have been issued by Anastasius, a fact often overlooked by scholars, since it is not reflected in Krüger’s standard Code edition. It is argued here that a convincing context for this anti-pagan measure can be found in the aftermath of the Brytae riots of 502. The traditional association between CJ(2 ed.) 1.11.10 and the ending of pagan philosophical teaching in Athens is affirmed, with the law dated to the late summer/autumn of 529, coinciding with Tribonian taking control of legal policy. Finally, it is in the detailed anti-pagan measures of CJ(2 ed.) 1.11.10 that the reasons for the deletion of CJ(1 ed.) 1.11.1 (absent from the Second Edition) can be found. This mysterious constitution should not be associated with Constantine’s missing law against sacrifice, but was probably a measure protective of pagans in some way and so most likely a private rescript of a pre-Christian emperor deriving from the Gregorian Code.