The Jews, the Christians, and Emperor Domitian

Author(s): Paul Keresztes

Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Mar., 1973), pp. 1-28
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1583284 .
Accessed: 25/03/2013 13:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vigiliae Christianae.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Vigiliae 27(1973)1-28;? North-Holland
Christianae Publishing
Company

THE JEWS,THE CHRISTIANS,AND EMPEROR DOMITIAN

BY

PAUL KERESZTES

Therehavegenerally beentwoclassesofwriters whohaveinterested

themselves in thetextsthathavecomedownto us concerning Judaism
and Christianity duringthereignof theEmperorDomitian.The first,
perhapsthelarger, grouphasclaimedthatthisEmperor wastheorigina-
torof a systematic and generalpersecution oftheChristians, whilethe
othergroup,goingin theoppositedirection, has claimedthattherewas
no,orhardly anyperceptible, persecution oftheChristian Churchunder
Domitian.
The mostimportant sourcesforour problemare thepassagesfrom
Suetonius and Dio Cassiuson Domitian'srule,butparticularly impor-
tantarethepassageson Domitian'sattitude towardswhatbothwriters
call 'livingaccording to Jewish lifeand customs'. Thisis aboutthesum
ofourmainsources, although therealso aresomeotherminorpassages
in Classicalliteraturethatmustcomeintoconsideration. Theinterpreta-
tionof'livinga Jewish life'has provedto makemostofthedifferences
between theconclusions ofthemaingroupsofwriters.
Another sourceis whatis generallyreferredto as 'Christianliterature'.
The authorwhoobviously weighs theheaviestin this is
group Eusebius
withhis HistoriaEcclesiasticaand Chronicon.Considerabledifferences
have again resultedwhena modernwriteracceptedor rejectedthe
ofthisChristian
authority historianconcerningtheinformation thathe
had decidedto transmit
to us aboutthevictimsof Domitian.Serious
to someotherChristian
consideration sourcessuchas the'FirstLetterof
Clement'to the Corinthiansand some passages in the Apocalypse,al-
thougha propheticwork,mustalso be given.
It is perhapsunfortunate
thatimproper emphasisand oftenwrong
was
interpretation given,by both thesetwo opposedgroups,to often
very rhetorical
passagesby Melito,Tertullian, and others,
Lactantius,
theconsiderationofwhomis notessentialat all. Theycertainly
would

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
2 PAUL KERESZTES

not be missed in an enquiryinto Domitian's treatmentof Jewsand

Christians.

The firstClassical textthat relatescloselyto our topic is Suetonius'

famouspassage on thefiscusIudaicus.1Its reference to theJewsof Rome
and the Empireis stated,but it is not entirelyclear whetherit concerns
people of Jewishoriginby race stillfaithfulto theirancestralreligions
and apostatesfromit or, in addition,proselytesto Judaismof gentile
origin.Suetonius'texthas an obviousenoughreference to a tax evasion
of some kind,dependingon the interpretation of the above categories
of theaccused of thiscrime.The businessof thefiscusludaicusreferred
to by Suetoniusconcernedone of the generaltaxes clearlyimposedon
the Jewishnation as a whole and should not be confusedwithlocal
taxessuchas thetributum capitisimposedon theinhabitants of Palestine
afterits subjugationby Pompeythe Great.2The generaltax payable to
thisfiscuswas theso-calleddidrachmathathad, priorto thedestruction
of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., been payableby Jewseverywhere to thetemple
of Jerusalem;the same sum was now beingcollectedforthe victorious
JupiterCapitolinus3fromeveryJewof at least 20 yearsof age.4 What-
ever Vespasian's motivesmay have been in imposingthis tax, the di-
drachmawas thepriceJewsacrosstheEmpirehad to pay yearlyforthe
rightof observingtheirancestralreligion.5The administration was cen-
tralizedin thefiscusludaicusin Rome,whichhad at itshead a procurator6
who was assistedby a large board,' but the moneyfor thefiscuswas
probablycollectedthroughoutthe Empireby the ordinarytax-collec-
tors.8
Fora better
understanding textitwouldbemosthelpful
ofSuetonius'
to knowwho exactlyhad to pay thetax forthefiscusIudaicus.Josephus'
text(note3) wouldimplythatthetax-payersin thiscase werethesame
as thosepayingforthetempleofJerusalem. Dio Cassius'text(note3)
suggeststhatall Jewsobserving i9rlwereto paythetax.
theirancestral
1
Suetonius,Domit. 12,2.
2
Josephus,Bell. Iud. 1,7,6.
3 Ibid.7,6,6;Dio Cassius65,7.
4 FiscusJudaicus,
Exod. 30,14;see M.S. Ginsburg, Q. R. (1937)284.
Jewish
5 TobS rtaidrpta aztaiv rl rspto7r3Xovrag.
6 C.LL. VI,8604.
7 Domit.12,2.
Suetonius,
8
J.Juster,Les Juifsdans l'Empire Romain (Paris1914)vol. 2,283.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE JEWS, THE CHRISTIANS, AND EMPEROR DOMITIAN 3

Thus withthe destructionof Jerusalemin 70 A.D. the gensIudaeorum

ceased to exist9and the muchprivilegedJewishnationwas replacedby
what Tertulliancalled a religiolicita,10and the auvayoyfithroughout
the Empirereplacedthe the highlyprivilegedcitizen body
noi~ruga,
of the Jews.And obviouslythoseJewswho wantedto avail themselves
of the privilegeof observingtheirreligionhad to declarethemselvesas
such to the properauthority.It would also followthata born Jewwas
not subjectto thistax ifhe did not liveas a Jew.WhenSuetoniusspeaks
of the tax in question as imposed on the Jewishrace (genti)he may
simplymean the above interpretation as e.g. suggestedby Dio Cassius,
or he may mean,in possiblyan ephemeralsense,absolutelyall Jewsby
race, notjust thepracticingones.
Modern authorsagree that Domitian extendedthe categoryof tax-
payersas suggestedby Dio Cassius (65,7,2).Thereis no indicationthat
Vespasianand Titusexactedthistax fromany otherthanpracticing Jews
by race, nor do we have any report that they enforced exaction with any
special rigour.Suetonius'statement thatDomitiandecidedto exact this
tax acerbissimeseemsto supportboththeseassumptionsconcerningthe
policy of his predecesors.The contextin whichSuetoniuspresentsus
Domitian'snewapproachto thisJewishtax makesit clearthatDomitian
made the collectionmost stringent as part of his vicious campaignto
obtain moneyto replenishthe depletedImperialtreasury(Domit.12,1)
by any and everymeans.The meaningof maiestaswas at thesame time
well extended,the businessof informers and false accusationswas en-
couraged to suit his It
desperatepurpose. was the same withthefiscus
Iudaicus affair.It clearlyrelied on denunciations,whetherthese were
trueor false.It is evidentalso fromthecontextthatthe meaningof the
tax-payers ofthefiscusludaicuswas extendedto suitDomitian'spurpose.
However, that Domitian made all Jews,withoutexception,subjectto
taxation and that even Jewswho dissimulatedtheirblood were now
forcedto pay the tax," is probablyan exaggerationin one respect,and
an understatement in another.
Suetonius speaks about two, apparentlyquite different classes of
people denounced to and proceededagainstby the fiscus,both classes
apparentlyallowinga fairlywide interpretation as to who exactlyre-

9 Th. Mommsen,
Der Religionsfrevel
nachr6mischem
Recht,Hist.Z. 64 (1890)
424f.
10 Apolog. 18,8: vectigalislibertas;21,1.
1 As suggested op. cit.,288.
by Ginsburg,

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
4 PAUL KERESZTES

presentedeach class. The firstclass denouncedforevadingthe tax in-

cludedthosewho,withoutmakingdeclaration,livedas Jews(improfessi
ludaicam viverentvitam); the second class included those who, con-
cealingtheirJewishorigin,i.e., the factthattheywerecircumcized, had
not been payingthe tax due to thefiscus (dissimulataorigineimposita
gentitributanonpependissent), suchas thenonagenarianinspectedby the
fiscusto see whether he was circumcized. It mightat firstsightappear
that all the denouncedwere Jewswho failedto registerthemselvesas
suchwithor withoutconcealingtheirJewishorigin.This,at least,seems
to be theimpressionof some12who believethatDomitianextendedthis
Jewishtax to all Jews,youngand old, includingthosewho had broken
with Judaism.A closer look howeverwill probablyreveal that those
involvedwerea narrowercategoryofbornJewswho,in turn,werejoined
in thefiscusinvestigation by certaingentiles.Thus the firstclass of the
denouncedmayhave includedonlygentileswho liveda Jewishlife,and
the second class only born, circumcizedJewswho, for some personal
reaons,such as nationalisticpride or apostasyfromJudaism,had not
paid tax to thefiscus,thepriceof practicingthe Jewishreligion.13 That
Suetoniusis thinkingof people who were not born Jewswhen he de-
scribesthefirstclass of thedenouncedis admittedly a possibility.Sueto-
nius may indeedbe givinghis definition of proselytesto Judaism.
For therewerenumerousconvertsto Judaismthroughout theEmpire
and in Rome. Thereis at thisparticularjunctureno special need to go
intodetailsof successful Jewishproselytismin theHellenisticand Roman
world.The Jewswerezealouslypropagatingtheirreligionwhereverthey
happened to exist in the Diaspora. ImperialRome hesitatedbetween
benevolenttolerance,suchas shownbyAugustus,and explicitintolerance
as indicatedby SeptimiusSeverus'prohibitionof conversionto Judaism.
Specialsteps(director indirect)takenbyvariousEmperorsagainstJewish
proselytism demonstrate thefairlyconsistentaim of Roman law to con-
fineJudaismwithinracial boundaries.Nevertheless, the simplicityand
purity of the Jewish
doctrine of God attractedmanygentilesto Judaism.
Yet mostof theseadmirersdid not becomefullconverts,partlybecause
of fearof repressive
law, butespeciallyon accountof thedeterrent effect
of thecomplicatedritualprescriptions and dietaryand social limitations

Juster,
12
op. cit.,288; et al.
op. cit.,284; Ginsburg,
13See E. M.Smallwood,Domitian'sAttitude towardtheJewsandJudaism,Class.
Phil.51 (1956)esp. 3f.; and followingher,M. Sordi,La persecuzione
di Domiziano,
Riv.StoriaChiesaItal. 14 (1960)esp. 20; et al.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE JEWS, THE CHRISTIANS, AND EMPEROR DOMITIAN 5

imposedbytheJewish religionon itsfollowers.14The majorityofthem

stopped far shortof conversion to fullJudaism and they formed the
groupofso-called'god-fearers' (or otfosp6C13votor metuentes).
A rejec-
tionofpolytheism andidolatry mayhaveseemedto be almostan adop-
tionof Judaism, and whenthisrejection was accompanied by theob-
servanceof the Sabbathand a certainconformity to theJewish law,
thoughshortofcircumcision, all thismayhaveappeareda respectable
degreeofconversion to Judaism.15
After thecatastrophy of 70 A.D., theJewsoftheDiasporamadean
evenstronger effortto propagateJudaismas if theywerestriving to
overcome bothpaganismand Christianity.' Thusit wouldnotbe sur-
prisingtofindthese'Judaizers' inthefirst classofthoseaccusedinSueto-
nius'textof tax-evasion. Thesemayhaveevenincludedfullproselytes
toJudaism inspiteoftheirassumedsmallnumber amongtheproselytes,"7
unlessweaccepttheunnecessary though tempting assumptionthatSueto-
nius is contrastingborn and circumcized Jewswithuncircumcized
Judaizers.
Theidentificationofthesecondclassoftheaccusedseemsto be rela-
tivelysimple.They included bornJews,or at anyratecircumcized per-
sons,whoconcealing theirorigin hadnotpaidtaxto thefiscus, someout
ofhurtJewish feeling,others,itis assumed, becauseoftheirapostasyto
Christianityor evenpaganism.s8 If we assumethatSuetoniusis con-
trastingbornJewswithgentile Judaizers, thenhissecondclassof'tax-
evaders'may,theoretically, providetheproperplace forsomegentile
Judaizerswho acceptedJewish law to theextentof havingthemselves
circumcized.

14 G. La Piana,ForeignGroupsin RomeduringtheFirstCenturies oftheEmpire,

HarvardT. R. 20 (1927)esp.275-390.
15 G. F. Moore,Judaism intheFirstCenturies oftheChristianEra (HarvardU. P.
1927)325.
16
W.H.C.Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in theEarly Church(New York
U. P. 1967)esp. 142f.
17 Cp. Smallwood,op.cit.,3.
18 Ibid.3f.;Sordi,op.cit.,20; also lessimportantly,
A.Imhof,T. FlaviusDomitianus
(Halle 1857) 115; A.Hausrath,Neutestamentliche (Heidelberg1874)
Zeitgeschichte
vol. 3, 296; K. J.Neumann,Der r-mischeStaat unddie allgemeine Kirche(Leipzig
1890) vol. 1,7; D. McFayden,The Occasion of the DomitianicPersecution, A. J.
Theol.24 (1920)63; G. Edmundson, TheChurch ofRomeintheFirstCentury (London
1913) 222; B.W.Henderson,Five RomanEmperors(CambridgeU. P. 1927) 45;
M. Goguel,La naissanceduchristianisme (Paris1946)576; etal,

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
6 PAUL KERESZTES

The inclusionof all thesecategoriesamong those denouncedto the

fiscusludaicusis possibleand even quite likelymainlyin the contextof
Suetonius'reportof Domitian's desperateefforts to tryand fillhis de-
pletedtreasury. Besides the tax to
payable thefiscusludaicusothertaxes
wereexactedand the wordacerbissimeonlyunderlinesthe bitterness of
Domitian'sattitude.
The brasscoin ofNerva,withitsinscription FISCI IVDAICI CAL VM-
NIA SVBLATA S.C., surrounding a date palm,theemblemof Judaea,
is an obviousreference to a senatusconsultum thatwas meantto put an
end to the scandalousabuse of thefiscusIudaicus.19In otherwordswe
mayassumethatthesenatusconsultum, withoutabolishingthetax itself,
convertedthefiscusludaicusto its originalpurpose,whichwas to collect
the tax frompracticingJews.Dio Cassius' reference to thissenatuscon-
sultum(68,1,2)thatNervapermitted no one to accuseanyoneofdctj3pcta
and 'Jewishlife'('Iou&atKi& iog)20may further explainand emphasize
the meaningof whatNerva's government or indeedtheRoman Imperial
government, normally,regardedas scandalous in thefiscus affair.It
probably could not and did not see anything scandalousin thedenuncia-
tion and prosecutionfor tax-evasionof the Jewswho were practicing
theirreligion.It probablyregardedas scandalousthe denunciationand
prosecutionfor tax-evasionof those who had not practicedtheiran-
cestralJewishlifeand, understandably, triedto hide theirracial origin.
The prohibitionof accusation for 'Jewishlife' could not conceivably
concernthesegroups.Those 'protected'by thisprohibitionthenhad to
be gentileswho had turnedto Jewishlife.Turningto Judaismwas not
a religiouscrimeeven for a Roman gentile,althoughthe practicewas
frownedon and occasionallysuppressed.The prohibitionof denuncia-
tionforJewishlifeis mentionedtogetherwiththeprohibitionof accusa-
tions of acy~iPEtaand whetherthistermmeans impietasto the gods of
the Empireor to the Emperorhimself,it was not normallya religious
crime.Accusationsfor&cy4"ieta weremuchabused underDomitianand
theimplicationof thecontextis thatit was thesame withgentiles'living

19 See illustration,
and somerelevant in H. St.J.Hart,Judeaand Rome,
comments
J.Theol. N. S. (1952)190,andplateIV,8.
Stud.,
20 Nerva'sand thesenate'smeasureas pro-Christian
Thereis no needto interpret
in any way,as if it werea proofof pro-Christian
elementsin thesenate,although
Christians
mayhaveindirectly fromthemeasure.Thereis, further,
benefited no need
to assumethatNerva'sprohibition of accusationsof da43sta and 'Jewishlife'had
anyconnection witheachother.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE JEWS, THE CHRISTIANS, AND EMPEROR DOMITIAN 7

Jewishlife'.Thesewereprobablyprotectedonlyagainstreligiouspersecu-
tion. If this is the case, thenthe gentileJudaizerswere not protected
againsta dutyof payingtax to thefiscusIudaicus.That thisis whatNer-
va's government regardedas scandalous in thefiscus affairmay gain
further supportfromthe contextof Dio Cassius' reportthatNerva put
to deathall theslavesand thefreedmen who had conspiredagainsttheir
mastersand thathe allowedthatclass of personsto lodge no complaint
whateveragainsttheirmaster.This note of Dio Cassius, then,together
with Suetonius' reporton the fiscusabuse, furthercorroboratesour
above impressionsconcerningthe scandal of thefiscusIudaicus.

II
The nextand equallyimportantpassage again does not have any ob-
vious referenceto the Christians.This passage is Dio Cassius', or his
epitomizer's,briefnote on Flavius Clemens,consul of 95 A.D., and his
wifeFlavia Domitilla(67,14,1-2).Althoughto all appearancesit speaks
only of Judaizers,the passage has in moderntimesbeen regardedas
somethinglike a Christianmartyrology of at least the chiefcharacters,
the consul's and his wife's.Flavius Clemensand his wifehad been ac-
cused of what Dio Cassius calls dcs6to1, something whichmanyothers
who strayedinto the practiceof the Jews(t rTov'Iou8aD6ovi18rl)were
likewiseaccused of and consequentlycondemnedto deathand confisca-
tion of property.Flavia Domitilla,thewife,was the onlyone banished,
to Pandateria,a nearbyisland, a place well known to some of her
predecessorsin disgracewiththe Imperialgovernment.21The key issue
in the Dio textis, undoubtedly,the interpretation of the term
o&s6t
and whatin thefiscusaffairwas to be treatedlike a technicalterm:the
a tTOv'Iou6Daov il9l. Most modernwritershave withouthesitation
interpretedtheseexpressionsas obvious references to the Christianity
of
FlaviusClemens,hiswife,and others.Theytakethesetermsnotso much
as exactjuridical definitionsof the chargesbroughtagainstthemas a

21
FlaviusClemens'destruction by the EmperorDomitianis describedalso by
Suetonius(Domit.15,1)and the reasongivenheremaybe thesame as in theDio
Cassius text.For Suetonius,afterdescribingthe Emperor'sand Flavius Clemens'
saysthattheex-consulwas put to deathon
close blood and Imperialrelationship,
veryslightsuspicion,and, then,as ifsuggesting
thatthesuspicionwas baseless,he
addsthatFlaviusClemenswasa manofmostcontemptible inertia.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8 PAUL KERESZTES

certain implicationof Christianity.22 These same champions of the

Christianityof this illustriousFlavian couple believetheyfindfurther
proofof theirclaim in Suetonius'unsympathetic descriptionof the ex-
consul's characteras contemptissimae inertiae.23
Anothermuch smaller
group,withalmostthesamesingle-minded approach,claimthatthesame
passagesprovethatthisFlavian couplewereproselytes, in fullor in part,
to Judaism.24Not to be outdoneby thosewho suggestthatFlavius Cle-
mens and his wifewere probablyonly demi-Jews, some writersclaim
thattheyweredemi-Christians or membersof the liberalsectionof the
ChristianChurch.25A thirdgroup of writers,eitheron account of a
freedomforChristianor Jewishpartisanshipor, at times,on accountof
theirpreconceived idea thattherewas no persecutionof Christiansunder
Domitian, remain undecidedon the religiousdenominationof Flavius
Clemensand his wife.26

22 Strenuous effortshavebeen made to demonstrate theidentity of thisFlavius

Clemens,theconsulof 95 A.D., withClement, thebishopof Romeat thistime.See
especiallyG. Volkmar,OberClemensvon Romunddie ndichste Folgezeit,Theol.Jb.
15 (1856)287-369;C.Erbes,FlaviusClemensvonRom,unddas altestePapstzeichnis,
Jb.Prot. Theol.4 (1878) 690-750;Hasenclever, Christliche Proselyten der h6heren
StindeimerstenJahrhundert, Jb.Prot.Theol.8 (1882)230-271;etal. Eusebius(H.E.
3,15; 18) makesa cleardistinction betweenthesetwomenand mostof themodern
writershave strongly arguedagainstthis once fashionableidentification: G.B.de
Rossi,Del cristianesimo nellafamigliadei FlaviiAugustie dellenuovescopertenel
cemeterio di Domitilla,Bull.Arch.Crist.(1865)17-24;Th.Tahn,DerHirtdesHermas
(Gotha 1868) 44-69; J.B.Lightfoot, S. Clementof Rome (London 1877) 251-269;
Funk,T.Flavius ClemensChrist,nichtBischof,Theol.Quartalschr. 61 (1879) 531-
563; W.K.LowtherClarke,TheFirstEpistleof Clementto theCorinthians (London
1937)esp. 9-10; et al.
23 L. de Tillemont, Memoires (Paris1701-1704)vol.2, 124;de Rossi,op.cit.(1865),
17-19; F.de Champagny, Les Antonins (Paris 1866) vol. 2, 159; J.B.Lightfoot, St.
Paul's Epistleto thePhilippians (London 1869) 21; Hasenclever, op cit.,239-248;
P. Allard,Histoiredes persecutions pendantles deuxpremierssiecles(Paris 1885)
92-104;Neumann,op. cit.,7; B.J.Kidd,A History oftheChurch toA.D. 461 (Oxford
U. P. 1922)72; Sordi,op.cit.,9-10; L.W.Barnard,ClementofRomeandthePersecu-
tionofDomitian,N. T. Studies10(1964)259; etal.
24 H. Graetz,Geschichte der Juden(Berlin1853) vol. 4, 507f.; E. T. Merrill,
EssaysinEarlyChristian History(London 1924)153; Moore,op. cit.,350; K.Fried-
mann,Ancorasullapersecuzione di Domiziano,Atenee Roma (1931) 69-78; M. P.
Charlesworth, Some Observations on RulerCult especiallyin Rome,HarvardT. R.
27 (1935)33; etal.
25 McFayden,op. cit.,61; Goguel,op. cit.,577-579;et al.
26
B. Aub6,Histoiredes persecutions de l'Eglise (Paris 1875) esp. 182f.; Funk,
op. cit.,574; F.Huidekoper,Judaism at Rome(New York 1891)319; S.Gsell,Essai
surle regnede Domitien(Paris1893)301; Edmundson, op. cit.,225; Henderson, op.
cit.,46; Clarke,op. cit.,9; Goguel,op. cit.,577; S. Rossi,La cosidettapersecuzione
di Domiziano,Giornale Ital. Filol.15 (1962)304-341,Frend,op. cit.,159; et al.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE JEWS, THE CHRISTIANS, AND EMPEROR DOMITIAN 9

It is doubtfulthatthe terms'atheism'and 'Jewishways' could have

properjuridical connotations.On the otherhand, theycould and cer-
tainlydid oftenmean Christianity forthemobs of the Greeksettlements
of the East, and particularly Asia. Justinmade it one of the main tasks
of his First Apologyto clear Christianity of the popular charge of 'a-
theism'.Whiledoingthis,the Christianapologistwas certainlythinking
of his experiencesin Asia Minor. The Rescriptof Hadrian to Minucius
Fundanus and the circumstancesthat had broughtit about certainly
indicatewide-spreadpopularchargesof 'atheism'againsttheChristians.
The same can be said about the lettersof AntoninusPius to different
communitiesof the Greek East.27These widelyabused chargesof 'a-
theism'and consequentpogromscertainly existedbeforeHadrian'stime,
underTrajan, in the Greek areas of the Empire28and it is onlyfairto
assumethattheymusthave had a muchearlierstartin thesesame areas
wherethe Imperialcult had its originand mostenthusiastic supporters.
ThattheJewstoo wereregardedas 'atheists'bymobsand evenwriters29
goes withoutsaying.Jewishand Christianmonotheism,and the conse-
quent contemptfor the gods and cults of polytheismnaturallymeant
'atheism'forpagans.
The term'Jewishcustoms'could easily be applied to the Christian
religiousand social practicesalso. Apart fromthe probabilitythat the
majorityof Christiansat this timewere stillof Jewishbirth,this also
followsfromstrikingsimilaritiesin Jewishand Christianbeliefsand
religiousobservancessuch as theirpeculiarmonotheismand sabbath.
The Great Fire of Rome in 64 A.D. and its aftermath no doubt helped
to clarifytheessentialdifferencesbetweenthesetworeligions.The Jewish
tragedyof 70 A.D. should have polarizedthe differences. Furtherthere
is reason to believe that the active Jewishand Christianproselytism
among the pagans should again have helpedto distinguish, if not indi-
vidual Jewsand Christians,at least Judaismand Christianity. If there
stillwas anydoubtleftfortheImperialgovernment the
concerning basic
differences, the affairof thefiscusludaicusshould have incidentally put
the differences into focus.AnyChristiansincidentally denouncedto the
fiscusfor'livingJewishlife' or forconcealingtheirJewishorigincould
confesstheirChristianreligionor choose to pay for 'tax-evasion'.It

27 Eusebius,H. E. 4,26,10.
28 Ibid. 3,32; 33.
29 See e.g. Josephus,
In Apion. 2,148.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
10 PAULKERESZTES

followsfromthe verynatureof thefiscusIudaicusthatit,primafacie,

concerneditselfwithpeople who appearedto cheatthefiscus,i.e., people
who werecircumcizedand/orwho 'lived likeJews'.
In the interpretationof the case of Flavius Clemensand his wife,we
are obviouslynot concernedwiththegroupof bornJews.Althoughit is
conceivablethatChristians,throughsome confusionor zeal on thepart
of theinformers and thefiscusofficials, weredenouncedand prosecuted,
the textof Dio Cassius, concerningFlavius Clemens,his wifeand their
fellow-accused, makes it reasonablycertainthatthe categoryof people
'living like Jews',as distinctfromthose born in Judaism,weregentiles
turnedto Jewishlife.Furthermore it is notlikelyto be a coincidencethat
Suetonius'textqui ... ludaicamviverent vitamhas the same meaningas
anothertextof Dio Cassius (65,7,2),whichhas Tobg tdT ar6pta aictcov
Br1 neptori~tXovag to indicatewhich Jews had to pay the didrachma
forthelibertyofexercising theirreligion.Suetoniusas wellas Dio Cassius
is likelyusing,each in his own language,an officialor terminology
jargon to definea basic categoryof thosewho, accordingto thefiscus,
shouldhavepaid theirtax.EventhoughitoftenhappensthatDio Cassius
does notwriteon pointscoveredby Suetoniusand viceversa,thereis no
need forconcludingthat,because Dio Cassius neverspellsout thename
of thishighImperialtax board, he does not writeabout theinquisition
of thefiscusludaicusmentionedbySuetonius.In whatwe have fromDio
Cassius on Domitian'srulethereseemsto be no traceof theinquiryof
thefiscusconcerningthe second group of Suetonius''tax-evaders',i.e.,
those who, being born Jews,attemptedto conceal theirorigin.Now,
apparentlytryingonlyto illustrateDomitian'sterror,the highpointof
whichforthewriterwas theexecutionof the Emperor'scousinand the
banishment oftheconsul'swife,Dio Cassius,in fact,specifiesSuetonius'
firstgroup thatwas denouncedto thefiscusin words almostidentical
withthoseof Suetonius:8;gTd"tov 'Iouacikovir71OKillXXovTg, i.e.,
gentilesturningaway to 'Jewishlife'.30 In this point, Dio Cassius is
considerablymore specificthan Suetonius.Apart frommentioningthe
two mostillustriousvictimsamongtheJudaizinggentiles,he also states,
thatthereweremanyothers;a greatnumbercan also be deducedfrom
thecontextof Suetonius'statement. Even thougha mostseverepunish-
mentis impliedin the same context,Dio Cassius goes muchfurther in
that he explicitlystatesthat some of the gentileJudaizerswere put to

3o Dio Cassius 68.14,1-2.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE JEWS, THE CHRISTIANS, AND EMPEROR DOMITIAN 11

death and othersweredeprivedof theirproperty.Dio Cassius thenre-

peats thechargeagainstthesesame Judaizerswhen,again in a language
verysimilarto thatof Suetonius'text,he reportsthatNerva prohibited
everyoneaccusationsof '"Iou8actc Piog (68,2). From this reportand
also fromthe brass coin celebratingthisprohibitionit appears thatthe
accusationsofgentilesfor'Jewishlife'wereregardedbyNervaas a serious
abuse and thathe wouldhave nothingto do withit. Dio Cassius does not
writeabout the inquisitioninto born Jewsconcealingtheirorigin.Nor
apparentlydoes he mentionthat Nerva was concernedabout them.It
is nowherementionedthat the new Emperorchangedanythingin the
originallaw prescribing thatthe Jewswishingto practicetheirreligion
should pay the didrachma.Nor is it anywhereimpliedthat denuncia-
tionsfortheevasionof thetax due to thefiscuswereforbidden. The pro-
hibitionof theaccusationsof Judaizinghad, then,a religiousmotiveand
itwas meantto be a protectionofwhichgentileJudaizerswerein obvious
need.
It has oftenbeen argued,especiallyby the enthusiasticsupportersof
the Christianityof Flavius Clemensand his wife,thatJews,theirreli-
gion being religiolicita,could not be punished,not to mentionput
a
to death,on account of theirreligion.The positionof born Jewshad
indeedbeen well recognizedby Rome since the days of JuliusCaesar.31
The synagogueshad been formedby virtueof the generalprivilege
grantedto theJews,membership followedfromthefactof Jewishorigin
and onlyJewscouldjoin thesynagogue.BornJewswerealso notrequired
to participatein the officialcults in Rome or elsewhere.Nevertheless,
afterAugustustherehad beenseriousfriction betweenRomeand Judaism.
Jewswere expelledfromRome under Tiberius.32Repressivemeasures
underCaligula werefollowedby expulsionunderClaudius.33The latter
Emperoralso guaranteedthe privilegesof all Jewsthroughout the Em-
pire,34 and then,even afterthe destruction
of Jerusalem,Jews wereal-
lowed a freedomofpracticingtheirreligionat thepriceof two drachmas
payableto thefiscusludaicus.
The pointswhichmostoftencausedfriction betweenRomeand Judaism
weretheworshipof the Emperorand thegenerallyactiveproselytism.

31 For good summary see La Piana,

ofJewishand ImperialRomanrelations,
op"
cit., 349-390.
32 Josephus, Tib. 36.
Ant. 18,3,5;Tacitus,Ann.2,85; Suetonius,
33
Claud.25,4; Dio Cassius60,66,6.
Suetonius,
34 H. I. Bell, Jewsand Christiansin Egypt(London 1924) 10ff.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
12 PAUL KERESZTES

When the worshipof the Emperorbecame,especiallyin the East, a

symbolofloyaltyto Rome,theJewsfromAugustuson had dailysacrifices
in honourof,or for,therulingEmperor.In theuse oftheofficial epithets
fortheEmperor,it seemsthattheJewsby a curiousdiscrimination tried
to avoid therecognition of the 'divinecharacter'of theEmperor.While
theyneverseemedto use thetitle and onlywithrepugnancetheword
did use the,%6;
Latin worddivusand dominusor even
86orn6t1rl, they freely
Kupto;. Thus in the oath of loyalty to theEmperor,theJewswereallowed
to use expurgatedformulas.The Jewishattitudetowardspublic games
in honourof the Emperorand in connectionwiththe Imperialcultwas
also quite flexible.
The veryactiveproselytising efforts of the Jewscaused much of the
frictionbetweentheImperialpowerof Rome and Judaism.For thiswas
notsimplya religionwitheyeson theworldto comebutalso ithad much
politicalcontent,which,if realized,would have securedthe conquestof
the world by the Jewishrace. The aim of Jewishproselytism was to
'israelize'theworld,not onlybyimposingon itsconvertsJewishcustoms
and social practicesbut also by calling upon them to 'denationalize'
themselvesand becomepart of the Jewishnation.It is easy to see that
Jewishproselytism would have underminedthe whole Roman system.
Roman oppositionto Jewishproselytism is understandable and the ab-
sence of even more repressivemeasuresagainst proselytismis rather
curious.
On the otherhand Rome respectedits own traditionalprinciplethat
everynationhad the rightand dutyto observethe religionestablished
by its ancestors,but on theotherhand it appliedits otherprinciplethat
Rome had the rightto rulethe worldand to subordinateto its institu-
tionsthe religionsof the subjectnation.Thus Rome adopted the gods
of all the othernationalreligions.This solutionbeingimpossiblewith
theJewishreligion,Rome recognizedtherightof theJewsto liveaccord-
ing to theirancientcustomsand as a special privilegegrantedthem
exemptionfromall functionswhichwerein oppositionto or interfered
withtheirreligiouslaws. This special statusof the Jewswas an attempt
at a compromisebetweenRome's two conflicting religiouspolicies.
The privilegegrantedto theJewswho becameRoman citizensis even
more characteristic of Rome's compromisingattitudeto Judaism.For
these new Roman citizenscontinuedto enjoy the same privilegesand
exemptionsas before.But as a certainsign of its consciousnessof the
dangerinherentin the proselytising effortsand successof Judaism,the

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE JEWS,THE CHRISTIANS,AND EMPERORDOMITIAN 13

Romangovernment, followinga consistent policyof tryingto limit

Judaism to thosebornintoit,deniedtheproselytes therightand privi-
legeswhichitgranted to Jews,andiftheseproselytes toperform
refused
of of and
theacts worship official Imperial cultswhenofficially
called
upon,theycouldbe punished according to generallaw. EventheJews
whohad givenup theirancestral religionin favourofanother wereno
longerprotected by Jewish Hence
privileges. measures takendirectlyor
indirectlyagainstproselytism
byvarious Emperors served the
essentially
samepurposeoflimiting Judaismto Jewish blood.
It is withthisbackgroundthatthecase ofFlaviusClemens, hiswife,
and the othersaccused of adoptingthe i'`r 'louoSaxtK has to be con-
sidered.Thosewho arguefortheChristianity of FlaviusClemensand
theothersoftenforget thatthesepersonsdidnothaveto be Christians
fortheirseverepunishment by the EmperorDomitian.It is because
neither'atheism'nor 'Judaizing' by itselfwas a juridicalcrimethat
somemodern writers,not satisfied withtheobviously and,
non-juridical
therefore,
apparently quiteinnocent look of theseterms, tryto replace
themwithmoreominous terminology. In Domitian's timetherecouldbe
hardlyanything more certainly destructivethan the accusationof
maiestas,undoubtedly a chargemuchabusedto servethepurposesof
Domitian.Thus 'atheotes'forsome becameimpietasor maiestasor
both,35and thissupposition, it is oftenbelieved,is confirmed by the
associationof d~g3etawith Piog in Dio Cassius'passage
'IooSatrbg
reportinga totalban on accusations of c~4icsta and 'Iou8atuc6g
Piog.
Suetoniusis clearlyputtingthewholefiscusaffair right in themiddleof
Domitian'sefforts to fillhis emptytreasury by everymeans.The first
groupofthosedenounced forsuspected tax-evasionhecallspeoplequi...
ludaicamviverent
improfessi vitam.Gentilesturningaway to Judaism,as
has been seen,did not enjoythe privilegesof bornJewsand could
naturallybe subjectto repressive
actionsof Romanauthorities.Going
onestepfurther,Dio Cassiusaddsthatthenumerous gentiles to
turning
Judaism werepunished for'atheism'.Thuswhatcouldhavehappened
undervariousRomanemperors, mostcertainlydidhappenunderDomi-
tian.The denunciations of Jewish fortax-evasion
proselytes becamea
basis forpunishment for'atheism',and judgingfromSuetonius'and

35 Aub6,op. cit.,163ff.;K. Wieseler,Ober den Briefdes r6mischen Clemensan

die Korinther, Jb.DeutscheTheol.22 (1877)399ff.;Merrill,
op. cit.,153-157;Frend,
op. cit.,159f.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
14 PAULKERESZTES

Dio Cassius' textswe can reasonablyassumethatDomitianwenta long

wayin exploiting accusationsof 'Judaizing'forthebenefitof histreasury
(and perhapsforsome politicalpurposes36).Shortlybeforethispassage
on the JudaizersDio Cassius wroteof prohibitionsby Vespasian and
Titus of accusationsfor&a't3cta(meaninglack of respectforthe gods
and possiblyfortherulingemperor37).The sameauthor,then,introducing
the rule of Nerva, whileassociatingthe termsdatcsta and 'IouSatuc6g
P3iog,does notidentify them.
Thus Nerva and the Roman senate,withoutauthorizingproselytism
to Judaism,triedonlyto preventsimilarabuses of accusationsforJewish
proselytism. Nothingmoreand nothingless. It was not untilthetimeof
Hadrianand SeptimiusSeverusthatproselytism to Judaismwas explicit-
ly prohibited.
Apartfromthesetextsof Suetoniusand Dio Cassius, thereare some
passages in Eusebius' H.E. thatshould further corroborateour conclu-
sions thatFlavius Clemens,his wifeand the othersaccused of 'livinga
Jewishlife',wereindeedproselytesto Judaism.In one passage (3, 18,4)
Eusebiusrelatesthatevenpagan writersnoteddownthepersecutionand
martyrdoms of Christiansin the 15thyearof Domitian,and namesonly
one, Flavia Domitilla,the niece of Flavius Clemens,the consul,as one
ofthevictimsoftheEmperor.Eusebiusrepeatsthisstoryin his Chronicon
(ad loc.) withsomedifferences forour presentpurpose.This
insignificant
passage has been most often used to argue against Flavius Clemens'
Christianity, withsome merit.Eusebius,wheneverhe has the sources,
is afterall in the habit of listingin his H.E. Christian,and not pagan
or Jewishmartyrs.He probablywould not have failed to list Flavius
Clemensas one of the most illustriousmartyrsof the Church,if only
he had regardedhim as such. In the otherpassage (H.E. 3,17,1),just
beforedescribingDomitian's persecutionof the Church,Eusebius,cu-
riouslyenough,gives an illustrationof Domitian's cruelty,by saying
thathe had, withoutpropertrial,had a greatnumberof distinguished

11
Suetonius'specialnoteon FlaviusClemens(Domit.15,1)makesa reference to
whathe calledthemostcontemptible inertiaof theman.Whatever else inertiamay
mean,itseemsin thiscase to meana demonstrable in publicand
lackofparticipation
life,and thisapparentinertiamay,in turn,haveresultedfromhis Judaistic
official
philosophy(therebeingno need forimplying Domitianhad, shortly
Christianity).
hadtheStoicHerennius
before, Senecioputto deathfor,amongotherallegedreasons
an obviouslack of enthusiasm forpublicoffice,whichmayhave been due to his
philosophyof Stoicism.
37 Dio Cassius66,19;66,9.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE JEWS, THE CHRISTIANS, AND EMPEROR DOMITIAN 15

Romansputto death,and banishednumerous otherillustriouspeople

andconfiscated theirproperty.Although it is notsuggested thatEusebius
is hereusingDio Cassius'storyofthepunishment ofthe'Judaizers' by
death,banishment and confiscationofproperty, thislastpassageofthe
Christianhistorianshowsobvioussimilarities withthe storyof Dio
Cassius,except that Eusebius does not mention thenamesof Flavius
Clemensand hiswifeand thatthechargesagainstthemwere'atheism'
on accountof theJewish proselytism of theaccusednobles.Now,be-
foreand afterthispassageEusebiusshowsin his H.E. a verydefinite
anti-Jewishedge;he doesnotseemto tireofpointing outthattragedies
in Jewishhistory werea punishment forthekillingofChrist;theJews
arebeingpaintedas theenemiesofChristianity and oftenthecausesor
persecutions againstthe Christians.It wouldundoubtedly have been
simply too much to expectof him to declare that numerous Romans,
includinga consul,hiswife,and otheraristocrats, becameproselytes to
Judaism andas suchweremartyred byDomitian!Thiswould,no doubt,
havebeento thegloryoftheJews,thenaturalenemies oftheChristian
Church.If he had doneso, thiswouldhavebeenthefirst, andas faras
I know,thelastinstance of thiskindin theH.E. Eusebiuschoseto be
silentabouttheJewish martyrs, including FlaviusClemens, theconsul,
and his wife,and the othersleftunnamedby Dio Cassiusalso. The
historian's
silence
wasfair,muchfairer thanifhehadclaimedtheRomans
to be oftheChristian faith.
Andthisbringsus to thepersecution of theChristians underDomi-
tian.38

III
ThejustquotedtextofEusebius(H.E. 3,18,4)is ourfirst
and explicit
to of
testimony anypersecution Christians byDomitian.In thispassage,
as pointedoutabove,Eusebius,excluding
FlaviusClemens, theconsul,
fromthenumberof theChristian martyrs,tellsus thatnon-Christian

3s It is notat all clearin Dio Cassius'textthatM'. AciliusGlabrio,Trajan's

colleaguein theconsulship of 91 A.D., was accusedof and punishedforJewish
proselytism.It is rather thatthecharge
suggested himwasdOseta,as itwas
against
againstmostoftheotherillustrious victimsofDomitian'sTerror.Suetonius
(Domit.
8,2)alsosuggests thatthechargeagainsthimas wellas againstSalvidienus
Orfitus
wasthesame,i.e.,plotting ofresnovae.ArcheologicalevidenceoftheChristianity
ofsomeoftheAciliidoesnotprovethatofourGlabrio;seeP. Styger, Dieriimische
Katakomben (Berlin1933)esp.5ff.,100ff.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
16 PAUL KERESZTES

writerswroteaboutthepersecutions and martyrdoms oftheChristians

as of the15thyearof Domitianand thenmentions by nameonlyone
of the victims, Flavia Domitilla,the nieceof FlaviusClemens.The
Chronicon ofEusebius39agreeswiththereport oftheH.E. withtheexcep-
tionoftheonepossibly importantdifferencethattheChronicon mentions
one'Bruttius', presumably as one of Eusebius'non-Christianauthorities
forthepersecutions. Mostmodern writers thesepassagescon-
discussing
centrate theirattentionand effortson thepersonofthisnewlyemerged
Flavia Domitilla,theelsewhere unheard-of nieceof FlaviusClemens.
Especially thosewho quiteapparently wishto minimizethesignificance
or evendenytheexistence ofanypersecutions underDomitian, mainly
rejectherexistence and identifyherwithFlaviaDomitilla,thewifeof
FlaviusClemens, as reported byDio Cassius.On theotherhand,those
who moreor less strongly emphasizethe significance of Domitian's
reported persecutionsof the Church accept separateand Christian
her
identityandtakeheras onlytheoneillustrious exampleoftheChristian
victims ofDomitian.Thusthelinesare drawnbetween thebelieversof
thegloriousexistence oftheEusebianFlaviaDomitilla, as nieceofthe
consul,andthosewhodo notbelievein herexistence and regardheras
a phantom, a creatureofEusebius,andwipeheroutofhistory bymaking
heridentical withtheDionianFlaviaDomitilla, thewifeoftheconsul.
The numberof non-believers40 appearsfar greaterthanthatof the
It
believers.41may be noted there is no writer
in antiquitywhoreports
on boththeseDomitillas, it
and mightbe recalledalso thatwhilethe
EusebianFlaviaDomitillawas reportedly exiledto Pontia,thatof Dio
Cassiushad to go to Pandateria,bothislandsfavourite placesforexiling
the same
and the Armenianversionshave essentially
39 Both the Hieronymian
text.
40 Graetz,op. cit.,508; Volkmar, op. cit.,301ff.;Zahn,op. cit.,46-50; Mommsen,
C.I.L. VI, 948 and 8942; Aub6,op. cit.,178ff.;Lightfoot, S. Clementetc.,op. cit.,
257; St. Paul's Epistleetc.,op. cit.,21f.; Erbes,op. cit.,693ff.;Funk,op. cit.,562f.,
Hasenclever, op. cit.,231ff.;Gsell,op. cit.,298f.;Edmundson, op. cit.,225ff.;L.H.
Canfield,TheEarlyPersecutions of theChristians (New York 1913)81; Merrill,op.
cit.,164ff.;Henderson, op. cit.,42ff.;Charlesworth, op. cit.,33; J.Moreau,A propos
de la pers6cution de Domitien,N. Clio 5 (1953) 121-129;S.Rossi, op. cit.,303ff.;
J.Vogt,RLAC (1954) vol. 2 s.v. "Christenverfolgungen", 1169; Frend,op. cit.,161;
et al.
41 Tillemont,op.cit.,126; G.B. de Rossi,op.cit.(1865),18ff.;andInsignescoperte
nel cimeterio di Domitilla,Bull.Arch.Crist.(1875) 69ff.;Hausrath,op. cit.,298ff.;
Wieseler,op. cit.,402f.; Allard,op. cit.,106ff.;A. Codara,La persecuzione in casa
Flaviae la congiuracontroDomiziano,Didaskaleion (1916-17)162ff.;Sordi,op. cit.,
6ff.;et al.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE JEWS, THE CHRISTIANS, AND EMPEROR DOMITIAN 17

disgracedImperialladies. Those, then,who identify Eusebius' Domitilla

with that of Dio Cassius put themselvesinto the double difficulty of
havingto explain away the difference betweenthese 'two' Domitillas'
relationto Flavius Clemensand theirdifferent places of exile.Thus they
come to the mostcuriousconclusions,whichtheyat timesbase on even
morecurious'foundations'.Mommsen'ssolution,42 makingFlavia Domi-
tillathe sisterof theconsulFlavius Clemens,perhapsis mostnoticeable
foritsstrangeness. It contradicts
not onlyEusebiusbut also Dio Cassius,
and provesnothingexcepttheinventive imaginationofthegreatClassics
scholar.43 Others,simplydenyingEusebius' testimony and believingDio
Cassius, say that there was only one Domitilla and she was a Jewish
proselyte.44 Indeed,mostof thosewho accept only Dio Cassius' Domi-
tilla,allow,perhapsstrangely, her Christianity,
relyingon archeological
'evidence'or simplybelievingthat'atheism'in Dio Cassius' textmeans
Christianity.45 Some othersofferthe weirdestsuggestion:theydeclare
thatEusebius'Domitillawas a creatureofCatholicimagination, a product
of theglorification of virginity
and of growingdislikeformarriageof the
Church,which accordingto them 'did not allow Flavia Domitilla to
remainthe wifeof a consul of the Roman Empire'.46The truthis that
thetheoryofthetwoDomitillasmaybe regardedas favouredbyCatholic
tradition,if indeedwe may speak of such. In fact,'thistradition'leaves
Dio Cassius' Domitilla withher consul husband,while it also firmly
believesin theexistenceof the otherDomitilla,theconsul'sniece.Some
representing thistradition,believe,almostas an articleof faith,in the
Christianity not onlyof Eusebius' Flavia Domitilla,but also in that of
Dio Cassius'.47
The existenceof Flavia Domitilla, the niece, clearlyhinges on the

42
Th.Mommsen,C.I.L. 948; cp. 8942.
43 Philostratus, Apoll.8,25,erroneously, makesFlavia Domitillathesisterof the
EmperorDomitian.
44 Graetz,op. cit.,508; Charlesworth, op. cit.,33; Smallwood,op. cit.,7ff.;Frend,
op. cit.,155ff.,is inclinedto believein thisDomitilla'sChristianity on thebasisofthe
existing archeological evidence;cp. Styger, op. cit.,5ff.;63ff.
45 Gsell,op. cit.,298f.;Funk,op. cit.,562f.;Lightfoot, S. Clementetc.,op. cit.,
257; St. Paul's Epistleetc.,op. cit.,21f.; Erbes,op. cit.,693ff.;Zahn,op. cit.,46ff.;
Hasenclever, op. cit.,231ff.;Volkmar,op. cit.,301ff.;Edmundson, op. cit.,225ff.;
Merrill, op. cit.,164ff.;et al. Cp. Styger,
op. cit.,see preceding note.
46 Volkmar,op. cit.,301ff.;Hasenclever, op. cit.,231ff.;Erbes,op. cit.,693ff.;
Henderson, op. cit.,47f.
47 Tillemont, op. cit.,126; G.B.de Rossi,op. cit.(1865),18ff.,and op. cit.(1875),
69ff.;Hausrath,op. cit.,298ff.;Sordi,op. cit.,6ff.;et al.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
18 PAUL KERESZTES

authorityof Eusebius' passage concerningher. Those who dismissthe

niece suggestthatEusebius' textmusthave been corrupted,or alterna-
tivelythat'Bruttius',Eusebius' apparentsourcefortheniece,is of ques-
tionableauthority sincehe is unknownin Classicalhistoryand literature.
Those who maintaintheidentityof the niecedo not questionEusebius'
text nor, usually,the authorityof the otherwiseunknown'Bruttius'.
The identityof the Dionian Domitillais wellauthenticated by thecom-
bined testimonyof Dio Cassius himself(67, 14), Suetonius(Domit.15
and 17) and Philostratus(Apoll. 8,25). On the otherhand,theexistence
of theEusebian Domitillacan, outsidetheH.E. and the Chronicon, find
supportonly in Hieronymus(Ep. 108,7), the legendaryand quite late
Actsof Nereusand Achilleus,and theevenlaterSyncellus.48 Whilethose
who claim the Christianity of both Domitillas, uncriticallyinterpret
'atheism' and 'Jewishlife' as meaningChristianity, those who reject
Domitilla the niece show similar single-mindedpartisanshipin un-
ceremoniouslythrowingout Eusebius' testimony.Eusebius could cer-
tainlymake an errorin qualifyinghis Domitilla as a niece of Flavius
Clemensand even in namingPontia as herplace of exile. Nevertheless,
attemptsat 'correcting'Eusebius' textconcerningDomitilla,no matter,
how ingeniously,49 cannot be justifiedby the undeniablefactsthatDio
Cassius' Domitillais well identifiable also fromothersourcesand that
Eusebius'is not. Thus theargumentgoes on, maintaining thatthevalue
of Eusebius' testimonyconcerninghis Domitilla's identitydependson
theidentity and thedate of theunknown'Bruttius',supposingof course
that 'Bruttius'was indeed Eusebius' source or only source concerning
his Domitilla.The value of Eusebius' testimony is thensupposedto be
greaterif this 'Bruttius'was pagan and contemporary or at least near
contemporary to the eventrelatedby Eusebius. Subsequentlymodern
writerson thisissue,dependingmainlyon theirdesireeitherto corrobo-
rate or discreditEusebius' particularinformation, declare 'Bruttius'to
be a fairlyearlypagan writer,and even unnecessarily identify him with
'BruttiusPraesens', a supposed correspondentof Pliny the Younger,
theypronouncehima Christianand late enoughto be
or, alternatively,
completely unreliable. It is clear that we do not know anythingabout
this'Bruttius'apart fromEusebius' Chronicon - he is not even listedin
-
theH.E. and fromtheworkof JohnMalalas, a late Christianchrono-

48
Ed. Dindorff(Bonn1829)650.
41 St. Paul's Epistleetc.,21f.; Moreau,op.cit.,123f.; etal.
See e.g.Lightfoot,

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE JEWS, THE CHRISTIANS, AND EMPEROR DOMITIAN 19

grapher.50 Effortsto provehiman obscureChristianand latewriterhave

been morethanfeeble.51 But thenforhis pagan characterwe have only
Eusebius'word,i.e.,ifEusebiusmentionshimas one ofhispagan authori-
ties. But even whenone admits,hypothetically, that'Bruttius'was both
pagan and early,one may ask: "But can 'Bruttius',all by himself,be
enough?"52
Evenwithoutthis'Bruttius',Eusebius'wordthatone Flavia Domitilla,
a niece of the consul Flavius Clemens,was victimizedby Domitian on
account of her confessionof Christianity, should be enough.He is no
less reliablean historicalreporterthan eitherDio Cassius, who wrote
a fewdecadesearlierthanEusebius,knownby us, concerningDomitian,
onlyfromthe epitomesof the late ByzantineXiphilinus,or Suetonius,
a contemporary to the eventsconcerned.There is no valid reason for
not acceptingthereports,no matterhow inadequatetheymightappear,
of theseRoman chroniclers in thematterof thefiscusludaicus.Eusebius
has proved himselfa reliable,a quite intelligentand a by no means
recklessreporter.As has been seen above, he most probablyknewthe
fiscusaffairand its most notablevictims,Flavius Clemensand his wife
Flavia Domitilla. He musthave knowneitherDio Cassius' reportor a
source similarto Dio Cassius' text,and the similarity of his and Dio
Cassius' notesmakesthisconclusionmostprobable. The particularcon-
clusion mustbe that Eusebius did not regardFlavius Clemensand his
wifeas martyrsof Christianity. Short only of being explicit,he listed
themamongthe non-Christian, namely,theJudaizingvictimsof Domi-
tian.Indeed,thesame objectivity mustbe assumedin his passage on the
nieceof Flavius Clemens:he knewequallywellthatDomitilla,theniece,
was on the otherhand a Christianvictim.Indeed,it is similarlya valid
conclusionthat Dio Cassius relatedfromhis sources thefiscus affair
and its most notable victimswhile omittingthe storyof the Christian
victims,not frommalice or hostilitybut ratherfromlack of enough
interest,which is clearlyvisible fromwhat we have of his chronicle.
On theotherhand,Eusebiuslistedthepersecutionof theChristiansand
its only illustriousvictim,the niece of a consul of the Roman Empire,
and neglectedthenon-Christian victims,not out of lack of information,
whichhe undoubtedly had, but because he was notinterested in including

50 See A.Schenkvon Stauffenberg, Die rdmischeKaisergeschichte

bei Malalas
(Stuttgart1931)237f.
51 See ibid.;Merrill,
op. cit.,164f.;etal.
52 op.cit.,122.
Moreau,

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
20 PAUL KERESZTES

Jewishmartyrs in hishistoryof theChurch,and had thepositivepurpose

of promotingthegloryof theChurchwheneverhe had thenecessaryin-
formation, bylistingthepersecutions and theirvictimsbyname,naturally
not omittingthoseof highsocial standing.In thiscase he had onlyone
illustriousname,onlyFlavia Domitilla,theniece.Most likelyhe did not
have any othernamesat all. For who would have recordedthenamesof
insignificant victimsof Domitian?Dio Cassius and Suetoniusacted in
similarfashionby listingonlya fewnames of the 'manysenators'who
fellvictimsof Domitian'sTerror.The situationconcerning therecording
of Christianmartyrsat this early time of Christianhistorywas even
worse.Thus we probablyhave all thehigh-born victimsin thepersonof
Eusebius' Flavia Domitilla.That thecase of Flavia Domitillacould not
be an isolatedincidentwould by itselfbe a naturalconclusion.That we
have no informationon this in Dio Cassius' and Suetonius' notes is
again quitenatural.However,Eusebius' shortand generalreporton this
has some significance. He explicitlysays53thatthereweremartyrdoms,
Flavia Domitilla beingthe one illustriousexample,in the 15thyear of
Domitian's rule. He does not specify,as he usuallydoes, the extentof
the persecution, not does he say whethertheywerelimitedto Rome or
wentbeyondit, or whetherthe martyrdoms were numerous.For these
detailsand morespecificvictimswe have to turnto otherauthorities.
The sourcethatoughtto take us as close as possibleto the centreof
any persecutionunderDomitian is the verycontroversialI Clementis,
thefirst and probablyonlygenuineletterattachedto thenameofClement,
the bishop of Rome at the timeof Domitian'sTerror.The controversy
concernsthedate of itscompositionand whethercertainpassagesindeed
referto persecutions underDomitian.The I Clementis was a letterwritten
by the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth. Althoughit does not
bear Clement'snameanywhere, Eusebius54ascribestheletterto Clement
and it is generallyattributed to himby mostmodernwriters.Its date is
accordinglyplaced in the timeof Clement'stenureas bishop of Rome.
For a closer date withinClement'sepiscopacy,with the exceptionof
those who place it to as earlyas 70 A.D. or as late as 140 A.D., com-
mentatorsassigntheletterto thelast couple of yearsof Domitian'srule
or one or two yearslater.55It was written, as is clear fromthe context

53 H.E. 3,18,4;Chronicon,ad loc.

65 H.E. 3,15; 16.
55 Lightfoot, S. Clementetc.,op. cit.,267; Aub6,op. cit.,170; Barnard,op. cit.,
255; et al.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE JEWS,THE CHRISTIANS,AND EMPERORDOMITIAN 21

oftheletter, as adviceto theChurchofCorinth, whichhad at thattime

beensuffering fromsomeseriousinternal striferesultingfrom jealousies.
Simplystated, the contents of the letterare as follows: it begins(1,1)
withan apologyforthedelayin sending thisletterowingto some'mis-
fortunes andreverses' theChristians inRomehavejustbeenexperiencing;
thentherefollowrhetorical examples ofthedireconsequences ofjealousy
in theOld Testament and then(5 and 6) examplesof thesamein the
recentpast duringNero'sreign,namely, themartyrdom of Peterand
Paul and others;in 7,1thereis an obviousreference to thetimeofthe
writing oftheletter, when,as is indicated, theChristians ofRomewere
in thesamesituation as theirfellow-Christians underNero; therestof
theletteris an exhortation to Christian discipline,especially obedience
andpeace.It is generally agreedthat5 refers totheNeronian persecution,
butthesignificance of1,1and7,1is attimesstillhotlydisputed. Whether
weinterpret theexpressions nsptnr'Cbasigor as
(1,1) 'calami-
ties','impedimenta' or 'critical retpto',adsig
circumstances', they are all general terms
thattakenby themselves obviouslycan meanmisfortunes of various
degrees.56Further, thereasonforthewriting oftheletter makesitneces-
saryto assumethatthese'misfortunes' werenotinternal strife.57These
cautiousexpressions indicatingthemisfortunes of Rome receive a serious
interpretationin the following passages,wherethe disastrous conse-
quencesofjealousiesin Nero'sRomeare appliedas a warning forthe
church ofClement himself thensuffering troubles similartothosesuffered
underNero. Some further expressions elsewhere (59 and 60), though
notveryforceful, areyetsuggestive ofpersecutions.58 ThustheI Clemen-
tis is generallyinterpreted as a testimony to persecutions in thefinal
yearor twoof Domitian'srule.59 Apart from the fact of a persecution
at thistime,againno detailscan be gleanedfromtheLetterofClement
aboutthevictims and particularly thecircumstances oftheoutbreak.
We mayobtainsomepreciousinformation concerning thefactofthe
persecution underDomitianand itsnature,froman unexpected, yetin

5 But certainly are not insignificant

clich6expressions, as suggested by Merrill,
op.cit.,159f.
57
Barnard,op. cit.,251-260;Lightfoot, S. Clementetc.,op. cit.,267.
58 The veiledand cautiouscharacter of theexpressions of 1,1can mostnaturally
be explainedby a serioussituationthreatening the Christiancommunity in Rome,
Lightfoot, S. Clementetc.,op. cit.,267.
59 Ibidem;Tillemont, op. cit.,119; Champagny, op. cit.,155; Zahn, op. cit.,69;
Gsell,op. cit.,306; McFayden,op. cit.,63; Goguel,op. cit.,575ff.;Barnard,op. cit.,
251ff.;et al.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
22 PAUL KERESZTES

this connectionquite neglectedsource,the well-knowncorrespondence

of PlinywiththeEmperorTrajan about theChristiansof Bithynia.This
passage of Pliny is the mysteriouscognitionibus de Christianisinterfui
nunquam.Its significance forthefactand theprobablenatureof a perse-
cution of Christiansunder Domitian has been recognizedby several
scholars,althoughto varyingdegrees,60whileothers61 have sadlyrefused
to see it. The scrupulousPlinyhad severalquestionsforTrajan, but he
had no doubt in dealing withthose Christianswho persistedin their
Christianity or simplydenied it. The firstgroupwereunceremoniously
put death,but the second,in orderto provetheirinnocenceand ob-
to
tain acquittalhad to worshiptheimagesof the gods and thatof Trajan
at Pliny'sorder,forPlinywas certainthatthisact of worshipwas sure
to distinguisha Christianfroma 'non-Christian'.Thus whilepleading
lack of experienceat the trialsof Christians,Plinyin fact implieshis
knowledgeof them; his unhesitating procedurefor the eliminationof
'non-Christians' indicatedtheexistenceand natureof some persecutions
of Christianssome timein the past. For it is difficult not to recognize
thatPlinywas in thiscase applyinga methodthatcame into existence
duringDomitian's rule. Domitian was a keen upholderof the state
religion,especiallythatof theCapitolinetriad.To thishe added his own
determination to have himselfrecognizedas dominuset deus. The first
steps in his own personalcult were takenearlierin the provinces,but
thenthispolicywas introducedin Rome also, and oppositionto it was
pitilesslycrushed.62Thisis also indicatedbythecase ofJuventius Celsus,63
who to acquit himselfof thechargeof conspiracyaddressedtheEmperor
as 'lord and god', an addressused also by others.In spiteof thelanguage
of Panegyricus (2,3; 2,4; 52,3;) whichexpressestheSenate'sand Trajan's
views concerningthe divinityof the livingEmperor,Plinyhas shown
thathe practicedthiscult,64and thereis reason to believehe had been
indoctrinated to it not underTrajan, but Domitian.Therecan reallybe

60 Th.Mayer-Maly, Der rechtsgeschichtliche vonPlinius

Gehaltder'Christenbriefe'
undTrajan,Stud.et Doc. Hist.lur.22 (1956)314; W.Otto,Zur Lebensgeschichte
des
jiingerenPlinius,Stzb. Miinchen(1919) 48ff.;R.Freudenberger,
Das Verhalten
der
rdmischenBehirdengegen die Christenim 2. Jahrhundert
(Mfiinchen1967) 49; 138ff.;
seealsoAub6,op.cit.,169;Hausrath,
op.cit.,297f.; Huidekoper,
op.cit.,320; Charles-
worth,op. cit.,32ff.;et al.
el Merrill, op. cit., 172; Smallwood,op. cit., 2; et al.
Charlesworth, op. cit., 33.
62

63 Dio Cassius67,13,3-4.
"4 Ep. 8,4; 10,8:53: 59; etc.See Freudenberger,op. cit., 140.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE JEWS, THE CHRISTIANS, AND EMPEROR DOMITIAN 23

littledoubtthatthisunhesitating methodof applyingtheworshipof the

livingEmperorto eliminate'non-Christians' was inheritedby himfrom
the time of Domitian. Althoughhe may not have been presidingat
ChristiantrialsduringDomitian'sterror,evenifhe was praetorin 94/95
A.D. ratherthan earlier,65he was probablywell aware that Christians
had to participatein Emperor-worship to acquit themselves.66 Thus
Pliny'sprotestation thathe had neverassistedat Christiantrialsreveals
thefactofpersecutions in Rome underDomitianand thatit was connect-
ed withthe Emperor-worship at a timewhento clear oneselfof charges
of disloyaltyto the Emperoror the statereligionone had to participate
in thecult of therulingEmperor.
From Rome thesame Plinyleads us to Asia Minorto revealthatthere
too thereprobablywas a persecutionat about thesame timeas in Rome.
Anotherpassage in thesame letterrevealsthatsome Christiansadmitted
theyhad once been Christiansbut claimedthattheyhad ceased to be so,
"some three,othersmany,and one twenty yearsearlier".This last round
figuremay allow us to connect this apostasy,one no doubt of many,
withpersecutions in Bithyniaor some partof Asia Minor,perhapsAsia.
Whilethissuppositiondepends,of course,as Freudenberger suggests,6"
on the truthfulness of the accused, and while it is true that apostasy
could have causes otherthanpersecution,the mostlikelyreasonat this
earlydate,just as at theoccasionof Pliny'strialin Bithynia,was persecu-
tion.
The Apocalypseshould bringus even closer to some of the details,
extentand natureof a persecutionin Asia Minor, but particularlyin
proconsularAsia. That theApocalypsehas manyobscuritiesin it follows
fromits nature.It looks into the futureand tells of persecutionsand
innumerable martyrdoms. Its highlysymbolicallanguagefurther darkens
its otherwiseoftenvague meaning.But it also has numerousephemeral
and local allusions,includingthose to a persecutionof a verydefinite
and recognizablecharacter.Needlessto say, the book is certainlynot a
proofof a systematicand generalpersecutionunderDomitian.68That
itshouldbe discardedas uselessforinformation on anypersecution under

65
Otto, op. cit., 48ff.and Zur Pritur desjiingeren
Plinius,Stzb. Miinchen(1932)
lff.
66
op. cit., 140; see also Charlesworth,op. cit., 34.
Freudenberger,
67 Op. cit., 155f.
61 Merrill,
op. cit.,158.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
24 PAUL KERESZTES

Domitian,61 cannotbe upheld.Naturallythe date of the compositionof

the book is relevant.Eusebius' testimony fromIrenaeus70unequivocally
places its date at the end of Domitian's rule and excludesspeculations
concerning the possibilityof its being written under Nero.71Specific
references to the natureof the oppressionof Christiansin Asia suggest
Domitian'sfinalyears.72
What the Apocalypseexplicitlysays does not amount to much in
wordsand concreteinformation. Even Antipas'martyrdom in Pergamum
(2,13) may possibly be regardedas too early for the oppressionof
Christiansin Asia's centresof theImperialcult.Thereare otherpassages
that unmistakablyhint at currentpersecutionand martyrdomof the
witnessesof Christwho refusedto worship"the beast and his image".73
What is even moreimportantthanthe namingof individualmartyrs is
that the Apocalypsecould not have been writtenwhen the Church
enjoyedexternalpeace; on the contrary,it demonstrates beyonddoubt
thatChristianity was engagedin a deathbattlewithImperialRome.
The occurrenceofthesecases ofpersecution notaccidental.
is certainly
The determined establishment of theImperialcultin Rome by Domitian
had itsparallelin Asia Minorand mostparticularly in proconsularAsia,
although on a much wider scale and accompanied by a thoroughly
enthusiasticacceptance.The worshipof Augustusin connectionwith
Roma had been establishedwell beforethe eventsof the Apocalypse.
For, althoughthe rulercult of the HellenisticEast was, apparently,
distastefulto the EmperorAugustus,nevertheless to make allowances
for the traditionsof his subjectshe gave permissionto some citiesin
Asia to worshiphiminconnection withthedeifiedRoma.The maintenance
of thiscult gave Augustusa place amongthe gods and it was entrusted
to the'Commonalty'of theHellenes.74 From thefoundationof thisnew
the
cult, supervision of which increased both itsactivitiesand importance,
the'Commonalty'ofAsia held annualmeetings fortheworshipof Roma
and Augustusand for the transactionof business by its assembly.75

69 As Moreau,op. cit.,126.
70 H.E. 3,18,1-3.
71 As suggestedbyHenderson, op. cit., 45.
72 See e.g. Neumann,op. cit., 12; Goguel,op. cit., 582; McFayden,op. cit., 63;
et. al.
73 12,11;20,4; 6,9; 7,14;etc.
See Apocalypse,
74 1950)447.
D. Magie,Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton
75 Ibid. 448.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE JEWS, THE CHRISTIANS, AND EMPEROR DOMITIAN 25

Thisnewcultfurthermore served as a meansforestablishing

theloyaltyof
Rome'ssubjectsand soon spreadto theotherprovinces of Rome.The
institution
ofprovincial assemblies and theImperialcultthusbecamea
successfulexpedient notonlyin theGreekEast,butalso in theWest.76
In Asia,Pergamum, theold capitalandthecentreofthe'Commonalty',
theproudownerofthefirst templeofRomaandAugustus, led theway
intheImperial cult.Nordidtheothercitiesoftheprovince wishtoshow
slacknessin this.Smyrna, Ephesus,and othercitiesthusbecamecentres
ofthisworship.77 not
Thus, unnaturally Asiabecamea leadingcentreof
the persecution of the Christians.Seriousanti-Christian violencein
thisprovince during MarcusAurelius' rule,andAntoninus Pius'as well,
arewellattested byEusebius.78Thegreatpersecution inAsiawhichtook
probablyabout 167A.D. thelivesof Polycarp manyothers
and inSmyrna
andelsewhere" to
testify thespecialroleAsiaplayedinthepersecutions.
Antoninus Piuswas in factobligedto writeto thecitiesof theGreek
East to reassertthe principles enunciated by Hadrianand Trajan.80
Granianus'letterto theEmperorHadrian,and theEmperor's Rescript
to MinuciusFundanusare further testimoniesto a widespread hostile
attitudetowardsthe Christians and clearlyshow a patternof mob
persecution in theproconsular province.8s The Christiansof thisarea
had to be sacrificed to the mobswhichlevelledat themtheirusual
chargeof 'atheism'and otherextrajuridical 'crimes'.The factthat
Christiansat thistimewereabusedin thiscentreof theImperialcult
cannotbe a coincidence. Pliny'sunhesitating methodinseparatingChris-
tiansfrom'non-Christians', and evenhisownpersonalinvolvement in
theImperial cultandtheworship oftheruling has
Emperor, already been
demonstrated as pointingto thefinalcoupleofyearsofDomitian, when
thisEmperor introduced thiscultas a testofloyaltytohimself. Anditis
thepersecution as describedin theApocalypse thatmusthavebeenthe
of the
beginning pattern of anti-Christianviolencethatbecameso evident

76
Ibid. 452.
7" V. Chapot,La provinceromaineproconsulaire d'Asie(Paris1904)450ff.
78 H.E. 4,26,10;Justin,
Apol.I and II, passim.
79 Eusebius,H.E. 4,15,1-48; Paul Keresztes,Marcus Aureliusa Persecutor?
Harvard T. R. 61 (1968) 321-341.
80 Eusebius,H.E. 4,26,10;Paul Keresztes,The EmperorAntoninusPius and the
Christians,Journal
ofEcclesiastical
History22 (1971)1-18.
81 Paul Keresztes,
TheEmperor Hadrian'sRescriptto MinuciusFundanus,Phoenix
21 (1967)120-129.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
26 PAUL KERESZTES

duringmostof thesecondcenturyin Asia and theprovincesoftheEast.

That thisoppressionin Asia at thistimewas connectedwiththe cultof
the Emperoris abundantlyclear. On the otherhand it is a matterof
speculationwhether or notitwas all startedbya specialImperialorderof
Domitian.82 The conventional expression'our lord and god' as a form
of addressby Imperialprocurators"3 and bymanyin Rome is significant.
However,what is even more importantand decisiveis the Emperor
Domitian'swell-known desireto be regardedas 'lord and god'. Consider-
ing then thehighimportanceDomitianplaced on hisown divineworship
even Rome,it is easilyunderstandable
in thattheprovincialsof theEast
and especiallyof Asia wereall forexpressingtheirloyaltyto Domitian
as god. Thus it is not necessaryto 'invoke' a special Imperialorderfor
his divineworshipin Asia. It is similarlynot necessaryto suppose that
the proconsulof Asia initiatedor even promotedit. He had onlyto be
weak; at any rate,evensuchweaknessin a governor'scharacterwas not
a necessaryrequirementunder Domitian, although later on, under
Hadrian,AntoninusPius, and MarcusAureliussuch a weaknessin and
somecollusionon thepartofa governorbecamequiteessentialforusing
theImperialcultagainsttheChristians.
As earlyas thetimeof Domitian'sTerror,Asia had a sizableChristian
admixturein thepredominantly Greekand Jewishpopulation.The non-
Christianmobs in 95-96 A.D. wereabout the same as theywerein the
nextfew decades. They zealouslycompliedwithDomitian's desirefor
Imperialworshipin the centresof thiscult,but especiallyin the centre
of the 'Commonalty'of the province'whereSatan lived'. The pattern
was thusset forthe second century;theydemandedthe punishment of
the 'atheist'Christians,who, withobviousexceptions,as impliedin the
Apocalypse,abstainedfromthecult.Whichgovernorat thistimewould
say "no" to the demandsof the 'god-fearing' mobs?LeadingChristians
wereprobablythuspunished,some put to death,others,such as John,

82 It is clearfromEusebius'presentation ofthe'old story'(H.E. 3,19; 20,1-7)of

Hegesippusthattheinquisition intotheHouse of David in Palestinehad nothingto
do withanypersecution oftheChristians;thusthe'edict'which, inthisstory,Domitian
withdrew did notconcerntheChristians.It is thisstorythatTertullianblunderingly
appliedto theChristians whenhe wroteof Domitianas a 'half-Nero', sincehe had
'stoppedthe persecutions' and, subsequently, recalledthe banished(Apolog.5,4).
Unfortunately somemodemwriters regardHegesippus'storyand itsinterpretation by
Tertullian as prooffora persecution
of Christians.
8a Suetonius, Domit. 13.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE JEWS, THE CHRISTIANS, AND EMPEROR DOMITIAN 27

the 'author' of the Apocalypse84 banished.85The speculationthat the

persecutionof Christiansbothin Rome and Asia startedwithDomitian's
shockedreactionof his discovering Christiansin theImperialhousehold
is possible,althoughnotnecessary.As forFlavia Domitialla's,theniece's,
discoveryas a Christianwe do not knowanything definite.
That she was
probably denounced is a reasonable
assumption fora timewhen denuncia-
tions were encouragedby the Emperor.A connectionwiththe divine
inclinationsof Domitiancannotbe ruledout and is evenlikely.

So muchforthe Christians.As faras the names of Christianvictims

ofDomitianareconcernedwe haveonlyone thatis definite, thatofFlavia
Domitilla,the niece of Flavius Clemens,theconsul. On the otherhand
the decisivepoint in our discussionis not that we may have only one
nameor manyto show.For theexistenceofthepersecution of Christians
underDomitianis clearfromthe sourcesavailableto us. Fromthecon-
tentsof Eusebius'H.E. and Chronicon, oftheI Clementis,theApocalypse,
and Pliny'sletteron thematterit is clearthattherewas a persecutionof
Christiansin Rome, seriousenough,althoughit is hard to judge how
serious.Therecan be no doubt that,at the same time,in Asia at least,
therewas a considerablyseriouspersecution.As to the reasonsforthese
persecutions,especiallyin Asia, thereseemsto be hardlyany doubt that
theywerethe resultof Domitian'spredilection fordivineworship;they
thusset a patternformoreseriouspersecutionsthatwereto take place
in thesecondcentury.FlaviusClemensand his wife,Domitilla,mustnot
join theranksofChristiansand Christianmartyrs. Thereis nottheslight-
est evidencefor theiroftensupposed Christianity. Evidence definitely
showsthemas proselytesto Judaism.Thereis no otherjustifiableinter-
pretationof the textsof Suetonius,Dio Cassius, and indeed Eusebius.
It is onlyregrettable
thattherehas been so muchpartisanship on theone
side and the other.On the one hand, thispartisanspiritlistedall the
Judaizersof Suetoniusand Dio Cassius among the Christianvictimsof
Domitian,and, on the other,it declaredany persecutionof Christians
by Domitian as 'non-existent' or insignificant.For indeed whyshould
one go intoan argument withsomeof Melito'sand Tertullian'srhetorical
statements thatonlybad emperors, suchas Nero and Domitian,persecuted

84 Eusebius,H.E. 3,18,1;23,1.
85 The storyaboutJohn'sencounterwithDomitianin Romeand hissubsequent
banishmentbytheEmpeior,is possiblebutsomewhat (see eg. Malalas,
questionable
Chronogr.,ed. Bonn, 262).

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
28 PAUL KERESZTES

the Churchor that Domitianwas a second persecutor?For, if all that

Nero did againsttheChristianswas to takepolice actionin 64 A.D. and
have a greatnumberof Christiansbrutallyput to death,thenDomitian
certainlydeservesa bettertitlethantherathernarrow'portioNeronis',86
concerningthe Christiansmeanssignificantly
evenif Nero's institutum87
morethanjust a 'first'.88

of Waterloo,Ontario
University

86 Tertullian,Apolog. 5,4.
87 Tertullian,Ad nat. 1,7,9: Et tamenpermansiterasis omnibushoc solum institutum
Neronianum,iustumdeniqueut dissimilesui auctoris.
88 J.W.Ph.Borleffs,InstitutumNeronianum, Vig. Christ.6 (1952) 129-145, et al.
thismysterious
interpret institutum ofandnotthelegal
ofNeroas onlyan inauguration
basisforthepersecution
oftheChristians.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:52:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions