The Oxford History of the Biblical World (92 page)

Some of Augustus’s titles and appellations continued to be used by his successors, and several came to be shared by other figures of great authority. A number of these titles were later applied to Jesus. The Jesus followers were not equating their leader with Augustus; they would have thought such a comparison inappropriate. But the
influence of Augustan power pervaded the empire, and similarities of usage did not go unnoticed. Many of those who referred to Jesus as “son of god” knew perfectly well that a Latin form of the phrase was among the most frequent designations for Augustus and his successors. Another example of shared terminology was the Greek term
euaggelion
(“good news”), often used to introduce announcements about the emperor and his deeds. The same term—usually translated as “gospel”—was used by the earliest followers of Jesus to describe the message they preached, and later as the designation for written stories about Jesus’ life and teachings.

When Augustus died forty-five years after his victory at Actium, the Roman people celebrated his memory and the Roman senate recognized that their deceased princeps had become a god. In Palestine the young Jesus and his friends probably paid little attention. The death of Augustus did nothing to relieve the smothering effect of Roman oppression on the Jews and other subject peoples. Later, of course, the imperial power established during the long reign of Augustus would profoundly influence the followers of Jesus, but ultimately their movement would transform the empire.

In the institutions he had created and supported, Augustus left little doubt that the precedent of a single omnipotent ruler would continue. But it was unclear who the successor would be, and how the transition from one ruler to another would take place.

Augustus’s relationship with his successor Tiberius had been tumultuous. They shared in glorious military successes and together mourned the death of an infant born to Tiberius and Augustus’s daughter, Julia. But in the end there were suggestions that Tiberius was at best Augustus’s reluctant choice as successor. The second-century historian Suetonius is aware of these reports, but his comments on Tiberius include quotations from Augustan correspondence that indicate a more positive attitude: “I beseech the gods that they will preserve you for us and allow you good health now and always, unless they despise the people of Rome” (
Lives of the Caesars, Tiberius
21.6). Tacitus, who also wrote in the early second century, claims that Tiberius was chosen only because Augustus had “observed in him pride and ferocity, and sought to reflect honor to himself by the comparison” (
Annales
1.10).

Whatever his motivation in choosing Tiberius, once Augustus died, his authority was transferred with relative ease. Tiberius had received a share of imperial power before the death of Augustus, and thus was the apparent successor. Both Suetonius and Tacitus speak of Tiberius’s supposed reluctance to accept power, but after observing the proper rituals for the death of Augustus, the senate proclaimed Tiberius emperor. Opposition came from several of the northern legions, whose soldiers put forward their own general, Germanicus. Apparently Germanicus chose not to take advantage of his troops’ support and pledged loyalty to his new emperor, thereby stemming the uprising. The incident did highlight the dependence of the emperor’s power on control of the Roman army, and foreshadowed the significant role that the legions would play in choosing future rulers.

Tiberius took power amid expressions of joy and hope across the empire. So great were the accomplishments of Augustus that there was a naturally high level of expectation
for his successor. In some provinces, that expectation was translated into spectacular divine honors. The Athenians honored Tiberius by rededicating to him a large monument in their central market (
agora).
An inscription on the monument base refers to the emperor as “the god Augustus” and “a benefactor of the city” (
Inscriptiones Graecae
II
²
4209). For his part, Tiberius appears to have refused such honors for himself, but he did emphasize his divine connections by minting coins to the divinized Augustus that highlighted his own status as “son of god.”

Unfortunately, Tiberius did not fulfill these hopes. He succeeded in the sense of continuing the office and the practices of Augustus, but accomplished little on his own initiative. Suetonius describes him as a reluctant ruler who began by making sincere attempts to appease all his constituencies. But gradually, he succumbed to the pressures of governing such a vast empire. By the end of his reign, Tiberius was so obsessed with himself and his power that he reportedly engaged in all manner of immoral and depraved activities. At the same time, like Herod in Judea, he suffered from a destructive paranoia and ordered that all potential successors be put to death, including members of his own family. Eventually, Tiberius retreated permanently to the island of Capri.

Tiberius is also remembered for his cruelty toward religions outside the Roman mainstream. According to Suetonius, he went to great lengths to suppress Judaism and the Egyptian mystery rites, “ordering any who held such superstitious beliefs to burn all their religious vestments and instruments” (
Tiberius
36). This opposition reflects a long-standing Roman suspicion of unusual religious activity, especially toward groups whose religious views tempered their enthusiasm toward the various expressions of piety that made up Roman religion. In this case, Egyptian cults eventually became a widely accepted part of the diverse religious practice in the empire, but the monotheistic Jews continued to be suspect.

The movement of Jesus followers that grew out of Judaism was in its infancy during Tiberius’s later years. Tiberius and his representatives would have had neither the ability nor the desire to distinguish between Jews who believed in Jesus as Messiah and the vast majority of Jews who did not. Any suppression of Judaism would have been felt equally by Jewish believers in Jesus, unless they had withdrawn from all of their traditional practices, which is unlikely at this early stage in the movement.

On the other hand, later Jesus followers were anxious to place their accounts of the early movement within the historical and chronological context of the Roman Empire. The Gospel of Luke was probably written around 90
CE
, but the author was careful to detail the Roman power structure of an earlier age: Augustus as emperor and Quirinius as governor of Syria at the time of Jesus’ birth, and Tiberius ruling when John the Baptist began his ministry (Luke 2.1–2; 3.1).

Whether Tiberius was as harsh with the Jews as Suetonius indicates, he and his advisers no doubt deliberately selected Pontius Pilate as governor in Judea. A governor’s main duty was to oversee the emperor’s interests in the territory, which included maintaining order and dealing with potential sources of sedition. Whatever else Jesus might have been saying and doing in Pilate’s domain, his ability to keep a regular group of followers and to attract large crowds warranted close scrutiny. Although the New Testament condemns the Jewish authorities as responsible for Jesus’ death, Pilate as the local voice of Roman authority would have needed little encouragement
to eliminate any source of potential insurrection. Pilate’s role in the execution of Jesus is recounted in vivid detail by the Gospel writers, but it is unlikely that a Roman governor would have become so directly involved in the execution of a criminal. Possibly, Pilate’s deputies dealt with Jesus and notified their superior. In any case Pilate would have noted the elimination of a potential revolutionary and included Jesus’ death in a regular report on activity in Judea. Tiberius, for his part, might have noted with satisfaction that the governor in Judea was doing his job.

Immediately after the death of Jesus, his followers must have been in a state of confusion and shock. Although the expectations for his mission differed, none could have anticipated the failure and death of their leader. Luke’s portrayal of two disciples on the road to Emmaus captures this mood of disappointment. For Luke this disappointment is ironic, since the disciples are discussing their uncertainties in the light of Jesus’ death, all the while talking with the resurrected Christ but not recognizing him (Luke 24.13–35). The belief that Jesus had risen served as the catalyst for the disciples to recover from their grief and begin spreading the good news throughout the Mediterranean world.

Luke also provides the only known record of this early mission in his second volume, Acts of the Apostles. Like the Gospels, Acts was written at least forty years after the death of Jesus, and decades of development within the movement influenced its account. It is impossible to know exactly what took place in those first years after the death of Jesus. Luke himself admits that he was not reporting as an eyewitness, but conveying oral tradition (Luke 1.1—2). What is clear is that the spreading of the message about Jesus was immensely successful. The combination of intentional proselytizing by individuals like Paul and the natural movement of believers meant that by the middle of the first century churches had been established in most of the major cities of the empire, including Rome.

If the Roman legions had had their way, Germanicus rather than Tiberius would have succeeded Augustus. Germanicus died in 19
CE
, but his son Gaius Julius Caesar inherited his position as heir to the empire. Nicknamed “Caligula,” the term for the small military boots he wore as a child, Gaius had inherited his father’s popularity with the armies and the people. According to later records, however, his tendency toward cruelty was apparent even before he came to power. Tiberius himself felt that allowing Gaius to live would prove the ruin of himself and of all people. Because of his immense popularity, however, Gaius was the unanimous choice of the senate as emperor when Tiberius died in 37
CE
. Suetonius reports that he was welcomed by 160,000 sacrifices during the first three months of his reign (
Gaius Caligula
11, 14).

Gaius came to power at the age of twenty-five, and although he is credited with extensive achievements, his attitude and actions proved to be a disappointment to the troops and others who had supported him. Caligula quickly embraced a more absolute sense of his authority and severely punished anyone who challenged it. The image of the princeps as a first among equals gave way to a sense of the emperor as monarch. There was probably little difference between Gaius’s power and that wielded by his predecessors, but Gaius was unwilling to feign humility.

Gaius claimed that being emperor made him equal with the gods and deserving
of divine worship. Suetonius mentions that Gaius imported famous statues of the gods and ordered that likenesses of his head be substituted for the divinity’s. Gaius also set up a temple to his own divine spirit, complete with priests and exotic sacrificial victims (
Gaius Caligula
22). The claim to divine honors outraged some Romans, so most emperors attempted to maintain a balance between modesty and offending those who wanted to pay homage to them. Gaius, however, had no such inclination to moderation.

Demanding and receiving divine honors, Gaius raged against anyone who refused to offer them. Thus the Jews, who would not worship any god but their own, were frequently the targets of the emperor’s wrath. The Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria details what transpired when Gaius proposed to force the Jews to worship him by installing his statue in the Temple in Jerusalem (
Legatio ad Gaium
30–42; a shorter and slightly different account of the same story is found in Josephus,
Jewish War
2.10). Philo uses this account to illustrate the mental instability of Gaius, who had suffered a life-threatening illness in the eighth month of his reign. In Philo’s view, this illness caused a “turning to wildness, or rather bringing to light the savagery that he had hidden under the actor’s mask” (
Legatio ad Gaium
22).

In trying to convince Gaius to abandon his plan to desecrate the Temple, Philo cites the example of the moderation of the deified Augustus in dealing with the Jews: “So highly did he regard our concerns that he and almost his whole family furnished our sanctuary with the richness of his offerings, commanding that perpetual burnt offerings should be made each day at his own expense as a tribute to the most high God” (
Legatio ad Gaium
157). Although this description of respect for the Jews might be hyperbole, Philo wrote it only twenty-five years after the death of Augustus, so it could reflect a genuine level of tolerance. Philo cites examples from Tiberius as well, and records that Gaius was eventually persuaded to abandon his plan to install his statue in the Temple, without changing his fundamentally negative disposition toward the Jews.

Philo concludes his discussion of Gaius with a description of an audience that he and other Jewish leaders from Alexandria had with the emperor. This embassy meets with Gaius in hope of defending their right to live peacefully in the city. Instead, Gaius becomes the accuser of the Jews in general: “Are you the god-haters who do not know me as a god, a god acknowledged by all others, but not named by you?” The Jewish delegation responds that they show their loyalty by offering regular sacrifice on behalf of the emperor, but Gaius is unmoved: “You have made offerings, but to another, even if it was for me. What good is it then, for you have not sacrificed to me.” Eventually, Gaius dismisses the Jewish embassy with an uncharacteristically mild rebuke, saying that they seemed “to be unlucky rather than evil, and to be foolish in not believing that I have been allotted the nature of a god” (
Legatio ad Gaium
353, 357, 367).

Jewish followers of Jesus would have received the same harsh treatment. At this time the development of a mission to “the nations” began to bring non-Jews into the Jesus movement. This inclusion of Gentiles led to internal debates about whether one needed to be a Jew before being a follower of Jesus (Acts 10–11; 15; Gal. 1–5). The participation of non-Jews must also have raised the profile of the movement considerably. Paul makes it clear that he suffered persecution both from Jewish authorities
and because of his efforts to bring Gentiles into the church (2 Cor. 11.24–26). When people who all their lives had worshiped the Greco-Roman gods and given due homage to the emperor suddenly refused to do so, social unrest arose. This no emperor could tolerate, and Gaius responded with brutality.