The Oxford History of the Biblical World (96 page)

The images of the beast from the sea and the beast from the earth in Revelation 13 probably refer to the emperor and his representatives in the province, either officials sent out from Rome or local elites who administered the honors offered to the emperor. The second beast “exercises all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and it makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast . . . and by the signs that it is allowed to perform on behalf of the beast, it deceives the inhabitants of earth, telling them to make an image for the beast . . . so that the image of the beast could even speak and cause those who would not worship the image of the
beast to be killed” (Rev. 13.12–15). This description may foreshadow the kind of loyalty test used by Pliny the Younger when, about 110
CE
, he confronted people accused of being Christian in Pontus and Bithynia. Those who refused to give honor to the statue of the emperor were endangering the well-being of society as a whole. Such refusal would have been even more dangerous if the city had just erected a new temple to the imperial family, which stood as a source of great civic pride. Persons with power in the city could easily lose privileges, and people would be risking their lives if they refused to worship the “image of the beast.”

The phrase
imperial cult
is often used in discussion of honors paid to emperors. Unfortunately, the term is usually interpreted as a set religious system with uniform beliefs and practices. On the contrary, there was great diversity in where, when, and how honors were offered to the emperor. One variation focused on whether a living emperor could receive honors as if he were a god. The usual assumption is that living emperors were readily given divine honors in the undisciplined eastern provinces, but not in Rome and the west, where cooler heads prevailed. This view needs to be questioned.

In the eastern provinces, divine honors do seem to have been offered to emperors. These offerings were not an irrational reaction by superstitious residents of the east, but rather part of a larger social matrix that connected people with the powers (human and divine) that controlled their world. Simon Price has pushed scholars to a more sophisticated understanding of how honors offered to the emperor should be seen as societal phenomena: “Using their traditional symbolic system they [the Greeks] represented the emperor to themselves in the familiar terms of divine power. The imperial cult, like the cults of the traditional gods, created a relationship of power between subject and ruler” (
Rituals and Power: The Imperial Cult in Asia Minor,
Cambridge University Press, 1984, p. 248). Although he refuses to look at these honors in strictly political terms, Price emphasizes that honors offered to the emperor also enhanced the civic power of those who controlled them, the local elite.

It is also necessary to modify the view that divine honors offered for the emperor in the east stood in sharp contrast to those in Rome and the west. During his lifetime Domitian demanded honors as a god in the city of Rome. Suetonius reports that the emperor insisted on being addressed as
dominus et deus
(“lord and god”), and he describes how priests wore crowns with Domitian’s image alongside those of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva (
Domitian
13.2, 4.4). Pliny the Younger laments that traditional religious ritual had been selfishly usurped by Domitian: “Enormous herds of victims [intended for sacrifice at the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus] were intercepted on their way to the Capitolinum and large parts of them were forced to be diverted from their path, because to honor the statue of that atrocious master, as much blood of victims had to flow as the amount of human blood he had shed” (
Panegyricus
52.7).

Pliny complained about these excesses in order to encourage the current emperor, Trajan, to expect more moderate honors during his lifetime. He was grateful that under Trajan the senate no longer needed to waste time deliberating on “enormous arches and inscribed titles too long to fit on temples” (
Panegyricus
54). Pliny also laments the excessive “shows and riotous entertainment” that were performed in honor of Domitian: “He was a madman, ignorant of his true honor . . . who thought
himself to be equal to the gods yet raised his gladiators to be equal to himself” (
Panegyricus
33.4). However loudly they protested after the fact, Pliny and other senators who survived Domitian’s reign played a role in bestowing these honors. Even if they did not participate in rites honoring Domitian as a god, they must have swallowed their disgust and looked on silently.

Like Gaius Caligula, Domitian perished at the hands of servants and friends. Upon his death in 96
CE
, Domitian was mourned by the soldiers whose wages he had increased substantially (Suetonius,
Domitian
23.1; see also 7.3). The majority of the population, however, was either unmoved or relieved that his reign had ended. Pliny reports that statues of the emperor were viciously destroyed in the streets, as a “sacrifice to public delight” (
Panegyricus
52.4). Domitian’s cruelty had been directed mainly against senators like Pliny. It was hoped that Domitian’s passing would inaugurate a more civil form of government in which the senate would wield considerably greater power. As for the Jesus followers, they had weathered persecution under Domitian, but now the empire was clearly aware of their existence and would increasingly pressure them to conform to Roman standards of behavior. The spectacular events predicted in the book of Revelation had not occurred, and the church would face escalated levels of persecution and martyrdom for the next two centuries.

The Flavian dynasty ended with the death of Domitian. Those who had plotted to kill him did not carry out their plan until they had agreed on a suitable successor. According to Dio Cassius, the elder statesman Nerva was chosen in part because he was “of the best lineage and most reasonable.” An astrologer had also foretold that Nerva was destined to become emperor, and Domitian would have wanted him to be killed. Dio, however, relates that Domitian’s belief in astrology led him to trust a second soothsayer who told him erroneously that Nerva would soon die of natural causes (Dio Cassius 67.15.5–6). But it was Domitian who perished first, and not of natural causes.

Once in power, Nerva was quick to compensate for the damage done by Domitian. He returned unlawfully confiscated property and canceled many extravagant sacrifices and spectacles instituted by his predecessor. Nerva also set out to curb the informants (
delatores)
who had advanced themselves under Domitian by offering incriminating testimony against others. Domitian encouraged such behavior, for it gave him a pretext to convict Roman citizens and seize their property. Information on senators and other wealthy Romans was especially desirable to Domitian, so it became common practice for slaves and other servants to betray their masters. Nerva put to death these informants and acquitted those who had been convicted with such evidence (Dio Cassius 68.1.2; 2.1–2). Pliny the Younger rejoices that Trajan went beyond the actions of Nerva by sending into exile boatloads of informers who were rightfully cut off “from the lands devastated by their informing” (
Panegyricus
34.5).

Dio’s comments on these informers include the charges on which their victims were usually convicted. “No one was permitted to accuse anybody of impiety or of living the Jewish life” (Dio Cassius 68.1.2). The first charge of treason (
maiestas)
was a plausible accusation for an informer to bring. The second, however, is a surprising indication of the extent to which Judaism was restricted during Domitian’s reign. As
already mentioned, Dio had reported that Domitian’s cousin, Flavius Clemens, was executed for atheism and adopting “ways of the Jews.” Dio’s tone makes it clear that these charges were often spurious, but they would not have been made unless concern about the spread of Judaism existed. Apparently Jewish proselytizing had interested some Romans in the teachings of the Jewish law.

It is difficult to know how common this practice was, or to assess how the Romans would have understood what “living the Jewish life” meant. For instance, would Romans who joined the Jesus movement have been considered Jews at this time? By the time Dio writes in the late second century, the distinction between Jews and Christians would have been clear, but the same cannot necessarily be said for the late first-century society on which Dio was reporting. Evidence about the church in Rome can be found in the late first-century document known as 1 Clement. Scholars have long speculated that the author of this letter to the church in Corinth was related to Flavius Clemens. If true, this would support the contention that families of prominent Roman senators were involved in the Roman church during the late first century.

Nerva ruled effectively but briefly, and he is reported to have said that “I have done nothing to make it impossible for me to resign from office and live safely in retirement” (Dio Cassius 68.3.1). Unfortunately, his advanced age and ill health made him an easy target for those who sought to gain power during the tumultuous times following Domitian’s death. To strengthen his position and maintain the peace, Nerva adopted Marcus Ulpius Trajan and appointed him Caesar and coruler. Trajan had recently won a major military victory over the Germanic tribes, and some have suggested that Nerva did not willingly delegate power. If Trajan and his troops were a threat, it is understandable why Nerva chose to make him coruler and thereby avoid a bloody rivalry. This would also explain how Trajan, who was born in Spain, came to control the Roman Empire.

After his adoption in 97
CE
, Trajan remained in Germany, and even after Nerva’s death in 98
CE
delayed his return to Rome until he had completed an inspection of his troops along the northern frontier. According to Pliny, Trajan’s arrival at Rome in 99
CE
was met with an outpouring of adoration and devotion from the people (
Panegyricus
23.5). The brief principate of Nerva had done little to erase the terrible memories of Domitian’s reign. Pliny and other Romans were hoping for great things when the general Trajan arrived in the city.

The reign of Trajan (98–117
CE
) is usually recognized as a time of stability and prosperity in the empire. Much of this reputation rests on the positive assessment of Trajan in Pliny’s
Panegyricus.
Far from being a gushing piece of flattery, however, the
Panegyricus
was carefully worded political rhetoric, in which Pliny used every possible means to encourage the moderation Trajan exhibited in his first few months in office. He was especially pleased about Trajan’s temperateness in military matters and, as mentioned above, in not demanding excessive honors: “Never should we flatter him as a god or a divinity. We are speaking not of a tyrant but of a citizen, not of a master, but of a parent. He himself is one of us, and this is especially eminent and stands out, that he thinks he is one of us; even though he presides over human beings, he remembers that he is a human being” (
Panegyricus
2.3–4). As senatorial
propaganda, the
Panegyricus
held up the standard of the emperor as princeps, a first among equals in the ruling class of Rome. The title
optimus princeps
(“greatest prince”) became an important part of Trajan’s nomenclature, appearing on coins and inscriptions throughout his reign.

Information about the reign of Trajan can also be gleaned from the letters that Pliny wrote to the emperor while serving as his personal representative (
legatus).
Pliny was assigned to the regions of Pontus and Bithynia along the southern coast of the Black Sea. Even before he left, Pliny was obsessed with gaining Trajan’s approval. “I hope that you will judge my action to be reasonable, for I desire that all my actions and words be acceptable to your most sacred standards” (
Epistulae
10.3). The collected letters make it seem as if Pliny tried to report back on almost every word and deed. Pliny’s assigned task was to investigate the imperial finances in these territories and rectify discrepancies, but he consulted with Trajan on a wide variety of concerns.

The best-known surviving letters in Pliny’s correspondence with Trajan concern people accused of being Christians. Coming at the end of Pliny’s extant correspondence, these were written around 110
CE
, a year or two before his death. The allegations took Pliny by surprise, and he conducted a quick investigation to learn about the Christians: “By custom they had come together before sunrise on a set day and took turns singing songs to Christ as a god, and later to bind themselves in an oath, not for some criminal purpose . . . . After this they separated and assembled again to take food of a common and harmless kind. But they themselves had put a stop to these things after my edict, which followed your mandate” (
Epistulae
10.96). Pliny confirmed these reports by torturing two Christian slave women who were called deacons and concluded that, though misguided, the Christians were not involved in treasonous activity.

In spite of having found no evidence of wrongdoing, Pliny used his authority as legate of the emperor to execute any suspects who refused to renounce Christ by invoking the Roman gods and offering wine and incense to a statue of the emperor. The rationale for this action was that “whatever the nature of their confession, I am certain that their stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy deserves punishment” (
Epistulae
10.96.3). Trajan approved of Pliny’s actions without commenting on the specifics of the legal process. The emperor’s main concern was that accusations against alleged Christians not become another means by which informants could get rid of rivals. Trajan was especially adamant that anonymous accusations be prohibited, since “they are the worst sort of example and not appropriate for our age” (
Epistulae
10.97).