Persecution: Jewish or Roman?

 

Revelation 1:9:  “Companion in tribulation.”

 

            Discerning the purpose of any writing is crucial to its interpretation.  Just so, in the book of Revelation, what one discerns as its primary purpose colors every aspect of the interpretation of the book.  Many interpreters see the purpose of the book as being to comfort those who are being persecuted.  Those who thus interpret the purpose of the book then usually interpret this persecution as coming from the Roman government.  There are therefore two questions to be examined: (1) Is the primary purpose of the book to comfort those suffering persecution? And (2) is the persecution alluded to in the book from the Romans or from the Jews?

            The question of the source of persecution is tied to the date of the writing.  Those who see the date of writing as in Domitian‘s reign, c. AD 96, view the persecution as coming from the Roman Empire, and Mystery Babylon as Rome.  These three interpretations, i.e., the date of writing, the source of persecution and the identity of Mystery Babylon, all depend upon each other and neither of them can stand alone.  If any one of them is totally proven, the others would be on much steadier ground.  However, if any one of them is totally disproven, the others must fall with it.

            Those who see the writing as being in Nero‘s reign, about AD 64-68, have the option to view the persecution as coming both from the Roman Empire, interpreted as the Beast, and Mystery Babylon, interpreted either as the fallen religion of Judaism as represented by Jerusalem, or as Rome.

            The Roman persecution under Nero as described by Tacitus[1] was probably not a general law against Christianity as such but a specific charge such as of arson.  Tacitus had no respect for Christianity, but admitted that the charges of their having set fire to Rome in AD 64 were a “frame-up.”  Whatever difficulties they may have encountered at this time in Rome, Cary says: “There is no evidence for persecution outside Rome” (ibid., note 27) and Nero’s ruthless treatment of Christians caused the general populous to pity them and to hate Nero even more (ibid., 359).  The Church historians have little record or memory of the Neronian persecution.  Other than Tacitus, they have Suetonias’ allusion to a disturbance in Rome caused by one “Chrestus” which may have been his mistaken conception of a Jewish uprising against the Christians in that city (ibid., 639, n.50).  Therefore, there is little evidence of widespread Roman persecution in Nero’s reign, but there is evidence that there was a “frame-up” against the Christians and a Jewish uprising against the Christians.

            Those who date the writing in Domitian‘s reign, about AD 96, look for historical evidence of Roman persecution of the Church in the provinces of Asia Minor in that era of time.  Cary and Scullard say:

The attitude of the emperors to the Christians was seemingly not defined until the reign of Trajan. [AD 98-117] The execution of Christians at Rome under Nero was a mere afterthought … and did not result in any general proscription of their worship.  Under Vespasian the Christian community at Rome went unmolested, and the evidence of widespread martyrdoms at Rome under Domitian is of the slightest … although the book of Revelation suggests wider persecution and disturbances in Asia Minor (ibid., 487).

 

And it is repeated:

“The evidence for any serious Domitian persecution is very slight: even Tertullian says Domitian soon changed his mind and recalled those whom he had exiled, but some Christians probably came under his ban on the spread of Oriental religions … and the measures taken against proselytizing Jews and judaising Gentiles” (ibid., 412).

 

            Another candidate for a persecutor of the Jews is Vespasian, who organized a treasury called the fiscus Iudaicus which required that the tax which Jews had previously paid to the Temple now be paid to the Capitoline temple at Rome (ibid., 641 n. 11).  This would have been interpreted by the Jews as idolatry.  Likewise it is possible that Vitellius may have been seen as Nero redivivus as he imitated Nero’s propensity to party incessantly (ibid., 406).

            Here we see that the only real “evidence” for widespread persecution in Asia Minor during the reign of Domitian is that in the book of Revelation!  This shows that circular reasoning, a logical fallacy, has been used to interpret the book of Revelation: i.e., that “the book of Revelation shows that there was persecution under Domitian, therefore the persecution under Domitian is the subject of the book of Revelation”.  Indeed, as regards the Romans, the Jews had a certain immunity from prosecution in regards to their religion at this period of time.

            Several recent studies concerning widespread persecution of Christians under Domitian have refuted the statements by Eusebius of Caesarea and others which have previously been used as source material.  Going to the writers Statius and Quintilian who were commissioned by Domitian himself these studies refute the notion that Domitian encouraged or even accepted divine titles.[2]  Others agree that if the Apocalypse “does refer to conditions in Asia Minor under Domitian it is the only source for such a persecution” (ibid., 153-4).

            Because of the reference in the book of Revelation Cary and Scullard also suppose there was persecution in Asia Minor:

Refusal to worship the emperor, as opposed to the gods, was perhaps a less common cause of conflict than has sometimes been supposed, … though it probably accounted for the death of Christians in Asia (especially at Pergamum) under Domitian referred to in the Apocalypse” (Cary and Scullard, 650, n. 65).

 

            But does the book of Revelation really suggest this or is it only misinterpreted to suggest it?  I submit that it is a misinterpretation.  Cary and Scullard continue:

            During the first half-century after the crucifixion of Jesus the Roman governors in the eastern provinces took no active measures against the Christians, but in the closing years of the first century they executed a sufficient number to create a precedent for their persecution….  Knowledge of Nero‘s action might encourage local enemies of Christians to try to persuade a governor to accept their accusations and proceed against the accused on the assumption that they were in some way guilty of conduct inimical to the interests of the Roman state.  This at any rate appears to be what faced Pliny, who was sent as legatus-Augusti to reorganise the disturbed province of Bithynia-Pontus about AD 110.

            In a letter to Trajan Pliny asked for more definite instructions in regard to the Christians, since he was ignorant of their normal punishment because he had never taken part in a trial concerning them…. hence, he asked for Trajan’s ruling.  In his reply the emperor did not lay down a universal rule; he declared that they were not to be hunted out, but if they were accused (and no anonymous accusations were to be accepted) and convicted, they must be punished.  Anyone who denied that he was a Christian and sacrificed to the gods should be pardoned,….  In issuing these instructions Trajan adhered somewhat blindly to the principle of the routine administrator that a practice, one covered by precedents, must continue, and he missed the opportunity of regulating the position of the Christians on the lines of common sense laid down by Augustus, when he exempted the Jews from Caesar-worship….  True, it was a local instruction, and other governors were not bound by it, but once it was published all other governors would be likely to follow this precedent until official policy was changed (and this apparently did not occur for nearly a century and a half, under Decius)….  A further instruction by Hadrian to the proconsul of Asia, Minucius Fundanus, in reply to a question by his predecessor, gave the Christians a slight additional protection by ordaining that they should not be subject to vexatious attacks by the calumnia (malicious or frivolous prosecution) procedure (AD 122-123) (ibid., 487-8).

            ….Pliny evidently at first acted on confession of the name and had such ‘confessors’ executed out of hand.  But he then asked Trajan about ‘crimes connected with the name’….  His first action suggests that the name sufficed alone.  But if ‘flagita’ were also considered, what were they?  We must of course dismiss ‘Thyestean banquets’, charges of cannibalism and incest, arising from a misunderstanding of the Lord’s Supper; any such charge would soon be exploded, as Pliny discovered on inquiry….  it is unlikely that the basis of prosecution was ‘illegal association’ ….  Sherwin-White thinks that Pliny, after discovering that flagita did not exist, punished the Christians for contumacia, their refusal to obey a reasonable order (ibid., 650, n. 68).

 

            Some studies suggest that it was not so much the attitude of the Emperor that determined persecution, but that of the local provincial governors who yielded to mob pressure or indulged his own desires and biases (ibid.).  We see from this that in the province of Asia in the period immediately following Domitian‘s reign that there was no clear cut Roman policy concerning persecution of Christians.  It seems that if there had been widespread persecution in this area under Domitian that there would have been a well understood policy.

            We also see from this that the Christians suffered because of calumnia, false and frivolous accusations by their fellow citizens.  As Thompson says: “If Pliny‘s correspondence is typical, the populous was more adamant than Roman officials in bringing Christians to trial.”[3] It is not difficult to guess who these accusers were when we realize the hatred toward them from Judaism and its followers.  These calumnia were no doubt from Jews who had begun with Christ and then carried on against His followers.  In Rome, Alexandria, Babylon and other places, “the Jews” continued to incite the mobs against the Christians.  Cary and Scullard estimate that there may have been 5,000,000 Jews in the Empire at this time (Cary and Scullard, 641, n. 12).

            Thompson says:

In the province of Asia Jews played a significant role in the social, political life of the people and apparently participated fully in the prosperity of the cities throughout the first and second centuries of the Common Era even when Jews elsewhere were in revolt against Rome.  Jews had settled in those cities as early as the third century before the common era, somewhat as peace-keeping forces (Josephus, A.J.12.148-53).  Within the seven cities of the Apocalypse, the rights of Jews to observe Sabbath and other religious obligations were confirmed and recognized …; they built synagogues – at Sardis, by the end of the second century, the synagogue was part of a larger building which served as a social center for the city including a gymnasium, shops, and palestra complex…; they contributed financially to the cost of building public buildings…; they were members of the guilds and trade unions…; they were citizens of the cities and of Rome; sometimes they served as city councilors, provincial administrators of the Roman government, and even as procurator….  Honored members of the synagogue were apparently untroubled by the ‘religious observances connected with citizenship and office-holding.’  …. In Asia Minor one kind of diaspora Judaism emerges, ‘a picture of a number of Ionians, Phrygians and Lydians, each of whom participates in the life and its government, honoring its traditions, and all the while remaining within the race and the faith of the Jews.[4]