Category: Roman
Despite what Zeitgeist said, Jesus really did exist.
Guest Post: Greg Monette, Ph.D. student at the University of Wales/Oxford Centre for Mission Studies
Did Jesus exist? At first blush this might seem a silly question. “Of course he existed,” you might say. However, movies like Zeitgeist, as well as authors Tom Harpur [1] and Robert Price, [2] seem to think that a minimalist position on the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is the most historically responsible position to hold.
In a recent interview published in the United Church Observer, Canadian author Tom Harpur, a lapsed Christian, said the following about conservative and liberal New Testament scholars who “take the historical Jesus pretty seriously”: “Yeah, but they don’t offer a shred of historical evidence. Since my book was published, there has not been one scholar come forth with solid evidence from the first century, apart for [sic] a dubious reference in Josephus that they love to hurl around, a reference that is clearly, clearly, clearly false. I’ve been waiting for the evidence to show up” [3] Is Harpur right? Is there not “a shred of historical evidence” that Jesus of Nazareth existed? Is Christianity based on a myth?
For economy of space and time, I will not reproduce every early source that attests to Jesus’ existence from antiquity. However, I will list some of the major references where you can find the exact quotations relating to Jesus if you are interested in looking further: 1. Roman: Pliny the Younger (AD 62-113) Epistles 10.96; 2. Roman: Tacitus (AD 60-120) Annals 15.44; 3. Roman: Suetonius (AD 75-160) Life of Claudius 25.4; 4. Roman: Mara Bar Serapion (2nd or 3rd Cent.) in a letter; 5. Jewish: Flavius Josephus (AD 37-100), a disputed passage most historians feel was interpolated: The Antiquities of the Jewish People 18.3.3 [18.63-64], and one undisputed passage: Antiquities of the Jewish People 20.9.1 [20.200-203]. 6. Jewish: Various Rabbis (2nd-5th Cent.) The Talmud: b. Sanhedrin 43a (Babylonian Talmud).
There are also many other references to Jesus in Gospels not located in the New Testament due to their late dating (mid to late 2nd Century composition). There are too many to list here, the following book would be helpful to consult for some of these ancient texts: J.K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009).
However, despite this mountain of supporting evidence to the existence of Jesus in these non-Christian sources, the best evidence is found in the New Testament. The New Testament is made up of twenty-seven different documents (ancient biographies, letters, apocalyptic writings), all written in the 1st Century. Yes, the New Testament is biased because Christians composed it, but every text is biased. Bias does not necessarily equal unhistorical; if this were the case, every text from antiquity would be unhistorical. Historians agree that what we have in the New Testament alone is good enough to solidify the historical position that Jesus of Nazareth did exist.
Why do historians feel this way? The strongest argument is that before and during the time of Jesus, Jews did not believe that the Messiah (or Christ) was going to die. They believed that the Messiah was going to rise up and conquer the Romans, taking back Jerusalem, where the Messiah would replace Caesar as king. There is no way that the early Christians (a group of 1st Century Jews) would have made up a fictional story about a Messiah who dies. Even the skeptical New Testament scholar and co-founder of the Jesus Seminar, John Dominic Crossan wrote “That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be” [4]
In fact, New Testament historians use the historical fact of the death of Jesus (attested throughout the New Testament as well as outside the New Testament in many of the non-Christian sources referenced above) as a criterion for determining historically authentic material (sayings and deeds of Jesus) in the New Testament Gospels. There must have been a reason Jesus was put to death by the authorities. He must have said and did certain things to infuriate the establishment. He did not get crucified by telling people to love one another. He said a few other things too and scholars look to find these in the New Testament Gospels. University of Notre Dame New Testament Scholar John P. Meier is famous for saying: “A tweedy poetaster who spent his time spinning out parables and Japanese koans, a literary aesthete who toyed with 1st-century deconstructionism, or a bland Jesus who simply told people to look at the lilies of the field—such a Jesus would threaten no one, just as the university professors who create him threaten no one.” [5]
So far we have laid out the literary evidence for Jesus’ existence. This alone is more than enough to convince serious historians that Jesus of Nazareth existed. However, it may surprise some to know that we may actually possess genuine archaeological evidence for Jesus’ existence, namely a 1st Century burial box or ossuary with the following inscription: Ya’akov bar-Yosef akhui diYeshua (English translation: “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”). If genuine and not forged, it may be hard non-literary evidence for the existence of Jesus. The burial boxes discovery was announced at a meeting on October 21, 2002 in Washington co-hosted by the Discovery Channel and the Biblical Archaeology Society. The Israeli Antiquities Authority took the owner of the ossuary (Oded Golan) to court accusing him of forging the box. However, most experts called to testify during the court proceedings have supported Oded Golan in claiming the authenticity of the box and its antiquity. The Israeli judge is deliberating at this moment in order to decide whether or not the burial box was forged or not. After more than 5000 pages of testimony and 75 witnesses who gave expert testimony, the judge advised the prosecution in open court to highly consider dropping the case as their evidence against the boxes authenticity was weak. We will see in the coming months what the verdict is on this potentially very important artifact from antiquity which may provide hard evidence for the existence of Jesus. [6]
One final argument for the existence of Jesus is, quite simply, the existence of Christianity. It is a historical fact that Christianity exploded in growth in the second-half of the 1st Century and has continued to grow until today. [7] The minimalist needs to give a convincing argument to explain all of this away, and so far it has not been done.
All in all, I have yet to hear an intellectually plausible reason why one should believe Jesus never existed. Can you imagine if people started writing books about Caesar Augustus never existing, Alexander the Great or Muhammad? No serious historian doubts that any of these famous men from the past existed. It has been said that there is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth than any person from antiquity; this is probably true. Historians in other fields would love to have the embarrassment of riches that New Testament historians have to work with when they reconstruct historical portraits of Jesus of Nazareth. So, did Jesus exist? What do you think?
[1] Tom Harpur, The Pagan Christ (Walker & Company, 2005);
[2] Robert Price, “Jesus at the vanishing point” in James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy (eds.), The Historical Jesus: Five Views (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009) 55–103)
[3] Tom Harpur: as quoted in Ken Gallinger’s, “A Truly Spiritual Person Never Stops Thinking about the Implications of the Christos,” United Church Observer 74/11 (2011) 30–31, with quotation from p. 31).
[4] John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (New York: HarperCollins, 1994),145.
[5] See: John P. Meier, “The Criterion of Rejection and Execution,” in A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (Vol. 1, New York: Doubleday, 1991), 177.
[6] For more see: http://www.bib-arch.org/press-james-ossuary.asp).
[7] See: Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries (Princeton: HarperCollins, 1997).
Thought from the Ancient World: Suetonius on Titus’ victory over Jerusalem.
On Saturday I noted that Titus was seen as patient and moderate in his sacking of Jerusalem, a depiction which could very easily be contested (see “Interpreting the Destruction of Jerusalem”). Today I share the brief perspective of the historian Suetonius (c. 69 to c. 130 +). In his work The Twelve Caesars he writes of Titus (8.5),
“But observing that everything was once more in a state of turmoil, he turned back, and visiting the oracle of the Paphian Venus, to consult it about his voyage, he was also encouraged to hope for imperial power. Soon realising his hope and left behind to complete the conquest of Judaea, in the final attack on Jerusalem he slew twelve of the defenders with as many arrows; and he took the city on his daughter’s birthday, so delighting the soldiers and winning their devotion that they hailed him as Imperator and detained him from time to time, when he would leave the province, urging him with prayers and even with threats either to stay or to take them all with him.”
Titus was seen as a great hero by his soldiers. He had returned from other obligations to complete the victory over the Jews. When this happened he was so endeared to his followers that they declared his Emperor, and this almost put a rift in his relationship with his father, though he remained loyal to his father before eventually becoming emperor himself.
Saturdays in Second Temple Judaism: Interpreting the destruction of Jerusalem.
The sacking of Jerusalem depicted on Titus' arch.
Tomorrow is 9/11/11, marking ten years since the horrible attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, NY. It is amazing how videos of two buildings filled with citizens of the United States could cause eery silence from many while resulting in cheers of victory for others. In many ways there is a parallel with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE.
This is what Flavius Philostratus (c. 170-c.247) wrote over a century later in his Life of Apollonius 29 (trans. F.C. Conybeare):
After [Verspasian's son] Titus had taken Jerusalem, and when the country all round was filled with corpses, the neighboring races offered him a crown; but he disclaimed any such honor to himself, saying that it was not himself that had accomplished this exploit, but that he had merely lent his arms to God, who had so manifested his wrath; and Apollonius praised his action, for therein he displayed a great deal of judgment and understanding of things human and divine, and it showed great moderation on his part that he refused to be crowned because he had shed blood. Accordingly Apollonius indited to him a letter, which he sent by the hands of Damis and of which the text was as follows:
Apollonius sends greetings to Titus the Roman general.
Whereas you have refused to be proclaimed for success in war and for shedding the blood of your enemies, I myself assign to you the crown of temperance and moderation, because you thoroughly understand what deeds really merit a crown. Farewell.
Now Titus was overjoyed with this epistle, and replied:
In my own behalf I thank you, no less then in behalf of my father, and I will not forget your kindness; for although I have captured Jerusalem, you have captured me.
Apollonius was a teacher and miracle worker that Philostratus admired greatly. I don’t know if that impacts the historicity of this account, but it does show that Titus was admired for what he did and how he allowed the gods to use him.
Josephus, a Jewish historian writing The Wars of the Jews (VII.1) in the Roman context after 70 recalls the story like this:
Now, as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be objects of their fury (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other such work to be done) Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne, and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison; as were the towers also spared, in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valor had subdued; but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to by the madness of those that were for innovations; a city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind.
Josephus doesn’t describe Titus as having as much reserve as the idealistic letter attributed to Apollonius does. In fact, one could suggest that Josephus sees Titus’ actions as a bit excessive. In Wars of the Jews V.1 to this point and beyond it is hard to find honor in how the Romans devastated the Jew’s holy city and temple, though Josephus doesn’t demonize his new patrons, which is understandable.. The Jews fought thinking that their God was behind them and that their God would bring victory like he did against Pharaoh or Antiochus Epiphanes, but this was not so.
After 9/11 many Christians wondered where their God had been to allow this. Many Muslims thought their God has been victorious. Since then many Christians have thought their God was brining victory in Afghanistan and Iraq while many Muslims likely wonder why their God is allow this. Some things never change.
Lynn H. Cohick on women in the Roman world.
The Centre for Public Christianity has posted three informative videos with Lynn H. Cohick from Wheaton College discussing women in the Roman world and in early Christianity. The first video focuses on women in the Roman world and as disciples of Jesus. The second video focuses on women in the teachings of the Apostle Paul and some other women in the early church. The third video continues discussing other women in the early church and asks why the early church attracted women.
Thought from the Ancient World: Cicero on just war.
Today we citizens of the United States celebrate Independence Day. As an American it is a good day. While my country is not perfect it isn’t bad for a sovereign State run by mere mortals. I’d much rather be here than North Korea or Iran. But as a Christian it is always difficult to celebrate something that had to be secured through the bloodshed of fellow humans, especially if it can be shown it doesn’t fall under the auspices of classical just war theory.
That is not to say that I think highly of just war theory, but at least it plugs the dam before there is even more destruction.
On Mondays I usually share some excerpt of thought from the ancient world. It has often been the case that I find worthwhile content in the writings of Cicero. Today I will appeal to this philosopher-politician once again.
What did Cicero say about what we call “just war”? In De Officiis I.11.34-35 he writes the following:
Then, too, in the case of a state in its external relations, the rights of war must be strictly observed. For since there are two ways of settling a dispute: first, by discussion; second; by physical force; and since the former is characteristic of man, the latter of the brute, we must resort to force only in case we may not avail ourselves of discussion. The only excuse, therefore, for going to war is that we may live in peace unharmed; and when the victory is won, we should spare those who have not been blood-thirsty and barbarous in their warfare. For instance, our forefathers actually admitted to full rights of citizenship the Tusculans, Acquians, Volscians, Sabines, and Hernicians, but they razed Carthage and Numantia to the ground. I wish they had not destroyed Corinth; but I believe they had some special reason for what they did — its convenient situation, probably — and feared that its very location might some day furnish a temptation to renew the war. In my opinion, at least, we should always strive to secure a peace that shall not admit of guile. And if my advice had been heeded on this point, we should still have at least some sort of constitutional government, if not the best in the world, whereas, as it is, we have none at all. Not only must we show consideration for those whom we have conquered by force of arms but we must also ensure protection to those who lay down their arms and throw themselves upon the mercy of our generals, even though the battering-ram has hammered at their walls. And among our countrymen justice has been observed so conscientiously in this direction, that those who have given promise of protection to states or nations subdued in war become, after the custom of our forefathers, the patrons of those states.
I am no scholar of U.S. history, but it doesn’t seem that our fight for independence qualifies in the eyes of Cicero. There was likely more time and space for discussion and “taxation without representation” hardly qualifies as something preventing peace. In that sense our nation was born by means of an unjust war.
In I.11.36 he adds, “As for war, humane laws touching it are drawn up in the fetial code of the Roman People under all the guarantees of religion; and from this it may be gathered that no war is just, unless it is entered upon after an official demand for satisfaction has been submitted or warning has been given and a formal declaration made.” We did do this.
In I.11.37 he says that anyone who is not legally a soldier (i.e. has taken an oath) should not participate in warfare. This disqualifies normal day-to-day citizens from participating in the war. In some sense it should protect them as well.
This is part of the reason why pacifist scoff as those who propose that this or that war may be a “just” war. If we look at Cicero’s writings, and later those of thinkers like Augustine or Aquinas, it would seem that modern warfare cannot be engaged justly. All wars in our world are unjust because the nature of modern warfare has intensified greatly. Unless, of course, we broaden the definition of just war to include even more causes for going to war, but you see where this leads.
What do you think of the War for Independence? Was it a “just” war?
Thought from the Ancient World: Epicurean naturalism
The debate over whether or not a god or gods were involved in the creation of the earth is not a debate that began with Darwin. In Cicero’s On the Gods, I. 53 (trans. P.G. Walsh, p. 21), Gaius Velleius is quoted as defending the Epicurean understanding of deity over against the Stoic god who is “plagued with hard work” (I. 52). He says of the “wholly inactive” (I.51) Epicurean deity the following:
“But we Epicureans define the life of blessedness as residing in the possession of untroubled mind and relaxation from all duties. Our mentor who has schooled us in all else has also taught us that the world was created naturally, without the need for a craftsman’s role, and the process which in your view cannot be put in train without the skillful touches of a god is so straightforward that nature has created, is now creating, and will continue to create innumerable worlds.”
Unlike most naturalist today, Gaius Velleius affirms a deity. He sees this deity maybe as a source of the world around us, but no active creator. This is somewhat like theistic evolutionism as explained by some.
So we see that debate over whether or not there is a form of naturalism where a personified nature evolves itself or whether as Stoic and today’s Intelligent Design adherents argue there is a deity at work is not recent or now. It goes back to even before the time of Cicero.
Thought from the Ancient World: Cicero on crucifixion.
I think many of us who have heard someone describe crucifixion understand that it was a terrible thing. In Michael Licona’s The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach he mentions that Cicero commented on crucifixion, so I decided to search for the broader context. It is in Against Verres 2.5.165. He is bemoaning the crucifixion of a Roman citizen named Gavius who cried out over and over that he was a Roman while being lead to his death. One Verres ignored the claim and proceeded anyways.
In his accusation against Verres he says, “You confess that he did cry out that he was a Roman citizen; but that the name of citizenship did not avail with you even as much as to cause the least hesitation in your mind, or even any brief respite from a most cruel and ignominious punishment.”
For Cicero a Roman citizen should never, ever be subject to crucifixion. It is “a most cruel and ignominious punishment”.
On the other hand, a Jewish criminal who may be an enemy of the State has no rights. When Jesus went to die he went to suffer “a most cruel and ignominious punishment”. It was troubling enough of an event that Cicero couldn’t imagine a Roman being allowed to experience it.
Thought from the Ancient World: Gaius Velleius critiques various views of the gods
In Cicero’s The Nature of the God (I. 18-42; trans. P.G. Walsh) he recounts senator Gaius Velleius’ (an Epicurean) critique of the various views of the gods that he had heard. It is an interesting section worth reading for the mere sake of learning how various thinkers did “theology” in the ancient world. I have summarized Velleius’ commentary below:
Abaxagoras: God is reason and infinite mind. (I.26)
Thales of Miletus: Water was the first principle and god is the mind that fashioned everything from water (I.25).
Alcmaeon of Croton: The sin, moon, stars, and soul are divine. (I. 27)
Anaximenes: God is air. (I.26)
Antisthenes: One god in nature. (I. 32)
Aristo: He is semi-agnostic. (I. 37)
Arist0tle: The mind is divine, the world itself, and sometimes some person (?). (I.33)
Chrysippus: He put together a massive crowd of “unknown gods”. Also, he saw the soul and mind of nature and the universe as deity. (I. 39)
Cleanthes: The universe is god. Sometimes the mind and soul of nature. Finally, the “highest band of heat” in all creation is a god. (I. 37)
Democritus: Wandering images, nature, and our perception and understanding are somehow related to the divine. (I.29)
Diogenes of Apollonia: Air is divine. (I.29)
Empedocles: The four elements from which everything derives is divine. (I. 29)
Heraclides of Pontus: The universe is divine and maybe “Mind”. (I. 34)
Pythagoras: A great soul pervades the world from which our souls have detached. (I.27)
Persaeus: He thought great men could become gods. (I. 38)
Protagoras: Agnostic. (I. 29)
Plato: In some places he says that god cannot be named, some places he seems agnostic, some places the universe is divine, some the sky, the stars, the earth, our souls, and even deities from ancestral tradition. (I. 30)
Speusippus: There is a force by which all things controlled. (I. 32)
Strato: All divine power lies within nature itself. (I. 35)
Theophrastus: Sometimes it is “Mind” that is divine, sometimes the heavens, sometimes the stars. (I. 35)
Xenocrates: There are eight gods. (I. 34)
Xenophanes: The whole world has a mind as it is a god. (I. 28)
Xenophon: Agnostic at times, at other times sees the sun and soul as divine. Sometimes he is monotheistic and sometimes pluralistic. (I. 31)
Zeno: The law of nature is divine. The “upper air” is god. (I. 36)
To all this Velleius says:
“These approximate views which I have outlined are not considered judgments by philosophers, but the dreams of madman, indeed, the utterances of poets are not much more ridiculous, though the very charm they exercise is harmful, with their portrayal of the gods as fired with anger and maddened with lust; they have set before our eyes their wars and battles, their conflicts and wounds, their hatred and divisions and disagreements, their births and deaths, their plaints and outbursts of grief, their uncontrolled lust, their adulteries and the bonds confining them, their sexual intercourse with humans, and their begetting of mortals from their immortal seed.” (I. 42)
It seems like much of what we read here is still in circulation in some form today!
Licona on the Resurrection (Pt. 6)
Licona, Michael R. (2010) The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. (Buy from IVPress.com here)
Read Pt. 1 here.
Read Pt. 2 here.
Read Pt. 3 here.
Read Pt. 4 here.
Read Pt. 5 here.
This post is the second straight one where we examine the sources that Michael Licona uses in his investigation into the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus (see Pt. 5 for the last one). As I mentioned last time Licona put together the following ratings in order to rate the value of each document as a solid source for historical research into this topic: unlikely, possible-minus, possible, possible-plus, highly probable, indeterminate, and not useful (p. 201). The categories explored in pp. 235-276 include (1) Non-Christian Sources; (2) Rabbinic Sources; (3) Apostolic Fathers; and (4) Other Non-Canonical Christian Literature; (5) Revelation Dialogues.
Non-Christian Sources:
Licona summons Josephus who mentions Jesus in Ant. 18.63-64 and 20.200. The only one of these two that may address the resurrection is 18.63-64, though it is oft debated whether or not some or all of this text is an interpolation. I have highlighted the areas Licona finds authentic:
“At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.”
After Meir he provides an adjusted text where instead of “For he appeared to them on the third day…” it reads, “For they reported that he appeared to them alive.” Licona finds this alteration possible. Overall he gives Josephus’ writings the ranking of possible.
Other include Tacitus (possible); Pliny the Younger (not useful); Suetonius (not useful); Mara bar Serapion (not useful); Thallus (possible); Lucian (not useful); and Celsus (unlikely). So amongst non-Christian authors only Josephus and Tacitus may possibly provide statements useful for investigating the resurrection of Jesus.
Rabbinic Sources:
Licona cites only b. Sanhedrin 43a from the Babylonian Talmud. It mentions Jesus’ crucifixion. He ranks it as unlikely.
Apostolic Fathers:
Clement of Rome is seen as possible-plus because Licona finds good evidence for an early date for the composition of 1 Clement. Polycarp is possible because he is fairly early and Irenaeus says he knew the Apostle John. The Letter of Barnabas receives the ranking of possible-minus because it seems to be written sometime inbetween 70 and the 130′s, after the fall of the temple when temple reconstruction was still possible.
Non-Canonical Christian Literature:
The Gospel of Thomas receives several pages of commentary (pp. 257-268) addressing the views of Koester, Pagels, Funks, Evans, Hurtado, Perrin, et al. He determines the document to have possible value for “the presence of some unique apostolic testimony” but unlikely as regards the resurrection. The Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Judas both receive the rank of unlikely.
Revelation Dialogues:
In the last part (pp. 272-275) Licona mentions revelation dialogues. He names a few, assigns them the ranking of unlikely, and then says a bit about Pseudo-Mark (Mk. 16.9-20) and possible issues surrounding the ending of the Second Gospel.
All in all, as is likely predictable, it is canonical books that will receive the most respect and attention. In the next part of the book Licona examines “historical bedrock” concerning “the fate of Jesus”.
The Roman emperors depicted
When I was in the Vatican Museum in Rome and the The Louvre in Paris there were several statues of various Roman emperors. I took some pictures that I thought would be worth sharing here. It was a bit odd that I could not find one of Caligula or Nero. I guess not every emperor was easy to remember.
Caesar Augustus
Caesar Augustus
Claudius
Domitian
Tiberius
Titus
Trajan
Nero’s lake of wine
Yesterday I mentioned a story that highlighted Gaius Caligula’s insanity. Today I share one about Nero, though I am not sure if we can call him insane as much as we can call him absolutely perverted (or as Jim West would say, totally depraved):
“[Nero] and his court thew huge parties. The most notorious was a party given by Tigellinus. The gathering took place in the centre of theatre, turned into an artificial lake. It is the kind of incident that Dio loves to relate. The waters of the lake become a giant wine cooler and round the edges of the lake were created taverbs and booths at which wine flowed freely. In the centre, the lord of misrule Tigellinus and Nero sat watching the unfolding anarchy. The taverns and booths were occupied by women of all statuses, chosen for their beauty. The result was a drunken orgy of rape. Prostitutes and respectable women were involved. Father were forced to watch the rape of their daughters. Slaved raped their mistresses. Some of both sexes were killed in the rioting (Dio, LXII 15). Dio’s account is sensationalist, while Tacitus (Ann. XV 37) provides a more restrained version. (Richard Alston, Aspects of Roman History: AD 14-117, p. 115)
It is impossible to know how much is based in reality, and how much is mythological, but it shows that Nero was the type of monster whose legacy could create such stories. If he met the Apostle Paul that must have been one interesting encounter.
Gaius Caligula’s honored horse
While traveling to Europe I was reading Richard Alston’s Aspects of Roman History: AD 14-117. It is categorized by ruling emperor. The most awkward personality was not Nero (as I thought it would be) but rather Gaius Caligula who reigned from 37-41 following Tiberius who followed Augustus.
There is a great story about his lunacy (or genius if one proposes he was doing whatever he could to irritate the senate). It is about a horse named Incitatus. Alston writes,
“The horse was apparently a champion at the games and so pleased Gaius that he decided it would make a good dinner companion. Impressing Gaius with its political insights and intelligence, he promised to elevate Incitatus to the highest office in the senate, but, in the end (and perhaps rather sadly), Gaius was killed before Incitatus became the first horse to hold high political office in Rome (Dio, LIX 14.7).”
This story is hilarious. An emperor seeking to nominate a horse for the high seat in the senate. I think I will complain about US politics a little less after reading this!
The Arch of Constantine in the shadow of the Roman Colosseum
One of the amazing things about being in Rome last week was seeing the by-gone glory of the Roman Empire right next to the memorials of Christendom, both past and present. While I was in the Roman Colosseum there was a point when I could peer over at the Arch of Constantine. In the Colosseum legend tells us Christians may have been tortured and killed as enemies of the state. At the Arch of Constantine we remember the military victory of the first emperor of Rome to legalize Christianity.
I tend to be one who thinks negatively of Constantine. Yet I have often asked myself how I would see him if I had been a Roman Christian in that day. As an American Christian there has never been a time in my life where I was under a hostile government that didn’t allow me to live religiously. Would I have viewed Constantine differently if I went from persecuted minority to someone who could both worship Christ and not worry about persecution? Probably.
These two symbols of Christianity threatened and Christianity vindicated represent an internal tension within me. Do I think my faith has lost some of its original vision once it became vogue? Yes. Do I want to experience what my brothers and sisters in places like Afghanistan, China, or Iraq experience? No, not at all. I love/hate what happened to Christianity after Constantine. I am not sure if I will ever resolve this.
