Was Roman emperor Domitian really the great persecutor of Christians?
As I revisited a critical biography of the Roman emperor Domitian by the scholar Brian W. Jones recently,1 I was reminded that “alternative facts” and “fake news” are not just a contemporary phenomenon. On occasion ancient writers similarly tried to spin their version of the truth. Jones tackles the familiar line that Domitian, who reigned between 81 and 96 C.E., was a great persecutor of Christians. This “fact” is now standard stock in much popular writing on the book of Revelation and is even found in some scholarly tomes. In his discussion, Jones carefully rehearses how this “fact” developed.
Eusebius in his Church History (CH) provides the first reference to Domitian persecuting the church. Writing over three centuries later in the early fourth century C.E., this ancient Christian historian first quotes Melito of Sardis, who mentioned that Domitian brought slanderous accusations against Christians (CH 4.26.9). He also cites Tertullian, who claimed that Domitian was cruel like the emperor Nero (r. 54–68 C.E.), but that Domitian was more intelligent, so he ceased his cruelty and recalled the Christians he had exiled (CH 3.20.9). Eusebius also quotes Irenaeus, who claimed Domitian’s persecution consisted only of John’s banishment to Patmos and the exile of other Christians to the island of Pontia (CH 3.18.1, 5).
Despite these cautious statements by three earlier authors, Eusebius then spun his own alternative fact by claiming that Domitian, like Nero, had “stirred up persecution against us” (“anekinei diōgmon”; CH 3.17). From here the tradition was enlarged by Orosius (d. 420 C.E.), who, in his History Against the Pagans, wrote that Domitian issued edicts for a general and cruel persecution (7.10.5). Despite a lack of evidence, Jones observes that the tradition concerning Domitian’s persecution persists: “From a frail, almost non-existent basis, it gradually developed and grew large.”2 Thus the alternative facts sown by these ancient historians grew to a truism of Christian history.
In the free eBook Paul: Jewish Law and Early Christianity, learn about the cultural contexts for the theology of Paul and how Jewish traditions and law extended into early Christianity through Paul’s dual roles as a Christian missionary and a Pharisee.
No pagan writer of the time ever accused Domitian, as they had Nero, of persecuting Christians. Pliny, for example, served as a lawyer under Domitian and wrote in a letter to Trajan (r. 98–117 C.E.) that he was never present at the trial of a Christian (Letters 10.96.1). This is a strange claim for one of Domitian’s former officials if Christian persecution were so prevalent. The archaeologist Julian Bennett, who has written a biography of Trajan, also fails to mention any general persecution of Christians at this time. Domitian’s execution of Clemens has sometimes been linked to the senator’s apparent “atheism,” a term sometimes given to Christians. However, there is no “smoking gun” linking Clemens’s death to Christian persecution.3 So Jones concludes, “No convincing evidence exists for a Domitianic persecution of the Christians.”4
Dig into more than 9,000 articles in the Biblical Archaeology Society’s vast library plus much more with an All-Access pass.
A related “fact” is that Domitian claimed the title Dominus et Deus (“Lord and God”). The evidence here is mixed. The poet Statius (Silvae 1.6.83–84) states that Domitian rejected the title Dominus as his predecessor Augustus (the first Roman emperor) had done. The historian Suetonius (Life of Domitian 13.2) does report that Domitian dictated a letter that began, “Our Lord and Master orders…,” but it was only his sycophantic officials who began to address him in this way. The story was again embellished by later historians to the point that Domitian is said to have ordered its use. Jones thinks the story incredible because Domitian was known for his habitual attention to theological detail in traditional Roman worship, so he would not have adopted such inflammatory divine language. After their deaths, the best that emperors could hope for was to be called Divus (Divine), not Deus (God). If Domitian were such a megalomaniac who ordered worship to himself, why haven’t any inscriptions been found using this formula? In fact, no epigraphic evidence exists attesting to Christians being forced to call him “Lord and God.”
Why is Domitian’s legacy so clouded in the ancient sources? Domitian’s assassination in 96 C.E. brought an end to the Flavian dynasty, and the dynasty founded by Nerva, the next Roman emperor, lasted into the third century C.E. Because Domitian had offended the aristocratic elite, the Senate ordered the damnation of his memory. Even though Suetonius (Domitian 8.1) stated that Domitian carefully and conscientiously administered justice, later writers such as Dio Chrysostom (67.2.4) perpetuated his damaged reputation using alternative facts.
Jones writes as a Roman historian outside of Biblical studies, but a New Testament scholar has similarly articulated this view. Leonard Thompson notes that a more critical reading of Eusebius raises doubts about a widespread persecution of Christians under Domitian. He concludes that “most modern commentators no longer accept a Domitianic persecution of Christians.”5 Some writers consider Revelation as a source for a persecution by Domitian, although John never identifies a specific emperor. If so, then Revelation would be the only ancient source pointing to such a persecution.
Over two decades since two Roman historians and a Revelation scholar have pronounced a Domitianic persecution moribund, such claims continue to circulate in articles, books and sermons. This shows how long it takes to repudiate “alternative facts” that have circulated for over 1,500 years in Christendom. Literary texts may sow alternative facts, but archaeological realia, such as inscriptions and coins, have assisted in discrediting those alleged facts. The “fake news” that Domitian instigated a severe persecution of Christians and that his claim to be “Master and God” provoked this persecution needs to be removed from our “facts” about the early church.
In the free eBook Paul: Jewish Law and Early Christianity, learn about the cultural contexts for the theology of Paul and how Jewish traditions and law extended into early Christianity through Paul’s dual roles as a Christian missionary and a Pharisee.
Mark Wilson is the director of the Asia Minor Research Center in Antalya, Turkey, and is a popular teacher on BAS Travel/Study tours. Mark received his doctorate in Biblical studies from the University of South Africa (Pretoria), where he serves as a research fellow in Biblical archaeology. He is currently Associate Professor Extraordinary of New Testament at Stellenbosch University. He leads field studies in Turkey and the eastern Mediterranean for university, seminary and church groups. He is the author of Biblical Turkey: A Guide to the Jewish and Christian Sites of Asia Minor and Victory through the Lamb: A Guide to Revelation in Plain Language. He is a frequent lecturer at BAS’s Bible Fests.
1. Brian W. Jones, The Emperor Domitian (New York: Routledge, 1992).
2. Jones, Emperor Domitian, p. 114.
3. Julian Bennett notes that the charge against Clemens and his family was that they had adopted Jewish religious ways. He then considers whether Judaism or Christianity is meant and opts for the latter as “more likely.” See Julian Bennett, Trajan: Optimus Princeps (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 68.
4. Jones, Emperor Domitian, p. 117.
5. Leonard L. Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1990), p. 16.
Excavating Ancient Pella
Archaeology investigates the Jerusalem Christians’ escape to Pella
The Archaeological Quest for the Earliest Christians: Part 1 and Part 2 by Douglas Boin
Roman Emperor Nerva’s Reform of the Jewish Tax by Nathan T. Elkins
This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on July 24, 2017.
The world of the Bible is knowable. We can learn about the society where the ancient Israelites, and later Jesus and the Apostles, lived through the modern discoveries that provide us clues.
Biblical Archaeology Review is the guide on that fascinating journey. Here is your ticket to join us as we discover more and more about the biblical world and its people.
Each issue of Biblical Archaeology Review features lavishly illustrated and easy-to-understand articles such as:
• Fascinating finds from the Hebrew Bible and New Testament periods
• The latest scholarship by the world's greatest archaeologists and distinguished scholars
• Stunning color photographs, informative maps, and diagrams
• BAR's unique departments
• Reviews of the latest books on biblical archaeology
The BAS Digital Library includes:
• 45+ years of Biblical Archaeology Review
• 20+ years of Bible Review online, providing critical interpretations of biblical texts
• 8 years of Archaeology Odyssey online, exploring the ancient roots of the Western world in a scholarly and entertaining way,
• The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land
• Video lectures from world-renowned experts.
• Access to 50+ curated Special Collections,
• Four highly acclaimed books, published in conjunction with the Smithsonian Institution: Aspects of Monotheism, Feminist Approaches to the Bible, The Rise of Ancient Israel and The Search for Jesus.
The All-Access membership pass is the way to get to know the Bible through biblical archaeology.
Sign up to receive our email newsletter and never miss an update.
Dig into the illuminating world of the Bible with a BAS All-Access membership. Combine a one-year tablet and print subscription to BAR with membership in the BAS Library to start your journey into the ancient past today!Subscribe Today
I’m curious about the reasoning behind this line:
“No pagan writer of the time ever accused Domitian, as they had Nero, of persecuting Christians.”
This appears to be referring to the single mention by Tacitus? I think there are solid arguments that this is a Christian alteration of a passage about Chrestians, as argued in this 2014 paper:
To summarise my perception of the important points:
– The passage is in the wrong place to fit the chronology of Jesus.
– Tacitus said it was a name, which matches Chrestus but not Jesus.
– We know Christians forged passages in contemporary texts, with one obvious example being the Testimonium Flavianum.
– We know Christians weren’t associated with the fire of Rome, because there’s no way Pliny the Younger wouldn’t have heard of that.
– Suetonius attests to a rebel Chrestus in Rome in this period.
– Suetonius separately attests to Christians and makes no connection to the fire.
– Acts has no knowledge of the fire being related to Christianity.
– We have direct manuscript evidence that an earlier passage was about Chrestians, not Christians.
– Tacitus was a snob about spelling and grammar, so claims of other misspellings of Christians as “Chrestians” don’t apply to his own words.
– We know that Chrestus was a common slave name at the time.
– Tacitus uses the past tense: meaning the group he was referring to didn’t exist in his own time. This matches Chrestians but does not match Christians.
– Tacitus mentions “a huge multitude”, which doesnt match Christians at that time, but would match the entire Jewish population of Rome.
– The phrase “not so much for the crime of burning the city as because of the hatred of mankind” doesn’t match Christian doctrine, but could match a violent rebel group with a history of crimes.
– Most importantly: there is no evidence that Christians were connected to the fire until hundreds of years later. The earliest link between Christians and the fire comes from the 4th century Christian forgery of letters between Paul and Seneca. This might even be the inspiration for the Christian interpolation in Tacitus.
[…] Scholars speculate too that Luke wrote his gospel around 85 CE in the time of emperor Domitian. Claims by later Christian historians of widespread persecution by Domitian have been mostly debunked (https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/post-biblical-period/domitian-persecution-…😉 […]
It appears to me, that the primary reason for making out that Domitian was a significant persecutor of Jews/Christians is to validate the idea that Revelation was written after the destruction of Jerusalem so that other interpretations can be applied. But then people who believe this, want to argue that the persecution has not been fulfilled yet. Hmmm.
I am a relaxed preterist that acknowledges that history repeats itself, and I still think there is a simpler and more obvious interpretation, even if it doesn’t generate the same hype.
The Flavian emperors were responsible for the creation of Christianity. Read Joseph Atwill’s CAESAR’S MESSIAH for the skinny on this.
So being referred to as ‘Divine’ is not implying godhood?? Really?? Banishing John and others believers to Patmos isn’t reeealy persecution now. How ridiculous. This guy is all over the place and clearly has lost credibility by virtue of his softness of what IS persecution. This is what little he chose to include in this piece of work. Have you ever looked at the Ten Commandments and seen your heart, according to what Jesus Himself said and seen where you are really at and where you are heading?
Simply because the record of preserved history doesn’t fit our expectations (or preconceived ideas) of what “persecution” looks like does not justify dismissing the claims of those much closer to the events than we are. Why would Tertullian compare him to Nero in cruelty if this cruelty did not affect Christians? It is presumptuous to accuse Eusebius (who had far more access to the records of Roman history than we do) of having “spun” his own alternative picture of events. If the claim is that it was not an empire-wide persecution, fair enough. If the claim is there was no persecution, that takes it too far. The evidence clearly proves there was a persecution of Christians that was broader than that of Nero.
“The Second Persecution, Under Domitian, A.D. 81
Bible / Our Library / History / Fox’s Book of Martyrs / The Second Persecution, Under Domitian, A.D. 81
The First Persecution, Under Nero, A.D. 67 The Third Persecution, Under Trajan, A.D. 108
The Second Persecution, Under Domitian, A.D. 81
The emperor Domitian, who was naturally inclined to cruelty, first slew his brother, and then raised the second persecution against the Christians. In his rage he put to death some of the Roman senators, some through malice; and others to confiscate their estates. He then commanded all the lineage of David be put to death.
Among the numerous martyrs that suffered during this persecution was Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem, who was crucified; and St. John, who was boiled in oil, and afterward banished to Patmos. Flavia, the daughter of a Roman senator, was likewise banished to Pontus; and a law was made, “That no Christian, once brought before the tribunal, should be exempted from punishment without renouncing his religion.”
A variety of fabricated tales were, during this reign, composed in order to injure the Christians. Such was the infatuation of the pagans, that, if famine, pestilence, or earthquakes afflicted any of the Roman provinces, it was laid upon the Christians. These persecutions among the Christians increased the number of informers and many, for the sake of gain, swore away the lives of the innocent.
Another hardship was, that, when any Christians were brought before the magistrates, a test oath was proposed, when, if they refused to take it, death was pronounced against them; and if they confessed themselves Christians, the sentence was the same.
The following were the most remarkable among the numerous martyrs who suffered during this persecution.
Dionysius, the Areopagite, was an Athenian by birth, and educated in all the useful and ornamental literature of Greece. He then travelled to Egypt to study astronomy, and made very particular observations on the great and supernatural eclipse, which happened at the time of our Savior’s crucifixion.
The sanctity of his conversation and the purity of his manners recommended him so strongly to the Christians in general, that he was appointed bishop of Athens.
Nicodemus, a benevolent Christian of some distinction, suffered at Rome during the rage of Domitian’s persecution.
Protasius and Gervasius were martyred at Milan.
Timothy was the celebrated disciple of St. Paul, and bishop of Ephesus, where he zealously governed the Church until A.D. 97. At this period, as the pagans were about to celebrate a feast called Catagogion, Timothy, meeting the procession, severely reproved them for their ridiculous idolatry, which so exasperated the people that they fell upon him with their clubs, and beat him in so dreadful a manner that he expired of the bruises two days later.”
I agree totally that the comments on this page about Domitian by Wilson is obtuse and false. Tacitus several times in his annals, history, and life of Agricola, describe his suspiciousness and bloodthirsty ways of charging any number of senators, noblemen, his own family members, with treason and conspiring to kill him. These historians were not Christians. Wilson must not have any knowledge of Roman and Greek writers, let alone Christian leaders (such as the lay Christian Roman lawyer, Tertullian). HIs assertions are laughable. Domitian was frequently called Nero redivivus or come back to life because of his insecurity, inability to keep friends, hated by much of the Roman aristocracy, and after a courtier’s wife was discovered to be a Christian, he did begin a program of executing Christians. The date can’t be before 95 AD, because no Christian or Roman ever claimed this. And Revelation, or better the Apocalypse, describes what will happen in Western Asia Minor, when the executions ordered by Domitian are readied for other areas of the Empire beyond the Capitol. What stopped this happened quickly, when Roman aristocratic, military, and senators assassinated Domitian in 96AD. Just as Nero had been assassinated. Nerva, followed peacefully for two years, then Trajan, just as peacefully. With no purges Christians or Jews, or high Roman leaders. There is no evidence whatsoever this New Testament writing occurred in 68 AD. None. It was not known in circulation by early Christian Bishops until after 95AD.
I am new to these historical discussions .As a Catholic
these exchanges of history are fascinating.I just hope they’re accurate.I believe the Apostles were Christions because the followed JESUS CHRIST and put aside the Jewish ways.
They were all Jews and Jesus was a Jew and none of them would have ever thought they were anything else.
Glad you are here 😊
The Apostles were all Jews. They went to the temple at the appointed times that God commanded in His Word. They did not change that. Jesus kept these times as well. You are right, they followed Jesus.
When I finished Jones’ article I was about to go back and pull out the sources that have been so well brought forth by those who were equally as puzzled by Jones’ editorial as I was. Maybe BAR just wants to give platforms to sketchy articles like this just to capitalize on the controversy, but I do enjoy the superior quality of the rebuttals that my peers respond with. They are ALWAYS my favorite reads, and I find them encouraging in a cynical world that seeks to rewrite history well after firmly stablished facts.
What’s sketch about it? If you have some contrary evidence, let;s see it.
Eusebius was not the earliest reference to Domitian being against Christianity (or possibly Jews), Cassius Dio c mid second century mentions In 95 he executed Clemens his fellow consul for atheism which was the reference to him either being a convert to Judaism or Christianity. Whilst it does not mean that Domitian initiated a widespread persecution of the church, he was not well disposed to it.
There isn’t the slightest shred of evidence that Clemens was executed for being a Christian.
One other glaring omission in this article is the fact that the issues with regard to the Fiscus Judaicus under Domitian between 85 and his death in 96 are not even mentioned. See my “The Fiscus Judaicus and the Parting of the Ways” (WUNT 277) from 2010. Domitian may not have targeted Christians specifically, but Jewish Christians and non-Jewish Christians may well have been victims in this period.
What cracks me up, is everyone’s assumption that John was a “Christian.” John (like the other apostles) were NOT Christian’s, they were Jews. Christianity did not begin until Constantine. There was a sect called “Chrestians” that dated back to 470BCE, mentioned by Homer, and they were Coptics that later adopted Gnosticism. It was THIS heretical sect that Constantine adopted as his “state religion,” and it is the very same sect that are now called “Catholics.” Chrestians were priests, and had altar boys, that were brought in to “service the priests,” and this practice is still visible in the Catholic churches today. Do your research people. You have been fed “fake news, and falsified facts” for the past 2,000 years. Yahoshoa Messiah was a Jew, not a “Christos,” He is the Messiah. “Christos” is a Latin interpretation, invented by the Catholics.
This is ridiculous. “Messiah” is the Hebrew word for “anointed,” while “Christ” is the Greek word for “anointed.” So, if Jesus is the Messiah in Hebrew, he is the Christ in Greek, and the Anointed One in English. They were first called “Christians” at Antiocheia during the time of the apostles, and the Christians continued to use this title since then, which can be seen in the letters of the 12 apostles’ own disciples. You honestly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. So whoever told you that information (since you wouldn’t have come to that conclusion had you actually read history yourself), is 100% wrong.
One glaring omission from the sources utilized in this article are the stories of the early martyrs & confessors from the reign of Domitian, not to mention the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers. These early accounts clearly document what was perhaps the worst persecution since the time of Nero. It should also be noted that no edict is necessary for persecution to occur (cf Acts of the Apostles).
There is zero actual evidence for any martyrdom’s under Domitian. The martyrdom stories are late 2nd and 3rd Century legends with no genuine historicity attached to them. You should look for a book called *The Myth of Persecution* by Candida Moss (A New Testament scholar at Notre Dame).
Really it was Christians who persecuted people after Constantine, when Christian began conversion by the sword (something the Pagans never did).
It is my opinion that Revelation was written in the days of Nero. There being proof the he persecuted the Christians.
A careful reading of Revelation along with knowledge of the ancient Roman world would actually suggest that the work, as it exists today, was written by at least three authors writing at different times. The first edition might well have been written as early as the 30’s CE, with a second edition in the late 60’s or early 70’s and the final version being written in the 90’s. The second and third editions merely reworked the previous editions but could not totally eliminate portions that were already knows, just modify them slightly in an attempt to make a coherent whole.
The problem with using the Revelation as evidence of persecution in the reign of Domitian is that to do so one must assume that the Revelation was written during Domitian’s reign. The reason for doing this is that the Revelation seems to indicate a background of persecution. This reasoning is circular. If Domitian did not engage in an enhanced persecution of Christianity (and a mere exile is not really enhanced persecution) then the Revelation would need to be dated to a different period.
The persecution of Christianity seems to have been an ever-present background condition after the reign of Nero; Pliny’s letter to Trajan presumes that Christianity is an illegal religion and is to be persecuted in some way, but the response of Trajan, while he agrees with this, is lukewarm about the persecution. Some emperors, however, seem to have undertaken major persecutions of Christianity, for example the Decian persecution or the Great Persecution.
It would seem that Christianity was never really free from persecution from the time of Nero to that of Constantine, but that there were definite periods of enhanced persecution when an emperor ordered active measures to be taken against it.
Rev 1:9 “I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Yes John was there because of persecution against the church and christians. Notice he siad “companion in tribulation” menaing others were experinecing the tribulation as well as him. This was all under Domitian’s reign. Domitian truly allowed it and encouraged it. This was somewhere beween 90-95 A.D.
Wilson’s conclusions are faulty. First, his citations show consistency on Eusebius’ part, not false assumptions or slander by Eusebius, whose histories records reports what was written by others in various areas at various times. Second, empires can continue to operate as “business as usual” without needing specific edicts. Third, the argument of silence does not prove that Domitian was innocent of persecution; being “not present” at trials hardly shows his lack of endorsement. Wilson shows his connection in the execution of Clemens but tells us it wasn’t for persecution. Is the death sentence for “antisocialism and a decline in support for idols and temples” not a sign of persecution? Trajan’s letter shows that he shares in Domitian’s wisdom of restraint in persecution (see Tertullian), but that doesn’t mean persecution was rare or non-existent during this time. Agreed that later writers may have embellished on the persecution, but it seems false to say that persecution of Christians was not an issue in Domitian’s reign.
The problem with recent revisionist history regarding persecution of Christians under Domitian and others is that Pliny the Younger’s letter to Trajan makes no sense apart from a long-standing, Empire-wide ban on Christianity. Pliny knows well that Christinaity is illegal, and has been for some time, and he testifies that he executed Christians who refused to recant their Christianity, as was in keeping with Roman law and custom. To cite this letter as evidence against widespread Roman persecution of Christians is ridiculous, and it shows a strong bias against established historical tradition, likely for the sake of political agenda.
Christians were mostly used as scapegoats by the Romans. When events or plagues spread it was the Christians who were responsible for it. It was a common occurrence that was later filled by the Jews in Europe. Bad news Christians caused it. What singled them out was they refused to burn incense to Caesar. this made them outlaws and they were condemned to death.
“Judging by Gibbon”
The easiest way to tell how illiterate someone is concerning Roman History. Gibbon was a notorious hack with an axe to grind.
No one thinks this about Gibbon. He was the first great English historian of antiquity. Every scholar on Gibbon takes into account his bias and snide remarks about Christianity. He was not a Christian! Notorious hack? He was a tremendous writer and scholar. With a great sense of humor! Which volumes have you read? Any?
Awesome. Its enough of portray the most wonderful civilization of human era, as corrupt psychopaths. Thats all lies. Romans were magnificents.
Only the “broken reed” Christians were spared. Domitian was a vicious persecutor. Indeed,it was the Roman Empire that judicially murdered Yeshua.
Playing the “victim card” about history is particularly effective if you are trying to demonstrate the potency of your movement and/or belief system. It can attract sympathy for the plight, admiration for effectiveness, and contempt for the cruel oppressor of your virtuous struggle.
Judging by Gibbon, the authorities were thoroughly justified in suppressing the terrorist adherents of this new cult, who would keep rioting and trying to burn down other peoples’ temples.
I could call the use of “alternative facts” in this piece “alternative facts”, but that would be an erroneous use of the term, a use which the author perpetrates, like virtually everyone else who uses the term. Saying something is true when it isn’t true isn’t “alternative facts”–it’s lying. Alternative facts are, on the one hand saying that ice cream is delicious & creamy because you are in the ice cream business, while someone else says it’s high fat and causes weight gain because they are a dietitian. Both are speaking facts, not lies, but they are focusing on a subset of facts that best supports the points most germane to their own cause.
Sadly, because most people are psychologically dishonest with both facts and themselves, they prefer to imagine this term means what they want to accuse others of, oblivious of the fact that they are making themselves guilty of the exact charge they wish to apply to their supposed opponent. To repeat, pretty much everyone who chooses to use the term “alternative facts” is engaging in what they imagine the term “alternative facts” is supposed to mean, when in reality the term doesn’t mean lying at all, and yet that is what such people are doing. Those attracted to the term ought to take their fondness of the term as a signal that they are the kind of person who likes to play fast and loose with facts, and that they enjoy claiming others are guilty of their own sort of behavior.
I would like to add two further issues. It is quite well known that Domitian established a temple in Ephesus, dedicated to the “sebastoi” of the Flavian fanily (Vespasian, Titus and himself) and the akrolitic statue of Titus has been recovered in good conditions (for instance Friese S.J. “Twice neokoros. Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family”, published by Brill). Keeping in mind Daniel 3, it is quite obvious why Rome was considered the new Babylon in Revelation. Since August times the province of Asia was for political reasons the center of the imperial cult (see Price S.R.F., “Rituals and Power: the Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor”, Cambridge 1984), and the behavior of Christians could be viewed as seditious. The second issue is that the letter of Pliny is clearly referring to the trials undertaken by other officials of Trajan. The policy adopted under Domitian could in no way be applied to define the will of the emperor in charge. The whole argument ex absentia is therefore frivolous.
ERRATA CORRIGE: Eusebius was born about 160 years after the facts; he didn’t write “over three centuries after”. Moreover in my translation of C.H. I don’t find neither a paragraph III 18.1.5 nor the sentence of Ireneus supposed to be there (in particular there is no “only”).
Of course information about ancient events is scarce and subject to different interpretations, but changing data to support a thesis is not acceptable
At seminary, we understood the persecution of the early Church given by Revelation to have been under Nero. Yes, we also heard that Domitian was responsible for a more widespread persecution and suppression of Christians than previous emperors had done.
Persecution and suppression of the Christian message has always been a given, depending on who is in control of the state and its power.
Internal and external evidences in John’s writing point far more clearly to Nero than any other. Domitian doesn’t fit the characterization at all, except under the “alternative facts” that Mr. Wilson points out.
How does the numismatic evidence reconcile with the conclusion of this article? In particular, what do you make of the denarius featuring the Latin inscription DIVVS CAESAR IMP DOMITIANI F, which features Domitian’s infant son depicted as a young Jupiter seated on a globe with his hands raised toward seven stars? Wasn’t this an implicit claim to divine status, while the Emperor was still living?
How does Wilson deny persecution by Domitian when he concedes it was he who exiled John to Patmos? It appears his position is Domitian did persecute but it wasn’t a “General” or wholesale persecution.
The comment and question by Patrick leads to another: is mark Wilson a preterist? In reality this perspective does not impact much on eschatology, be it preterism or futurism. Domitian is referenced because of the reference by Irenaeus not because of wholesale Persecution by Domitian. It should also be noted or considered, wouldn’t the condemnation of memory alter the amount of available history. Yes, I do hold to futurism.
Nevertheless, an interesting article.
I agree with Patrick. A more preteriat approach needs to be looked into. Although I agree that the book of Revelation does not give a name I believe it clearly identifies the beast as Caesar Nero through the use of his gamatria number (666). Its also of note that the earliest copies of Revelation are in Latin and use the numbers 616 which also come out to be Nero. Plus we know the beast itself is also representative of the Roman Empire and looking at the history of Roman Emperors (kings), Nero would be the 6th (Rev 17:10). Only time will tell which view is correct…
In my not-yet-published book on the Revelation I have this to say…
The date of the Revelation’s first publication is easily established. The second century Christian writer Irenæus is a trustworthy source for information about John the Presbyter, being the student of John’s student Polycarp; the latter also edited John’s canonical works, preparing them for publication. Irenæus says (Hæres. 5:30) ουδε γαρ προ πολλου χρονου εωραθη αλλα σχεδον επι της ημετερας γενεας προς τφ τελει της δομετιανου αρχης (“It [the Apocalypse] was seen not long ago, almost in our generation, near the end of Domitian’s reign.” Some writers in the past have been confused by this statement, concluding that Irenæus is referring to the date of Revelation’s composition. However, he refers rather to the date in which this work was first seen, or as we would say today, “when it first appeared”: that is to say, the date of publication. Given that composition of the first draft would have been in 68 and that Domitian reigned from 81 to 96, the intervening time is just right for the Presbyter’s rough draft to be improved, and then his original Aramaic text to be translated into Greek for wide publication.
This confusion partly results from the similarity of Nero’s given name to that of the later emperor. Robert Young, best known for Young’s Analytical Concordance, explains this well in his commentary on the Revelation. He states that “It was written in Patmos about A.D. 68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenæus in A.D. 175, who says it happened in the reign of Dometianou – i.e., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosins, etc., stupidly mistaking Dimitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the early date.”
This confusion of Domitius (Nero) with the later emperor Domitian persists to this day.
–James David Audlin, author of “The Gospel of John, the Original Version Restored and Translated”
Perhaps this would lend credibility to the preterist interpretation of Revelation? Some early Christians believed Revelation was written under Nero’s reign or Cladius…maybe the archeological evidence would lend support to this other opinions? I wonder?