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.
A Caretaker’s Accomplishments: The Brief Reign of Nerva
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.
A New Ruler for a New Century: The Reign of Trajan
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).
The letters of Pliny do not reveal any systematic oppression of Christianity during the age of Trajan. What they do show is that in society as a whole, the name Christian had developed a negative connotation. It is tempting to read the admonitions in 1 Peter 4.14 and 16 in this context; the answer of 1 Peter to those who were suffering was different from the book of Revelation’s apocalyptic vision. Although concern for the end times was part of 1 Peter’s message (see 1.5, 13; 4.7), the author was more interested in advising people about how to live in their present circumstances: “For the Lord’s sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right” (1 Pet. 2.13–14). Right behavior toward political powers was seen as the appropriate way to respond to the negative pressures felt by the churches.
According to 1 Peter and other authors, this attempt to conform to society also required harmony and good order within Christian households. Wives were told to accept the authority of their husbands and to be an example of good and holy women (1 Pet. 3.1–6). The same combination of respect for political authorities and restrictions placed on women was also an important element in the Pastoral Epistles. Although 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus are written as letters of Paul, most scholars read them as pseudonymous documents from the early second century. The admonition to pray “for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity” (1 Tim. 2.2) reflected a desire to avoid political alienation by appeasing the government.
At the same time, the author of the Pastorals commanded that a woman may not teach or have authority over a man, and used the image of Eve to state that “she will be saved by childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty” (1 Tim. 2.12, 13–15). The message to women in the churches was clear: find your proper place and stay there. Such a warning would have been unnecessary unless women were doing the opposite, involving themselves in leadership roles at the expense of the reputation of the churches. The undisputed letters of Paul provide ample evidence for women as active and vocal leaders in the churches (see 1 Cor. 1.11; 11.5; Rom. 16.1–7), and apocryphal writings from the second century such as “The Acts of Paul and Thecla” make it clear that women apostles were viewed as heroes in some churches. The Pastoral Epistles attempted to use the authority of Paul to limit the rights and roles of women in the churches, and for most of Christian history they have been successful. It is no accident that this effort to domesticate the Jesus movement and make it more socially and politically acceptable coincided with Trajan’s nineteen-year reign of order and prosperity.
The only area in which Pliny’s expectations for moderation in Trajan’s reign were disappointed concerned military matters. At the outset Pliny urged Trajan to exercise restraint and not to emulate Domitian, who fought wars for the sake of gaining honors at home (Panegyricus 16–17). Trajan did, however, fight two successful wars against the Dacian tribes along the Danube River, finally defeating them in 106 CE. Trajan died in 117 CE while waging a major campaign in the east against Rome’s longtime nemesis, the Parthian empire.
Trajan used the spoils of his military campaigns to finance major building projects. In addition to construction in the provinces, such as the Temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan in Pergamon, there were also substantial developments in Rome, including a market area, a bath complex, and an elaborate forum of Trajan, which stood as a monument to the Dacian victories. A central feature of the forum complex was a column on which was engraved a continuous spiral relief frieze detailing the Dacian conflicts. Including its base and a statue of Trajan at the top, the piece towered 40 meters (131 feet) above the ground.
Although it stands alone in the middle of a plaza today, the column was originally surrounded on at least three sides by structures that would have provided a vantage point for viewing the upper level and statue. Dedicated in 112 CE, the forum complex also included an equestrian statue of Trajan, large ground-level relief panels of the Dacian conflict, numerous statues of captured Dacians, and a podium temple. This temple was perhaps dedicated first to the deified Nerva, but then rededicated to the deified Trajan by his successor, Hadrian. The structure made a powerful visual effect. When the emperor Constantius II visited the site in the fourth century, he was awestruck, and he is reported to have hoped that he “could breed a horse equivalent to the bronze horse on which Trajan was riding” (Ammianus 16.10.16). This spectacular structure gave fitting testimony to the successful reign of Trajan and the prosperity of his times. But it is only a prelude to the impact of Hadrian on the empire, which was monumental far beyond his architectural accomplishments.
Rebuilding the Empire: The Reign of Hadrian
Like his predecessor, Hadrian was a Spanishborn aristocrat who gained power and influence in Rome through his military leadership in the provinces. Hadrian was serving as governor of Syria in 117 CE when Trajan died during his Parthian campaign. The report was sent to Rome that Trajan had adopted Hadrian as his heir shortly before his death, but rumors circulated freely that Hadrian’s adoption was the work of Trajan’s wife Plotina, who withheld news of her husband’s death until after Hadrian’s succession was assured (Scriptores historiae Augustae, Hadrian 4.4.9–10). Whatever the details of his coming to power, Hadrian did not waste time in setting his own agenda. Armenia and Mesopotamia, taken by Trajan in the Parthian campaign, were abandoned, and Hadrian attempted to secure the borders of the empire and unite its disparate elements. Central to these efforts was an ambitious campaign of travel, reorganization, and building by which Hadrian left his mark throughout the empire.
Hadrian came to power convinced by his experience in the provinces that the empire had grown too large and complex to be ruled by decree from Rome. Despite his absence from the capital for more than half of his reign, Hadrian did have a significant impact on Rome and its environs. Most notably, he constructed a greatly expanded and redesigned Pantheon in the city and developed a sprawling villa complex near Tivoli. His travels took him throughout the empire, as a rough itinerary for his first extensive tour in 120 (or 121) to 128 CE reveals (Scriptores historiae Augustae, Hadrian 10–13).
Passing through Gaul, he continued into the Germanic regions, where he lived with the troops guarding the borders, reinvigorating discipline among the legion and instituting numerous military reforms. These included regulating leaves of absence, clearing the camps of banqueting rooms and other places of leisure, and ordering that no one should serve as a soldier “younger than his strength allows, or older than humanity permits” (Hadrian 10).
From Germany, Hadrian crossed to Britain, first invaded by Julius Caesar in 55–54 BCE and then partially conquered by the Romans under Claudius in 43 CE. As he had done in the east, Hadrian first withdrew forces to a reasonable point. He then ordered the construction of a frontier wall to protect against barbarian incursion. The wall ran 117.5 kilometers (73 miles) across what is now northern England, and parts of it and an adjacent defensive system are still visible. Returning to the Continent, Hadrian traveled south through Gaul and stayed for so
me time in Spain before going to Syria, probably by sailing the length of the Mediterranean Sea. The Scriptores historiae Augustae claim that Hadrian’s personal intervention in negotiations with the Parthians helped prevent another conflict in the East (Hadrian 12.8). Returning from Syria, the emperor traveled through Asia Minor to Greece and back to Rome. Along his route, material remains and evidence from inscriptions reveal that he founded new towns, built monuments, and made numerous other dedications.
It was in Athens, however, that Hadrian’s generosity and love of Greek culture were most vividly displayed. Pausanias, who traveled extensively in Greece during the later second century, marveled at the sanctuary of Olympian Zeus, which was completed by Hadrian (1.18.6). The huge temple, 44 meters × 110 meters (144 feet × 361 feet), featured a forest of over 100 columns, 10 meters (33 feet) high. The gold and ivory statue of Zeus was complemented by statues of Hadrian at the entrance and all around the expansive temple precinct (129 meters × 206 meters [423 feet × 676 feet]). Many inscriptions have been found in Athens dedicated to Hadrian as “founder” by cities from all over the Greek world. These provide evidence for the Panhellenic league, which Hadrian established as a means of uniting Greek cities and cities that had been colonized by the Greeks.
While staying in Athens, Hadrian made a connection with the ancient past of Greek mystery religions by being initiated into the venerable mystery cult for Demeter and Persephone with its shrine at nearby Eleusis. By this time, however, other mystery religions were steadily gaining popularity. Sanctuaries of the Egyptian deities Isis and Serapis and of the youthful Persian god Mithras have been discovered throughout the empire. Because the adherents of these cults were offered mystical access to divine power, they were popular across a wide spectrum of society. The Mithras cult especially appealed to men from the lower strata of society. It is striking that both the Mithras cult and the early Jesus movement could develop strong followings in the religious climate of the first three centuries CE.
The Oxford History of the Biblical World Page 71