Eric LAUPOT
THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL DURING THE JEWISH WAR: TACITUS' FRAGMENT 2 AND HISTORIES 5.13, SUETONIUS VESPASIAN 4.5, AND THE COINS OF THE JEWISH WAR
RÉSUMÉ
Il a été démontré autre part que les sectateurs de celui qui, chez Tacite, (Annales 15, 44) est désigné comme Christus (i. e. les Christiani ou Nazoréens) ont joué un rôle essentiel dans la Guerre Juive contre Rome de 66-73 (cf. le second fragment des Histoires de Tacite [Tacite, fragment 2]), et que c'est en grande partie pour écraser ces Christiani et leur mouvement que les armées romaines ont détruit le Second Temple. L'article étudie, à partir de données diverses, certaines implications de cette découverte: 1) les Nazoréens étaient très vraisemblablement en charge de l'ensem- ble des Juifs, et pas uniquement du Temple, durant la Guerre Juive; 2) les Christiani de Tacite étaient sans doute la secte historique dont procède, dans le Nouveau Testa- ment, celle des Xristianoí; 3) L'homme qui est désigné sous le nom de Chrestus chez Suétone (Claudius, 25, 4) était un roi nazoréen bien connu; 4) Tacite avait rai- son d'associer les Christiani au Grand Incendie de Rome qui eut lieu en 64, ce qu'il est le seul à faire parmi les historiens antiques; 5) Un autre nom du mouvement nazoréen était «la Voie»; 6) Antérieurement au Grand Incendie, les Gentils de Rome avaient fait l'objet, de la part des Nazoréens, d'une activité prosélyte impor- tante et couronnée de succès; 7) Les Nazoréens ne sont pas à l'origine du Grand In- cendie (la logique interne confirme ici les apparences); 8) L'Église paulinienne pri- mitive était loyale à l'égard de Rome et rejetait les Christiani opposés à Rome: si le gouvernement central n'a pas persécuté l'Église avant 270, c'est sans doute parce que le Christianisme était considéré comme un contrepoids à l'activité prosélyte des Nazoréens (et d'autres, potentiellement) parmi les esclaves et les classes inférieures.
SUMMARY
It has been demonstrated elsewhere that the ideological followers of the man re- ferred to in Tacitus Annals 15.44 as Christus (i.e., the Christiani or Nazoreans) were major participants in the Jewish War against Rome of 66-73 CE (see the sec- ond fragment of Tacitus’ Histories [= Tacitus’ fragment 2]) and that the Roman army destroyed the Second Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE in large part to crush the Christiani and their anti-Roman movement. This paper discusses further implica- tions of these findings, including: (1) evidence that the Nazoreans were most likely in charge of the entire Jewish state, not just the Temple, during the Jewish War (2)
Revue des Études juives, 162 (1-2), janvier-juin 2003, pp. 69-96 70 THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL additional confirmation that Tacitus’ Jewish-led Christiani were indeed the histori- cal sect upon which the sect of Xristiavoí of the New Testament were partially modeled, (3) the deduction that the man referred to as Chrestus in Suetonius Claudius 25.4 had been a well-known Nazorean king, (4) further confirmation that Tacitus, alone among ancient historians, was correct in associating the Christiani with the Great Fire of Rome in 64, (5) confirmation that an alternate name for the Nazorean movement was “the Way,” (6) evidence that there had been successful mass proselytizing of Gentiles in Rome by the Nazoreans prior to the Great Fire, (7) logical inferences supporting a valid prima facie argument that the Nazoreans did not set the Great Fire, and (8) clear indications that because the early Pauline Church was loyal to Rome and did not consider the anti-Roman Christiani to be of their faith, the central government in Rome therefore did not persecute the Church until 250 CE, presumably because Rome considered Christianity to be a counter- weight to Nazorean (and other potentially) subversive proselytizing among the slaves and lower classes.
As demonstrated elsewhere1, Tacitus’ Christiani almost certainly were, ac- cording to the second fragment of Tacitus’ Histories (= Tacitus’ fragment 2 = Sulpicius Severus Chronica 2.30.6-7; for the text of the last half of which see note 3 below), a Jewish group that followed an anti-Roman ideology (or superstitio; see note 3) and were major participants in the Jewish War against Rome of 66-73 CE.2 Had this not been the case, the Roman army would never have destroyed the Second Temple largely on account of the Christiani, as reported in Tacitus’ fragment 2.3 The Christiani or Nazoreans were the ideological followers of the founder of their sect, whom Tacitus re- fers to in Annals 15.44.3 as Christus (lit., “the anointed one” or the king of Israel). Tacitus reports that this founder had beenexecuted by Pontius Pilate. The reader is referred to this author’s previous study on the Christiani (see note 1 above) since it provides the basis for the present examination. It
1. Eric LAUPOT, “Tacitus’ Fragment 2: The Anti-Roman Movement of the Christiani and the Nazoreans,” Vigiliae Christianae 54, no. 3 (2000) 233-47. 2. Ibid., 233-4, 236-7, 245-7. On the meaning of the name “Christiani,” 245-6. 3. Ibid., 234-5, 236-7, 244, 245-6. The second part of frag. 2 (= Severus Chron. 2.30.7) describes the council of war convened by Titus in 70 in Jerusalem near the end of the Jewish War for the purpose of deciding whether or not to destroy the Jewish Temple: at contra alii et Titus ipse euertendum in primis templum censebant, quo plenius Iudaeorum et Christianorum religio tolleretur: quippe has religiones, licet contrarias sibi, isdem tamen
4. LAUPOT, “Tacitus’ Fragment 2,” 233, 234, 238, 244, 245-6. The familiar Hebrew word Notserim (sg., Notseri) designates in the Babylonian Talmud both the Nazoreans and the Pauline Christians (b. Abod. Zar. 6a, 7b [both referring to Christians], 17a; b. San. 107b; b. Sota 47a; b. Taan. 27b [Christians]; b. Ber. 17b; etc.). It can be inferred from this author’s prior study on the Christiani that the word Notserim almost certainly derived from Netsarim. Specifically, it seems likely that Notserim originated either (1) as a variant spelling of Netsarim, and/or (2) with LXX Isa 60.21, which reads fulásswv (= Heb., notser, “guard”), as against netser in Isa 60.21 (MT). See esp. Chaim RABIN, “Noserim,” Textus 5 (1966) 44- 52, esp. 52 n. 36; further, S[olomon] SCHECHTER, ed., Fragments of a Zadokite Work, vol. 1, Documents of Jewish Sectaries (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910) XXXI n. 10. On the historical connection between the Christiani and Isa 60.21, see LAUPOT, “Tacitus’ Fragment 2,” 244; also, 241, 242. 5. LAUPOT, “Tacitus’ Fragment 2,” 233, 238-43, 245-6, 247. 6. Ibid., 233, 238-47. 7. This prophecy is described, but not otherwise identified, as follows: (1) Tacitus Hist. 5.13.2: pluribus persuasio inerat antiquis sacerdotum litteris contineri, eo ipso tempore fore ut ualesceret Oriens profectique Iudaea rerum potirentur (“Many [Jews] believed it was written in the ancient writings of their priests that this was the very time when the East would become powerful and that men emanating [profecti] from Judea would seize control of the Roman Empire”), (2) Suetonius Vespasianus 4.5: Percrebruerat Oriente toto uetus et constans opinio esse in fatis ut eo tempore Iudaea profecti rerum potirentur…. praedictum Iudaei ad se trahentes rebellarunt (“There had spread all over the East a very old and fixed belief to the effect that it had been prophesied that men emanating from Judea [Iudaea profecti] would at that time seize control of the Empire… The Judeans applied this prophecy to themselves and took up arms again”). Note also Josephus Bell. 6.312: “But what more than all else incited [the Judeans] to the war was an ambiguous oracle, likewise found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that time one from their country would become ruler of the world.” (trans. 72 THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL that profecti– Iudaea in Hist. 5.13.2 and Iudaea profecti in Vesp. 4.5 (see note 7 above) parallel profectas… ex Iudaea (from Judea) in fragment 2 (see note 3 above). All three sources, including frag. 2, thus describe the in- surgents in similar language as both warlike and emanating from either Iudaea or the Iudaei8. These parallels provide additional confirmation of fragment 2’s historicity and show as well (see further, below and sect. 3) that Isa 11.1, or more broadly Isaiah 11-12, was most likely the biblical prophecy that triggered the Jewish War. Not surprisingly, this prophecy would have been known as such to Titus and his generals at the end of the war and employed by them, according to fragment 2, with retributive effect in order to justify their destruction of both the Christiani (the followers of the “Branch of David”) and their superstitio, together with the Temple so closely connected to both.9 Thackeray, Loeb). Josephus’ report parallels those in Tacitus and Suetonius above but refers instead in the singular to the leader of the uprising. See generally, Menachem STERN, ed., Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 vols.; Jérusalem: Israel Academy of Sci- ences and Humanities, 1974-1984) 2.61-2, 120-1; Heinz HEUBNER, ed., P. Cornelius Tacitus, Die Historien (5 vols.; Heidelberg: Winter, 1963-1982) 5.151-5; and G.E.F. CHILDER and G.B. TOWNEND, A Historical Commentary on Tacitus’ Histories IV and V (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985) 97. On Tacitus’ use of rerum potior, A. GERBER and A. GREEF, Lexicon Taciteum (2 vols.; 1877-1903; repr., Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962) 2.1153-5. We may note also the parallel in Orosius Hist. adv. Pag. 7.9.2: Iudaei… quibusdam in Carmelo [Heb., kerem-el, lit., “vineyard of God”: see further 1 Kings 18.17-19.1, on Elijah’s trial by divine fire on Mount Carmel, and see also below at n. 48] monte seducti sortibus, quae portenderent exortos a Iudaea duces rerum potituros fore, praedictumque ad se trahentes in rebellionem exarserunt. C. ZANGEMEISTER, ed., Pauli Orosii Historiarum adversum Paganos libri VII: Accedit eiusdem liber apologeticus (CSEL 5; repr., New York: Johnson Reprint, 1966) 458-9. Regarding Mt. Carmel, ABD, s.v. “Carmel, Mount”; Nicholas J. TROMP, “Water and Fire on Mount Carmel: A Conciliatory Suggestion,” Biblica 56, no. 4 (1975) 480-502; G.E.F. CHILVER, A Historical Commentary on Tacitus’ Histories I and II (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979) 238-9; and HEUBNER, Historien, 2.274-6; also, EncJud., s.v. “Carmel, Mount.” In addition, a pagan oracle on Mount Carmel was consulted by Vespasian: Tacitus Hist. 2.78.3-4; Suetonius Vesp. 5.6; etc. 8. On the meaning of Iudaei generally, see David FRANKFURTER, “Jews or Not? Recon- structing the ‘Other’ in Rev 2:9 and 3:9,” HTR 94, no. 4 (2001) 403-425, esp. 407-8; and additional sources cited in David GOODBLATT, “From Judeans to Israel: Names of Jewish States in Antiquity,” JSJ 29, no. 1 (1998) 1-36, esp. 1 n. 1. 9. It is worth pointing out here that in response to the Roman occupation of the Land of Israel during the Herodian period (37 BCE-70 CE), the hoped-for Davidic messiah, the ‘Branch of David’, was consistently portrayed in Jewish literature of the time as a “righteous, yet violent, counterpart to Herod the Great…. [Herod’s] overthrow of the Hasmonean dy- nasty was accompanied by a widespread use of Scripture [particularly Isaiah 11] to fashion a violent Davidic Messiah who would challenge the legitimacy of the Herodian kings.” Kenneth R. ATKINSON, “On the Use of Scripture in the Development of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran: New Light from Psalm of Solomon 17,” in The Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity: Studies in Language and Tradition (ed. Craig A. EVANS; Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 7; JSPSup 33; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000) 106-123, esp. 107, 120 n. 35, 122 passim, citing 4Q252; 4Q174; 4Q161; 4Q285; 4Q246; and Ps. Sol. 17. On the last, see idem, An Intertextual Study THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL 73
Tacitus then continues in Hist. 5.13.2 (immediately after the excerpt given in note 7 above): quae ambages Vespasianum ac Titum praedixerat (“This ambiguous prophecy [i.e., Isa 11.1] had actually predicted the acces- sions of Vespasian and Titus”).10 In fact, the wording of Tacitus’ notice in note 7 above, as will be presently shown, clearly represents a specific modi- fication of that in frag. 2: “ex Iudaeis” in frag. 2 changes to “Iudaea” in the notices of Tacitus and Suetonius. We may infer that this change was made to accommodate the fact that Vespasian and Titus, being Gentiles, could not possibly have been descendants of David (that is to say, “ex Iudaeis”). However, these two emperors could certainly have been the profecti– Iudaea (“men setting forth from Judea” — e.g., after their reconquest of Israel11 during the Jewish War) in the reports of Tacitus and Suetonius12. Confirmation of this hypothesis is to be found in Josephus Bell. 5.409: Oûespasianòv dˆ êk toÕ pròv ™m¢v polémou kaì basileíav ≠rhato (lit., “For Vespasian set forth [≠rzato = ãrxw = proficiscor] from the war against us [i.e., in the dual sense of both Iudaea and ex Iudaeis] to a king- ship [compare stirps {= netser, or king}13 in frag. 2]”)14. Because this di- rectly parallels both Tacitus Hist. 5.13.2 and frag. 2, it seems to represent an intermediate step between the two. Here, for instance, Josephus com- bines the key elements of Hist. 5.13.2 and, just as Tacitus reports, applies of the Psalms of Solomon: Pseudepigrapha (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 49; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 2001). In the Jewish literature of the Herodian period, “the militant character of the Davidic messiah is consistent,” John J. COLLINS, “The Works of the Messiah,” DSD 1 (1994) 98-112, esp. 108. On the other hand, Josephus has no present or future expectations of a Davidic messiah. He frequently distorts the terms of the Davidic covenant (on which, see 2 Sam 7 [= 1 Chron 17], 22.51; 1 Kings 2.4, 45; 1 Chron 22.10, 28.4-8; 2 Chron 6.16; Psalm 89; etc; also, 1 Kings 5.17-19 [3-5]; Ps 2.7 [and pars. Matt 3.17; Luke 1.32; John 1.49]; Matt 1.1-17; etc.) and downplays its contemporary significance. Kenneth E. POMYKALA, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism (SBLEJL 7; At- lanta: Scholars Press, 1995) 222-9. This is also consistent with Josephus’ avoidance in the Antiquities of explicit references to God’s other covenants with the Jews. André PAUL, “Flavius Josephus’ ‘Antiquities of the Jews’: An Anti-Christian Manifesto,” NTS 31, no. 3 (1985) 473-80; and POMYKALA, Davidic Dynasty Tradition, 226-7. 10. The same idea, applied to Vespasian alone, is expressed in Suetonius Vesp. 4.5 and Josephus Bell. 6.313. 11. The actual name of the Jewish state established from 66 to 70 cannot be ascertained, and it is quite possible that the name “Israel” was not used as such until the Bar Kokhba War. GOODBLATT, “From Judeans to Israel,” 23-36. However, because of the lack of knowl- edge of any more suitable alternative, and for economy’s sake, the present study will refer to the first-century Jewish state as “Israel.” 12. Cf. also, Gen 49.10. 13. See LAUPOT, “Tacitus’ Fragment 2,” 233, 238-47. 14. Some of these allusions are also echoed in Bell. 6.313. 74 THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL them to Vespasian. In addition, he strongly hints at the language of frag. 2 (proficiscor, ex Iudaeis, stirps [= Heb., netser; compare “kingship,” basileía, in Bell. 5.409]), demonstrating that frag. 2 was almost certainly known to Flavius Josephus Titus military aide. Because these remarkable parallels are not likely to be coincidental, they show that there was prob- ably a common source for the notices in Tacitus and Suetonius, and that this source was frag. 2. Bell. 5.409 appears, therefore, to represent an inter- mediate stage between, on the one hand, both frag. 2 and its biblical prooftext, Isa 11.1, and, on the other, the final pro-Flavian modifications to frag. 2 given in Tacitus and Suetonius. It may therefore be concluded from an examination of Tacitus, Sueto- nius, and Josephus that the Romans chose to redact the sense of Isa 11.1 as expressed in frag. 2 in order to apply this prophecy to their own emperors rather than the Davidic dynasty. Rome did this because it would not tolerate the existence of competing Jewish kings. All this further confirms the histo- ricity of fragment 2 as an eyewitness account of Titus’ military conference because it shows that Tacitus’ frag. 2 in its earliest form was known to Flavius Josephus, Titus’ adopted son. 3. The biblical prophecy that touched off the War, Isaiah 11-12, only pre- dicted that the royal “Branch of David” and his followers (the Netsarim or Christiani) would one day seize power. That they did in fact do so, at least in Israel, can be logically inferred from the coins of the Jewish War, upon which (unlike Jewish coins of other periods) are routinely displayed the images of single branches (e.g., netsarim in Hebrew)15. This phenomenon is almost certainly not a coincidence. The branches depicted on the coins of the Jewish War include those of the grapevine, as well as the pomegranate, palm (Heb., lulav)16, and citron (Heb., etrog) plants, the fruits of which, to- gether with the vine leaf, were also embossed on these coins. The fruits al-
15. “Netsarim” can mean both “branches” and “followers of the Branch [of David].” LAUPOT, “Tacitus’ Fragment 2,” 244 nn. 24, 25. On the coins of the Jewish War, see esp. Leo KADMAN, The Coins of the Jewish War of 66-73 C. E. (Corpus Nummorum Palaestinensium2 3; Tel Aviv and Jerusalem: Schocken, 1960); Ya’akov MESHORER, Ancient Jewish Coinage (2 vols.; Dix Hills, NY: Amphora, 1982) 2.96-131, 259-63, Plates 17-19; idem, A Treasury of Jewish Coins: From the Persian Period to Bar-Kochba [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1997) 105-119, Plates 61-63; Jacob MALTIEL-GERSTENFELD, 260 Years of Ancient Jewish Coins: A Catalogue (Tel Aviv: Kol, 1982) 79-81, 186-94; also, Leo MILDENBERG, “Rebel Coinage in the Roman Empire,” in Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel: Collected Es- says (ed. A. KASHER, U. RAPPAPORT, G. FUKS; Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi; Israel Explo- ration Society, 1990) 62-74, esp. 70-1; repr., Vestigia Leonis (ed. Ulrich Hübner and Ernst Axel Knauf; NTOA 36; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1998) 163-9, esp. 168; etc. 16. “[T]he lulav is consistently represented by a single branch.” MESHORER, Ancient Jewish Coinage, 2.120. During the first three years of the War the lulav was depicted alone. Idem, Ancient Jewish Coinage, 2.117. THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL 75 most certainly represented Israel’s prosperity (Deut 8.8; also, Num 13.1-29 and par. Deut 1.22-25; 1 Kings 5.5 [4.25] and pars. [compare Mark 11.12- 14]; Isa 5.1-7, 27.2, 6, 37.31-32; Tacitus Hist. 5.5.5 [uitisque aurea
17. See also KADMAN, Coins of the Jewish War, 83-95. These four fruits were closely as- sociated as well with Temple worship. Paul ROMANOFF, Jewish Symbols on Ancient Coins (New York: American Israel Numismatic Association, 1971), 16-7, 19-21, 43-4, 51-2. See frag. 2 (n. 3 above) on the very close association between the Nazoreans and the Temple. 18. MESHORER, Ancient Jewish Coinage, 110. 19. KADMAN, Coins of the Jewish War, 87. On Isa 11.1 and the insurgency, see further, Laupot, “Tacitus’ Fragment 2,” 238, 244, 246. 20. E.g., Joseph BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah 1-39 (AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 203. 76 THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL
What we have, therefore, is evidence that the same Isaian prophecy was current at both the beginning of the Jewish War (see sect. 2 above) and at the end of it (according to frag. 2). In between we have the coins of the Jewish state, from which one may logically infer that this prophecy re- mained alive in the hearts of the people and their leaders. Furthermore, it appears that about two years prior to the reconquest of Jerusalem by Rome in 70, the most radical and best-armed elements in the Jewish insurgency had executed a successful coup d’etat against the other elements of the previous, coalition government of Israel (66-68 CE)21, a coalition of which the militants themselves had formed an essential part. These radicals were now, however, in total control of Jerusalem – including the Temple – at the time Titus’ army arrived at the city’s gates in 70. Many of these militants were in fact the defeated combatants from all those Israel- ite towns and cities outside of Jerusalem that had been reconquered by the Roman army during the previous three years — i.e., those Israelite soldiers who had been trickling into Jerusalem for a last stand there against Rome. Tacitus reports in Hist. 5.12.2-4: “And [Jerusalem] was enlarged by a great flow of washed-out human filth [Lat., conluuies] from the destruction of the other cities [in Israel]; for all the most obstinate had sought refuge in Jeru- salem, and this therefore was what was driving the rebellion.”22 Thus it was
21. Jonathan J. PRICE, Jerusalem under Siege: The Collapse of the Jewish State 66-70 C.E. (Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies 3; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992) 1-2, 19 n. 62, 85-101 pas- sim, citing Josephus Bell. 4.141, 152, 159-207, 235, 305-365, 378-389, etc.; also, Tacitus Hist. 5.12.2-4 (see below). 22. magna conluuie [compare the word confluunt in Tacitus Ann. 15.44.3] et ceterarum urbium clade aucti; nam peruicacissimus quisque illuc perfugerat eoque seditiosius agebant. With regard to the word conluuies (“washed-out human filth”), Tacitus uses this (or colluuies) elsewhere four other times in his extant works, and always to refer to subversives. Gerber and Greef, Lexicon Taciteum, 1.206; also, 1.168-9. While Tacitus does not use conluuies explicitly to describe the Christiani in Ann. 15.44, nevertheless he does use similar language: quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque (15.44.3). In addition, the same words Tacitus uses to excoriate the Christiani in Ann. 15.44 he also uses elsewhere in his writings to excoriate the conluuies: Note (1) Hist. 2.16 (odium [Othonis], flagitia), (2) Ann. 2.55 (aduersus [Sullam {et} diuum Augustum]), (3) Ann. 14.15 (flagitia, pudor, pudicitia), and (4) Ann. 14.44 (utilitas publica). All this constitutes independent evi- dence that Tacitus considered the Christiani to be as subversive as the conluuvies he men- tions. Hist. 5.12.3 then continues: tres duces, totidem exercitus: extrema et latissima moenium Simo, mediam urbem Ioannes [quem et Bargioram uocabant], templum Eleazarus fir- mauerat, etc. (“Three leaders, three armies: the outermost walls, those farthest from the city center, were held by Shimon [called ‘bar Giora’], the center of the city by John [of Gischala], and the Temple itself had been fortified by Eleazar [ben Ananias, leader of the Zealots],” etc.). See also, Josephus Bell. 4.84-85, 106-107, on John of Gischala’s escape to Jerusalem. In Bell. 7.262-270 Josephus lists a fourth group that operated in Jerusalem, the Idumeans (Edomites). However, since this group did not fight under its own command, there were re- ally only three armies in Jerusalem, as Tacitus reports, and thus no contradiction in this re- spect between the accounts in Tacitus and Josephus. THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL 77 presumably some or all of these previously defeated soldiers whom Titus was referring to in frag. 2 when he spoke of the “big branch” of the Jewish resistance, the Christiani, whose future success was, according to him, de- pendent on the Temple’s continued existence. As discussed above, those in power in Israel during the War shared a common ideology (presumably, that is, the superstitio of the Christiani) that apparently paid particular attention to God’s covenant with King David (see further, note 9 above)23. We may therefore characterize this ideology as “Davidic Judaism.” In fact, the pro-Davidic designs on Israel’s coinage changed little during the first three years of the War (although there seems to have been some backpedaling on the Nazorean symbols during the ex- traordinary pressures of the fourth year)24, so one may draw the preliminary inference that this common ideology changed little during the first three years, at least, of the War. It is unlikely that when Titus used the word “Christiani” at his council of war in frag. 2 to describe this sect — whose destruction, together with their ideology, had been a number one priority (Lat., in primis) for the Ro- mans — that Titus was actually referring to any single or particular army (see note 22 above), or subsect, among the Jewish insurgents. This is be- cause (a) no single insurgent subsect seems to have stood out as a particular threat to or priority for Rome, and (b) none is known to have had its own superstitio. For Titus, all the insurgent armies or subsects were dangerous, all had to be destroyed, most or all shared a common Christiani superstitio (see above), and most or all were therefore Christiani. The word Christiani (= Netsarim) was thus most likely the generic term in Latin for those in the vanguard of the revolution who followed Davidic Judaism and wished to restore the House of David to the throne of Israel. In effect, “Christiani” is the proper name of the Jewish resistance movement of the first century, the name that Josephus, remarkably, never even gives his readers25.
23. See also, LAUPOT, “Tacitus’ Fragment 2,” 233, 238-47. 24. MESHORER, Ancient Jewish Coins, 2.117: “But whereas the earlier groups depicted the lulav alone, the coins minted in the fourth year of the war present the branches along with the three other symbols of the feast [of Sukkot] tied in a bundle. Thus the emphasis [in the fourth year] was on the feast, not on the palm itself.” 25. His extraordinary silence on this point can best be accounted for by his tendentious- ness (see, e.g., n. 9 above). Another important omission in Josephus’ writings involves the coins of the Jewish War. These were — not surprisingly — referred to as “coins of danger” by the rabbis. See MESHORER, Ancient Jewish Coinage, 105-6, 126, citing (מעות של סכנה) t. Ma’aser Sheni 1.5-1.7; y. Ma’aser Sheni 1.1.12; etc.): “[After the Jewish War] the Ro- mans forbade the usage of these issues in the marketplace. By omitting the mention of Jewish shekels from his literary works, Josephus was actually complying with a Roman order which declared the coins obsolete. Yet his silence [is deliberate] and indicates the political power of [Rome] as well as the degree of importance of the coins themselves.” Idem, Ancient Jewish Coinage, 105. 78 THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL
There most likely would have been a Christus or Netser (“Branch of David”) during the Jewish War. By process of elimination this would have been the aristocrat John of Gischala, since he was the only one of the three leaders of the armies of Israel mentioned by Tacitus in Hist. 5.12.3 (see note 22 above) who was not, like Eleazar ben Ananias, a representative of the priesthood or, like Shimon bar Giora (Aram., lit., “son of a proselyte”), a descendant of Gentiles.26 This clash in politics would also account for Josephus’ extraordinary animosity towards John (Bell. 4.562, 5.562-566, etc.), which is otherwise enigmatic.27 Davidic (i.e., Nazorean) Judaism was originally seen as a way to rid the Land of Israel of invaders, particularly the Philistines. This form of Judaism was renewed in the first century CE for the same reason: to defend Israel against the Roman occupier. According to Josephus (or at least according to Bell. 7.252-258, and Ant. 18.1-10, 23-25, 20.102, as opposed to his other writings), the ideological founder of the first-century Jewish insurgency (= Tacitus’ Christus) was Judah of Gamla, also known as Judah of Galilee (see Josephus Bell. 2.118, 433, 7.253, Ant. 18.4, 9, 23, 20.102). If these Josephan passages are any guide, we may conclude, based on all the fore- going, that the Jewish insurgents (= Judah’s ideological followers) were known to the Romans as Christiani and to the Jews as Netsarim (Nazo- reans), and that the ideology they followed was the superstitio of the Christiani (see frag. 2), also referred to by Josephus as the “fourth philoso- phy” (Ant. 18.1-10, 23-25, etc.) — despite the fact that Josephus himself never explicitly connects his fourth philosophy with either the contempo- rary restoration of the House of David or Davidic Judaism (see further, notes 9 and 25 above). 4. All this helps to neutralize one of the main premises of the argument that Severus could have interpolated an entirely fictional account of Titus’ persecution of the Christiani into 2 Chron. 30.6-7 (= fragment 2), based on a supposedly unhistorical tradition of a later persecution of the Christiani by Hadrian28: On the contrary, however, according to the evidence adduced
26. Cf. the hypothesis in U[riel] RAPPAPORT, “John of Gischala, 280: From Galilee to Je- rusalem,” JJS 33, nos. 1-2 (1982) 479-493, to the effect that John was a moderate. This the- sis, however, is based in part on the unwarranted assumption that “[i]f John had placed him- self in the van of a revolt against Rome, Josephus would undoubtedly have wished to disclose the facts.” See also nn. 9 and 25 above. 27. Ibid., 481-2: “Indeed, it is doubtful whether any apt explanation [for Josephus’ ani- mosity] can be provided.” 28. See discussions in Yochanan H. LEWY [Johanan Hans Levy], Studies in Jewish Hel- lenism [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1960) 190-4 [Hebrew]; G.K. VAN ANDEL, “The Christian Concept of History in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1976) 33-4, 43-8, 51-2; and Hugh MONTEFIORE, “Sulpicius Severus and Titus’ Council of War,” Historia 11 (1962) 156-70, esp. 165. THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL 79 so far, there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that Hadrian’s dispute with the Christiani was a myth or that the Christiani necessarily disappeared af- ter 70 CE29. Thus, it is not hard to imagine that the Netsarim as a sect could have survived the destruction of the Temple for at least another 60 years during peacetime — until Bar Kokhba’s war with Hadrian (though almost certainly at a level of strength significantly below that which the Netsarim had achieved during the Second Temple period)30. Most likely the Netsarim in that case would have fought alongside other Jewish troops under Bar Kokhba, and there would have been therefore a historical basis to Severus’ account of the dispute between the Christiani and Hadrian in his Chronica 2.31.3-4 (which was in turn influenced by Jerome Chronicon Eusebii 283F and Paulinus Nolensis Ep. 31.3, the latter adapted from Jerome Ep. 58.3.5 to Paulinus).31 The resulting historicity of Chron. 2.31.3-4 undermines one of the main premises of the argument that Severus drastically Christianized fragment 2: Hadrian’s actions in establishing pagan idols in both (a) Beth-
29. Shimon APPLEBAUM, “The Zealots: The Case for Revaluation,” Journal of Roman Studies 61 (1971) 170: “The Zealot movement, however, did not perish in 73,” etc. 30. See further, sect. 10 below on 1 Clement. 31. See esp. discussion in VAN ANDEL, Chronicle, 9-10, 29, 33-4, 45-6. For Jerome’s let- ter, see I. HILBERG, ed., Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi epistulae (2 vols.; 2nd ed.; CSEL 54; Vi- enna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996) 1.531-2; and English translation in Jerome, St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works, vol. 6, of The Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers, ser. 2 (1893]; repr., Gran Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 120. For the latest edi- tion of Jerome’s Chronicon Eusebii, see Rudolf HELM, ed., Die Chronik des Hieronymus: Hieronymi Chronicon, vol. 7 of Eusebius Werke (9 vols.; 3rd ed.; GCS; Berlin: Akademie- Verlag, 1984) 201; and for the letters of Paulinus Nolensis, see G. DE HARTEL and Margit KAMPTNER, eds., Sancti Pontii Meropii Paulini Nolani epistulae, vol. 1 of Sancti Pontii Meropii Paulini Nolani opera (2 vols.; 2nd ed.; CSEL 29; Vienna: Verlag der österreichi- schen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1999), 269-71. It may be noted that in general in his Chronica Severus exhibited a “rigorous fidelity to his sources, despite a sufficiently large number of errors (no fewer than 30) and a clear ten- dency toward apologetics.” Ghislaine DE SENNEVILLE-GRAVE, Sulpice Severe, Chroniques (SC 441; Paris: Cerf, 1999) 46. “[Severus’ Chronica] is the best piece of historical narrative written during the [fifth] century…. [Sulpicius] is at great pains to fix the chronology of per- sons and events as precisely as possible. Where the evidence is conflicting and there is no way of determining where the balance of probability lies, he leaves the matter open. That he is not always right when he thinks that he has solved a problem matters little, in view of his genuine, scientific desire to obtain and probe all the evidence that he can.” M.L.W. LAISTNER, “Some Reflections on Latin Historical Writing in the Fifth Century,” Classical Philology 35, no. 3 (1940) 241-58, esp. 247. See further, DE SENNEVILLE-GRAVE, Chroniques, 11, 66-7 (cit- ing additional sources). “[Severus] used numerous other sources in addition to the Bible and he did so as critically as his opinions and premisses allowed.” VAN ANDEL, Chronicle, 52-3. Indeed, Severus’ critical spirit manifested itself publicly “in his censure of church dignitar- ies,” which seems to have resulted in the Chronica’s well-known unpopularity during the Middle Ages. LAISTNER, “Latin Historical Writings,” 249-50. On Severus’ motives, see fur- ther, Stefan WEBER, Die Chronik des Sulpicius Severus: Charakteristika und Intentionen (Bochumer Altertumswissenschaftliches Colloquium 30; Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 1997) 103-7, 109, 111.; and VAN ANDEL, Chronicle, 2, 7, 140-1. 80 THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL lehem (according to Jerome’s letter, describing the birthplace of King David) and (b) in the place, as well, where the Temple had once stood, ac- cording to Severus Chron. 2.31.3, were perfectly consistent with the exist- ence of a conflict between the Christiani and Rome, as reflected in frag- ment 2. In fact, Severus Chron. 2.31.3-4 and the three sources listed above that Severus drew on, directly and indirectly, for this passage in the Chronica all parallel frag. 2 and thus help support frag. 2's historicity. 5. This historicity is further confirmed by the fact that frag. 2 best ex- plains the well-known but hitherto obscure comment in Suetonius Divus Claudius 25.4 regarding a certain Chrestus living during the reign of Clau- dius: “He [Claudius] expelled Jews from Rome because of their constant disturbances at the behest of the instigator [impulsor] Chrestus” (Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit)32. We are now in a position for the first time to identify more accurately Suetonius’ Chrestus: He was most probably an anointed Nazorean king (xristóv [Christus], twisted sarcastically to xrjstóv [Chrestus] by the Romans: see note 49 be- low) believed to be descended from David, presumably in a line through the man who founded the sect itself, Tacitus’ Christus (see Annals 15.44.3)33.
32. See esp. discussions in H. Dixon SLINGERLAND, Claudian Policymaking and the Early Imperial Repression of Judaism at Rome (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 160; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), esp. 89-245; and J. MOTTERSHEAD, ed., Suetonius, Clau- dius [Bristol, UK: Bristol Classical Press, 1986] 149-57; Stephen BENKO, “Pagan Criticism of Christianity during the First Two Centuries A.D.,” ANRW 2.23.2 (1980) 1055-118, esp. 1056-62; and bibliography and commentary in Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974- 1984) 2.113-7. On the meaning of Chrestus, see n. 49 below. Slingerland and Mottershead both conclude, inter alia, that this Chrestus had probably been alive during Claudius' reign. Mottershead favors the traditional view that Chrestus was well known to Suetonius’ readers; but cf. the recent hypothesis of Slingerland, Judaism at Rome, 179-217, that Chrestus was a powerful, but hitherto unknown, freedman of Claudius. 33. In general, there is no reason to believe that a Jewish king, particularly one deemed to be descended from David, would not have had heirs. The statement attributed to Jesus in Matt 19.12 putatively recommending celibacy appears originally instead to have advocated cir- cumcision, since this verse is otherwise enigmatic: Castration was frowned upon, if not ab- horred, by Jews (see Deut 23.1 [22.30]; also, Lev 21.17, 20, Gen 5.1, 48.4, Lev 26.9, 2 Kings 20.18 and par. Isa 39.7, b. San. 56b [authorizing the death penalty for those Gentiles subject to the Noahide laws who castrate themselves — on the grounds that emasculation negates God’s commandment to Noah and his descendants to “be fruitful and multiply” {Gen 9.1, 7}; and compare the fruit engraved on Israel’s coins of the Jewish War], etc.; but cf. Isa 56.3- 5, 8). Furthermore, it is extremely seldom, if ever, that anyone is either born a eunuch from his mother’s womb or any Jew made one at or shortly after birth. However, if one changes the words “eunuchs” and “castrate” wherever they appear in Matt 19.12 to “the circum- cised” and “circumcise,” respectively, Matt 19.12 may be reconstructed as follows: “For there are the circumcised [i.e., Jews] who were born so from their mother’s womb [figura- tively speaking, that is to say, circumcised on the eighth day after birth: see Gen 17.12, Lev 12.3, etc.]; and there are the circumcised who were circumcised by men [by force, presum- ably]; and there are the circumcised who circumcise themselves [namely, Gentile proselytes] for the sake of the kingdom of God [i.e., the Davidic kingdom of the Land of Israel: see 1 THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL 81
The Jews expelled from Rome by Claudius would have been therefore, at a minimum, the Christiani, and Chrestus need not have been present in Rome prior to or during the expulsion: as king of the Nazoreans, his fol- lowers throughout the Empire would presumably have obeyed his orders to create disturbances no matter where he himself may have been (e.g., Israel). This hypothesis accounts best for all the known facts relating to Chrestus in Suetonius’ report, including (1) the strong play on words between impul- sore and expulit which “establish[es] an explicit contrast between the ac- tions of the impulsor Chrestus and the expulsor Claudius, i.e., ‘Chrestus im- pulit, Claudius expulit’” (Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking, 167). This word play is best interpreted in its historical context as portraying two rival kings, Chrestus and Claudius, pushing the Jews of Rome in opposite direc- tions, (2) the regular employment by Suetonius throughout his extant works of the word tumultuantes to mean anti-Roman political disturbances (idem, Claudian Policymaking, 156-9),34 and (3) Chrestus’ apparently enduring
Chron 28.5; 2 Chron 13.8; and sect. 7 below; note also Josh 5.2-8].” This statement appears to endorse forced circumcision, a practice that has been associated with both the Maccabean and the first-century CE insurgencies in Israel. E.g., Martin HENGEL, The Zealots: Investiga- tions into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 A.D. (1989; repr., Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997) 197-200; trans. of Die Zeloten (2nd ed.; AGJU 1; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), citing Hippolytus Haer. 9.26.2 (see below), Josephus Bell. 2.454, idem Vita 112-113, 149-154, etc; also, Steven WEITZMAN, “Forced Circumcision and the Shifting Role of Gentiles in Hasmonean Ideology,” HTR 92, no. 1 (1999) 37-59. The above reconstruction of Matt 19.12 reminds one strongly of Hippolytus Haer. 9.26.2: ∏teroi dé, êpàv âkoúswsí tivov perì qeoÕ dialegomévou kaì t¬v toútou vómwv, eî âperítmjtov e÷j, parafulázav
Other possible anti-Roman cryptograms not mentioned by Beck are: “the strong man” (Matt 12.29 and par. Gos. Thom. 35; Gos. Thom. 98 [see n. 51 below]): the strong man’s “house” in Matt 12.29 and Gos. Thom. 35 appears to symbolize either the House of Israel or the Temple, i.e., the “House of Herod,” the liberation of which would have been a top priority for the Nazoreans; “[Roman] eagles,” behaving as vultures (âetoí; Heb., nesherim; Matt 24.28 and par. Luke 17.37 [compare 1QpHab 3.8, 11-12; Midr. Lam. 1.45 and pars. Midr. Lam. 4.22, Midr. Esther Prologue 3, Deut 28.49, Hab 1.8, and Lam 4.19]; and see esp. Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “ea- gle”; further, EncJud, s.v. “eagle”’; LSJ and rev. supp. 1996, s.v. âetóv; unclean spirits,” Matt 12.43-45 and par. Luke 11.24-“ ;(נשר .and BDB, s.v 26 (the “man” here appears to represent Israel [compare Mark 5.1-20 and pars.] and the man’s “house,” the Temple; the first “unclean spirit” is Isra- el’s Greek Gentile occupiers expelled by the Maccabees; and the seven “unclean spirits” who return in force appear to be the Romans; on the sig- nificance here of the number seven, compare Judg 16.8-9, cited in Cave, “Unclean Spirits,” 96 [see note 36 above]); “mankind” or “the world” (ãvqrwpoi [see LSJ, s.v. ãvqrwpov] = most likely, Heb./Aram., ha-goyim [“the nations” or “the Gentiles”] = the Romans37) in Matt 5.1338, 10.17, 28, pig, the Roman emperor is usually depicted as a dog — not congenial animals in Jewish tra- dition.” Zvi YAVETZ, “Reflections on Titus and Josephus,” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 16, no. 4 (1975) 411-32, esp. 412. On Mark 5.1-20, see esp. discussions in Robert W. FUNK et al., The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1998) 77-9, 181, 296-8; and C.H. CAVE, ”The Obedience of Unclean Spirits,” NTS 11, no. 1 (1964) 93-7; more generally, Carol Schersten LAHURD, “Reader Re- sponse to Ritual Elements in Mark 5:1-20,” BTB 20, no. 4 (1990) 154-60; Ze’ev SAFRAI, “Gergesa, Gerasa, or Gadara? Where did Jesus’ Miracle Occur?,” Jerusalem Perspective 51 (April/June 1996) 16-19. The ending (Mark 5.18-20 and pars.) has been widely regarded as a description of Pauline proselytizing in the Decapolis; however, as noted above, the Nazoreans themselves also proselytized Gentiles. See further, T.A. BURKILL, “Concerning Mk. 5,7 and 5,18-20,” ST 11 (1957) 159-66; and Vincent TAYLOR, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1966) 278. On 4Q285 and its inferred connection with 1QM (the War Scroll) and 11Q14, Philip S. ALEXANDER, “A Reconstruction and Reading of 4Q285 (4QSefer ha-Milhamah),” RevQ 19, no. 3 (2000) 333-48: “Clearly [4Q285] belongs to the great eschatological war cycle, of which 1QM is the best preserved example [p. 348].” 37. The expression “the Gentiles” was routinely used by Israel’s soldiers under Bar Kokhba and employed in the Synoptic Gospels as well to refer to the Romans. See Max WILCOX, “The Aramaic Background of the New Testament,” in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context (ed. D.R.G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara; JSOTSup 166; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994) 362-78, esp. 372-3, citing Y[igael] Yadin, “Expedition D,» IEJ 11, nos. 1-2 (1961) 36-52, esp. 46 (“the Bar Kokhba documents… generally used the Mur 42.5 (P. BENOIT, J.T. MILIK, and R. DE VAUX, Les grottes de Murabba'at ;(”הגואים term [2 vols.; DJD 2; Oxford: Clarendon, 1961] 1.155-9, esp. 1.156-7 [“were the Gentiles not ap- proaching us, I should have gone up“]); and Luke 21.24. See also Matt 18.17, 20.19 and pars.; etc. 38. In Matt 5.13, “to trample” is apparently employed metaphorically in the well-known sense in Greek (as well as in Hebrew and Aramaic) of “to conquer.” It thus seems that in 84 THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL
16.23; Mark 9.31 and pars. Matt 17.22, Luke 9.44; “those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul,” i.e., the Romans (Matt 10.28 and pars. Luke 12.4-5 and esp. 4 Macc 13.14-15); and the Roman emperor as a kúriov (“master,” “lord,” “king”) who is not to be served. Compare Matt 6.24 (in which the word “Caesar” seems to have been redacted to “mammon” [mamwv¢v], presumably for political reasons) and pars. Luke 16.13, Gos. Thom. 47b, Josephus Ant. 18.23, and idem Bell. 2.118, 433, etc.; note fur- ther, Matt 23.9 and Mark 12.29, the latter influenced by Deut 6.4 (the Shema)39. As Beck remarks in Anti-Roman Cryptograms, 93: “[T]he limi- tation of anti-Roman polemic in what was to become New Testament docu- ments to subtle cryptograms that only alert and informed readers will rec- ognize testifies unambiguously to the awesome power of the Roman State… to exert that power over the lives of the early Christians.” 7. One notes the forceful speech in 2 Chron 13.4-12 given on Mount Zemaraim by the Davidic King Abiya (or Abijah, i.e., David’s great-grand- son: see 2 Chron 11.20 and 1 Kings 15.1-8), the language of which (not surprisingly, given its Davidic bent) is found dispersed throughout the New Testament, particularly the Sermon on the Mount, e.g.: “a covenant of salt” (see note 38 above, regarding Matt 5.13), “low-lifes” (Heb., reqim; sg., req; compare Äaká in Matt 5.22)40, “rebelled” (Heb., marah; note the
Matt 5.13's original historical context, the followers of Jesus were the “salt” of the restored Davidic covenant in the Land (g± = Heb., erets) of Israel. On salt used to seal covenants with God, Exod 30.35; Lev 2.13; Num 18.19; Ezek 43.24; etc., and, in particular, on salt and the Davidic covenant, see 2 Chron 13.5. The economic importance of salt is further indicated by the prevalence down to the present day of salt taxes or of government monopolies. In oriental systems of taxation high imposts on salt are seldom lacking and are often carried out oppressively with the result that the article is apt to reach the consumer in an impure state largely mixed with earth. “The salt which has lost its savour” (Matt. V, 13) is simply the earthy residuum of such an impure salt after the sodium chloride has been washed out. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th ed., s.v. “salt.” Since Jesus the Nazorean warned his follow- ers in Matt 5.13 not to become like salt that had been adulterated (mwraínw), we may infer that he was advising them, inter alia, not to support a Roman salt tax, lest the tribute col- lected be used to fund the ongoing Roman occupation (or “trampling”) of Israel. For another of Jesus’ admonitions not to pay taxes, see n. 61 below on Matt 7.14 and par. 39. The idea of not serving more than one King goes to the core of Jewish monotheism and, in particular, Josephus’ “fourth philosophy.” Gedalyahu ALON, Jews, Judaism and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple and Talmud (trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977) 254: “Several scholars have al- ready noted, on the basis of other sources, that Titus (and his father) regarded [the Jewish War] as a struggle between the deity of Rome and the God of Israel — a fact that was clearly established by Weber and subsequently by R. Eisler,” etc. The scriptural bases of the “fourth philosophy” seem to have been the Shema (Deut 6.4 and Mark 12.29) and the First Com- mandment. Hengel, Zealots, 98-9, 144-5, 227 n. 407. 40. Charles Cutler TORREY, The Four Gospels: A New Translation (New York and Lon- THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL 85 word mwré, also in Matt 5.22)41, “royal official” (Heb., ebedim, translated as doÕlov in both the LXX and the New Testament)42, etc. One further notes the use of “lord” and “sons of David” in Abiya’s speech to designate the Davidic kings. We may also examine the important reference in this speech to “the kingdom of God.” This expression (lit., “the kingdom of Yahweh” [2 Chron 13.8]) appears in the Hebrew Bible in only one other place (1 Chron 28.5), and in both instances in the mouths of David’s royal descendants, where it has but one meaning: the Davidic kingdom of the Land of Israel. “For the Chronicler the kingdom of David was the kingdom of God; that kingdom was forever to be in the hands of David’s descend- ants. For the post-exile audience to which he wrote, an audience living without a Davidic king, this speech must have expressed their hopes and as- pirations… Israel as the Kingdom of Yahweh is one of the Chronicler’s favorite themes (1 Chr 17:14; 28:5; 29:11, 23; 2 Chr 9:8).”43 We may tentatively conclude that King Abiya’s speech had been a favorite of the Nazoreans. Psalm 80 may also have been accorded special attention by the Nazo- reans. Its language appears with reasonably frequency throughout the Synop- tics: “flock,” “saved,” “vine,” “Egypt,” “branches,” “grapes,” “burned with fire,” “the wild boar from the forest” (Ps 80.14 [13], the last repre- senting the enemies of both Israel and the Davidic kingdom; compare Matt 7.6 and Mark 5.1-20, where the symbolism seems to be applied to Rome44), “shepherd,” and “son of man.” The last two refer primarily to God and Is-
don: Harper & Bros., 1933) 10, 290-1; and Robert A. GUELICH, “Mt 5 22: Its Meaning and Integrity,” ZNW 64 (1973) 39-52, esp. 39-40, 42. 41. TORREY, Four Gospels, 10, 290-1; but against this cf. the traditional view that mwré is the Greek vocative, “fool!” Samuel Tobias LACHS, A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1987) 92-3; and Guelich, “Mt 5 22,” 40-2. 42. See Elias J. BICKERMAN, “The Name of Christians,” HTR 42 (1949) 109-24, esp. 119- 24; repr. in idem, Studies in Jewish and Christian History (3 vols.; AGJU 9; Leiden: Brill, 1986) 3.139-51, esp. 3.148-51. On the Pauline conception of doÕlov as the “slave [of the res- urrected Christ],” see [Gustav] Adolf DEISSMANN, Light from the Ancient East (rev. ed.; 1927; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995) 376-7; trans. of Licht vom Osten (4th ed.; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1923) 322-3. 43. Raymond B. DILLARD, 2 Chronicles (WBC; Waco: Word, 1987) 108. See also n. 33 above and, more generally, Michael LATTKE, “On the Jewish Background of the Synoptic Concept ‘The Kingdom of God,’” in The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (ed. Bruce Chilton; IRT 5; Philadelphia: Fortress Press; London: SPCK, 1984) 72-91. 44. See above at n. 36. Influenced by Ps 80.14, the rabbinic literature also identifies the wild boar and the pig with Rome: b. Qid. 39b; Gen. Rab. 63.8, 65.1; Esther Rab. 4.5; Lev. Rab. 13.5; Midr. Psalms 80.6; and Midr. Cant. 3.4.2 (the last three involving commentaries on Psalm 80). See also, HENGEL, Zealots, 303 n. 403, 308 n. 427; and YAVETZ, “Titus and Josephus,” 412. 86 THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL rael, respectively, but there also appear to contain secondary references to the Davidic king45. 8. Let us turn now our attention to the Great Fire of Rome in 64 CE. To begin with, most ancient sources, such as Suetonius Nero 38, Dio 62.16-18, and Pliny N.H. 17.1.5, unequivocally blame Nero for setting it, while Tacitus (Ann. 15.38.1) alone wavers between holding the emperor responsi- ble and calling the Fire an accident.46 A combination of these two factors is also possible.47 In any event, according to Tacitus a persistent report had spread that the Emperor himself had been responsible for the Fire and so, in order to silence the dissent, Nero in effect switched defendants (subdidit reos) by falsely charging the Christiani with arson (Ann. 15.44.2). It is quite possible that Nero cunningly believed he could succeed in scapegoating the Christiani in Rome because they had been allied with peo- ple in Judea who, according to Tacitus and Josephus, had been involved in burning villages.48 These acts of arson by the Jewish freedom movement in
45. Marvin E. TATE, Psalms 51-100 (WBC 20; Dallas: Word, 1990) 316; Mitchell DA- HOOD, Psalms II: 51-100 (AB 17; Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1968) 260, citing a parallel in Ps 89.22 [21]; etc. 46. E.g., Robert K. BOHM, “Nero as Incendiary,” Classical World 79, no. 6 (1986) 400-1, esp. 400 n. 1. 47. Ibid., 400-1. 48. Tacitus Ann. 12.54.3 (arsissetque bello provincia); and, e.g., Josephus Bell. 2.265, 7.254; Ant. 20.187; and esp. 20.185 (on events during the early sixties): “for the villages [throughout Judea] one and all were being set on fire and plundered” (L.H. Feldman, Loeb). Cf. 2 Macc 8.6. Note also Gos. Thom. 10 (“Jesus said, ‘I have cast fire upon the world, and see, I am guarding it until it blazes'”) and par. Luke 12.49; Gos. Thom. 16a-b (“Jesus said, ‘Men think, perhaps, that it is peace which I have come to cast upon the world. They do not know that it is dissension which I have come to cast upon the earth: fire, sword, and war”) and pars. Matt 10.34 and Luke 12.49, 51; and Gos. Thom. 82 (“Jesus said, ‘He who is near me is near the fire, and he who is far from me is far from the kingdom [on ‘the kingdom’ as denoting the Davidic kingdom of Israel, see above]’”); further, Gos. Sav. 71, 81, 82 [in its historical context, “the {son} of the King” = “the son of God” = the Davidic king as God’s adopted son in 2 Sam 7.14; Ps. 2.7; Mark 1.11 and pars.; etc.], 85 (Charles W. HEDRICK and Paul A. MIRECKI, The Gospel of the Savior: A New Ancient Gospel [California Classics Li- brary; Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 1999]; also, Stephen EMMEL, “The Recently Published Gospel of the Savior [‘Unbekanntes Berliner Evangelium’]: Righting the Order of Pages and Events,” HTR 95, no. 1 [2002] 46 at n. 8, 57-8, 58 n. 82). All translations of the Gospel of Thomas in this paper are based on Thomas O. Lambdin, trans., “The Gospel according to Thomas,” in Nag Hammadi Codex II,2-7 (ed. Bentley Layton; 2 vols.; NHS 20-21 Leyde: E.J. Brill, 1989) 1.52-93. On Gos. Thom. 10, see further, Lance Eccles, Introductory Coptic Reader: Selections from the Gospel of Thomas with Full Grammatical Explanations (Ken- sington, MD: Dunwoody, 1991) 14. On the Gospel of Thomas generally, Peter NAGEL, “Das Gleichnis vom zerbrochenen Krug: EvThom Logion 97,” ZNW 92, nos. 3-4 (2001) 229-56, esp. 229-30 (citing additional sources). We may infer, however, that the general strategy of the Jewish resistance within Judea was to expel the Roman occupying force by (1) destroying the occupiers’ property tax base and bureaucratic infrastructure there and (2) seizing (i.e., “plundering” [Ant. 20.185: diarpáhw; see further, HENGEL, Zealots, 44 n. 167, citing also Bell. 2.275, 652-654, 4.134, THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL 87
Judea may therefore have been among the flagitia (“crimes”, “outrages”) Tacitus refers to in Ann. 15.44.2 that had already caused the Roman public to turn against the Christiani.49 Nero seems to have played cleverly on this public reaction by cynically attempting to cast the blame for the Great Fire on the Christiani. Successful Nazorean proselytizing throughout Rome is reported by Tacitus in Ann. 15.44.3: repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rur- sum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam (“and, suppressed for the time being, the [Christiani’s] deadly alien religious belief was breaking out again, not only throughout Judea, the source of this evil, but also throughout [Lat., per] Rome”).50 We may infer
405, 6.202-203, 358, and Ant. 20.185, 187, 256) for their cause precious wealth belonging to the Romans and their collaborators. See HENGEL, Zealots, 336-7 (“As far as possible, how- ever, [the insurgents] spared the ordinary Jewish rural population, on whose goodwill they depended”), citing Josephus Bell. 2.229, 253 [= Ant. 20.114]; also, 346 n. 177. On the resist- ance's strategy and motives generally, APPLEBAUM, “Zealots,” 155-70. 49. Quos per flagitia inuisos uulgus Chrestianos appellabat (“who, hated for their crimes, were called Chrestiani by the public”). Note that the reading of “Chrestiani” in the Second Medicean MS over the variant “Christiani” in the other MSS has been accepted by the last three critical editions of Annals 15: H. HEUBNER, ed., Ab excessu divi Augusti, vol. 1 of P. Cornelii Taciti libri qui supersunt (rev. ed.; Stuttgart and Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1994); Kenneth WELLESLEY, ed., Ab excessu divi Augusti libri XI-XVI, vol. 1, pt. 2 of Cornelii Taciti libri qui supersunt (ed. S. Borzsák and Kenneth Wellesley; Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1986); and Franz RÖMER, ed., P. Corneli Taciti Annalium libri XV-XVI, Wiener Studien, no. 6 (Vi- enna: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., 1976). “Chrestiani” means “the followers of Chrestus,” which in turn may be interpreted informally as “the followers of ‘Mr. Nice Guy’,” with an ironic play on the meaning of the proper name Chrestus (from xrjstóv, “he who is useful, ethical, good,” etc.; see LSJ, s.v. xrjstóv). This matches the etymology of “Chrestiani” given in the ecclesiastical literature. Harald FUCHS, “Tacitus über die Christen,” VC 4 (1950) 65-93, esp. 71 n. 7, repr. in idem, “Der Bericht über die Christen in den Annalen des Tacitus,” in Tacitus, (ed. Viktor Pöschl; Wege der Forschung 97; Darmstadt: Wissenschaft- liche Buchgesellschaft, 1969) 558-604, citing Tertullian Apol. 3.5; Lactantius Inst. 4.7.4; 1 Clement 14.3-4; Justin Apol. 4.5; Theophilus Autol. 1.1, 12; Clement Strom. 2.4.18.3; idem Protr. 12.123.1; etc. For those Romans who hated the Christiani because of their flagitia, the expression “Chrestiani” would most likely have been employed with irony, since for them the Christiani’s goal of a politically independent Israel and a dismantled Empire would hardly have been considered either useful or good. Indeed, it is implied in Tacitus Ann. 15.44.5 (unde quamquam aduersus sontes et nouissima exempla meritos miseratio oriebatur, tamquam non utilitate publica, sed in saeuitiam unius absumerentur [“Whence arose a wave of sympathy {for the Nazoreans} who, though subversive and deserving of the death penalty as a deterrent to others, nevertheless were being destroyed not for the common good but be- cause of the savagery of one man {i.e., Nero}]) that the Chrestiani were opposed to the utilitas publica (the “common good” or “Roman state”), since it is stated explicitly that they were aduersus sontes (“subversive,” lit., “guilty in opposition [presumably to the utilitas publica]”; see sect. 6 and n. 22 above; also, n. 56 below on Tacitus’ description in Hist. 5.5.2 of the Jews as aduersus omnes alios). The Chrestiani movement were thus perceived by many as decidedly not useful (xrjstóv) to Rome. 50. Note also Acts 15.1, 5-6, 13-21 (“the Jerusalem Assembly”); and see Shlomo PINES, “The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity according to a New Source,” 88 THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL from this that the Nazoreans felt (correctly) that they had no choice but to reach out to Gentiles as allies against the more powerful Roman state. They seem to have arrived at this conclusion as a result of Rome’s temporary suppression of them following Christus’ death at the hands of Pontius Pilate, as reported by Tacitus in Ann. 15.44.3 (see above at note 50). The Emperor Claudius states in his official letter to the Alexandrians of 41 CE (lines 99-100) that the Judeans were “initiators of a communicable [lit., “shared in common”] disease throughout the Roman Empire” (kaqáper koivßv teiva t±v oîkoumévjv vósov êzegeírovtav).51 Claudius’ meta- phor here involving transmission of a communicable disease from one per-
Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 2 (1968) 237-301, esp. 261-2 (see further, n. 59 below). It is obvious, as emphasized by Pines’ source (whether primary or secondary makes no difference in this respect), that without the Noahide laws (see below), or some similar relaxation of standards of Torah observance, the Nazoreans could not have been able to mass proselytize successfully among Gentiles throughout Rome (Tacitus Ann. 15.44.3) or in other parts of the Empire (see below). Note, however, that the Noahide laws’ exemption of male Gentiles from circumcision may only have been applied by the Nazoreans to those living outside of Israel. Cf. Josh 5.2-8; and see n. 33 above. “The [second-century rabbinic] Noahide laws [regarding the rules to be observed by Gen- tile adherents to Judaism, e.g., t. Abod. Zar. 8.4-7; b. San. 56a-b; also, b. Yeb. 48b, b. Yoma 67b, etc.]… perhaps are lurking in some form in the background to Acts 15.” Shaye J.D. COHEN, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (LEC; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987) 217; but cf. the dissenting argument from silence in David NOVAK, “The Origin of the Noahide Laws,” in Perspectives on Jews and Judaism: Essays in Honor of Wolfe Kelman (ed. Arthur A. Chiel; New York: Rabbinical Assembly, 1978) 301-10. See generally, Justin TAYLOR, “The Jerusalem Decrees (Acts 15.20, 29 and 21.25) and the Incident at Antioch (Gal 2.11-14),” NTS 47, no. 3 (2001) 372-80. In any event, David Flusser’s analyses of Didache 3.1-6 and 6.2-3 demonstrate that these two passages parallel the second-century rab- binic Noahide laws, providing additional evidence that these liberal laws, or something simi- lar, were adopted not only by the rabbis but the first-century Christiani as well. David FLUSSER, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988) 494-508, esp. 508; and idem, “Paul’s Jewish-Christian Opponents in the Didache,” in The Didache in Modern Research (ed. Jonathan A. Draper; AGJU 37; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996) 195-211. On the Didache, see generally, Sebastian BROCK, “The Two Ways and the Palestinian Targum,” in A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History (ed. Philip R. Davies and Richard T. White; JSOTSup 100; Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press, 1990) 139-52, esp. 139-40. 51. P. Lond. 1912. H. Idris Bell, ed., Jews and Christians in Egypt, vol. 6 of Greek Papyri in the British Museum (1924; repr., Milan: Cisalpino-Giolardica, 1977) 1-37, 1977; Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1972) 1-37; also, CPJ 2.42-55; and A.S. Hunt and C.C. Edgar, Select Papyri (4 vols.; Loeb; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934) 2.79-89, esp. 2.86-87. Note, too, Josephus’ remark in Ant. 18.24 hinting strongly at the geographical extent of the Jewish insurgency: “Inasmuch as most people [to⁄v pollo⁄v] have seen the steadfast- ness of [the Jewish insurgents’] resolution amid [the] circumstances [of their public execu- tions], I may forgo any further account” (Feldman, Loeb); also, Gos. Thom. 98: “Jesus said, ‘The kingdom of the Father [i.e., Israel] is like a certain man who wanted to kill a powerful man [presumably, Caesar]. In his own “house” [i.e., either Israel or the Temple] he drew his sword and stuck it into the wall in order to find out whether his hand could carry through. Then he slew the powerful man’.” THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL 89 son to another was meant to apply to the Jewish resistance and was an apt one for Nazorean proselytizing from person to person.52 The Nazoreans’ sense of political and military insecurity would also ex- plain the appearance on the coins of the Jewish War of pomegranates that were not yet ripe and round, but in “the transitional stage from blossom to fruit” (Kadman, Coins of the Jewish War, 87). The fruit was in transition because Israel itself was in transition: Israel was not yet safe. The Chris- tiani knew very well that Vespasian’s army could turn around at any mo- ment and head back to Israel should the Roman civil war be concluded suc- cessfully by Vespasian. They knew their freedom would never be com- pletely secured until the Roman Empire had been dismantled. There could be no compromise between the two states, and for that reason Rome had to be destroyed. The Nazoreans were unquestionably ambitious in this re- spect53. In any event, in Rome in 64 the Nazoreans must have been doing some- thing, such as proselytizing, to have attracted Nero's attention. Clearly his behavior towards them (Ann. 15.44.4-5) was so violent it could only have been brought about by their actions, not just their thoughts. Proselytizing is entirely consistent with Tacitus’ report in Annals 15.44.4: igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur54 (“Therefore at first those [Chris- tiani] were arrested [by Nero] who were being exposed [fatebantur]”), i.e., by their actions, including, presumably, proselytizing). Fatebantur has tra- ditionally been translated here as “were confessing,” but it is virtually in-
52. See esp. discussion in APPLEBAUM, “Zealots,” 166, n. 141, quoting Josephus Bell. 7.437 and Orosius Hist. adv. Pag. 7.27.6. Note also Justin TAYLOR, “Why Were the Disciples First Called ‘Christians’ at Antioch? (Acts 11, 26),” Revue Biblique 101, no. 1 (1994) 75-94, esp. 86-91 passim, with the understanding, however, that the proselytizing in Rome, and pre- sumably Antioch as well, would have been done in fact by the Christiani, not Pauline Chris- tians. Mass proselytizing by the Jewish resistance would also explain the otherwise obscure remark in b. Git. 56b comparing the Jewish insurgency with a gnat: “Why is [the gnat] called a tiny creature? Because it has an orifice for taking in but not for excreting” (trans. Soncino). What this appears to refer to is that the insurgency “took in” (proselytized) indiscriminately, accepting most recruits, including Gentiles, and “excreting” (rejecting) few or none (includ- ing presumably, given the political circumstances, Roman spies). On first-century Jewish and Christian proselytizing generally, Irina LEVINSKAYA, The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Set- ting, vol. 5 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting (ed. Bruce W. Winter; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1996). 53. It is tempting to speculate that the Jews intervened in Rome’s civil war (68-69 CE) by helping to finance one or more opposition Roman armies. Nor is there any reason to suppose the Nazoreans, after seizing control of the Land of Israel, were poor. Indeed, it would have been foolish for them not to have attempted to divide and conquer in this fashion: They had everything to gain and little to lose. 54. Wellesley, Ab excessu divi Augusti; Heubner, Ab excessu divi Augusti; and Römer, Annalium libri XV-XVI. 90 THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL conceivable that the anti-Roman Christiani would have confessed voluntar- ily before being arrested.55 Furthermore, “[t]he imperfect tense of [fate- bantur] very properly indicates a habitual behaviour on the part of the [Christiani], a circumstance completely lost in the traditional interpreta- tion.”56 We can infer, all told, that Nero had been antagonistic towards the Christiani for attempting to recruit Gentiles (assumedly, for the most part, the have-nots, including slaves) in Rome into their anti-Roman movement. The crime the Christiani were accused of, arson, may even have been pre- sented by Nero, publicly at least, as an attempt to “proselytize” Rome by igniting a revolution in the capital city. Because only those Nazoreans were initially taken into custody who had already been exposed by their actions, we may further deduce that in Rome there had been a significant number of other Christiani whose identities had apparently not been known before- hand to the Roman authorities and who had therefore been present in the capital city to further their cause in secret. 9. Let us further examine the events surrounding the Great Fire. Certain details brought to light by Tacitus are of great interest in this regard:
55. Paul KERESZTES, “Nero, the Christians and the Jews in Tacitus and Clement of Rome,” Latomus 43, no. 2 (1984) 404-13, esp. 404-7, 412; and Robert J. GETTY, “Nero’s Indictment of the Christians in A.D. 64: Tacitus’ Annals 15.44.2-4,” in The Classical Tradition: Literary and Historical Studies in Honor of Harry Caplan (ed. Luitpold Wallach; Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press, 1966) 285-92, esp. 286, 287 (“their confession, whatever it was, is made illogi- cally and improbably before their arrest”), 288 passim; also, F.W. CLAYTON, “Tacitus and Nero's Persecution of the Christians,” CQ 47 (1941) 81-5, esp. 81, 84. 56. KERESZTES, “Tacitus and Clement,” 412 n. 52 (italics original). The words that follow directly in Ann. 15.44.4 are also of interest: deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis coniuncti sunt (“Then on their information a vast multitude of others were united, not so much in the crime of arson as in hatred of the human race”). Wellesley, Ab excessu divi Augusti, following the Second Medicean MS. Heubner, Ab excessu divi Augusti, and Römer, Annalium libri XV-XVI, prefer the more legally formal “conuicti” (Tacitus had been an attorney) to “coniuncti,” fol- lowing most of the other MSS (Römer, Annalium libri XV-XVI, 67 n.). However, cf. the Sec- ond Medicean's “coniuncti” with the well-known parallel in Tacitus Hist. 5.5.1-2: apud ipsos fides obstinata, misericordia in promptu, sed aduersus omnes alios hostile odium (“Among themselves they [i.e., Jews] are unswerving in their honesty, full of compassion; but they are opposed to all others [i.e., united against all others; note coniuncti {“united”} in the Second Medicean] with the hatred of an enemy [hostile odium; cf. the phrase odio humani generis in Ann. 15.44.4]”). The main issues here for Tacitus involved politics, reli- gion, and ethnicity, not simply formal legal process. Note also KERESZTES, “Tacitus and Clement,” 411-2, citing the parallel passage in 1 Clement 6.1: “Clement, speaking of the massacre, says that a ‘great multitude’, polù pl±qov [= multitudo ingens], ‘was joined’, suvjqroísqj [= coniuncti], to the… leaders”; and discussion in GETTY, “Christians,” 287- 91. On odio humani generis, Stephen BENKO, “Pagan Criticism of Christianity,” 1063-4. The Second Medicean’s coniuncti therefore appears likely to have been the original reading in Ann. 15.44.4. THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL 91
(a) Tacitus reports in Ann. 15.41.2: fuere qui adnotarent XIIII Kal. Sextiles principium incendii huius ortum, quo et Senones captam urbem inflammauerint. alii eo usque cura progressi sunt, ut totidem annos menses- que et dies inter utraque incendia numerent. (“There were those who noted that the Fire started on the 19th of July, the same day also that the Senonian Gauls had captured Rome and burned it [i.e., in 390 BCE]. Others advanced so far in their analysis as to divide the time interval between the two fires into an equal number of years, months, and days.”) It was first discovered by Grotefend in 1845 that what Tacitus was apparently referring to is the fact that the time interval between the two fires (approximately 454 years) can roughly be divided into three numerically equal time periods of 418 years, 418 months, and 418 days (less eight days)57. What Tacitus omits to mention here however is that these results would have been perceived generally, including by those who had discovered and then announced them publicly, as highly incriminating to the Nazoreans. This is because in Greek the number “418” can be written as “u´ij´” which bears a remarkable resemblance to the Latin word uia, or “the Way” (Heb., ha-derekh: see Exod 23.20 and Deut 30.16, both referring to the lib- eration of the Land of Israel; Isa 40.3-4; Mal 3.1). “The Way” (tò ödóv) seems to have been another name in the New Testament for the Nazorean movement: Mark 1.2-3 and pars.; Acts 9.2 (“if [Paul,] should come across anyone belonging to the Way”), 22.4 (“[I, Paul] hunted down this Way to the point of extinction”; compare Gal 1.22-23; Acts 26.9; etc.; and esp. Tacitus Ann. 15.44.3: repressaque in praesens58), 24.14 (“according to the Way, which they call a sect”), 24.22 (“But Felix, having more precise knowledge of the Way“); and Matt 5.22 (compare LXX Exod 23.20).59 Thus, u´ij´ (= 418) could very easily have been viewed as a rough translit-
57. G.F. GROTEFEND, “Tacitus,” Rheinisches Museum, n.s., 3 (1845) 152-3; but see n. 62 below. 58. “[The Christiani were] suppressed for a time [following the death of Christus at the hands of Pontius Pilate].” See above at n. 50. 59. Note also a potentially important parallel in a variation on Matt 4.11 which translates: “Then God sent an angel to remove Satan from his place and threw him into the Sea [cf. Exod 14.13-15.21 and other sources cited in n. 36 above], and who freed the Way [cf. Exod 23.20] before the messiah.” (Trans. based on Pines, “Jewish Christians,” 289). This verse is found in the Arabic MS Shehid ‘Ali Pasha 1575 (Istanbul) of ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s tenth-to-elev- enth century Tathbit. See ‘Abd al-Karim ‘Uthman, ed., ‘Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad al- Hamadani [al-Asadabadi], Tathbit dala’il al-nubuwah (Beirut: Dar al-‘Arabiyah, [1966]) 166 (fol. 79a [78b according to Pines]). Pines maintains that al-Jabbar’s Arabic text contains nu- merous translations from Syriac of this and other passages that are, in effect, of Nazorean provenance. Idem, “Jewish Christians,” 237-8, 244-9 passim; also, idem, “Gospel Quota- tions and Cognate Topics in ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s Tathbit in Relation to Early Christian and Judaeo-Christian Readings and Traditions,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 9 (1987) 195-278. On the Jewish provenance of the Tathbit, see esp. idem, “Studies in Christianity and 92 THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL eration into Greek of the sect’s name in Latin (uia). The parallel may not have been exact, but Furneaux writes of “the flimsy evidence that has gen- erally been held to suffice in such mockeries of justice as times of intense public excitement sanction.”60 תחי Moreover, “418” is also the numerical value in Hebrew for the word (teÌi, or “may [one] live.” This expression (lit., “may ‘she’ live,” referring is feminine]) is used twice ,נפש ,to one’s soul, the Hebrew word for which in the Hebrew Bible (Ps 119.175 and 1 Kings 20.32). Life represents the better of the two Ways offered by God (Deut 30.15-20 [see above, this sec- tion]). Note especially the Doctrina Apostolorum 1.1 (and pars. Didache 1.1, Barnabas 18.1): Uiae duae sunt in saeculo, uitae et mortis, lucis et tenebrarum (“There are two Ways in life – one of life and one of death, one of light and one of darkness”)61. Since it is extremely unlikely that either, not to mention both, of these implicit associations of the date of the Fire with the Nazoreans in Greek was arrived at randomly or coincidentally, we (תחי) u´ij´) and Hebrew) may draw the inference that the connection here with the Nazoreans was almost certainly non-random, i.e., deliberate. This conclusion holds despite the fact that the Roman public would generally not have understood the Hebrew term without a translation. Therefore, this popular interest in the number 418 in connection with the Great Fire, as implied by Tacitus in An- nals 15.41.2, is almost certain proof that (1) Tacitus, alone among all in Judaeo-Christianity Based on Arabic Sources,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 6 (1985) 107-61, esp. 143 n. 124; and Ernst BAMMEL, “Excerpts from a New Gospel?” NovT 10, no. 1 (1968) 1-9; also, Tjitze BAARDA, “Luke 12, 13-14: Text and Transmission from Marcion to Augustine,” in New Testament, vol. 1 of Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco- Roman Cults (4 vols.; Jacob Neusner; SJLA 12; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 107-62, esp. 130-55; Glenn Alan KOCH, “A Critical Investigation of Epiphanius’ Knowledge of the Ebionites: A Translation and Critical Discussion of Panarion 30” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1976) 94-8; and F. DREYFUS, “Judéo-christianisme,” RB 77, no. 1 (1970) 148-9 (“One waits impatiently for the full publication and a complete study on [the Tathbit], about which there is considerable interest”). It is this author’s understanding that a critical edition of the Tathbit is now being prepared by Gabriel Said Reynolds, doctoral candidate, Department of Reli- gious Studies, Yale University. 60. Henry FURNEAUX, ed., Cornelii Taciti Annalium ab excessu divi Augusti libri [The An- nals of Tacitus] (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1884-1891) 2.580. 61. For these three texts, see Jean-Paul AUDET, La Didachè: Instructions des apôtres (EBib; Paris: Librarie Lecoffre/J. Gabalda, 1958) 138; further, discussions in FLUSSER, “Paul’s Jewish-Christian Opponents,” 195-211; and BROCK, “The Two Ways,” 139-52, cit- ing other parallels to the tradition of the Two Ways, including Matt 7.14; 1QS 3.13-4.26; and Tgs. Neof., Ps.-J., and Frg. Tg. to Deut 30.15, 19. Indeed, the concept of “the Way of life” seems to have been so important in Nazorean (Davidic) Judaism that it passed over into Pauline Christianity in modified form, e.g., John 14.6: “I am the way and the truth and the life.” On Matt 7.14, see esp. J. Duncan M. DERRETT, “The Merits of the Narrow Gate (Mt. 7:13-14, Lk. 13:24),” JSNT 15, no. 1 (1982) 20-9. THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL 93 known ancient historians, was correct in pointing out the Christiani’s sus- pected connection with the Fire and (2) the anonymous author(s) who wrote Luke-Acts was correct in stating that the Nazorean movement was known as “the Way.”62 (b) In addition, the date on which the Great Fire of Rome started, July 19th, 64, suggests rather strongly that this date was selected deliberately. Whoever started the Fire wished to highlight a comparison between the well-known Senonian Gauls — the foreign invaders who had put Rome to the torch on the same date, July 19th, in 390 BCE — and the Nazoreans, the foreign subversives (sontes aduersus; Tacitus Ann. 15.44.5) whose al- lies were then in the process of torching Judea (Tacitus Ann. 12.54.3 [arsissetque bello provincia]; Josephus Ant. 20.185; and above at note 48).63 Nevertheless, there are number of reasons to doubt the Nazoreans’ com- plicity in the burning of Rome: (i) It has been calculated that the moon was nearly full during the Fire,64 which went on for a number of days. Thus Suetonius and Tacitus were cor- rect when they reported in Nero 38.1 and Ann. 15.38.7 that the Fire was ignited openly (Lat., palam) and that little or no attempt was made to con- ceal the perpetrators. (ii) In Ann. 15.44.5 Tacitus reports that at the Christiani’s executions “a wave of sympathy [for the Nazoreans] swept [over the crowds]” (miseratio oriebatur). This would not have happened had the people for an instant be- lieved the Nazoreans themselves had been guilty of setting the Fire and murdering their friends and families. The contemporary Roman public’s at- titude toward the Christiani in this respect ought to be given a fair degree of weight and can be viewed as giving rise to a rebuttable presumption against Nazorean complicity in the Great Fire.
62. There are very real problems with how the number 418 was arrived at by those who announced this result, since the calculations involved (though perhaps no worse than many other such ancient measurements) were in no way valid scientifically or mathematically. See esp. A.T. GRAFTON and N.M. SWERDLOW, “Calendar Dates and Ominous Days in Ancient Historiography,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 51 (1988) 14-42, esp. 14 n. 1, 18-20, and 18-19 n. 11. However, this is not the issue here. Rather, the question here is if these numerical results, whether or not manipulated consciously or unconsciously by those who arrived at them, pertained to the Nazoreans. Clearly they did. 63. On the importance of July 18th as “the most ill-omened day in the entire Roman cal- endar,” see Grafton and Swerdlow, “Ominous Days,” 14-15, citing Tacitus Hist. 2.91. See also Livy 6.1.11-12 and Suetonius Vit. 11.2. 64. U.S. NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center. “Lunar Eclipses: 0001 to 0100.” Eclipse Home Page. Maint. Fred Espenak. 31 Jul 1998. Online: http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/ LEcat/LE0001-0100.html (3 June 2002); and C. Huelsen, American Journal of Archaeology, 2d ser., 13, no. 1 (1909) 45-8, esp. 47 n. 1. 94 THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL
(iii) Tacitus states in Ann. 15.38.7 that those who kept the fire going claimed to have been given the authority to do so. Under the circum- stances, this would seem to imply either that they claimed authority from the Romans or the Nazoreans. Tacitus himself was unsure if these arsonists were simple hooligans or people acting under orders (Ann. 15.38.7). In fact, successful anti-Roman proselytizing by the Nazoreans throughout (per) Rome, as discussed above, might well have presented Nero with a motive either to have set the Fire in the first place or at least to have al- lowed it to continue burning in those areas of the city most affected by the proselytizing65. This would have forced many of the Nazorean sympathiz- ers out of Rome. 10. We are now finally in a position to explain “[t]he surprising thing. . . that no early Christian writer used this example [of Nero’s executions of the Christiani] to blacken Nero’s character as a persecutor of the faith.”66 The apparent explanation for this silence is that early Christian authors under- stood Nero was not persecuting Christians; evidently these writers did not consider the Christiani to have been of the Christian faith67. Note, for instance, the letter from the Church of Rome to the Pauline Church in Corinth (1 Clement 1.1, ca. 96 CE): Owing to the sudden and repeated misfortunes and calamities which have be- fallen us, we consider that our attention has been somewhat delayed in turning to the questions disputed among you, beloved, and especially the abominable [or bloody; see LSJ, s.v. miaróv] and unholy [LSJ, s.v. âvósiov; compare the use of vósov, “communicable disease,” to describe the Jewish resistance in Claudius’ letter to the Alexandrians, {et pars.}, above at notes 51 and 52] sedi- tion [stásiv], alien and foreign to God’s chosen [i.e., Pauline Christians], which a few [see sect. 4 above on the weak post-Destruction strength of the Nazorean sect] rash and stubborn people have sparked [lit., “set on fire,” êkkaíw; compare the parallels to this in note 48 above] to such a frenzy that your name [i.e., Xristiavoí, Lat., Christiani], venerable and famous and wor- thy as it is of all men’s love, has been much slandered [presumably because it was shared by the subversive Nazoreans]. (trans. based on Kirsopp Lake, Loeb) 1 Clem. 4.1-6 goes on to compare the Nazoreans with Cain and the Pauline Christians with Abel — two sects that shared the same name and that the author(s) of 1 Clement therefore felt were, in a sense, brothers. See further, 1 Clem. 1.3, 2.6, 3.1-4, 4.7-13, etc. In addition, the frequent use of
65. See discussion in BOHM, “Nero as Incendiary,” 401, 401 n. 4. 66. Ronald MARTIN, Tacitus (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1981) 182. 67. Cf. e.g., Irenaeus Haer. 1.26.2, 3.11.7, 5.1.3, Tertullian De carne Chr. 18, 24, Hippolytus Haer., 7.8-9, 34.1-2, etc., on Christianity’s negative view of the Jewish Ebionites. THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL 95 h±lov (“jealousy,” “zealotry”) in this letter (e.g., 1 Clement 3-6, 63.2) re- minds one strongly not only of Jewish “jealousy” towards the Pauline Christians alleged by the Church of Rome, but also of the zealotry of the Nazoreans. Note especially 1 Clem. 6.4: “Jealousy [or zealotry: h±lov] and strife have overthrown great cities [including Jerusalem?] and uprooted [èkrihów: compare fragment 2; Jude 1.4, 12; and Matt 15.13, 13.25, 29 and par. Gos. Thom. 57 {where the Nazoreans are evidently the deadly darnel weeds “sowed” by “the Enemy,” Satan — weeds which are to be uprooted and burned eschatologically: compare the “uprooting” and burn- ing in real time of both the Temple and the Christiani in frag. 2; see fur- ther, John 8.44, 2 Cor 11.12-15, etc.}] mighty nations [including, presum- ably, Israel].” The views of the Church of Rome thus parallel those of Josephus, in that both sources engage in a diatribe against the Jewish resist- ance68. All this would explain, at least in part, Josephus’ astonishing silence on the proper name of the Jewish resistance: Like the Church of Rome in 1 Clem. 1.1, he may not have wished to tarnish the name of the Pauline Christians by linking them in his readers’ minds to the Jewish Christiani, since the former, according to both the New Testament and 1 Clem. 1.3, etc., were already, as a sect, more or less in the Roman camp politically (see, for instance, note 68 above), and the Christiani were not. Pauline Christianity would have represented a counterweight to Nazorean mass proselytizing, and the central government in Rome thus had an incentive to keep Paul’s movement going, at least among the lower classes whom, like Spartacus in the previous century, the Nazoreans had presumably been tar- geting. For this reason the Roman army also would have endorsed the pro- motion of Christianity, as this would have helped check Nazorean expan- sion, thus reducing the military’s defensive burdens and saving Roman sol- diers’ lives. All this would explain the famous remarks of Trajan to the effect that Pauline Christians are to be given what amounted to due process in Roman criminal proceedings and “are not being hunted down [by Rome]” (Conquirendi non sunt). See Pliny Ep. 10.97. Apparently Trajan did not, on the one hand, wish to see Christianity disappear altogether, as long as the Christian superstitio could be confined mainly to those classes most likely
68. It is also clear that some Pauline Christians had been resisting the Romans by not pay- ing their taxes, honoring the emperor, or obeying their slave masters — otherwise the admo- nitions in Rom 13.1-7, 1 Pet 2.17-21, and 1 Clem. 1.1 would not have been necessary. On 1 Clement, see generally Raymond E. BROWN and John P. MEIER, Antioch and Rome: New Tes- tament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (New York: Paulist Press, 1983) 159-83. 96 THE CHRISTIANI'S RULE OVER ISRAEL to revolt. On the other hand, however, according to the sense of Pliny Ep. 10.97, Trajan clearly did not wish to see Christianity expand too far. Pre- sumably, Trajan viewed Christianity as a counterweight to Nazorean and other potentially subversive proselytizing. We may note that Rome’s policy in this respect seems to have changed little over time, since the Roman cen- tral government did not actually begin to persecute Pauline Christians until 250 CE.69 Nazorean proselytizing, however, was such a concern to Rome in Nero’s time that Tacitus reports in Ann. 15.44.4 that as part of his spectacle Nero literally set the Christiani on fire to provide night-light for the primarily Gentile audiences. Nero’s parody (Lat., ludibrium: see Ann. 15.44.4) re- minds one strongly of Isa 42.6, 49.6: “I have made you a light unto the Gentiles.” This parodies the anti-Roman ideology of the Christiani’s pros- elytizing movement perfectly (see notes 50-52 above; also, Acts 13.47, 26.23; Luke 2.32; and Matt 5.14a). Nor has any other satisfactory explana- tion been offered for this ludibrium, beyond the suggestion that Tacitus uses the word ludibria in 15.44.4 loosely. Erich Koestermann, ed., Cornelius Tacitus, Annalen (4 vols.; Heidelberg: Winter, 1963-1968) 4.257-8; also, Furneaux, Annalium, 2.529-30 n.: “[Nipperdey believes] the deaths here spoken of involve no ‘ludibrium' (which is true, except that they are shown in [Ann. 15.44.5] to form part of the ‘spectaculum').” Thus it seems reasonable to infer that Nero’s ludibrium was in fact prompted by the Nazoreans’ mass proselytizing and their apparent self-perception as “a light unto the Gentiles.” In conclusion, the parallel messages of Tacitus’ fragment 2 and Hist. 5.13.2, Suetonius Vesp. 4.5, Josephus Bell. 5.409, and the coinage of the Jewish War reinforce each other strongly. This leads one to conclude that the Netsarim or Christiani did indeed rule over Israel during the years 66- 70 CE. All this invalidates the traditional view, based largely on Pauline Christian sources, that Jesus and his followers were not revolutionaries70, thus demonstrating, in turn, that these Christian sources are largely unhis- torical.
69. G.E.M. DE STE. CROIX, “Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?” Past and Pre- sent 26 (1963) 6-38, esp. 7: “[Before] 250 there were only isolated local persecutions.” 70. For a recent summary of the traditional view, see W.D. DAVIES and E.P. SANDERS, “Jesus: From the Jewish Point of View,” Cambridge History of Judaism (1999) 3.618-77, esp. 3.625; and cf., e.g., the counterargument, based solely on New Testament sources, in Ellis E. JENSEN, “The First Century Controversy over Jesus as a Revolutionary Figure,” JBL 60, no. 3 (1941) 261-72.