Rach 1
JuliAnne Rach
Prof. Howe
HIST 303
12/19/2018
The Burden of Proof: Examining the Reliability of Sources Regarding Neronian
Persecution
The Roman Emperor Nero Claudius Caesar, known as Nero, is infamous for a variety of heinous acts, primarily his persecution of Christians. Tacitus reports that this persecution started after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 CE, which Nero supposedly blamed the Christians for starting.
Throughout the following centuries, Nero’s persecution of Christians became accepted as a fact that just added to the extensive list of his misdeeds, all of which served to portray Nero in a negative light. However, there has been a shift in scholarship to evaluate the historicity of this
Christian persecution. This discussion starts with Brent Shaw’s groundbreaking thesis from
2015, including his discourse with Christopher Jones, within which they debate the veracity of the Christian persecution under Nero. Different aspects of the problem include evaluation the possibility of Christian interpolation in Tacitus, as written about by Richard Carrier, and Biblical depictions of persecution through Paul, which Paula Fredriksen discusses.
An academic interaction between Brent Shaw and Christopher Jones comprises the main literature examining Christian persecution. In his 2015 essay, “The Myth of Neronian
Persecution,” Brent Shaw argues that Nero did not instigate a great persecution of Christians after blaming them for the Great Fire of Rome.1 The foundation of Shaw’s argument is truly
1 B. Shaw, “The Myth of Neronian Persecution,” JRS 105 (2015): 73-100. Rach 2 illustrating the insufficiency of a commonly held belief. The idea of Christian persecutions comes only from one source, Tacitus, and Shaw repeatedly states that the burden of proof should fall on those who wholly believe one source on such an important topic.2 However, in building this case, Shaw himself struggles with the burden of proof. Part of his main assertion is that no other authors from that time period mention the Christian persecution. Using what is missing from the extant literature, while interesting, is nevertheless an argumentum ex silentio, and therefore not entirely credible. Shaw is able to make his argument because, while he is presenting a new and somewhat shocking hypothesis, he is not merely challenging the believed facts of history but also the way that historians, and others, have considered history. Shaw’s essay calls for a reflection on the historical community and the way historians consider the historicity as opposed to historiographical aspects of sources. Shaw could have taken this farther, with his inclusion of Nero. While Shaw does touch on the concept of the Myth of Nero, and how people love to hate him, he could have used this to poignantly display the bias commonly held by historians. From there, Shaw could have tied in the bias of these ancient historians as a way of evaluating the historiographical content within the primary sources, and the implications they have on the veracity of Neronian persecution. Nevertheless, Shaw’s overall argument in both essays is convincing and well thought out, focusing in on a small but integral detail, the name of
Christians, to bring down such a widely accepted assertion.
Shaw’s essay introduces the main components and arguments in the foreground of scholarly thought concerning Christian persecution, and consequently is an integral part of the conversation, although as Christopher Jones noticed, it does still have its faults. Jones points out
2 Ibid., 92-93. Rach 3 some of these faults in his essay, "The Historicity of the Neronian Persecution: A Response to
Brent Shaw."3 In response to a main part of Shaw’s evidence, that the Christians were too small to be recognized as a group in Rome, Jones cites Paul’s letter to the Romans as evidence of a
Christian population in Rome.4 However, Shaw’s use of Paul’s letters as evidence provides some problems. A few of these problems Shaw also addresses, such as the fact that Paul never specifically refers to the group receiving his letters as “Christians.”5 However, Jones is also disregarding the fact that Paul never explicitly states how many people he is writing to. While there may have been a Christian community in Rome, it was a big city and what may have constituted a large following for a new religion which started with only twelve main disciples may have been relevant in the larger scheme of Roman life. While Jones does offer some interesting rebuttals to Shaw, they lack support or development. While most of Jones’s contradictions were trivial and satisfactorily addressed by Shaw, Jones simply ignores a significant part of Shaw’s argument. The lack of other sources, besides Tacitus, which mention
Christian persecution is one of Shaw’s most integral and convincing claims. Yet, Jones does not even acknowledge this aspect of Shaw’s paper. Jones disregarded a crucial aspect of Shaw’s paper, and in doing so failed to craft a convincing critique of Shaw’s work. Therefore, the merit of Jones’s essay lies more in the opportunity it presented Shaw to elaborate and clarify than the assertions presented by Jones.
In order to address Jones’s rebuttal, Shaw published another essay, "Response to
Christopher Jones: The Historicity of the Neronian Persecution." Shaw begins this essay by
3 C. Jones, “The Historicity of Neronian Persecution: A Response to Brent Shaw,” New Testament Studies 63 (2017): 146-152. 4 Ibid., 151. 5 B. Shaw, “ "Response to Christopher Jones: The Historicity of the Neronian Persecution," New Testament Studies 64 (2018): 231-242. Rach 4 defining “persecution,” as he believes that the root of Jones’s counterargument comes from their differing ways of considering persecution. Shaw says; “I would argue that persecution must designate a type of action where an agency uses force to harass and punish a specific group
(often, as in this instance, a religious one) which it recognizes and wishes to repress for being that group.”6 Working with this definition, Shaw reasserts his claim that there was no great persecution of Christians under Nero. Proof of one such persecution would require evidence not just that Christians called themselves Christians, but also that the Roman officials called them by this name and persecuted them as a group for their identity.7 This definition of persecution qualifies a significant part of both Jones’s and Shaw’s essays, and serves as the working definition for this paper. Further illustrating the inadequacies of Jones’s argument, Shaw draws attention to the differing levels of credibility between histories and religious texts, such as the
Bible. Histories and other such works were relatively fixed and thus more credible than the fluid authorship of the Bible.8 Shaw was able to apply Jones’s often trivial refutations not only to reassert but also to strengthen his assertion, and to provide further scholarship and research into
Christian persecutions under Nero.
Another way of addressing the issue of Christian persecution in Rome is through analyzing the authenticity of Tacitus as the main source. Richard Carrier’s argument in “The
Prospect of Christian Interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44” contributes well to study of the historicity of Christian persecution under Nero, since he argues that Annals 15.44 is the product of Christian Interpolation.9 Both Carrier and Shaw draw from the same sources and focus on
6 Ibid., 232. 7 Ibid., 232. 8 Ibid., 232-234. 9 R. Carrier, “The Prospect of Christian Interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44,” Vigiliae Christianae 68, No. 3 (2014): 264-283. Rach 5 similar evidence, and develop the concept of Tacitus as the main source on Christian persecution to set up their argument. Thus, when considering the Christian persecution, the possibility of
Christian interpolation is an integral facet which deserves to be explored and included in the conversation.10 However, the similarities of the two papers continue in their faults. Carrier also relies on an argumentum ex silentio, within which he devotes a significant portion of his essay to dissecting the other sources and their explicit lack of mention of Neronian persecution. However,
Shaw and Carrier differ in their opinions on the authenticity of this passage of Tacitus. In discussing the possibility of interpolation, Shaw states; “such modest modernizations occur outside of this particular passage, however, and so are typical of the writer.”11 It is interesting that an aspect which Carrier places as the focal point of his essay is flippantly dismissed in a few sentences by Shaw. Shaw’s repudiation of the concept of Christian interpolation in Tacitus truly indicates the dissention among scholars relating to the topic of interpolation in Tacitus.
Therefore, the potential for interpolation in this critical passage of Tacitus should be evaluated and analyzed further by any scholar attempting to research the topic of Christian persecution under Nero.
Another essential aspect of the persecution of Christians under Nero is actually presented in the Bible, specifically with the character of Saul/Paul who was originally on a mission to persecute Christians.12 Neither Shaw nor Carrier address the persecutions mentioned in the Bible, aside from the isolated deaths of Peter and Paul. Even though their essays focused on the
10 Ibid., 274. 11 Shaw, “Neronian Persecution,” 87. 12 In Acts Chapter 22, Paul/Saul describes his former life. In this life, Paul used to be called Saul, and he used to persecute Christians. One day, Paul was on the road to Damascus and Jesus appeared to him, and struck him blind. Paul’s sight was restored when he followed Jesus’s instructions and arrived in Damascus. After this encounter, Saul changed his name to Paul and became a Christian. For the remainder of this paper, Saul/Paul will merely be called Paul. Rach 6 historical aspects of Christian persecution, they do still deal with Christianity and consequently should acknowledge the Bible along with other religious writings as other, albeit highly biased, sources. Paula Fredriksen, in her book When Christians Were Jews: The First Generation, discusses the relationship early Christians had with both Rome and Jerusalem, and she addresses persecution as described through religious writings.13 Fredriksen creates a convincing case by combining the laws of Roman and Jewish culture with the report the Bible records to place the actions of early Christians within a historical framework. Her work provides a different aspect to the conversation, one which ties in more of the religious texts and focuses on more of the interpersonal dynamics and motivations within the Christian community. However, in her discussion Fredriksen does not mention Neronian persecution. It is odd that a whole book dedicated to early Christianity with a focus on its relationship with Rome would exclude such a paramount event, it is a grievous oversight. Therefore, Fredriksen’s opinion on the Christian persecutions, whether she believes they happened or not, can not be surmised merely from this writing. Thus, there remains an insufficient amount of sources which consider the concept of
Neronian persecution with the inclusion of religious texts.
The issue of the historicity of Neronian Christian persecution presents the possibility for further research. Since the concept is still new, introduced by Shaw merely 3 years ago, contentions still reside within scholarly debate, as is evident from Shaw and Jones’s interaction.
Also, this discussion should consider more aspects and sources previously excluded from Shaw’s foundational work. A closer examination of the primary sources is a necessary next step.
However, these primary sources should include more religious texts, such as Eusebius’s
13 P. Fredriksen, When Christians Were Jews, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018), 126-153. Rach 7
Ecclesiastical History and the writings of the early church fathers. Also, the prospect of Christian interpolation should be further explored, or at least acknowledged, within this conversation.
There is no way to be sure that Christian persecution under Nero did not happen. However,
Neronian Christian persecution did not occur in the way historians have believed for such an extended amount of time, and its historicity should be challenged by more historians.
Tacitus’s Annales Tacitus’s Annales plays an important part in the discussion of Neronian persecution of Christians. It is the only, and most credible, source which explicitly states that Nero persecuted
Christians in an attempt to take the blame off of himself for the Fire of Rome.14 In order to fully understand the text, one must also understand the time and circumstances within which Tacitus was writing. Tacitus was a historian in the 80s-90s CE, during the reign of Emperor Domitian.15
This period was an integral time for the literature of Rome, especially for texts concerning the
Julio- Claudians. Domitian was the last ruler of the Flavian dynasty, which took over after the
Julio-Claudians. The Flavians used literary sources, such as Tacitus, to slander the Julio-
Claudians in order to authenticate their right to rule. Since Nero was the last of the
Julio-Claudians, the Flavians needed a scathing review of his reign which would satisfactorily justify the their taking control. Accordingly, Tacitus would have been swayed to portray the
Julio- Claudians in a negative, and most likely exaggerated, view. Also, Tacitus as a historian used his writing to reflect and comment on modern day politics through historical examples.
14 Tacitus is the only surviving source that was written by one author and was recorded relatively recently after the events occured. For that reason, Tacitus is considered by both Shaw and Carrier, later, the “most reliable and detailed source.” Shaw, “Neronian Persecution,” 78. 15 M. Grant, Introduction to Tacitus’s the Annals of Emperial Rome, (New York: Penguin Group, 1956), 6-28. Rach 8
Therefore, when reading Tacitus, or any history, one must be careful to not just consider the historical message they are trying to present but the connotations which is governed by the society within which the author lived.
Shaw and Carrier do an adequate job of analyzing Tacitus within the framework of
Neronian persecution. However, a more thorough analysis of Tacitus’s account of Neronian persecution, taking into account the prospect of later Christian interpolation, is worthwhile.
Especially keeping in mind that Tacitus served as a source for many of following sources, and the possibility of Christian interpolation could have a serious implication on the credibility of many of the resulting texts. Therefore, incorporating the sources which follow Tacitus can provide insight into the issue of Christian interpolation, just as looking at sources which came before Tacitus did.16 The following texts examined in this paper, aside from Pliny who was a contemporary but specifically Suetonius, Dio, Tertullian, and Eusebius, were all written after
Tacitus. Their discussion of Neronian persecution, although governed by other factors along with
Tacitus, introduces an interesting aspect into this conversation. Especially considering that most of these sources present diverging narratives from what Tacitus recounts. Neither of the two secular sources, Suetonius and Dio, mention Christian persecution in association with the Great
Fire. The later, religious authors, Tertullian and Eusebius, do not go in depth in their descriptions of Neronian persecution. Rather, both authors refer their readers to check other histories. These authors appear to avoid the subject of Christian persecution under Nero, indicating that they are not familiar with the subject. If the passage in question from Tacitus was a later interpolation,
16 Carrier, “Christian Interpolation,” 266-277. Rach 9 that would explain why Suetonius and Dio remain silent on the subject and why Tertullian and
Eusebius do not expand on their comments.
The prospect of Christian interpolation in this line of Tacitus has major implications for the understanding of Neronian persecution of Christians. This one short passage is the only source which definitively accuses Nero of persecuting the Christians to cover up the Great Fire.
Therefore, if one were to recognize that Tacitus is not a credible source and was modified at a later date, then the evidence for Neronian persecution would become significantly smaller. Even if one chooses to believe that this passage is original Tacitus, those who accept the narrative of
Neronian persecution must still acknowledge the lack of support in remaining sources.
Pliny the Younger’s Letter
One source worth further analysis is Pliny the Younger’s letter to the Emperor Trajan regarding the Christians. Pliny was a Roman politician and contemporary of Tacitus. Not only were both men writing at the same time, they were in contact with each other and had a friendly relationship. Although, while Tacitus wrote a history, Pliny wrote a letter, which has different implications of bias and and provides a different lense through which to examine the historical context of the period. Even though letters were often published, they were not as carefully constructed for public consumption as histories were, since the authors were not retrospectively describing a time which has passed but are rather reflecting on their own time and society. This context allows historians to consider the content in a more precise way, since one does not need to worry as much about the historiographical representation of events. This is due to the fact that the authors were often not conscious that they were writing something which would be used to study the past. Furthermore, letters give more insight into the authors’ thoughts and beliefs, since Rach 10 letter writers can express their biases and personal musings more clearly. Within this letter, Pliny discusses his unfamiliarity with Christians and asks Emperor Trajan for advice on how to deal with them, specifically how their trial should be handled. Pliny also describes the situation, and the findings from his investigation into Christianity.17 Pliny’s letter is often taken within the context of Tacitus, and interpreted that it provides proof of Christian persecution during this time period. However, when examined outside the context of Tacitus and without the assumption that
Neronian Christian persecution actually happened, Pliny’s letter illustrates a different view on the reality of the persecution of Christians under Nero.
The very premise of this letter indicates that Pliny was not familiar with Christians, further cementing a key premise argued by Shaw, that the Roman elite would not have known about the Christians in Nero’s time.18 The language of the opening sentence also supports this claim, that this letter marks Pliny’s first interaction with the Christians. Pliny says that he “has never been present at investigations concerning Christians” and proceeds to list off the various aspects of the trials which he is unsure of.19 Pliny was an experienced lawyer and statesman in
Rome before serving as governor of this province.The fact that he had never been present at the trial of Christians before does not reflect on his own lack of political experience, but the lack of
Christian trials in Rome. Pliny was serving as governor to the province of Bithynia when he wrote this letter to Trajan, which is the northern part of modern day Turkey.20 Since the opening
17 Translations of Pliny are my own, latin text used from the Loeb edition. Pliny, “Book 10” in E. H. Warmington (ed.), Letters and Panegyricus, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969), 284-290. 18 Shaw, “Response to Jones,” 232. 19 ‘Cognitionibus de Christianis interfui numquam: ideo nescio quid et quatenus aut puniri soleat aut quaeri. Nec mediocriter haesitavi, sitne aliquod discrimen aetatum, an quamlibet teneri nihil a robustioribus differant;’ Ibid., 96.1. 20 A.N. Sherwin- White and S. Price, “Pliny (2) the Younger,” in S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (ed.), Oxford Classical Dictionary, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012). Rach 11 few lines emphasize that Pliny does not have experience with Christians, Pliny’s first encounter with Christians was in his province and not in Rome. Also, Pliny’s letter indicates that
Christianity is a regional problem, something only dealt with in his province.21 Thus, it would make sense that the elites in Nero’s time did not know who the Christians were, since the Roman elites a few years later were still not familiar with them.
Also, the tone of Pliny’s letter does not convey a bias against Christians. Pliny seems more genuinely curious about the Christians than anything else. The way that Pliny asks Trajan for advice, combined with the record of his own personal investigation, indicates that Pliny merely wants to learn about this group of people in his province. Also, Pliny states that when those he asked confirmed that they were Christians, he would ask then again and a third time, in an attempt to give them time to change their answers.22 In not immediately punishing people who confessed to Christianity, Pliny does not assume the role of the zealous persecutor of Christians.
Also, at a later part in his letter, Pliny describes his findings from his investigation of Christians, stating that they take an oath that they will not steal, rob, or commit adultery. Pliny also states that the Christians eat normal, harmless food.23 This account portrays the Christians in a pretty positive light, since the main part of their religion encompasses a sinless life. Additionally, Pliny takes the time to qualify that they eat normal food, which subsequently addresses and refutes the rumor that the Christians were cannibals. This positive portrayal of Christians does not fall in line with the view of Roman elites who were intrinsically averse to Christianity ever since the
Neronian persecution. Rather, this letter shows that Pliny wanted to find out more about a religion he was not familiar with and not necessarily opposed to.
21 Pliny., Epistles, 10.96.9. 22 Ibid., 96.2-3. 23 Ibid., 96.7. Rach 12
Pliny’s letter, more importantly, illustrates that the persecution of Christians was not a state issued mandate. Pliny clearly is not familiar with how to handle the Christians, and solely in asking Emperor Trajan for advice Pliny shows that there is not a widely recognized, standard way of managing Christians. Pliny himself raises the important question in this text, when he asks; “Should the name itself, if it were without shameful acts, be punished, or should the shameful acts connected to the name be punished.”24 This question shows that Pliny himself does not know if every Christian should be punished because they are Christian or because of the acts they are reported to have done. This idea is further explored when Pliny mentions how sacrificial meat is on sale and no one is buying it.25 This one line gets to the heart of the issue; Christians are no longer buying the meat for sacrifices and so the economy is suffering. This problem is not a religious issue, it is an economic one. Also, at one point Pliny does mention an imperial edict banning all public meetings, which caused the Christians to stop their meetings. While this might be taken as a state mandated opposition to Christianity, the language shows that Trajan’s edict opposed all forms of societal meetings, not just Christian meetings.26 Yet again, Pliny’s letter, when read from its own context and not the Tacitean context, fails to indicate a mass persecution of Christians.
In Pliny’s attempt to further understand the Christians and set the record straight about what specifically their religion is consisted of, he provides evidence that the possibility of
Christian persecution under Nero was unlikely. Pliny’s general, inquisitive but uninformed, attitude towards Christians, combined with the implications of the general edict, illustrates that he is not writing within the framework of a massive Christian persecution. Since Pliny is
24 Ibid., 96. 2. 25 Ibid., 96.10. 26 Ibid., 96.7-8. Rach 13
Tacitus’s contemporary, it is possible that Tacitus himself was not familiar with the Christians, like many other Roman elites from Pliny’s time. This possibility ties into the argument of
Christian interpolation in Tacitus, and further weakens the credibility of the sole extant source which discusses the Neronian persecution of Christians.
Suetonius’s The Twelve Caesars Suetonius is the only other source, aside from Tacitus, which mentions that Nero persecuted Christians. In his section on Nero, Suetonius says, “punishments were inflicted on the
Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous superstition.”27 While Suetonius does not connect Christian persecution to the Great Fire, he still accredits Nero to punishing the
Christians. However, these punishments are discussed in the section on the positive things that
Nero did while he was in charge. Furthermore, they are listed in the middle of a paragraph in which Suetonius begins by saying, “during his reign a great public abuses were suppressed by the imposition of heavy penalties.”28 This passage shows that Suetonius, or at least the people of
Rome at the time in which he was writing, considered the punishment of Christians a positive action.
Therefore, an examination of Suetonius’s bias and context is necessary for understanding his comments. Suetonius wrote at the turn of the first century, under the Emperor Hadrian, so significantly after Nero’s reign.29 Another imperial dynasty had come and gone between Nero and Suetonius, and with this dynasty there was the need to establish the validity of their power, which meant that negative propaganda had the time and opportunity to grow and spread. the writing against Nero was especially scathing, as the last of the Julio- Claudians. By the time
27 Suetonius, “Nero” in The Twelve Caesars, trans. R. Graves (New York: Penguin Group, 2007), 206-241. 28 Ibid., 16. 29 Ibid., “Introduction,” xvii-xli. Rach 14
Suetonius was writing, there has been enough time for the myth of Nero to expand and grow, so the Nero that Suetonius was familiar with would have been an exaggerated version of the man.
Also, Suetonius wrote a biography, as opposed to Tacitus and Dio who wrote histories. This allowed Suetonius to get more into the character of his subjects. In taking this liberty, Suetonius presents a no holds bar portrayal of Nero. This medium also allowed Suetonius to comment on
Nero’s motives and reasoning, which created a fair amount of retrospective additions. These additions reflected poorly on Nero and are not to be taken literally, there is no way that Suetonius knew Nero’s motives and inner thoughts.
However, the fact that Suetonius presented Nero’s punishment of Christians as a positive act shows more about the development of Christianity than the development of the myth of Nero.
As stated above, Suetonius was writing much later than when the events actually happened, at a time in which Roman elites may actually be familiar with Christianity. Although, Shaw observes that the clause describing Christianity is a contemporary gloss to provide further clarity to his readers.30 Assuming this is the case, it would imply that Christianity was still a new religion at the time Suetonius was writing, and something that not all of his readers would know, warranting a gloss. If Christianity was just gaining popularity during Suetonius’s time, Shaw’s and Carrier’s argument that Christianity was not known well enough to be persecuted by Nero still stands.
Thus, since the Roman elites were not familiar with Christianity, they would not have been able to persecute cognizantly this group of people.
The Book of Acts
30 Shaw, “Neronian Persecution,” 83. Rach 15
The Book of Acts is also worth including in this conversation. The ministry of Paul, which is recorded in Acts, would have taken place when Nero was Emperor in the 50s and 60s
CE. In fact, one myth of Paul’s death states that he was beheaded in Rome as a part of the
Christian persecutions instigated by Nero.31 However, the Bible never expressly states how Paul was killed, rather it shows that Paul experienced the normal trial process for a Roman citizen.32
Nevertheless, there are many places throughout the Book of Acts where Christians actually face persecution. A few examples include the stoning of Stephen, and the resulting persecution which continues throughout the following chapters.33 The existence of Paul himself is an example of persecutions facing the Christians. Paul began his career persecuting Christians, and changed his ways after an encounter on the road to Damascus, where Jesus appeared and Paul was struck blind, only to be healed by a Christian in Damascus.34 After this experience, Paul became a firm believer and his writings an integral part of Christian literature. The rest of Paul’s life was spent preaching and converting people to Christianity, and suffering the same persecution which he once used to bestow on others.35
Despite the fact that the Book of Acts recount several instances of Christian persecution, it specifically does not provide evidence of Nero’s Christian persecution. Throughout Acts, the persecution is always attributed to the members of the Jewish faith not accepting Christianity.
The persecution does not come from Roman authority, but rather Jewish tradition. Since, at this point, Christianity is still a faction of Judaism, this persecution should not even be perceived as
31Eusebius, “Book 2” in trans. K. Lake, Ecclesiastical History, (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1926) 99-185. 32 Shaw, “Neronian Persecution,” 76-78. 33 “The Book of Acts,” in M. D. Coogen et al. (ed.), The New Oxford Annotated Bible, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010) 7:54-60; 8:1-3; 12:1-4; 14:2. 34 Ibid., 22:6-13 35 Ibid., 17:5-7; 18:12-13; 21:27-34; 28:19 Rach 16 persecution but rather punishment. The Jewish officials knew it was imperative for the safety of
Judaism that their religious community not only to follow the laws of Judaism but also the laws of the land, and did not draw unnecessary attention to them by disrupting the social order.36 Yet disrupting the social order is exactly what the Christians were doing. So, the Jewish leaders took it upon themselves to punish what they viewed as another group of Jews, in an attempt to get them to behave and follow the rules.37 This so called persecution was an attempt at discipline, and not eradication.
Furthermore, Acts actually shows places where the governmental officials are hesitant to handle Paul. In Chapter 23, upon learning of a plot against Paul’s life, a centurion commander provides Paul with an armed escort to Governor Felix, where Paul is placed under guard at King
Herod’s house. While it does make sense that the Roman guards would want to protect a Roman citizen in a province, this also shows the Romans’ hesitancy to kill Christians.
However, one problem with incorporating the Book of Acts is its credibility. Since it is a religious text, the exact date of when it was written is difficult to discern, and it was probably written by a group of people and recieved many edits as time went on. Generous dates include as early as the 90s, due to the relationship Acts has with the writing of Luke’s gospel.38 However, the relationship between Acts and Paul’s letters also factors into both its dating and its historicity. Since the author of Acts, commonly believed to be Luke, was writing after Paul’s life, Paul’s image was still being tweaked while he was writing. Consequently, the Luke-Acts author was able to utilize Paul as a character in his narrative, and so Acts is not necessarily a
36 P. Fredriksen, Paul: The Pagan’s Apostle, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017), 146-147. 37Ibid., 82. 38 C. K. Barrett, “The Historicity of Acts. (1899-1999),” The Journal of Theological Studies 50, no. 2 (1999): 515-534. And C. R. Matthews, “Introduction to the Acts of the Apostles,” in M. D. Coogen et al. (ed.), The New Oxford Annotated Bible, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010) 1919-1921. Rach 17 biography of Paul so much as a teaching tool.39 The author’s use of Paul creates a difficult task for historians attempting to differentiate between the historical and the biblical Paul. Acts is further biased due to its very nature as a religious text. The author was not writing this as a historical document, but a source from one believer to others about their religion. However for the purposes of this research, as done by Paula Fredriksen, some level of historicity is assumed.40
While not everything in Acts might have happened as described, it is still literature from a time period when one’s grandparents could remember the reign of Nero. In this respect, Acts can still serve as a historical document, although only with critical evaluation.
Considering the Book of Acts with Paul as a literary character greatly emphasizes how little it supports the prospect of Neronian Christian persecution. The Luke-Acts writer lived after the supposed Neronian persecution happened, although it still would have been in living memory. This period would also include the reign of Emperor Domitian, who is infamous for having started another round of Christian persecutions. After Domitian, the Nerva-Antonine dynasty took over. This imperial dynasty also includes Emperor Trajan, from the Pliny letter, who responded and said that Christians need not be sought out but if they are brought to Pliny they should be punished.41 So, the Luke-Acts author’s audience would be familiar with persecution. Nevertheless, the persecution that Paul faces is from the Jewish religious leaders and not the Roman political leaders. If this author wanted to use Paul in a way that taught a lesson or was relatable to his audience, it would make sense that he would have Paul face imperial persecution. However, the Luke- Acts author does not choose to represent persecution
39 Matthews, “Introduction to Acts,” 1920. 40 Fredriksen, “Paul,” 62. 41 Pliny, Letters, 10.97. Rach 18 as an imperial force, an interesting choice when the Neronian persecution should have been an easy context to place Paul in.
St. Clement’s Letter
St. Clement, sometimes referred to as pseudo-Clement, was one of the earliest church fathers. Clement’s first letter is one of the earliest- possibly the earliest- extant religious writings outside of the New Testament, and probably dates to around 95 or 97 CE.42 While this source is a letter, it is much less personal than Pliny’s letter discussed earlier. These early church letters were written to be read by a whole congregation and saved for posterity. They were used to convey religious and theological instruction. Along those lines, the letters could still contain high levels of biases. Church leaders would use these letters to spread their ideas about Christianity even further, and they would need to create a convincing argument that their ideology was correct. This letter, “The Letter of the Romans to the Corinthians,” was sent to the church in
Corinth after the members of the church there staged a revolt and replaced the leadership of their church.43 While he does not deal directly with the problem of Christian persecution under Nero,
Clements does make some allusions to it in this letter.
In Clement’s first mention of Christian persecution, he skillfully dances around giving specifics, saying; “Because of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars were persecuted, and fought to the death.”44 Clement goes on to mention Peter and Paul by name, giving short summaries of their lives and the trials they faced. However, when it comes to
42 Clement, “The Letter of Romans to the Corinthians,” tans. J.B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer, in M.W. Holmes (ed.) The Apostolic Fathers, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,1992), 23-101. 43 Ibid., “Introduction,” 23-24. 44 Ibid., Letters, 5.2. Rach 19 actually describing their martyrdom, Clements merely alludes to it.45 In the following section,
Clements mentions how women were persecuted as Danaids and Dircae.46 Neither of these accounts mention anything about Nero, Rome, or the Great Fire. While the mention of women does include a reference to Classical mythology, and therefore Roman culture, it is not enough to provide evidence for state issued persecution.
Also, Clements claims that jealousy is the source of these persecutions. This is an interesting and new way of viewing the persecutions not mentioned in previous sources. Tacitus frames the persecutions as a way for Nero to defer the blame for the Great Fire off of himself, and Suetonius merely mentions that Christians were punished. While neither of these perspectives are exceptionally positive toward Christianity, they convey no hint of jealousy.
Pliny, the only other source up until this point mentioning Christians, is certainly curious, but again none of his language indicates jealousy. However, Clement does not specify whose jealousy is spurning these persecutions. Since the diction of Roman sources do not portray any evidence of envy, only ignorance and disfavor, Clement actually is implicating the leaders of the
Jewish faith. As already established, the Book of Acts describes multiple occasions where
Christians were persecuted at the agency of the Jewish leaders. The story of Paul itself shows
Paul arrested and awaiting trial in Rome due to the accusations of leaders of the Jewish community.47 These Jewish leaders, as described in Acts, exhibit more the feeling of envy than the Roman sources do. In fact, there are two places where the author of Acts specifically states
45Clements states about Peter, “and thus, having given his testimony went to his appointed place of glory.” On Paul, Clements states, “finally, when he had given his testimony before the rulers, he thus departed from the world and went to the holy place, having become an outstanding example of patient endurance.” Ibid., 5.4-7. 46 Ibid., 6.2. 47 Acts 23:27-29, (NOAB). Rach 20 that the Jewish leaders grew jealous, and they subsequently lashed out against the apostles.48
Despite the fact that the historical context and other sources indicate that the persecution mentioned in Clement’s letter did not stem from Roman authority, it is often read as another mention of Neronian persecution.49
Clement’s letter serves as another example of how texts, when read outside of their own context, can be misinterpreted to provide support for certain events. The language of Clement’s letter is ambiguous enough that historians could interpret it as an early mention of Neronian persecution. However, Clement does not mention any agency of the persecution aside from jealousy. It would be unsupported to assert that Romans expressed any type of jealousy towards
Christianity. Furthermore, Clement, as an early church father, would have familiarity with other religious texts. The connection between jealousy and the Jewish leaders would be clear to someone as well versed in religious writings and events as Clements. Consequently, the context of Clement’s letter indicates that his mention of jealousy, and by association Christian persecution, is al allusion to Jewish leaders and does not support Neronian persecution.
Cassius Dio’s Roman History Cassius Dio’s Roman History, written during the end of the Nerva-Antonine dynasty, also serves as a source for the possibility of Neronian persecution. However, Dio does not include any mention of Christians, or Christian persecution, in his account of the fire. In fact, Dio never mentions Christians anywhere in his section on Nero.
Dio was a Roman statesman and historian, who had plenty reason to be biased against the
Julio-Claudians, specifically Nero. Dio was writing under the reign of Commodus, the last
48Ibid., 5:17-18; 13:44-45. 49 Shaw, “Neronian Persecution,” 84. Rach 21
Emperor in the Nerva-Antonine dynasty. As with Suetonius, Dio was exposed to years of the myth of Nero growing and expanding. Since Dio wrote later than Suetonius, he was further removed from the events he recounts and the stories had more time to be exaggerated and added upon. Dio’s bias can be clearly seen throughout his writing, and especially the way in which he recounts the Great Fire of Rome. Unlike Tacitus, who hints that Nero may have started the fire but does not outright blame him and him alone, Dio launches into his account by blaming Nero for the fire of Rome. Dio brands the fire as Nero’s attempt to purposely and premeditatively bring about the destruction of the entire city.50 Furthermore, Dio actually describes the scene of panic and chaos which resulted from the fire, which emphasizes how horrific it was and uses an emotional appeal to the reader. These details do not portray Nero in a positive light, rather they serve to make him the villain of the tale. Dio’s bias against Nero is evident further when he states that Nero played the fiddle while Rome burned, as if he was the conqueror celebrating victory over the fallen city of Rome.51
Yet, Dio does not mention Nero’s persecution of the Christians. Persecuting a whole group of people would certainly serve the image of Nero that Dio propagates, one who is purposely cruel and heartless. Therefore, this omission is curious. Shaw hypothesizes that Dio’s omission may result from his negative feelings towards the Christians.52 However, this assumption is unsupported by Dio’s writings. Especially considering that later in his history, Dio not only mentions the Christians but includes a story in which a group of Christian soldier pray and God sends a storm, which results in Marcus Aurelius and the Roman army winning a battle.
50 Cassius Dio, “Book 62,” in trans. E. Cary, Roman History,(Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1925), 112-116. 51 Ibid., 18.1. 52 Shaw, “Neronian Persecution,” 82. Rach 22
53 If Dio really despised the Christians so much that he does not even want to include them in a narration within which they are persecuted, why would he include such a positive view of
Christians only a few books later? This historian is merely retrospectively placing motivations on
Dio’s omission and in doing so creating an argument from silence which is not completely credible.
The question still remains as to why Dio chose to omit the Christians from his account of the Great Fire of Rome. He is clearly attempting to portray a negative image of Nero, so this exclusion is not an attempt to salvage Nero’s reputation. Dio, and his history, gain nothing from his erasure of Christian persecution if he hated the Christians, just as he gains nothing if he favors the Christians. From a modern perspective, the story of the persecution would increase the horrors of Nero’s reign, and would make the Christians appear sympathetic. However, Romans of Dio’s time would not adopt this same view. Along those lines, one possible explanation for
Dio’s silence can actually be found in Suetonius. Suetonius portrays Nero’s punishments of
Christians as a positive action, again showing the negative feelings Romans had towards
Christians. Dio was writing later than Suetonius, so this bias against Christians has had more time to develop. Therefore, Dio, and the other Roman citizens, also considered penalties against the Christians a good thing. If Dio wanted to create a narrative in which Nero was the horrific despot who just wanted to watch Rome burn, it would make sense that he would not want to include an aspect which might reflect positively on Nero.
Nevertheless, there is not enough literary evidence to make an argument either way about
Dio’s surprising and integral oversight. It is still an important omission worth pointing out. If the
53Dio, “Book 72,” 9. Rach 23 persecution of Christians under Nero was as great and horrific as historians, and the general public, have come to believe that it was, it would have been very difficult for Dio to exclude it.
Also, Dio is pulling from the sources that have come before him. While there are only a few extant sources remaining, Tacitus and Suetonius, if many of the other sources mentioned this
Christian persecution under Nero, Dio’s readers would have known that he was negligent in his writing. Thus, Dio’s silence indicates silence of other sources. However, nothing can be proved in certainty from what is missing from the extant literature. No historian can know with confidence why a certain author chose to exclude something from their writing, and basing an argument from the author’s silence does not contain enough evidence to cement an argument.
Nevertheless, Dio’s silence on the topic of Neronian persecution, something which should not have been easily omitted if it were as prominent as believed, is an interesting aspect to consider.
Tertullian’s Apologeticus Another prominent church father, and somewhat controversial figure, who mentions
Christian persecution under Nero in his writings was Tertullian. Tertullian was actively writing towards the send of the second century, beginning of the third century common era. Most of what is known about Tertullian comes from the writings of Jerome, but it is fairly certain that he was raised pagan and grew up in Carthage. Tertullian’s writings introduced a variety of important concepts into Christianity, including the concept of the trinity. However, it is his
Apologeticus which is interesting in this conversation. Believed to be written around 197 CE, Tertullian’s Apologeticus is a sarcastic and scathing defense of Christianity which reflects back on the Greek meaning of “apology,” a defense of one’s words and actions, and less the modern Rach 24 sense of the word.54 Within his Apologeticus, Tertullian defends Christianity in a time when it is yet again a prosecutable offense. While using various tactics to argue his point, including referencing Pliny the Younger’s letter to Trajan and the inconclusive solution not to seek out
Christians but to punish them if they are brought to Pliny, Tertullian displays the inconsistency and unusual way in which Roman officials have treated Christians.
Another method which Tertullian uses is almost a type of fear mongering. Tertullian discusses the Emperors known to have persecuted Christians and then also draws attention to the horrific reputation and reign these Emperors had. Tertullian begins this point by discussing Nero, saying; “consult your histories. There you will find that Nero was the first to rage with the imperial sword against this school in the very hour of its rise in Rome.”55 Tertullian’s reference to Neronian persecution serves a very deliberate purpose. By the time Tertullian is writing, the myth of Nero has had time to expand and grow, meaning that Tertullian and his contemporaries would have an image of Nero which had been exaggerated by time and the political prominence of those with motive to slander him. No Roman would want to be compared to Nero, or do something which could lead to their becoming like Nero. In this sense, Tertullian introducing the comparison to Nero serves less to recount the historical account of Neronian persecution but more to scare his audience. Along those lines, Tertullian was trying to use the tools of persuasion and consequently would not be against hyperbolic exaggerations of Nero and Persecution. Even if there was only one source describing Neronian Christian persecution, Tertullian would want to have capsized on this account to make his point. So, Tertullian is an extremely biased source, who was deliberately trying to be persuasive.
54 A. Di Berardino, "Tertullian" in P. Siniscalco et al. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity (Westmont: InterVarsity Press, 2014). 55 Tertullian, Apologeticus, trans. G. H. Rendall, (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1931). 1-227. Rach 25
It is interesting to note that the Loeb version of Tertullian’s Apologeticus includes a footnote on this line. However, the only work cited is Tacitus’s Annales. This would make sense, since, as previously mentioned, Tacitus is the only extant source directly linking Nero and
Christian persecution and the Great Fire of Rome. As previously discussed, there are problems with the historicity of Tacitus as a source. If Tacitus is the only history that Tertullian was drawing from, there would be a problem with Tertullian’s credibility. However, since Tertullian makes the general statement for his audience to “consult your histories,” this problem is more complex. The mere fact that Tertullian made “histories” plural, shows that he was expecting his audience to know of more sources than merely Tacitus which discuss Neronian persecution.
However, there is a large problem with the extant literature, and no such other histories are available for historians to confer with. Tertullian could have also had Suetonius’s biography in mind, as Suetonius does also mention that Nero penalized Christians. Tertullian’s comment does indicate that more literature recorded Neronian persecution, which would actually be evidence supporting the existence of Nero’s Christian persecution as has been accepted for centuries.
However, just as Dio was influenced by both Suetonius and Tacitus, these texts would have drawn from other histories.
Therefore, while Tertullian does indicate that Neronian persecution happened multiple sources record it, he is not the most credible source in the conversation. He is specifically writing with the purpose of persuading his audience, not merely informing them. His use of Nero as a rhetorical device further throws his credibility into question. Also, while mentioning sources does normally strengthen an argument, merely mentioning general “histories” and not citing specific ones undermines his credibility. Tertullian’s statement is a sweeping generalization Rach 26 which should not be given much clout when considering its historicity. Therefore, Tertullian’s general lack of credibility and ulterior motive for writing demands that historians carefully examine these implications before citing it as proof for Neronian persecution.
Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History is another source through which to examine the reality of Neronian persecution of Christians. Eusebius was a prominent church figure and writer within the early 4th century, believed to be Emperor Constantine’s theological advisor. He was made
Bishop of Caesarea, probably before 315 CE, and attended the Council of Nicaea in 325.56
The way Eusebius writes about Christian persecution results from the way in which he desires Christianity to be perceived.57 Eusebius’s account narrates the experiences of the early church in a way which differs greatly from what is recounted by the historians, Tacitus,
Suetonius, and Dio, and Pliny’s letter. Eusebius starts by describing how quickly and how far
Christianity spread. He also includes a story about how the Emperor Tiberius attempted to make
Jesus part of the pantheon of gods, but the Senate denied it.58 Eusebius’s account is littered with stories such as this, ones that are not mentioned in the historical sources, but make Christianity look better.59 With these stories, Eusebius portrays Christians as a group that was readily accepted and popular. This portrayal is then emphasized in his accounts of persecutions, which he purposely depicts as abnormal.60 The mere fact that Eusebius’s history differs so greatly from
56 Eusebius, “Introduction” in trans. K. Lake, Ecclesiastical History, (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1926) 99-185. 57 T. O. Barnes, “The History of the Church” in Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge: The Harvard University Press, 1981), 126-147. 58 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical, 2.2 59 Throughout the second book of his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius recounts various tales of miracles. While the easiest to debunk and most obviously incorrect story is his account of Emperor Tiberius as an early christian, various other stories appear in this book which are not found in Tacitus, Suetonius, or Dio. 60 Barnes, “Ecclesiastical History,” 136. Rach 27 other histories establishes questions to his credibility. This questionable credibility, combined with the fact that Eusebius has a deeply personal relationship to the content and therefore an extreme bias, requires one to read his through an extremely critical lense.
This skepticism must also be applied to Eusebius’s mention of Nero. Eusebius first mentions Nero in association with persecution when recounting the tradition of John’s martyrdom in Rome, which he accredits to Nero.61 In this same section, Eusebius also describes
Nero’s “ferocity” which Paul describes in his Epistle to Timothy. Following this representation of Nero, Eusebius states:
“ἀρχὰς ἠπιώτερον τοῦ Νέρωνος διακειμένου, ῥᾷον τὴν ὑπὲρ τοῦ δόγματος τοῦ Παύλου καταδεχθῆναι ἀπολογίαν , προελθόντος δ̓ εἰς ἀθεμίτους τόλμας, μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων καὶ τὰ κατὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐγχειρηθῆναι.”
“Probably at the beginning Nero’s disposition was gentler and it was easier for Paul’s
defence on behalf of his views to be received, but as he advanced towards reckless crime,
the Apostles were attacked along with the rest.”62
However, this translation does not adequately provide insight into Eusebius’s thoughts on Nero.
The “he” in the second half of the sentence is ambiguous, and while it is assumed to be Nero advancing towards the reckless crimes, it could very well be Paul. In fact, in the Greek, this section is a genitive absolute and the subject of the sentence is the Apostles who are punished in the passive voice.63 The very nature of the genitive absolute ensure vagueness of this section.
There is no clear subject which the προελθόντος, the participle translated here as “advanced,” is
61 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical, 2.22 62 Ibid., 2.22. 63The section in question: προελθόντος δ̓ εἰς ἀθεμίτους τόλμας. Ibid., 2.22. Rach 28 referring to, especially because both the names of both Nero and Paul are in the genitive case earlier on in the sentence. The clause itself is closer in the text to the mention of Paul’s defence, which introduces the possibility that it alludes to Paul. However, in Greek, unlike English, word order holds much less importance for the meaning of words. Nevertheless, word order does still hold implications for meaning of the words and which concepts they are related to. Eusebius’s ambiguity regarding Nero, both in this section and others, is interesting to consider. Not only does the genitive absolute lend itself to vagueness, Eusebius’s use of passive voice in this section also leaves the reader with doubt as to what Eusebius is specifically trying to say happened. In the second part of the sentence, the Apostles are the subject and they are “punished with the rest.” However, yet again Eusebius’s grammar complicates his meaning. The reader would assume that the one doing the persecution was Nero, despite the fact that Eusebius never accredits this persecution to Nero. Eusebius’s grammar very easily lends itself to biased interpretations and assumptions from those who are reading the text and expect it to say one thing or another. Therefore this vagueness needs to be addressed and considered in any translation of Eusebius.
Actually, the Greek presents a more convincing case for an alternative translation of this passage where the clause in question refers to Paul and not Nero. The Greek word ἀθεμίτους is an adjective which translates to “unlawful” and the word τόλμας is a noun which can be translated as “courage, boldness, or daring.”64 However, in this translation the author has chosen to make the adjective the noun and the noun the adjective, resulting in the translation “reckless crime” as opposed to a more accurate translation “unlawful courage.” This translation has a more
64H.G. Liddel and R. Scott, “ἀθεμίτους” a nd “τόλμας,” in H.S. Jones (ed.) 9th ed, Greek-English Lexicon, (London: Oxford University Press, 1940), 31 and 1801. Rach 29 positive connotation, and may be referring to Paul rather than Nero. Paul was known to cause riots and practice his faith boldly, and he was arrested on more than one occasion.65 Paul’s growing boldness is considered admirable within the Christian tradition, Paul preached his faith without apology or fear of repercussion. Therefore, Eusebius attributing the “unlawful courage” to Paul would fall in line with his known bias towards Paul and Christianity. Furthermore, the bias that this translator, Kirsopp Lake, brought into their work also supports the possibility a mistranslation. Since Lake is a product of his times he would have been reading and translating
Eusebius’s work within a framework of Neronian persecution. Lake’s own bias against Nero meant that he interpreted Eusebius’s ambiguity in a way which is not necessarily correct.66
Therefore, considering both the biases of Eusebius and Lake and what is actually present in the text, this clause should be attributed to Paul.
At a later section, Eusebius states that; “it is not part of the present work to describe his depravity: many indeed have related his story in accurate narrative.”67 While Eusebius does go on to add a few sentences about Nero’s depravity and bloodthirstiness, that is the extent of
Eusebius’s discussion of Nero. Why does Eusebius avoid the subject of Nero and Neronian persecution? One possible answer is that by the time Eusebius was writing the myth of Nero had grown so infamous that Eusebius genuinely believed that he need not waste the time and space writing about it. However, an alternative option is that Eusebius did not know much about
65 For more on this, see the Book of Acts. 66 This translation was published in the 1928 Loeb edition of Eusebius’s works. During this period, and even still today, Neronian persecution and the extreme turpitude of Nero’s character was widely accepted within the scholarly community. Therefore, this translator was working and translating this text as if it were written within the framework of Neronian persecution. Thus, the translator introduces their own bias of accepting the myth of Neronian persecution and his horrific character, assuming that Nero is to blame and the center of the punishment of the Apostles discussed in the following part of the sentence. 67 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical, 2.25 Rach 30
Neronian persecution and he is avoiding the subject, which would make sense considering the way in which Eusebius recounts other events in his history. He does not shy away from exaggerations or flat out falsaties. Therefore, it is uncharacteristic for him to briefly gloss over
Neronian persecution. Therefore, the option that Eusebius was not familiar with neronian persecution fits Eusebius’s style better. If it were the case that Eusebius was not familiar with
Neronian persecution, it would support the possibility that Christian persecution did not happen.
Eusebius was an important figure within the early church, and he would have been familiar with church history and writings concerning the early church. Eusebius’s apparent ignorance to or hesitation to address this topic indicates that it was not as major as common myth would indicate.
Conclusion
None of these sources provide definitive evidence that Neronian persecution actually occurred. However, none of these sources provide definitive evidence that Neronian persecution did not occur. The surprising lack of discussion from these sources regarding Neronian persecution is worth pointing out, however an argument from what the author’s silence does not have enough support to be a successful argument. Nevertheless, these sources should be considered in a new light. So much of the support for Neronian persecution is the result of biased readings, as historians have assumed for so long that this persecution took place under Nero that when they read the sources they look for it. When the sources themselves leave topics purposely vague, these biased readers have supplemented the silence with what they believe the author meant. Basically, in assuming the Neronian persecution happen, the historians willed the evidence into existence. Rach 31
One question worth further examination is how did the myth of Neronian persecution come to be such a widely accepted fact, when the evidence is seriously lacking. In order to get to the root of this problem, one must examine Nero and how his reputation grew into the mythic version of Nero as people encounter him today. Once Nero died, the Flavians took over and needed to justify their power, and their actions in taking power from the Julio- Claudians. One way to authenticate their authority was to hire historians, such as Tacitus, to write scathing histories about the Julio-Claudians, especially Nero. In this hatred and slandering of Nero, any source which describes him in a positive light was destroyed. Tacitus writes of the existence of such sources, even though he does claim that they were written in the time of Nero and therefore highly biased.68 As time progressed, Nero became the stock character for a corrupt and villainous despot. Religious writings, including the Book of Revelation, came to portray Nero as the literal antichrist.69 People became obsessed with this mythic Nero and they loved to hate him.70 In their deep bias, historians have been willing to accept that Neronian persecution occurred.
Therefore, historians, and readers in general, must be more critical of the sources they are reading and the information they assume is fact. The evidence for Neronian persecution is extremely lacking, and those who continue to propagate its existence must address the burden of proof. Historians need to read the sources for their own context and not what they believed may have happened. Historians need to evaluate themselves and their own biases, along what those of the authors they read, in order to truly see past the historiographical into the historical.
68 Tacitus, Annales, 1.1. 69 E. Buckley, "Nero in Jewish and Christian Tradition from the First Century to the Reformation," In Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World (Oxford,UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2013), 383-404. - 70 Shaw, “Neronian Persecution,” 94. Rach 32
Word Count: 8797
Rach 33
Bibliography
Barnes, T. O. “The History of the Church.” In Constantine and Eusebius, 126-147. Cambridge: The Harvard University Press, 1981.
“The Book of Acts.” In M. D. Coogen et al. (ed.), The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1919-1971. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Buckley, E. "Nero in Jewish and Christian Tradition from the First Century to the Reformation."
In Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World, 383-404. Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell, - 2013.
Carrier, R. “The Prospect of Christian Interpolation in Tacitus. Annals 15.44.” Vigiliae Christianae 68, No. 3 (2014): 264-283. Cassius Dio. “Book 62.” In translated by E. Cary Roman History, 112- 116. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925.
Clements. “The Letter of Romans to the Corinthians.” Translated by J.B. Lightfoot and J.R.
Harmer, in M.W. Holmes (ed.), The Apostolic Fathers, 23-101. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992.
Di Berardino, A. "Tertullian." In P. Siniscalco et al. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity. Westmont: InterVarsity Press, 2014.
Eusebius.“Book 2.” In translated by K. Lake, Ecclesiastical History, 99-185. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1926.
Fredriksen, P. Paul: The Pagan’s Apostle. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017. ------. When Christians Were Jews : The First Generation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018. Rach 34
Jones, C. "The Historicity of the Neronian Persecution: A Response to Brent Shaw." Vigiliae Christianae 63, no. 1 (2017): 146-52. Liddel, H.G. and R. Scott, R. “ἀθεμίτους” and “τόλμας.” In H.S. Jones (ed.) Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed, 31 and 1801. London: Oxford University Press, 1940. Shaw, B. “The Myth of Neronian Persecution.” JRS 105 (2015): 73-100. ------. "Response to Christopher Jones: The Historicity of the Neronian Persecution." Vigiliae Christianae 64, no. 2 (2018): 231-42. Sherwin- White, A.N and Price, S. “Pliny (2) the Younger.” In S. Hornblower et al. (eds.),
Oxford Classical Dictionary, 4th ed.New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Suetonius. “Nero.” In translated by R. Graves, The Twelve Caesars, 207-241. New York: Penguin Group, 2007.
Tacitus. The Annals of Imperial Rome. Translated by M. Grant. New York: Penguin Group, 1956.
Tertullian. Apologeticus. Translated by G. H. Rendall. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1931. Pliny. “Book 10.” In E. H. Warmington (ed.), Letters and Panegyricus, 284-290. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969.