chapter 2 Imperial Recognition in the Intellectual Sphere: Christians and Philosophers

1 Almost Philosophers: Pagan Philosophers Recognizing Christians

The earliest Roman sources on Christians are dated to the beginning of the second century. Three famous accounts of Christians are quoted repeatedly: Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger. In their view, Christianity is a crimi- nal superstition. In this chapter, I argue that these authors present only one side of the coin. Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Lucian, and Galen provide more positive accounts. Thus, the image of Christians among ancient pagans was not a purely negative one; in a sense, they recognized Christianity as belonging to the category of philosophy. Tacitus’ Annals contain a well-known account of Emperor Nero’s perse- cutions. Tacitus calls Christianity “the deadly superstition,” one among “the shocking and shameful things” which flow into the city of Rome. He explains that the Christians were “hated for their crimes” and reports that they were brought to trial for hatred of the human race. Tacitus admits that Nero made the Christians scapegoats in order to deflect the scandalous rumors surround- ing him. In the same breath, Tacitus adds that the Christians really “were guilty and deserving of the most unusual exemplary punishments” (Ann. 15.44.2–5). The claim of Christianity as superstition recurs in Suetonius’ book The Lives of the Twelve Caesars. While Suetonius lists Nero’s evil deeds, he also mentions the good ones. Among these, he lists the fact that “punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous supersti- tion” (Nero 16.2; trans. Rolfe, LCL).1 The third Roman author recurrently quoted is Pliny the Younger. As a propraetor of the province of Bithynia and Pontus, he had to handle legal procedures against local Christians. Pliny seems to be conscious that they are not guilty of grave crimes, and he is somewhat uncomfortable with his task. Pliny, however, sees Christianity as a “corrupt and

1 According to another passage, which is often presented as a reference to Christ (Claudius 5.25), a certain Chrestus has caused disturbances among the Jews, but it is not clear if Chrestus actually means Christ or not (for the differing views, see, e.g., Benko 1980, 1056–1059; Thorsteinsson 2003, 92–96; Cook 2010, 11–28). Whatever the case may be, it does not change the picture of Christians that Suetonius gives in Nero 16.

© Niko Huttunen, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428249_003 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Imperial Recognition in the Intellectual Sphere 13 immoderate superstition,” a kind of disease, which menaces the traditional cults but which can be remedied. He is ready to punish the pure “defiance and inflexible obstinacy” of Christians which he also calls “madness” (amentia) (Ep. 10.96). John Granger Cook has written an excellent book, Roman Attitudes Towards Christians: From Claudius to Hadrian, where he extensively analyzes these three and some other Roman texts on Christians. In the introduction, Cook suggests that the concept of “othering” is useful for understanding the relation- ship between the Romans and the Christians. He continues: “There were some Roman intellectuals and officials who viewed (‘constructed’) the Christians as ‘the other’—a novum that they comprehended with difficulty.”2 Cook formu- lates this “otherness” of Christianity:

Probably the Roman intellectuals and governors like Tacitus and Pliny were so disgusted at the phenomenon of Christianity that they lacked the inclination to make any profound explorations into the nature of early Christian faith, morality, and ritual practice. What I have sought to do during this project is develop a sympathy for the Romans’ shock when they had to deal with this ‘other’—these Christians who were so difficult to conceive using the categories they were familiar with.3

Cook’s view of Christians as “others” is fully justified. Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny attest that the Romans had a tendency to count Christianity among the dangerous superstitions. Cook’s presentation, however, has a deficiency: it presumes that “otherness” is always coupled with a negative image of the “other.” This is not the case. “Otherness” mirrors the identity of the observer; “other” demarcates what the observer is not. For example, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny portrayed Christianity as a superstition—something that they did not think that they themselves held. Yet, although the indications of otherness tend to be negative, they can also be neutral or even laudatory.4 “Otherness,” therefore, is not a purely negative category. Images of others can contain positive elements, “depending on the relation- ship between the subject of the image and the examiner’s hopes, interests, or fears and what the environmental circumstances, such as the political and economic factors, are at each given time.”5 The reasons can be even purely

2 Cook 2010, 2; see Barclay 2014, 323–324. 3 Cook 2010, 2. 4 Rauhala 2013, 286. 5 Fält 2008, 41.