Was There a Persecution under Domitian?

Gentry calls into question the very persecution under Domitian. This is a common ploy of revisionist history, as all historical texts that comment upon the situation are ignored or held in suspect, and this gives the ability to the modern historian to replace that reported narrative with their own interpretation of history.

Gentry states:

Furthermore, it is remarkable that though Suetonius credited Nero with the persecution of Christians, he makes no mention of Domitian’s alleged persecution . . . Thus, the documentary evidence for a general imperial persecution of Christianity under Domitian is deemed questionable by a number of competent scholars.[1]

Actually, Suetonius only brings up the Neronian persecution to defame Nero as the real culprit of the crimes committed against Rome, not because he cares about what is occurring with Christians, who he clearly detests. This is not only an argumentum silentio fallacy but ignores the purpose of Suetonius’s work. Suetonius does not mention Nerva or Trajan at all either, since his purpose is to teach Hadrian and his successors something about men who seek power and how they should conduct themselves. He wishes to do this without offending the Nerva-Antonine line, of which Hadrian is a part, by doing it. He is not merely writing a history and biography of people named Caesar. Should one suggest, then, that there was no Nerva-Antonine dynasty because Suetonius, who was alive during it, did not mention it? That would seem like a much larger oversight if one were truly writing a history of the emperors up until his day rather than a polemic geared toward a specific purpose. In fact, there are numerous events that occur during the reigns of the Caesars that are not attested in his work. This has little to do with whether they occurred. It should also be noted that many scholars deny a Neronian persecution at all using he same type of revisionist methodologies. Yet, Gentry does not accept those. He conveniently applies these conclusions to Domitian’s persecution, but not to Nero’s. It should also be pointed out that no known persecution from the time of Trajan would be known if not for Pliny verifying the procedures for dealing with Christians. Without this letter, these scholars would likely dismiss the idea that Christians had been persecuted on a larger scale under Trajan as well.

Gentry again argues: 

We must carefully note that the punishment was exclusively directed against Christians as such – as a genus. Clearly Christians were punished as Christians, unlike the situation with Domitian. Furthermore, the punishment was due to their “mischievous superstition” and alleged “hatred (odium) of the human race. ” 10] Henderson suggests that the role of the emperor cult in the Neronian spectacle is presumed in the emperor worship sections of Revelation: “The great crime is ‘Caesar-worship.’ This of course suits Domitian. But ji-om the other eviderue it suits Nero as well – when the Christians suffered as Christians.”

Gentry here is sidestepping an important issue and characterizing the persecution as singling out Christians as Christians; but what he fails to note is that they are not being persecuted by Nero because they did not worship the emperor and his image, as Revelation puts it, but for Nero’s crime of setting the city on fire. They were surely hated for their piety and lack of participation in the general worship of the gods, but there is no evidence that Nero persecuted them for not worshiping him. In other words, this is why Christians were hated and made for good scapegoats, but they were put to death for their supposed hatred toward humanity by setting Rome ablaze.

Gentry is correct to say that because the great crime is “Caesar-worship” that this means that Domitian fits the bill. The problem for Gentry is that Nero does not. Nero does not exalt himself into a deity before his death. Domitian is the first emperor to consider himself a living deity, having given himself the title Dominus et Deus “Lord and God.” Instead, Nero does not persecute the Christians for not worshiping him, but for burning Rome. They are blamed because they are Christians, but they are not being put to death because they refuse to partake in the imperial cult, as the saints in Revelation are.

Instead, the other emperor in question, Domitian, is not only suitable to fit this description, as Gentry himself admits here, but is the only one who is suitable out of the emperors in the first century, as there is no evidence that any of the emperors in the first century persecute Christians for not worshiping them and their images, except for Domitian. Domitian would have persecuted Christians for the specific reason that they were committing blasphemy against the gods and treason against the empire for not participating in the emperor cult, as well as not paying respect to the other gods. This would have been seen by Domitian in particular as a destabilization of the empire and his rule, and as we are told by historians, he was a tyrant over the people like no other before him. Domitian took any criticism, even of his gladiators, personally "as offending his divinity (divinitatem) and his deity (numen)" (Pan. 3 3.4). Unlike all other emperors before him who waited until death to be treated as deity, there were “extraordinary claims to divinity made by Domitian during his lifetime.”[2]

Gentry seems aware that the nature of Nero’s persecution is an issue, as he attempts to argue that Revelation does not require Nero’s persecution to be a direct persecution due to the fact that Christians will not worship Nero. He argues:

 

We note here at the outset that a formal, legal relationship of emperor worship to the Neronian persecution is not absolutely required by the prophetic message contained in Revelation. Two considerations lead us to this statement. In the first place, even upon purely secular (i.e., naturalistic, anti-prophetic) presuppositions the ideas embodied in Revelation 13 can be perceived as subtly lurking behind the persecution of Nero. For the very existence of the emperor cult and its employment by Nero himself surely would suggest to the mind even of a mere non-inspired enthusiast both the religious incompatibility of the Christian faith in regard to the divine pretensions of the emperor, as well as the inexorable drift to deadly confrontation . . . In the second place, it could be that the prophecy of Revelation speaks of the underlying philosophical and spiritual issues engaged, rather than the external publicly advertised and judicially sanctioned ones. (277).

The problem with this argument is that Revelation is specifically encouraging Christians to not participate in the emperor cult, and provides the reason for their persecution and executions as due to their “not worshiping the beast and his image,” suggesting that what brought about the sentence of death was their unwillingness to participate in the imperial cult, not because they were a good scapegoat upon whom Nero could blame his destruction of the city. There is simply no evidence, and indeed, evidence to the contrary, that Nero would have employed the imperial cult as any sort of litmus test for Christians in Rome, since living emperors were not worshiped as gods in Rome during the time of Nero.[3] Since the beast in revelation is being worshiped, John does not seem to be referencing the Neronian persecution.

Furthermore, the litmus test described by Pliny the Younger fifteen years after Domitian’s reign seems to suggest that Christians were specifically being put to death in the later years of the first century and earlier years of the second because they did not renounce their exclusive devotion to Christianity by worshiping the gods and the image of the emperor. In his letter to Trajan, he states:

Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do—these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

The nature of the latter persecution appears much more in line with the descriptions the reader is given in the Book of Revelation, whereas the nature of Nero’s persecution over the burning of the city does not seem like it at all. In fact, there is no indication that those Christians could recant Christ and worship the emperor in order to receive pardon, since they were branded as having committed a crime punishable by death. John, however, indicates in his book that there are those who are worshiping the beast and his image, and therefore, compromising in order to save their lives.

Furthermore, since Nero did not exalt himself to a living deity, the litmus test would not have been based upon whether these people worshiped his image. This test only makes sense under Domitian’s reign. 

Even more than this, there is absolutely no evidence that Nero banished people for the crime of burning the city. They were given the death penalty for the crime. Domitian, however, executes and banishes Christians. This is significant because John is writing from the island of Patmos to which he has been banished “because of the word of God and the testimony concerning Jesus” (1:9). It is unlikely, therefore, that the Book of Revelation is describing the persecution under Nero.

But, at this point, it is not even necessary to quibble over this matter, as even if one were to concede, for the sake of argument, that the reason given in Revelation for this imperial persecution of Christians is merely a root cause of other reasons Christians were persecuted, the book is clear that Nero (the fifth king who is dead) is not the manifestation of the beast that is persecuting the Christians in Revelation, but rather the beast in its manifestation as the eighth king, who clearly represents Domitian. It is the beast manifested in the eighth king who concerns John, not the original fifth one. This eighth king is certainly like the fifth in that he persecuted Christians, but he persecutes them for not worshiping him and his image, much like the newly appointed governor of Bithynia-Pontus (i.e., Turkey), Pliny describes, in his above letter, of a persecution that seems to have been going on for some time before him.

Because of this refusal, which in turn occasioned other refusals on the part of the Christians, they were hated, imprisoned, banished to lonely islands, condemned to work as slaves in the mines, cast to the lions as a public spectacle and executed by the sword. …Christians were always in danger (p.45). However, the Roman persecutions were generally sporadic, localized and dependent on the political climate and disposition of each emperor. (ESJ 8:16, July, 181).

“Despite the Roman hatred for the church and Christianity as a whole, the short reign of these emperors did not account for any serious church persecution. Just writes, ―there are no recorded persecutions of the church during the reign of emperors Galba, Otho and Vitellius” (European Scientific Journal 8:16, July, p. 182).

“There are no accounts of serious church persecutions during his reign. Schiff (1997) observes, ―during the rapidly succeeding reign of Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian and Titus, the church so far as we know suffered no very serious persecution (7).” (Ibid. 182)

“No serious church persecution was recorded during his [i.e., Titus’s] reign apart from his destruction of the temple at Jerusalem in AD 70.” Ibid, 183

Christians, in their rejection of Roman gods and of many Roman traditions, stood in the way of Domitian and this caused persecution for them. The Jews, however, were not left out as Domitian regarded them as one with Christians. Austin (1983) notes, ―…he declared a widespread persecution of Christians and Jews‖ (p. 62). Numerous lies were made up during this time to harm the Christians- such as Christians were responsible for every famine, epidemic or earthquake that afflicted any part of the Roman Empire. III. Nature of Persecution. Domitian was a cruel person, and so in his hatred, he issued an order that no Christian, once brought before the tribunal should be exempted from punishment without renouncing his religion. When Christians were brought before Domitian‘s council they were told to swear an oath of allegiance to him and if they refused, they were killed. Among those killed were Domitian‘s cousins, Flavius Clemens and M‘ Aciluis Glabrio, both consuls. He also banished Domitilla for atheism. Austin (1983) notes, ―Tradition holds it was during the Domitian persecutions that the Apostle John was banished to Patmos‖ (p. 62). (Emeka C. Ekeke, Persecution and Martyrdom of Christians in the Roman Empire from AD 54 TO 100: A Lesson for the 21^st Century Church 183).

The Romans did not sharply distinguish religion from politics; for religion was a function of the state, and the worship of the gods which were recognized by the state was part of the duty of the citizen. Emperor-worship therefore expressed the attitude of the worshiper toward the emperor as the embodiment of imperial power . . . They accepted the religious devotion of the people as an evidence of political loyalty.[4]  

Emperors before Domitian, however, seem to accept only vague titles of divinity. They are afforded honor as one who would become a ddeity, but even upon his deathbed, Vespasian, the father of Domitian, implied, even if jokingly, that he was becoming a god upon his death, and was not one in life.

Mark Galli, Christianity Today, Christian History, Persecution in the Early Church: A Gallery of Emperors: 

Domitian was the first emperor to have himself officially titled in Rome as “God the Lord.” He insisted that other people hail his greatness with acclamations like “Lord of the earth,” “Invincible,” “Glory,” “Holy,” and “Thou Alone.” When he ordered people to give him divine honors, Jews, and no doubt Christians, balked. The resulting persecution of Jews is well-documented; that of Christians is not. However, the beast that the author of Revelation describes, as well as the events in the book, are perhaps best interpreted as hidden allusions to the rule of Domitian. In addition, Flavius Clemens, consul in 95, and his wife, Flavia Domitilla, were executed and exiled, respectively, by Domitian’s orders; many historians suspect this was because they were Christians.

Eusebius confirms that no other emperor persecuted Christians other than Nero and Domitian when he states that “he [Domitian] was the second [emperor] who raised a persecution against us” (Eccl Hist 3:17). He also quotes the earlier work of Melito, who states that in the first century, “Nero and Domitian, alone, stimulated by certain malicious persons, showed a disposition to slander our faith.” Tertullian also states that both Nero and Domitian were the first century emperors who “raged with the imperial sword against this teaching.” He stated that Domitian was “a good deal of a Nero in cruelty” (Apol. 5). Hegesippus states that the persecution ceased when Domitian realized that the kingdom about which Christians spoke was an eternal one, not a temporal one that was seeking to overthrow the Roman Empire. 

Domitian was the first to declare himself a living god, the manifestation of Jupiter himself, and as such, would have put more stock in the sacrifices made to him as to a deity. To fail to worship him was to fail to worship Jupiter, and was a subversive action taken against the stability of the empire. This would have added to his suspicion that Christians wanted to replace the empire with their own. It was not until the end of his reign when he may have learned otherwise and softened his stance against them.

Eusebius gives a lengthy description of Domitian’s persecutions and John’s punishment due to them

.

Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his hatred and enmity toward God. He was in fact the second that stirred up a persecution against us, although his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us. It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenæus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him: “If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.” To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during it. And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ. But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of David should be slain, an ancient tradition says that some of the heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude (said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh), on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words. Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother according to the flesh. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them. And this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor. Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor. And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church. But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan. These things are related by Hegesippus. Tertullian also has mentioned Domitian in the following words: Domitian also, who possessed a share of Nero's cruelty, attempted once to do the same thing that the latter did. But because he had, I suppose, some intelligence, he very soon ceased, and even recalled those whom he had banished.

After Domitian died, the Roman Senate decided that Domitian's honors were to be cancelled due to his tyrannical rule, and that those who had been wrongly banished would be allowed to return to their homes and given back their property. It is at this point, Eusebius tells us, that John returned from his banishment on the island “according to an ancient Christian tradition” (Eus 22.17–20).

Cassius Dio records the punishment of a few people on the charge of “atheism,” a term that referenced, not a denial of any one deity, but a denial of the the Roman gods and the deified emperors specifically.

And the same year Domitian slew, along with many others, Flavius Clemens the consul, although he was a cousin and had to wife Flavia Domitilla, who was also a relative of the emperor’s. The charge brought against them both was that of atheism, a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned. Some of these were put to death, and the rest were at least deprived of their property. Domitilla was merely banished to Pandateria. But Glabrio, who had been Trajan’s colleague in the consulship, was put to death, having been accused of the same crimes as most of the others, and, in particular, made to fight as a gladiator with wild beasts. (Historia Romana 67.14)

In the Chronicles written by Bruttius,[5] Eusebius mentions that Domitilla was punished because she was a Christian, evidencing that the term “atheist” referred to Christians, and they were viewed as a sect of Judaism, even though Christianity would have been seen as a particularly troublesome sect within Judaism.

Hegesippus is also cited by Eusebius, and he mentions the persecution under Domitian as well. The problem is that modern decontstructionist historians thrive on the fact that many histories are lost to us. Hence, they can cast doubt on their works as they survive only through the quotations of other sources. However, when an argument from silence seeks to counter a report, the report should be given the benefit of the doubt, as a report is evidence and speculation is not.[6]

 

Tertullian (Apol 5.4) mentions the persecution as something Domitian unleashed for a short time, but then halted it, bringing back many he had banished. Neither the early Christian writers nor the Book of Revelation necessarily refer to a lengthy and widespread genocide. Preterists, like Mathison, however, exploit the deconstructionist view in order to give more weight to their view that Nero is the main beast in conflict with Christ in Revelation. He argues:

While there is a great deal of evidence for severe persecution of Christians under Nero, no clear evidence has yet been found indicating that Christians were systematically persecuted under Domitian.”[7]

Mathison has fallen prey to the idea that literary evidence is not evidence. These deconstructionist historians ignore the literary evidence when it does not suit their hypotheses, and they make their claims based on material culture, which almost never yields definitive evidence for any narrative one way or the other. There is no clear evidence that Abraham really existed, or the exodus or Canaanite conquest really took place according to deconstructionist methods. In fact, most of the Bible is wrong in their eyes because it is not substantiated by their interpretations of material culture. What is significant in understanding historical events is the literary witness left behind. The community that would comment upon such an event, like the Domitian persecutions, would be the Christian community who were most affected by it. The Roman historians would care little about it. However, even they note the tyranny of Domitian. They just speak about it in generalities and not in the specifics of persecuted Christians. 

There is also a bit of a moving of the goal post in Mathison’s comment, and common misconception by revisionists, as no one needs to prove that there was a “systematic” persecution under Domitian. The Apocalypse describes persecution and pressure to partake in the imperial cult that leads to death for many Christians. It says nothing about their being official laws and some sort of systematic genocide of Christians occurring. Even the Neronian persecution is thought to be localized to the Christians in Rome, yet the book describes the churches in Asia Minor as possibly going through this persecution. The point that John desires to make in the book is only that when Christians are faced with martyrdom or idolatrous compromise, they should choose death because they serve Christ who “holds the keys of death and the grave.” His point is not to comment upon how vast the persecution may be. 

If Pliny the Younger had not written to Trajan to clarify the correct manner of investigation needed to put Christians to death, modern historians would have never known that a systematic persecution was taking place under Trajan. Not even the Christians mention it. Yet, it is clear from that correspondence that Christians are regularly being put to death for not worshiping the gods and the emperor through his image.

What is also important to note is that this persecution in Revelation, according to the literary sources and the Apocalypse itself, includes, not only death, but also banishment. John himself is said to be affected by this tribulation and banished for it. Banishment, however, is not a punishment under the Neronian persecution, as that persecution is not about worshiping Nero, but is a sentence of death placed upon all Christians in Rome for the crimes against humanity, specifically because they were blamed for setting the city on fire. All evidence points to only one punishment, i.e., death, handed out to Christians, and only execution, not banishment, would make sense if they were being sentenced for that particular crime. As stated before, then the persecution under Nero does not fit the description of the persecution in the Book of Revelation.

Furthermore, Domitian is the only emperor who fits the description of the beast in Revelation 17. Mathison wants to argue that the beast is Rome, but this is a confusion of what John is arguing. The beast, i.e., Rome, is personified in two of its kings. Hence, the “beast” in 13:18 is said to be a man whose number is 666, which Mathison and most scholars agree is the title “Nero Caesar.” The beast, i.e., Nero, is dead in Chapter 17 and then comes back in the form of an eighth king.

This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while. The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction. (vv. 9–11)

 Any attempt to make this about the Roman Empire as a whole fails to deal with what is explicitly said in the book about the beast. Verse 11 calls this eighth king “the beast who was and is not and is also an eighth king and yet is one of the seven and is going off to destruction.” Notice that the beast who was, i.e., Nero, is no longer alive when John is writing. Instead, as one of the seven kings, he will return again as an eighth king. It is the eighth king with whom John is concerned. It is the eighth king who will persecute Christians and attack Christ, not the fifth king, Nero, who has already died. Hence, John cannot be describing the persecution under Nero. If he is not describing that persecution then there is only one other persecution in the first century that fits the description of Revelation and that is the one under Domitian, and if the usurpers are taken out of the count of legitimate kings, Domitian is the eighth king of the Roman Empire.

Furthermore, the fact that the beast is said to be only one of the seven kings and not all of them informs the reader that they do not represent the Roman Empire, nor all of the kings, as a whole. Instead, only these specific two kings, which are presented as two manifestations of the same demonic forces coming up from the abyss, are said to be “the beast.” So when John moves from the generic empire to the specific kings, he is no longer speaking in generalities. The depiction of the empire as the beast is meant to move the reader from generalities to specifics, not to confuse the general with the specific. What this means is that one cannot attempt to make the text about the Roman Empire when it is, in fact, describing these two kings specifically, as the text itself states.

Instead, all of these sources combined present a picture of the following: (1) There was, indeed, a noteworthy persecution under Domitian. (2) This persecution included executions of Christians. (3) It included banishing Christians. (4) It included impoverishing Christians by seizure of their property. (5) It likely included a litmus test where the accused, if they denied being Christians, were made to worship the pagan gods, repudiate Christ, and worship the emperor through his image. (6) Christians were given a time of relief from the persecution. (7) This persecution was only one of two brought against the Christians in the first century, the first being under Nero for different reasons and with only one judicial sentence for the crime of treason via arson, i.e., death.

This evidence fits the description in the Book of Revelation, as there are two beasts in the book who persecute Christians, not one. Nero is the proto-beast who is already dead in the book, whereas Domitian becomes the eighth beast with which John is primarily concerned. He returns in the demonic spirit of Nero, presented as one who ascends up from the place from which the demonic forces ascend, to persecute Christians and oppose Christ.

---

[1] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 289.

[2] Daniel N. Schowalter, The Emperor and the Gods: Images from the Time of Trajan (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 54.

[3] The Roman worship of emperors is complicated and often misunderstood. Although they are given divine honors during their lifetimes, before Domitian, they did not regularly receive worship from citizens. The titles of deity were largely propagandistic rhetoric used to subdue the conquered states outside of Rome. After the time of Augustus, it was not until after an emperor died that he became truly divine and worthy of worship in the imperial cult. Only during and after Domitian’s reign do they seem to demand this type of worship during their lifetimes. Until then, the attitude that is displayed in Augustus, as noted by Henry F. Burton, prevails: “But Augustus refused to accept divine honors at Rome. He allowed no temple to be erected to him in the city. He was under no illusion as to his divine powers” (The Biblical World The University of Chicago Press, 40.2 1912  82). Roman citizens were even forbidden to partake in the imperial cult, and ironically, Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, and Domitian were not made gods after their deaths by the senate, but were only given divine honors during their lifetimes in the Eastern provinces like Asia Minor (Ibid. 83). This is the very location of the persecution in the Book of Revelation, as opposed to Nero’s persecution in the city of Rome, takes place.

[4] Burton, Worship of the Roman Emperors 86

[5] Many in the deconstructionist movement within historiography come to the Christian persecutions in the first century with an extreme skepticism that is, frankly, unwarranted. The idea that the lost history was merely a fictionalized account made up by Christians is speculative and a case of confirmation bias. I agree with B. M. Levick and J. W. Rich that “such extreme sceptism is difficult to accept. The supposed literary fabrication seems unnecessarily elaborate, and one might wonder why the perpetrator did not choose a more celebrated family for his fictional historian” (“Bruttius” in T. J. Cornell [ed.], The Fragments of the Roman Historians: Volume 1: Introduction 594). The attempt to argue that an “empire-wide” persecution is not evident within any official reports fails to note how the prosecution of individuals would be officially viewed versus how they would have been viewed by the Christians who were being prosecuted. As Paul Middleton (“Christology, Martyrdom, and Vindication in the Gospel of Mark and the Apocalypse:  Two New Testament Views,” in Mark, Manuscripts, and Monotheism:  Essays in Honor of Larry W. Hurtado, eds. Chris Keith & Dieter T. Roth [London:  Bloombury T&T Clark, 2015], 221) notes, “To insist upon a persecution/prosecution distinction is artificial; to the Romans all actions taken against Christians were prosecution for misdemeanor rather than persecution, while Christians would interpret all such action as manifestations of the suffering anticipated in the NT on account of Jesus’ name.”

[6] A good example of a wayward deconstructionist history of Domitian is that of Brian Jones, The Emperor Domitian (London/New York: Routledge, 1992). Alain M. Gowing sums up the problem with such a history as follows: “It is in Jones' handling of the literary evidence, however, that I find some missed (or perhaps purposefully ignored) opportunities. That evidence, from which we derive our most memorable impressions of Domitian, is of course notoriously difficult to assess, as Jones repeatedly and rightly reminds us. Waters (op. cit.) addressed precisely this problem, with good results: admitting that caution is indeed warranted, he conceded that ‘all this smoke must indicate at least a few glowing embers’ (p. 50) and managed to extract from the literary sources a credible characterization of Domitian. By contrast, Jones' attitude toward those same sources is seldom expounded and often frustratingly ambivalent. At points he admits that some of the evidence may be reliable (‘the view of [Domitian's] reign propounded by Nerva's senate and repeated throughout the dynasty could even be accurate -- although inevitably hostile, it was not inevitably wrong’, p. 161), yet at other times he implies that it is in fact ‘inevitably wrong’ (‘... [Domitian] left no heir to deify him and so, unlike Nerva, he was not able to 'guide' the literary tradition to the 'correct' interpretation of events’, p. 163). But the ‘inevitable hostility’ of writers such as Pliny, Tacitus, or Suetonius is assumed rather than proven in this book. Indeed, with a few notable exceptions, Jones rarely engages in direct confrontation with the literary evidence. Admittedly, it is not his purpose to examine Pliny's or Tacitus' attitude toward Domitian, but in light of the overwhelming and understandable influence these authors have exercised on modern views of the emperor, it seems remiss not to have established with clarity the criteria by which their testimony has been either accepted or rejected. Most worrisome is the fact that the (proverbial) non-specialist who turns to this book for an introduction to Domitian will come away with a very fragmented notion of what the bulk of the literary evidence says about him” (Bryn Mawr Classical Review 3.06.10).

[7] From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2009) 645-46.