Rome.
The famous capital of the ancient world, is situated on the Tiber, at a
distance of about 15 miles from its mouth. The "seven hills," Rev_17:9, which formed the nucleus of the ancient
city, stand on the left bank. On the opposite side of the river rises the far
higher side of the Janiculum. Here, from very early times, was a fortress, with
a suburb beneath it, extending to the river. Modern Rome lies to the north of
the ancient city, covering, with its principal portion, the plain to the north
of the seven hills, once known as the Campus Martius, and on the opposite bank,
extending over the low ground beneath the Vatican, to the north of the ancient
Janiculum. Rome is not mentioned in the Bible except in the books of Maccabees
and in three books of the New Testament, namely, the Acts, the Epistle to the
Romans, and the Second Epistle to Timothy.
Jewish inhabitants. -- The conquests of Pompey seem to have given rise to the first settlement
of Jews at Rome. The Jewish king, Aristobulus, and his son formed part of
Pompey's triumph, and many Jewish captives and immigrants were brought to Rome
at that time. A special district was assigned to them, not on the site of the
modern Ghetto, between the Capitol and the island of the Tiber, but across the
Tiber. Many of these Jews were made freedmen. Julius Caesar showed them some
kindness; they were favored also by Augustus, and by Tiberius, during the
latter part of his reign. It is chiefly in connection with St. Paul's history
that Rome comes before us in the Bible. In illustration of that history, it may
be useful to give some account of Rome in the time of Nero, the
"Caesar" to whom St. Paul appealed, and in whose reign, he suffered
martyrdom.
The city in Paul's time. -- The city at that time must be imagined as a
large and irregular mass of buildings unprotected by an outer wall. It had long
outgrown the old Servian wall; but the limits of the suburbs cannot be exactly
defined. Neither the nature of the buildings nor the configuration of the
ground was such as to give a striking appearance to the city viewed from
without. "Ancient Rome had neither cupola nor camyanile," and the
hills, never lofty or imposing, would present, when covered with the buildings
and streets of a huge city, a confused appearance, like the hills of modern
London, to which they have sometimes been compared.
The visit of St. Paul lies between two famous epochs in the history of
the city, namely, its restoration by Augustus and its restoration by Nero. The
boast of Augustus is well known, "that he found the city of brick, and
left it of marble." Some parts of the city, especially the Forum and
Campus Martius, must have presented a magnificent appearance, of which Niebur's
"Lectures on Roman History," ii. 177, will give a general idea; but
many of the principal buildings which attract the attention of modern
travellers in ancient Rome were not yet built. The streets were generally
narrow and winding, flanked by densely crowded lodging-houses, (insulae),
of enormous height. Augustus found it necessary to limit their height to 70
feet.
St. Paul's first visit to Rome took place before the Neronian
conflagration, but even after the restoration of the city which followed upon
that event, many of the old evils continued. The population of the city has
been variously estimated. Probably, Gibbon's estimate of 1,200,000 is nearest
to the truth. One half of the population consisted, in all probability, of
slaves. The larger part of the remainder consisted of pauper citizens
supported, in idleness, by the miserable system of public gratuities. There
appears to have been no middle class, and no free industrial population. Side
by side with the wretched classes just mentioned was the comparatively small
body of the wealthy nobility, of whose luxury and profligacy, we learn so much
from the heathen writers of the time.
Such was the population which St. Paul would find at Rome at the time of
his visit. We learn from the Acts of the Apostles that he was detained at Rome
for "two whole years," "dwelling in his own hired house with a
soldier that kept him," Act_28:16;
Act_28:30, to whom apparently,
according to Roman custom, he was bound with a chain. Act_28:20; Eph_6:20;
Phm_1:13. Here he preached to all that
came to him, no man forbidding him. Act_28:30-31.
It is generally believed that on his "appeal to Caesar" he was
acquitted, and after some time spent in freedom, was a second time imprisoned
at Rome.
Five of Paul's Epistles, namely, those to the Colossians, Ephesians,
Philippians, that to Philemon, and the Second Epistle to Timothy, were, in all
probability, written from Rome, the latter, shortly before his death; 2Ti_4:6; the others during his first
imprisonment. It is universally believed that he suffered martyrdom at Rome.
The localities in and about Rome especially connected with the life of Paul are --
(1) The Appian Way, by which he approached Rome. Act_28:15. See Appii Forum.
(2) "The palace," or "Caesar's court." (praetorium).
Phm_1:13. This may mean either the
great camp of the Praetorian guards, which Tiberius established outside the
walls on the northeast of the city, or, as seems more probable, a barrack
attached to the imperial residence on the Palatine. There is no sufficient proof
that the word "praetorium" was ever used to designate the emperors
palace, though it is used for the official residence of a Roman governor. Joh_18:28; Act_23:35.
The mention of "Caesar's household," Phi_4:22,
confirms the notion that St. Paul's residence was in the immediate neighborhood
of the emperor's house on the Palatine.
(3) The connection of other localities at home with St. Paul's name
rests only on traditions of more or less probability. We may mention especially
--
(4) The Mamertine prison, of Tullianum, built by Ancus Martius near the
Forum. It still exists beneath the church of St. Giuseppe dei Falegnami. It is
said that St. Peter and St. Paul were fellow prisoners here for nine months.
This is not the place to discuss the question whether St. Peter was ever at
Rome. It may be sufficient to state that though there is no evidence of such a
visit in the New Testament, unless Babylon in 1Pe_5:13
is a mystical name for Rome, yet early testimony and the universal belief of
the early Church seems sufficient to establish the fact of his having suffered
martyrdom there. See Peter. The story, however, of the
imprisonment in the Mamertine prison seems inconsistent with 2Ti_4:11.
(5) The chapel on the Ostian road which marks the spot where the two
apostles are said to, have separated on their way to martyrdom.
(6)The supposed scene of St. Paul's martyrdom, namely, the church of St.
Paolo alle tre fontane on the Ostian road. To these may be added --
(7) The supposed scene of St. Peter's martyrdom, namely, the church of
St. Pietro in Montorio, on the Janiculum.
(8) The chapel Domine que Vadis, on the Aypian road; the scene of the
beautiful legend of our Lord's appearance to St. Peter, as he was escaping from
martyrdom.
(9) The places where the bodies of the two apostles, after having been
deposited first in the catacombs, are supposed to have been finally buried --
that of St. Paul by the Ostian road, that of St. Peter beneath the dome of the
famous Basilica which bears his name. We may add, as sites unquestionably
connected with the Roman Christians of the apostolic age --
(10) The gardens of Nero in the Vatican. Not far from the spot where St.
Peter's now stands. Here Christians, wrapped in the skins of beasts, were torn
to pieces by dogs, or, clothed in inflammable robes, were burnt to serve as
torches, during the midnight games. Others were crucified.
(11) The Catacombs. These subterranean galleries, commonly from 8 to 10
feet in height and from 4 to 6 in width, and extending for miles, especially in
the neighborhood of the old Appian and Nomentan Ways, were unquestionably used
as places of refuge, of worship and of burial by the early Christians. The
earliest dated inscription in the catacombs is A.D. 71.
Nothing is known of the first founder of the Christian Church at Rome.
Christianity may, perhaps, have been introduced into the city not long after
the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, by the
"strangers of Rome, who were then at Jerusalem, Act_2:10. It is clear that there were many Christians at Rome
before St. Paul visited the city. Rom_1:8;
Rom_1:13; Rom_1:15;
Rom_15:20. The names of twenty-four
Christians at Rome are given in the salutations at the end of the Epistle to
the Romans. Linus, who is mentioned 2Ti_4:21,
and Clement, Phi_4:3, are supposed to
have succeeded St. Peter as bishops of Rome.
Source:
Smith’s Bible Dictionary
Rome
rōm.
I. DEVELOPMENT OF THE REPUBLICAN CONSTITUTION
1. Original Roman State
2. The Struggle between
Patricians and Plebeians
3. The Senate and Magistrates
4. Underlying Principles
II. EXTENSION OF ROMAN SOVEREIGNTY
III. THE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT
1. Imperial Authority
2. Three Classes of Citizens
IV. ROMAN RELIGION
1. Deities
2. Religious Decay
V. ROME AND THE JEWS
1. Judea under Roman Procurators
and Governors
2. Jewish Proselytism
VI. ROME AND THE CHRISTIANS
1. Introduction of Christianity
2. Tolerance and Proscription
3. Persecution
LITERATURE
Rome (Latin and Italian, Roma; Ῥώμη,
Rhṓmē): The capital of the Roman republic and empire,
later the center of Lot Christendom, and since 1871 capital of the kingdom of
Italy, is situated mainly on the left bank of the Tiber about 15 miles from the
Mediterranean Sea in 41 degrees 53' 54 inches North latitude and 12 degrees 0'
12 inches longitude East of Greenwich.
It would be impossible in the limited space assigned to this article to
give even a comprehensive outline of the ancient history of the Eternal City. It
will suit the general purpose of the work to consider the relations of the
Roman government and society with the Jews and Christians, and, in addition, to
present a rapid survey of the earlier development of Roman institutions and
power, so as to provide the necessary historical setting for the appreciation
of the more essential subjects.
I. Development of the Republican Constitution.
1.
Original Roman State:
The traditional chronology for the earliest
period of Roman history is altogether unreliable, partly because the Gauls, in
ravaging the city in 390 BC, destroyed the monuments which might have offered
faithful testimony of the earlier period (Livy vi. 1). It is known that there
was a settlement on the site of Rome before the traditional date of the founding
(753 BC). The original Roman state was the product of the coalition of a number
of adjacent clan-communities, whose names were perpetuated in the Roman genres,
or groups of imaginary kindred, a historical survival which had lost all
significance in the period of authentic history. The chieftains of the
associated clans composed the primitive senate or council of elders, which
exercised sovereign authority. But as is customary in the development of human
society a military or monarchical regime succeeded the looser patriarchal or
sacerdotal organs of authority. This second stage may be identified with the
legendary rule of the Tarquins, which was probably a period of Etruscan
domination. The confederacy of clans was welded into a homogeneous political
entity, and society was organized for civic ends, upon a timocratic basis. The
forum was drained and became a social, industrial and political center, and the
Capitoline temple of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva (Etruscan pseudo-Hellenic
deities) was erected as a common shrine for all the people. But above all the
Romans are indebted to these foreign kings for a training in discipline and
obedience which was exemplified in the later conception of magisterial
authority signified by the term imperium.
The prerogatives of the kings passed over to the
consuls. The reduction of the tenure of power to a single year and the
institution of the principle of colleagueship were the earliest checks to the
abuse of unlimited authority. But the true cornerstone of Roman liberty was
thought to be the lexicon Valeria, which provided that no citizen should
be put to death by a magistrate without being allowed the right of appeal to
the decision of the assembly of the people.
2.
The Struggle Between Patricians and Plebeians:
A period of more than 150 years after the
establishment of the republic was consumed chiefly by the struggle between the
two classes or orders, the patricians and plebeians. The former were the
descendants of the original clans and constituted the populus, or
body-politic, in a more particular sense. The plebeians were descendants of
former slaves and dependents, or of strangers who had been attracted to Rome by
the obvious advantages for industry and trade. They enjoyed the franchise as
members of the military assembly (comitia centuriata), but had no share
in the magistracies or other civic honors and emoluments, and were excluded
from the knowledge of the civil law which was handed down in the patrician
families as an oral tradition.
The first step in the progress of the plebeians
toward political equality was taken when they wrested from the patricians the
privilege of choosing representatives from among themselves, the tribunes,
whose function of bearing aid to oppressed plebeians was rendered effective by the
right of veto (intercessio), by virtue of which any act of a magistrate
could be arrested. The codification of the law in the Twelve Tables was a
distinct advantage to the lower classes, because the evils which they had
suffered were largely due to a harsh and abusive interpretation of legal
institutions, the nature of which had been obscure (see ROMAN LAW). The
abrogation, directly thereafter, of the prohibition of intermarriage between
the classes resulted in their gradual intermingling.
3.
The Senate and Magistrates:
The kings had reduced the senate to the position
of a mere advising body. But under the republican regime it recovered in fact
the authority of which it was deprived in theory. The controlling power of the
senate is the most significant feature of the republican government, although
it was recognized by no statute or other constitutional document. It was due in
part to the diminution of the power of the magistrates, and in part to the
manner in which the senators were chosen. The lessening of the authority of the
magistrates was the result of the increase in their number, which led not only
to the curtailment of the actual prerogative of each, but also to the
contraction of their aggregate independent influence. The augmentation of the number
of magistrates was made necessary by the territorial expansion of the state and
the elaboration of administration. But it was partly the result of plebeian
agitation. The events of 367 BC may serve as a suitable example to illustrate
the action of these influences. For when the plebeians carried by storm the
citadel of patrician exclusiveness in gaining admission to the consulship, the
highest regular magistracy, the necessity for another magistrate with general
competency afforded an opportunity for making a compensating concession to the
patricians, and the praetorship was created, to which at first members of the
old aristocracy were alone eligible. Under the fully developed constitution the
regular magistracies were five in number, consulship, praetorship, aedileship,
tribunate, and quaestorship, all of which were filled by annual elections.
Mention has been made of the manner of choosing
the members of the senate as a factor in the development of the authority of
the supreme council. At first the highest executive officers of the state
exercised the right of selecting new members to maintain the senators at the
normal number of three hundred. Later this function was transferred to the
censors who were elected at intervals of five years. But custom and later
statute ordained that the most distinguished citizens should be chosen, and in
the Roman community the highest standard of distinction was service to the
state, in other words, the holding of public magistracies. It followed,
therefore, that the senate was in reality an assembly of all living
ex-magistrates. The senate included, moreover, all the political wisdom and
experience of the community, and so great was its prestige for these reasons,
that, although the expression of its opinion (senatus consultum) was
endowed by law with no compelling force, it inevitably guided the conduct of
the consulting magistrate, who was practically its minister, rather than its
president.
When the plebeians gained admission to the
magistracies, the patriciate lost its political significance. But only the
wealthier plebeian families were able to profit by this extension of privilege,
inasmuch as a political career required freedom from gainful pursuits and also
personal influence. These plebeian families readily coalesced with the
patricians and formed a new aristocracy, which is called the nobilitas
for the sake of distinction. It rested ultimately upon the foundation of
wealth. The dignity conferred by the holding of public magistracies was its
title to distinction. The senate was its organ. Rome was never a true democracy
except in theory. During the whole period embraced between the final levelling
of the old distinctions based upon blood (287 BC) and the beginning of the
period of revolution (133 BC), the magistracies were occupied almost
exclusively by the representatives of the comparatively limited number of
families which constituted the aristocracy. These alone entered the senate
through the doorway of the magistracies, and the data would almost justify us
in asserting that the republican and senatorial government were substantially
and chronologically identical.
The seeds of the political and social revolution
were sown during the Second Punic War and the period which followed it. The
prorogation of military authority established a dangerous precedent in
violation of the spirit of the republic, so that Pub. Cornelius Scipio was
really the forerunner of Marius, Julius Caesar, and Augustus. The stream of
gold which found its way from the provinces to Rome was a bait to attract the
cupidity of the less scrupulous senators, and led to the growth of the worst
kind of professionalism in politics. The middle class of small farmers decayed
for various reasons; the allurement of service in the rich but effete countries
of the Orient attracted many. The cheapness of slaves made independent farming
unprofitable and led to the increase in large estates; the cultivation of grain
was partly displaced by that of the vine and olive, which were less suited to
the habits and ability of the older class of farmers.
The more immediate cause of the revolution was
the inability of the senate as a whole to control the conduct of its more
radical or violent members. For as political ambition became more ardent with
the increase in the material prizes to be gained, aspiring leaders turned their
attention to the people, and sought to attain the fulfillment o.f their
purposes by popular legislation setting at nought the concurrence of the
senate, which custom had consecrated as a requisite preliminary for popular
action. The loss of initiative by the senate meant the subversion of senatorial
government. The senate possessed in the veto power of the tribunes a weapon for
coercing unruly magistrates, for one of the ten tribunes could always be induced
to interpose his veto to prohibit the passage of popular legislation. But this
weapon was broken when Tib. Gracchus declared in 133 BC that a tribune who
opposed the wishes of the people was no longer their representative, and
sustained this assertion.
4.
Underlying Principles:
It would be foreign to the purpose of the
present article to trace the vicissitudes of the civil strife of the last
century of the republic. A few words will suffice to suggest the general
principles which lay beneath the surface of political and social phenomena.
Attention has been called to the ominous development of the influence of
military commanders and the increasing emphasis of popular favor. These were
the most important tendencies throughout this period, and the coalition of the
two was fatal to the supremacy of the senatorial government. Marius after
winning unparalleled military glory formed a political alliance with Glaucia
and Saturninus, the leaders of the popular faction in the city in 100 BC. This
was a turning-point in the course of the revolution. But the importance of the
sword soon outweighed that of the populace in the combination which was thus
constituted. In the civil wars of Marius and Sulla constitutional questions
were decided for the first time by superiority of military strength
exclusively. Repeated appeals to brute force dulled the perception for
constitutional restraints and the rights of minorities. The senate had already
displayed signs of partial paralysis at the time of the Gracchi. How rapidly its
debility must have increased as the sword cut off its most stalwart members!
Its power expired in the proscriptions, or organized murder of political
opponents. The popular party was nominally triumphant, but in theory the Roman
state was still an urban commonwealth with a single political center. The
franchise could be exercised only at Rome. It followed from this that the
actual political assemblies were made up largely of the worthless element which
was so numerous in the city, whose irrational instincts were guided and
controlled by shrewd political leaders, particularly those who united in
themselves military ability and the wiles of the demagogue. Sulla, Crassus,
Julius Caesar, Antony, and lastly Octavian were in effect the ancient
counterpart of the modern political “boss.” When such men realized their
ultimate power and inevitable rivalry, the ensuing struggle for supremacy and
for the survival of the fittest formed the necessary process of elimination
leading naturally to the establishment of the monarchy, which was in this case
the rule of the last survivor. When Octavian received the title Augustus and
the proconsular power (27 BC), the transformation was accomplished.
Literature.
The standard work on Roman political institutions is Mommsen and
Marquardt, Handbuch der klassischen Altertumer. Abbott, Roman
Political Institutions, Boston and London, 1901, offers a useful summary
treatment of the subject.
II. Extension of Roman Sovereignty.
See ROMAN EMPIRE AND CHRISTIANITY, I.
Literature.
Only the most important general works on Roman history can be mentioned:
Ihne, Romische Geschichte (2nd edition), Leipzig, 1893-96, English
translation, Longmans, London, 1871-82; Mommsen, History of Rome,
English translation by Dickson, New York, 1874; Niebuhr, History of Rome,
English translation by Hare and Thirlwall, Cambridge, 1831-32; Pais, Storia
di Roma, Turin, 1898-99; Ferrero, Greatness and Decline of Rome,
English translation by Zimmern, New York, 1909.
III. The Imperial Government.
1.
Imperial Authority:
Augustus displayed considerable tact in blending
his own mastery in the state with the old institutions of the republican
constitution. His authority, legally, rested mainly upon the tribunician power,
which he had probably received as early as 36 BC, but which was established on
a better basis in 23 BC, and the proconsular prerogative (imperiurn
proconsulare), conferred in 27 BC. By virtue of the first he was empowered
to summon the senate or assemblies and could veto the action of almost any magistrate.
The second title of authority conferred upon him the command of the military
forces of the state and consequently the administration of the provinces where
troops were stationed, besides a general supervision over the government of the
other provinces. It follows that a distinction was made (27 BC) between the
imperial provinces which were administered by the emperor's representatives (legati
Augusti pro praetore) and the senatorial provinces where the republican
machinery of administration was retained. The governors of the latter were
called generally proconsuls (see PROVINCE). Mention is made of two proconsuls
in the New Testament, Gallio in Achaia (Act_18:12)
and Sergius Paulus in Cyprus (Act_13:7).
It is instructive to compare the lenient and common-sense attitude of these
trained Roman aristocrats with that of the turbulent local mobs who dealt with
Paul in Asia Minor, Judea, or Greece (Tucker, Life in the Roman World of
Nero and Paul, New York, 1910, 95).
2.
Three Classes of Citizens:
Roman citizens were still divided into three
classes socially, senatorial, equestrian, and plebeian, and the whole system of
government harmonized with this triple division. The senatorial class was
composed of descendants of senators and those upon whom the emperors conferred
the latus clavus, or privilege of wearing the tunic with broad purple
border, the sign of membership in this order. The quaestorship was still the
door of admission to the senate. The qualifications for membership in the
senate were the possession of senatorial rank and property of the value of not
less than 1,000,000 sesterces ($45,000). Tiberius transferred the election of
magistrates from the people to the senate, which was already practically a
closed body. Under the empire senatus consulta received the force of law.
Likewise the senate acquired judicial functions, sitting as a court of justice
for trying important criminal cases and hearing appeals in civil cases from the
senatorial provinces. The equestrian class was made up of those who possessed
property of the value of 400,000 sesterces or more, and the privilege of
wearing the narrow purple band on the tunic. With the knights the emperors
filled many important financial and administrative positions in Italy and the
provinces which were under their control.
IV. Roman Religion.
1.
Deities:
(1) The Roman religion was originally more
consistent than the Greek, because the deities as conceived by the
unimaginative Latin genius were entirely without human character. They were the
influences or forces which directed the visible phenomena of the physical
world, whose favor was necessary to the material prosperity of mankind. It
would be incongruous to assume the existence of a system of theological
doctrines in the primitive period. Ethical considerations entered to only a
limited extent into the attitude of the Romans toward their gods. Religion
partook of the nature of a contract by which men pledged themselves to the
scrupulous observance of certain sacrifices and other ceremonies, and in return
deemed themselves entitled to expect the active support of the gods in bringing
their projects to a fortunate conclusion. The Romans were naturally polytheists
as a result of their conception of divinity. Since before the dawn of science
there was no semblance of unity in the natural world, there could be no unity
in heaven. There must be a controlling spirit over every important object or
class of objects, every person, and every process of nature. The gods,
therefore, were more numerous than mankind itself.
(2) At an early period the government became
distinctly secular. The priests were the servants of the community for
preserving the venerable aggregation of formulas and ceremonies, many of which
lost at an early period such spirit as they once possessed. The magistrates
were the true representatives of the community in its relationship with the
deities both in seeking the divine will in the auspices and in performing the
more important sacrifices.
(3) The Romans at first did not make statues of
their gods. This was partly due to lack of skill, but mainly to the vagueness
of their conceptions of the higher beings. Symbols sufficed to signify their
existence, a spear, for instance, standing for Mars. The process of reducing
the gods to human form was inaugurated when they came into contact with the
Etruscans and Greeks. The Tarquins summoned Etruscan artisans and artists to
Rome, who made from terra cotta cult statues and a pediment group for the
Capitoline temple.
The types of the Greek deities had already been
definitely established when the Hellenic influence in molding Roman culture
became predominant. When the form of the Greek gods became familiar to the
Romans in works of sculpture, they gradually supplanted those Roman deities
with which they were nominally identified as a result of a real or fancied
resemblance. See GREECE, RELIGION IN.
(4) The importation of new gods was a
comparatively easy matter. Polytheism is by its nature tolerant because of its
indefiniteness. The Romans could no more presume to have exhaustive knowledge
of the gods than they could pretend to possess a comprehensive acquaintance
with the universe. The number of their gods increased of necessity as human
consciousness of natural phenomena expanded. Besides, it was customary to
invite the gods of conquered cities to transfer their abode to Rome and favor
the Romans in their undertakings. But the most productive source for religious
expansion was the Sibylline Books. See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, V. This oracular
work was brought to Rome from Cumae, a center of the cult of Apollo. It was
consulted at times of crisis with a view to discover what special ceremonies
would secure adequate divine aid. The forms of worship recommended by the
Sibylline Books were exclusively Greek As early as the 5th century BC the cult
of Apollo was introduced at Rome. Heracles and the Dioscuri found their way
thither about the same time. Later Italian Diana was merged with Artemis, and
the group of Ceres, Liber, and Libera were identified with foreign Demeter,
Dionysus, and Persephone. Thus Roman religion became progressively Hellenized.
By the close of the Second Punic War the greater gods of Greece had all found a
home by the Tiber, and the myriad of petty local deities who found no
counterpart in the celestial beings of Mt. Olympus fell into oblivion. Their
memory was retained by the antiquarian lore of the priests alone. See ROMAN
EMPIRE AND CHRISTIANITY, III, 1.
2.
Religious Decay:
Roman religion received with the engrafted
branches of Greek religion the germs of rapid decay, for its Hellenization made
Roman religion peculiarly susceptible to the attack of philosophy. The
cultivated class in Greek society was already permeated with skepticism. The
philosophers made the gods appear ridiculous. Greek philosophy gained a firm
foothold in Rome in the 2nd century BC, and it became customary a little later
to look upon Athens as a sort of university town where the sons of the
aristocracy should be sent for the completion of their education in the schools
of the philosophers. Thus at the termination of the republican era religious
faith had departed from the upper classes largely, and during the turmoil of
the civil wars even the external ceremonies were often abandoned and many
temples fell into ruins. There had never been any intimate connection between
formal religion and conduct, except when the faith of the gods was invoked to
insure the fulfillment of sworn promises.
Augustus tried in every way to restore the old
religion, rebuilding no fewer than 82 temples which lay in ruins at Rome. A
revival of religious faith did occur under the empire, although its spirit was
largely alien to that which had been displayed in the performance of the
official cult. The people remained superstitious, even when the cultivated
classes adopted a skeptical philosophy. The formal religion of the state no
longer appealed to them, since it offered nothing to the emotions or hopes. On
the other hand the sacramental, mysterious character of oriental religions
inevitably attracted them. This is the reason why the religions of Egypt and
Syria spread over the empire and exercised an immeasurable influence in the
moral life of the people. The partial success of Judaism and the ultimate
triumph of Christianity may be ascribed in part to the same causes.
In concluding we should bear in mind that the
state dictated no system of theology, that the empire in the beginning
presented the spectacle of a sort of religious chaos where all national cults
were guaranteed protection, that Roman polytheism was naturally tolerant, and
that the only form of religion which the state could not endure was one which
was equivalent to an attack upon the system of polytheism as a whole, since
this would imperil the welfare of the community by depriving the deities of the
offerings and other services in return for which their favor could be expected.
Literature.
Marquardt, Romische Staatsverwaltung, III, 3, “Das Sacralwesen”;
Wissowa, Religion u. Kultus der Romer, Munich, 1902; Boissier, La
religion romaine, Paris, 1884.
V. Rome and the Jews.
1.
Judea Under Roman Procurators and Governors:
Judaea became a part of the province of Syria in
63 BC (Josephus, BJ, vii, 7), and Hyrcanus, brother of the last king,
remained as high priest (archiereús kaí ethnárches;
Josephus, Ant., XIV, iv, 4) invested with judicial as well as sacerdotal
functions. But Antony and Octavius gave Palestine (40 BC) as a kingdom to
Herod, surnamed the Great, although his rule did not become effective until 3
years later. His sovereignty was upheld by a Roman legion stationed at
Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant., XV, iii, 7), and he was obliged to pay
tribute to the Roman government and provide auxiliaries for the Roman army
(Appian, Bell. Civ., v. 75). Herod built Caesarea in honor of Augustus
(Josephus, Ant., XV, ix, 6), and the Roman procurators later made it the
seat of government. At his death in 4 BC the kingdom was divided between his
three surviving sons, the largest portion falling to Archelaus, who ruled
Judea, Samaria and Idumaea with the title ethnarchēs (Josephus, Ant.,
XVII, xi, 4) until 6 AD, when he was deposed and his realm reduced to the
position of a province. The administration by Roman procurators (see
PROCURATOR), which was now established, was interrupted during the period 41-44
AD, when royal authority was exercised by Herod Agrippa, grandson of Herod the
Great, over the lands which had been embraced in the kingdom of his grandfather
(Josephus, Ant., XIX, viii, 2), and, after 53 AD, Agrippa II ruled a
considerable part of Palestine (Josephus, Ant., XX, vii, 1; viii, 4).
After the fall of Jerusalem and the termination
of the great revolt in 70 AD, Palestine remained a separate province.
Henceforth a legion (legio X Fretensis) was added to the military forces
stationed in the land, which was encamped at the ruins of Jerusalem.
Consequently, imperial governors of praetorian rank (legati Augusti pro
praetore) took the place of the former procurators (Josephus, BJ,
VII, i, 2, 3; Dio Cassius lv. 23).
Several treaties are recorded between the Romans
and Jews as early as the time of the Maccabees (Josephus, Ant., XII, x,
6; XIII, ix, 2; viii, 5), and Jews are known to have been at Rome as early as
138 BC. They became very numerous in the capital after the return of Pompey who
brought back many captives (see LIBERTINES). Cicero speaks of multitudes of
Jews at Rome in 58 BC (Pro Flacco 28), and Caesar was very friendly
toward them (Suetonius Caesar 84). Held in favor by Augustus, they
recovered the privilege of collecting sums to send to the temple (Philo Legatio
ad Caium 40). Agrippa offered 100 oxen in the temple when visiting Herod
(Josephus, Ant., XVI, ii, 1), and Augustus established a daily offering
of a bull and two lambs. Upon the whole the Roman government displayed
noticeable consideration for the religious scruples of the Jews. They were
exempted from military service and the duty of appearing in court on the
Sabbath. Yet Tiberius repressed Jewish rites in Rome in 19 AD (Suetonius Tiberius
36) and Claudius expelled the Jews from the city in 49 AD (Suetonius Claudius
25); but in both instances repression was not of long duration.
2.
Jewish Proselytism:
The Jews made themselves notorious in Rome in
propagating their religion by means of proselytizing (Horace Satires i.
4, 142; i. 9, 69; Juvenal xiv. 96; Tacitus Hist. v. 5), and the
literature of the Augustan age contains several references to the observation
of the Sabbath (Tibullus i. 3; Ovid Ars amatoria i. 67, 415; Remedium
amoris 219). Proselytes from among the Gentiles were not always required to
observe all the prescriptions of the Law. The proselytes of the Gate (sebómenoi),
as they were called, renounced idolatry and serious moral abuses and abstained
from the blood and meat of suffocated animals. Among such proselytes may be
included the centurion of Capernaum (Luk_7:5),
the centurion Cornelius (Act_10:1), and
the empress Poppea (Josephus, Ant., XX, viii, 11; Tacitus Ann.
xvi. 6).
On “proselytes of the Gate,” GJV4,
III, 177, very properly corrects the error in HJP. These “Gate” people
were not proselytes at all; they refused to take the final step that carried
them into Judaism - namely, circumcision (Ramsay, The Expositor, 1896,
p. 200; Harnack, Expansion of Christianity, I, 11). See DEVOUT;
PROSELYTES.
Notwithstanding the diffusion of Judaism by
means of proselytism, the Jews themselves lived for the most part in isolation
in the poorest parts of the city or suburbs, across the Tiber, near the Circus
Maximus, or outside the Porta Capena. Inscriptions show that there were seven
communities, each with its synagogue and council of elders presided over by a
gerusiarch. Five cemeteries have been discovered with many Greek, a few Latin,
but no Hebrew inscriptions.
Literature.
Ewald, The Hist of Israel, English translation by Smith, London,
1885; Renan, Hist of the People of Israel, English translation, Boston,
1896; Schurer, The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, English
translation by MacPherson, New York.
VI. Rome and the Christians.
1.
Introduction of Christianity:
The date of the introduction of Christianity
into Rome cannot be determined. A Christian community existed at the time of
the arrival of Paul (Act_28:15), to
which he had addressed his Epistle a few years before (58 AD). It is commonly
thought that the statement regarding the expulsion of the Jews from Rome under
Claudius on account of the commotion excited among them by the agitation of
Chrestus (Suetonius Claudius 25: Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue
tumultuantis Roma expulit), probably in 49 AD, is proof of the diffusion of
Christian teaching in Rome, on the ground that Chrestus is a colloquial, or
mistaken, form of Christus. It has been suggested that the Christian faith was
brought to the capital of the empire by some of the Romans who were converted
at the time of Pentecost (Act_2:10, Act_2:41). It would be out of place to discuss
here the grounds for the traditional belief that Peter was twice in Rome, once
before 50 AD and again subsequent to the arrival of Paul, and that together the
two apostles established the church there. Our present concern is with the
attitude of the government and society toward Christianity, when once
established. It may suffice, therefore, to remind the reader that Paul was
permitted to preach freely while nominally in custody (Phi_1:13), and that as early as 64 AD the
Christians were very numerous (Tacitus Ann. xv. 44: multitudo ingens).
2.
Tolerance and Proscription:
At first the Christians were not distinguished
from the Jews, but shared in the toleration, or even protection, which was
usually conceded to Judaism as the national religion of one of the peoples
embraced within the empire. Christianity was not legally proscribed until after
its distinction from Judaism was clearly perceived. Two questions demand our
attention: (1) When was Christianity recognized as distinct from Judaism? (2)
When was the profession of Christianity declared a crime? These problems are of
fundamental importance in the history of the church under the Roman empire.
(1) If we may accept the passage in Suetonius
cited above (Claudius 25) as testimony on the vicissitudes of
Christianity, we infer that at that time the Christians were confused with the
Jews. The account of Pomponia Graecina, who was committed to the jurisdiction
of her husband (Tacitus Ann. xiii. 32) for adherence to a foreign belief
(superstitionis externae rea), is frequently cited as proof that as
early as 57 AD Christianity had secured a convert in the aristocracy. The
characterization of the evidence in this case by the contemporary authority
from whom Tacitus has gleaned this incident would apply appropriately to the
adherence to Judaism or several oriental religions from the point of view of
Romans of that time; for Pomponia had lived in a very austere manner since 44
AD. Since there is some other evidence that Pomponia was a Christian, the
indefinite account of the accusation against her as mentioned by Tacitus is
partial proof that Christianity had not as yet been commonly recognized as a
distinct religion (Marucchi, Elements d'archeologie chretienne I, 13).
At the time of the great conflagration in 64 AD the populace knew of the
Christians, and Nero charged them collectively with a plot to destroy the city
(Tacitus Ann. xv. 44). The recognition of the distinctive character of
Christianity had already taken place at this time. This was probably due in
large measure to the circumstances of Paul's sojourn and trial in Rome and to
the unprecedented number of converts made at that time. The empress Poppea, who
was probably an adherent of Judaism (Josephus, Ant., XX, viii), may have
enlightened the imperial court regarding the heresy of the Christians and their
separation from the parent stock.
(2) In attempting to determine approximately the
time at which Christianity was placed under the official ban of the imperial
government, it will be convenient to adopt as starting-points certain
incontestable dates between which the act of prosecution must have been issued.
It is clear that at the time of the great conflagration (64 AD), the profession
of Christianity was not a ground for criminal action. Paul had just been set at
liberty by decree of the imperial court (compare 2Ti_4:17).
Moreover, the charge against the Christians was a plot to burn the city, not
adherence to a proscribed religion, and they were condemned, as it appears, for
an attitude of hostility toward the human race (Tacitus Ann. xv. 44).
While governor of Bithynia (circa 112 AD), Pliny the younger addressed Trajan
in a celebrated letter (x.96) asking advice to guide his conduct in the trial
of many persons who were accused as Christians, and inquiring particularly
whether Christianity in itself was culpable, or only the faults which usually
accompanied adherence to the new faith. The reply of the emperor makes quite
plain the fundamental guilt at that time of adherence to Christianity, and it
supposes a law already existing against it (x.97). It follows, therefore, that
the law against Christianity which was the legal basis for persecution must have
been issued between the conflagration in 64 AD and Pliny's administration of
Bithynia.
We cannot define the time of this important act
of legislation more closely with absolute certainty, although evidence is not wanting
for the support of theories of more or less apparent probability. Tradition
ascribes a general persecution to the reign of Domitian, which would imply that
Christianity was already a forbidden religion at that time. Allusions in
Revelation (as Rev_6:9), the references
to recent calamities in Rome by Clement in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Ad
Cor.), the condemnation of Acilius Glabrio (Dio Cassius lxvii. 13), a man of
consular rank, together with the emperor's cousin Flavius Clemens (Dio Cassius,
xiii) and Flavia Domitilla and many others on the charge of atheism and Jewish
customs (95 AD), are cited as evidence for this persecution. The fact that a
number of persons in Bithynia abandoned Christianity 20 years before the
judicial investigation of Pliny (Pliny x. 96) is of some importance as
corroborative evidence.
But there are grounds worthy of consideration
for carrying the point of departure back of Domitian. The letter of Peter from
Babylon (Rome ?) to the Christians in Asia Minor implies an impending
persecution (1Pe_4:12-16). This was
probably in the closing years of the reign of Nero. Allard cleverly observes (Histoire
des persecutions, 61) that the mention of the Neronian persecution of the
Christians apart from the description of the great fire in the work of
Suetonius (Ner. 16), amid a number of acts of legislation, is evidence of a
general enactment, which must have been adopted at the time of, or soon after,
the proceedings which were instituted on the basis of the charge of arson. Upon
the whole theory that the policy of the imperial government was definitely
established under Nero carries with it considerable probability (compare
Sulpitius Severus, Chron., ii. 41).
3.
Persecution:
Although the original enactment has been lost
the correspondence of Pliny and Trajan enables us to formulate the imperial
policy in dealing with the Christians during the 2nd century. Adherence to
Christianity was in itself culpable. But proceedings were not to be undertaken
by magistrates on their own initiative; they were to proceed only from charges
brought by voluntary accusers legally responsible for establishing the proof of
their assertions. Informal and anonymous information must be rejected.
Penitence shown in abjuring Christianity absolved the accused from the legal
penalty of former guilt. The act of adoring the gods and the living emperor
before their statues was sufficient proof of non-adherence to Christianity or
of repentance.
The attitude of the imperial authorities in the
3rd century was less coherent. The problem became more complicated as
Christianity grew. Persecution was directed more especially against the church
as an organization, since it was believed to exert a dangerous power. About 202
AD, Septimius Severus issued a decree forbidding specifically conversion to
Judaism or Christianity (Spartianus, Severus, 17), in which he departed
from the method of procedure prescribed by Trajan (conquirendi non sunt),
and commissioned the magistrates to proceed directly against suspected
converts. At this time the Christians organized funerary associations for the
possession of their cemeteries, substituting corporative for individual
ownership, and it would appear that under Alexander Severus they openly held
places of worship in Rome (Lampridius, Alexander Severus, 22, 49). The
emperor Philip (244-49) is thought to have been a Christian at heart (Eusebius,
HE, VI, 34). A period of comparative calm was interrupted by the
persecution under Decius (250-51 AD), when the act of sacrifice was required as
proof of non-adherence to Christianity. Several certificates testifying to the
due performance of this rite have been preserved.
Under Valerian (257 AD) the Christian
organizations were declared illegal and the cemeteries were sequestrated. But
an edict in 260 AD restored this property (Eusebius, VII, 13). A short
persecution under Aurelian (274 AD) broke the long period of calm which
extended to the first edict of persecution of Diocletian (February 24, 303).
The Christians seem to have gained a sort of prescriptive claim to exist, for
Diocletian did not at first consider them guilty of a capital crime. He sought
to crush their organization by ordering the cessation of assemblies, the
destruction of churches and sacred books, and abjuration under pain of political
and social degradation. (Lactantius, De Morte Persecutorum, x.11, 12,
13; Eusebius, VIII, 2; IX, 10). Later he ordered the arrest of all the clergy,
who were to be put to death unless they renounced the faith (Eusebius, VIII,
6). Finally the requirement of an act of conformity in sacrificing to the gods
was made general. This final persecution, continuing in an irregular way with
varying degrees of severity, terminated with the defeat of Maxentius by
Constantine (October 29, 312). The Edict of Milan issued by Constantine and
Licinius the following year established toleration, the restoration of
ecclesiastical property and the peace of the church. See ROMAN EMPIRE AND
CHRISTIANITY, III., IV., V.
Literature.
Allard,
Histoire des persecutions, Paris, 1903; Le christianisme et l'empire
romain, Paris, 1903; Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l'eglise, Paris,
1907 (English translation); Marucchi, Elements d'archeologie chretienne,
Paris, 1899-1902; Hardy, Christianity and the Roman Government, London,
1894; Renan, L'eglise chretienne, Paris, 1879; Ramsay, The Church in
the Roman Empire, London, 1893.
Source:
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Rome
The most celebrated city in the world at the time of Christ. It is said to
have been founded 753 B.C.. When the New Testament was written, Rome was
enriched and adorned with the spoils of the world, and contained a population
estimated at 1,200,000, of which the half were slaves, and including
representatives of nearly every nation then known. It was distinguished for its
wealth and luxury and profligacy. The empire of which it was the capital had
then reached its greatest prosperity.
On the day of Pentecost there were in Jerusalem “strangers from Rome,”
who doubtless carried with them back to Rome tidings of that great day, and
were instrumental in founding the church there. Paul was brought to this city a
prisoner, where he remained for two years (Act_28:30,
Act_28:31) “in his own hired house.”
While here, Paul wrote his epistles to the Philippians, to the Ephesians, to
the Colossians, to Philemon, and probably also to the Hebrews. He had during
these years for companions Luke and Aristarchus (Act_27:2),
Timothy (Phi_1:1; Col_1:1), Tychicus (Eph_6:21),
Epaphroditus (Phi_4:18), and John Mark
(Col_4:10). (See PAUL.)
Beneath
this city are extensive galleries, called “catacombs,” which were used from
about the time of the apostles (one of the inscriptions found in them bears the
date A.D. 71) for some three hundred years as places of refuge in the time of
persecution, and also of worship and burial. About four thousand inscriptions
have been found in the catacombs. These give an interesting insight into the
history of the church at Rome down to the time of Constantine.
Source:
Easton’s Bible Dictionary