Evidence for persecution of Christians during the reign of Domitian is slim. Most often, reference is made to the famous account by Dio Cassius (67.14.1-2) of the execution of Flavius Clemens, a Roman consul and cousin of the Emperor, and the banishment of his wife, Flavia Domitilla, to the island of Pandateria, for "atheism" (athotês) and practicing Jewish customs (ta tôn Ioudaiôn). Many interpreters have suggested that such persons were really Christians.

Keresztes observes that charges of "atheism" against Christians and consequent pogroms "certainly existed before Hadrian's time, under Trajan, in the Greek areas of the Empire and it is only fair to assume that they must have has a much earlier start in these areas where the Imperial cult had its origin and most enthusiastic supporters." (262) -- but the only evidence he cites is from Eusebius.

In any case, however, Keresztes nevertheless observes that the references here to "atheism" and "practicing Jewish customs" do not necessarily mean that Flavius and his wife were Christians. Far more probable is that they were converts to Judaism who attempted to evade payment of the fiscus Iudaicus - the tax imposed on all persons who practiced Judaism. (262-265).

Eusebius -

Keresztes observes (266) that "our first and explicit testimony to any persecution of Christians by Domitian" is found in Eusebius (EH 3.18.4-19.7). But Tertullian also makes a brief reference to Domitian as a "man of Nero's type in cruelty," who "tried his hand at persecution," but who "soon put an end to what he had begun." (Apol. 5)

In any case, the only Christian martyrdom at this time Eusebius refers to is that of a certain Flavia Domitilla, whom he identifies -- appealing to reports of "writers foreign to our belief" -- as "the niece (!) of Flavius Clemens" (3.18.4). But it is difficult to access the reliability of this information -- which may only be a confused version, deriving from Eusebius himself or from someone else, of what is related by Dio Cassius about Flavia Domitilla.

Keresztes' claims that Eusebius' word on this matter "should be enough" since "he is no less reliable an historical reporter than either Dio Cassius or Suetonius," and "he most probably knew the fiscus affair and its most notable victim, Flavius Clemens and his wife Flavia Domitilla. He must have known either Dio Cassius' report or a source similar to Dio Cassius' text, and the similarity of his and Dio Cassius' note makes this conclusion more probable." (268) According to Keresztes, Eusebius ommitted any reference to the condemnation of Flavius Clemens and his wife because, given his "anti-Jewish edge," he chose to be silent about Jewish martyrs. (266) Keresztes tells us (269):

One should never accept Eusebius's word as "enough."

Apart from the "writers foreign to our belief," Eeusebius appeals also to "the Apostle and Evangelist John,' who "was still alive at this time, and was condemned to live on the island of Patmos" (3.18.1-3), an "ancient story," related by Hegesippus, concerning the grandsons of Judas (19.1-7), and a statement by Tertullian about the cruelty of Nero and Domitian (Tert, Apol. 5).

1 Clement - Keresztes observes (269f) that 1 Clement "is generally interpreted as a testimony to persecutions in the final year or two of Domitian's rule."

Pliny - Keresztes observes (270) that the significance of Pliny's letter to Trajan for the fact and probable nature of the persecution under Domitian "has been recognized by several scholars, although in varying degrees, while others have sadly refused to see it." According to Keresztes, "Pliny's unhesitating procedure for the elimination of the 'non-Christians' indicated the existence and nature of some persecutions of Christians some time in the past. For it is difficult not to recognize that Pliny was in this case applying a method that came into existence during Domitian's rule." But Keresztes does not discuss those scholars (Merrill, Smallwood, et. al.) who "sadly refused to see it."

According to Keresztes:

However, that Christians were required during the time of Domitian to participate in Emperor-worship to acquit themselves (from what?) is precisely the issue here.

Keresztes concludes:

Any appeals to writings such as 1 Clement or the Apocalypse of John, however, are circular arguments, since the assumption of a persecution of Christians during the reign of Domitian is also used to date these writings. Almost everything else Keresztes relates is pure speculation. The bottom line is that we have no real evidence for any persecution of Christians under Domitan.

Return to Home Page