part0012

T he many historical, ideological and iconographic connections between the propaganda of the Flavian emperors and early Christianity demand that we take a closer look at the people who were associated with this imperial dynasty. Who were they? And, if the Gospels are a form of Roman propaganda, were any of these associates of the Flavians connected to early Christianity?

First among the close relatives of the Flavian emperors we must take note of is Vespasian’s nephew and Titus’s cousin, a man named Titus Flavius Clemens. As we have already seen, his name was shared by the later Titus Flavius Clemens, the Christian father known today as St. Clement of Alexandria, who lived in the 3rd Century. The latter Clemens suggested that both anchors and dolphins be adopted as Christian symbols a century after the death of this possible ancestor.

According to Church tradition, one of the first popes (either the third or fourth depending on the ancient list used) was the 1st Century “St. Clement of Rome.” However, Tertullian names him as the successor of St. Peter himself, and St. Jerome reports a tradition that Clement was the “second after the apostle” (Peter) himself. 1

Of course, there really was no such office as “pope” (Bishop of Rome) yet, although there already may well have been an elaborate Church hierarchy. Lists of the early Church’s actual leadership are the sketchiest of evidence since they are based on an orally transmitted tradition. The tradition that places this 1st Century pope as the second or third after Christ’s own appointed “rock,” Peter, can only be as certain as the authority of St. Jerome, who claimed Clement to have been the successor of the famous “fisherman” himself. However, Clement’s high place on these lists is astounding.

The historical reality of this early Church leader is supported by the ascription of a body of literature to him. Only his first letter or “epistle” is regarded as genuine by most scholars today, or at least it is thought to be a collection of material by a single author that may date to the late 1st Century. Yet there is ample reason to believe that St. Clement was a member of the imperial Flavian dynasty.

Remember that Titus’s younger brother, Domitian, who inherited the throne after his brother’s untimely death, quickly discontinued Titus’s dolphin-and-anchor motif on his coins. He also immediately rebuilt and rededicated the fire-ravaged Pantheon in order to honor the traditional Roman gods. And, toward the end of his reign, in 95 CE, according to the 3rd Century Roman historian Cassius Dio:

…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. 2

The capital crimes of “atheism” and “drifting into Jewish ways” cited for his death sentence have been variously interpreted by scholars to mean that Clemens had become either a “soft” convert to Judaism (a “God fearer”) or had been, himself, a Christian. To a polytheist, any monotheist is, after all, almost an atheist simply by denying the existence of almost every god. Therefore the charge of “atheism” could be reasonably leveled at monotheists and those who had adopted “Jewish ways.”

Since this Clemens executed by Domitian was an uncircumcised Roman, and unlikely to have ever adopted a Kosher diet, it is far easier to think of him as a kind of Christian than a “Judaizer.” This would fit his description of “adopting Jewish ways” better than if he were actually practicing Judaism. Domitian was going after a wider group among whom Clemens and his wife had been the leading figures, for Cassius tells us that “many others” were slain or banished along with them, apparently on the same charges.

If what our theory implies is correct and the Flavians were intimately involved with the creation of Christianity, then the timing of Clemens’s involvement would perfectly coincide with Pliny the Younger’s claim that Christianity was in vogue around 20 years prior to his letter to Trajan—that is, in the very middle of the Flavian era when Clemens must have been flourishing. Clemens’s status as a Christian leader would also support Pliny’s description of Christians as reaching across “all classes” of Romans. Moreover, since Clemens’s near relatives, Vespasian and Titus, claimed to be Jewish messiahs, Clemens no doubt acknowledged them as such—making him potentially messianic in his “Jewish ways.”

The 2nd Century historian Suetonius confirms the execution of Titus Flavius Clemens but does not specify a charge, saying only that it was “a trivial pretext.” 3 He does reveal, however, that the childless Domitian named the young sons of Clemens as his own heirs—suggesting that Clemens may have been a political rival who could have presented a threat to Domitian’s own position.

Since Domitian was assassinated the year following these executions by a plot within his own family and court, Suetonius was likely correct in describing the charge of “atheism” against Clemens as a mere pretext to get rid of him. Such a plot by close members of the imperial family in this instance was probably more than mere paranoia on the emperor’s part. Still, it is an unusual charge for the time and indicates a unique religious matter that Domitian may have considered threatening.

Plots against Domitian’s life had become very real by this time in his reign. It is not too fantastic to imagine, given what we now know, that Clemens’s possible adoption of the mantel of Jewish Messiah after the death of Vespasian and Titus—or his adoption of any leadership position that tradition might recognize as a primordial “pope”—would have been perceived by Domitian as a political challenge.

Domitian had not taken part in the “heroic” Jewish War through which his father and brother both gained triumphs and their imperial seat, as well as their title of Jewish messiah. On the other hand, because Titus Flavius Clemens was a member of the Flavian family and a consularis in rank, he would most certainly have been a priest of their imperial cults, as well as a “pontiff,” although not the Pontifex Maximus. That title was then reserved for the emperor, though today it is reserved for the pope.

Eusebius, the Church historian who wrote in the early 4th Century, also mentions “Clement” as a 1st Century pope. Usefully, he adds to the picture that a “niece” of the consul Flavius Clemens named “Flavia Domitilla” was banished “to Pontus” because of her “testimony to Christ.” 4 Since this is the same name as Titus Flavius Clemens’s own banished wife, and since the post-Domitian period was characterized by tolerance of Christians, it is probable that Eusebius is confused here, if not intentionally throwing us off the track. Were there really two ladies of that family named “Flavia Domitilla”—both banished for their quasi-Jewish religious beliefs at around the same time? Or just one? If they are the same, then “Flavia Domitilla” was the wife of the consul Clemens, not his niece. She was a niece of the emperors Titus and Domitian, and she was the granddaughter of the Emperor Vespasian himself. And she hadn’t just adopted Jewish ways—she was a Christian, according to Eusebius. With all of the confusion surrounding the identification of 1st Century Jewish and Christian sectarians, errors of this sort are familiar.

Revealingly, the Christian historian Eusebius directly follows his account of Domitilla’s banishment with Domitian ordering the execution of all of the relatives of Christ’s own family, and all those of King David’s royal line, i.e., all potential “messianic” claimants to his throne. 5 If we may safely identify the two “Flavia Domitillas” as one person, then the 1st Century Pope, St. Clement, is our Titus Flavius Clemens (her husband). After his cousin Titus’s death, Clemens was probably the highest-ranking Christian of his time.

In addition to the various similarities between Titus Flavius Clemens and St. Clement in name, time, place, “Judaizing ways,” and fate, the Church of St. Clement of Rome, built during the 5th Century, once contained an inscription dedicating it to “Flavius Clemens, martyr,” according to a 1725 report by Cardinal Annibal Albani that has survived. 6

The later St. Clement (of Alexandria) also bore the name “Titus Flavius Clemens.” Since there may well have been a real family relationship between these two sainted Christians, the latter might provide us with yet another Flavian Christian. This could explain why he promoted both fish and anchors as Christian symbols, and why he understood them to first come from Seleucus, the pagan Hellenistic king.

As it turns out, the symbol associated with St. Clement of Rome turns out to be an anchor . The later tradition that St. Clement of Rome was martyred early in the reign of Trajan (c. 99 CE) by being attached to an anchor and drowned may be a thinly veiled reference to the crucifixion and, for that reason, untrustworthy. However, the Titus Flavius Clemens put to death by Domitian can safely be said to have expired in the year 95 CE, not in the time of Trajan.

Whether it is true or not, the symbolism of St. Clement being killed by an anchor resembles the tradition that Titus died by eating a fish. That Titus and Clement died by fish and by anchor, respectively, could be satiric echoes of early Christian symbolism. Or, however unlikely, perhaps Domitian possessed such a black streak of irony that he personally selected these methods to eliminate his Judaizing rivals to the throne.

The fact that the anchor is a symbol of both the Flavian Emperor Titus and the pope, St. Clement of Rome, appears to confirm again that Titus’s nephew Clemens and Christianity’s St. Clement of Rome are the same person. It was certainly natural that Clemens would share the symbolic anchor image of his imperial relatives, whatever the actual manner of his death.

Here, St. Clement is shown in stained glass holding both a Cross and an anchor:

And, here, again, we see him martyred with an anchor:

A bout the same time that Domitian executed Clemens he also executed a man named Epaphroditus. Epaphroditus was the imperial secretary of Nero that we mentioned earlier as a possible associate of St. Paul, who gave such warm greetings to “Epaphroditus” in his letter.

We will learn more about Epaphroditus shortly, but the coincidence of his execution along with Clemens suggests that the high-ranking freedman Epaphroditus who served Nero, Vespasian, and Titus may have been involved with Clemens in some kind of conspiracy suspected by Domitian, in addition to associating with St. Paul. This alone is noteworthy. 7

Of course, if Paul’s friend Clement was an adult around 60-63 CE, when Paul is thought to have written this letter, then this Clement could not be the same person. The Titus Flavius Clemens we are talking about would have been a child at that time.

However, as with nearly all Roman family names, his family name was freely given out among his relatives. The naming conventions of ancient Rome were rigid, but not perfectly so. The eldest son typically bore the exact same name as his father, while all of the daughters bore the family name as their own. “Julia” was included in the name of every daughter of the Julii, for example. Younger sons often adopted a name or a modified version of a name from their mother’s family. This is why adding modifiers like “the Younger” and “the Elder” is necessary when referring to Romans. In this case, Titus Flavius Clemens’s maternal uncle was the consul Arrecinus Clemens. He was a “Clement” who could have known Paul in Rome. And, as it turns out, he, too, was sentenced to death by the purging Domitian. 9

B y the time of the early Christian scholar Eusebius in the 4th Century, Christians themselves would have been at a loss to explain how it was that a great-nephew of a Roman emperor could also be a 1st Century pope. It is so baffling that we can understand why they might have created separate traditions for two separate historical figures in order to avoid confronting the paradox. The niece of Titus and Domitian was also moved further away from the throne, becoming the “niece” only of Clemens , her husband, even as she is freely described as a Christian.

To this day, the anchor is associated with St. Clement of Rome, who was almost certainly Titus Flavius Clemens, a victim of Domitian's apparent purge of those associated with Titus’s semi-Jewish cult of “Christianity” that recognized the emperor as both a Jewish messiah and a literal “prince of peace.”

We know Domitian quickly discontinued the dolphin-and-anchor motif used by his brother when he became emperor and began associating himself instead with traditional Roman gods on his coins and monuments. Twelve years younger than Titus, Domitian had remained a world apart from his heroic brother and father and their triumphs in Judea.

We have mentioned the Catacombs of St. Domitilla, the oldest known Christian burial site with perhaps the oldest known archeological evidence of Christianity in the world. One of the original inscriptions that identified this archeological site suggests that it was not only the original burial place of the “St. Flavia Domitilla” who is mentioned by Eusebius, but also of the Flavian family. This was the inscription that identified it as the Flavian family’s sepulcher:

Known today as the Catacombs of St. Domitilla, it also contains the very first acknowledged Christian use of the anchor-and-fish symbol:

So the first Christian use of fish-anchor symbols is directly connected through Domitilla to her uncle, Emperor Titus, who used the symbol on his coins—and this tomb also happens to be the oldest archeological evidence for Christianity in the world. Here is Titus’s own symbolism at his own niece’s gravesite in the Flavians’ own sepulcher in Christianity’s first catacombs.

This extraordinary archeological evidence sheds more light on why the late 1st Century “pope,” Clement of Rome, who was Domitilla’s husband and also a Flavian, is associated with an anchor. An anchor is carved beneath the inscription on the Flavian family sepulcher, a unique imperial symbol used by Flavian emperors on their coinage and adopted as the symbol of a 1st Century pope who bore their name and was martyred at the same time their royal cousin was executed. We can only conclude St. Clement of Rome was that cousin.

W ith no way to explain these coincidences, Christian tradition has simply split these historical figures into completely different people. However, considering what we now know, let us examine the letter that Christians attribute to St. Clement, which many scholars hold to be a letter or parts of letters written at the end of the 1st Century, precisely when both “Clemens” and “St. Clement” flourished. As we shall see, it reads exactly like something that could have been penned by an imperial Christian.

The subject of Clement’s letter is his concern for discord and strife that has apparently arisen among Christians in the city of Corinth in Greece. Praising their former virtue, “Clement” reminds them that they had “walked in the commandments of God, being obedient to those who had the rule over you, and giving all fitting honor to the presbyters among you.” 10

Notice that Clement is keen to emphasize the doctrine of obeying political authorities, a theme we find so often in the New Testament. Notice, too, that he admires their former obedience to Church authorities, as well—the “presbyters”—even at this very early stage of the Church.

Clement then warns them of what seem to be earthly punishments for those who might instigate strife:

For we shall incur no slight injury, but rather great danger, if we rashly yield ourselves to the inclinations of men who aim at exciting strife and tumults, so as to draw us away from what is good.” And he quotes scripture as follows: “Preserve innocence, and look on equity : for there shall be a remnant to the peaceful man. (Emphasis added.) 11

While Clement emphasizes humility and virtuous conduct, like Paul, he clearly believes that salvation is a matter of faith rather than deeds. 12 Well aware of the conflict between the Apostles that Paul reported in Galatians, Clement’s exhortation for peace sounds decidedly Pauline. Here’s an excerpt:

Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you. (Emphasis added.) 13

While Clement makes extensive use of the Hebrew Bible and certainly believes in the one God who created everything, he also cites the following distinctly pagan example for the resurrection:

Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed. 14

The phoenix is a mythological beast from the lore of Egypt and “Arabia,” as Clement makes clear, and not from Hebrew scripture. And, while mentioning this pagan creature, Clement also cites examples of virtue that are not only Jewish but also pagan :

To bring forward some examples from among the heathen: Many kings and princes, in times of pestilence, when they had been instructed by an oracle, have given themselves up to death, in order that by their own blood they might deliver their fellow-citizens [from destruction]. 15

As might be expected from a Pope, however, Clement stresses obedience to Church authorities. And here, rather amazingly, he compares the properly functioning Church to the Roman army:

Let us then, men and brethren, with all energy act the part of soldiers, in accordance with His holy commandments. Let us consider those who serve under our generals, with what order, obedience, and submissiveness they perform the things which are commanded them. All are not prefects, nor commanders of a thousand, nor of a hundred, nor of fifty, nor the like, but each one in his own rank performs the things commanded by the king and the generals. The great cannot subsist without the small, nor the small without the great. 16

Clement certainly seems to freely wield the authority of the Church at this very early stage, as if backed by the authority of the state:

Ye, therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that you should occupy a humble but honorable place in the flock of Christ, than that, being highly exalted, you should be cast out from the hope of His people. 17

Clement even seems to foreshadow the ironic method of his own martyrdom, in much the same way that Jesus does, and his letter may itself be a source for the tradition concerning his death:

D uring its infancy, we should expect a new religion to be flush with the excitement of a new doctrine, its unique message, and the inspirational qualities and deeds of its founder(s). We should expect “organizational issues” to develop only after the new faith has accumulated a large enough number of followers to require attention.

Should there even be a formal Church? If so, how should it be organized? Are bishops to be obeyed on matters of doctrine? Or presbyters? These are questions for an already burgeoning religion on its way to wider acceptance. For this reason, among others, most scholars have rejected the self-identified authorship of the New Testament epistles of both Titus and Timothy. Though these letters claim to have been written by Paul, most researchers believe these documents were composed towards the end of the 1st Century or the start of the 2nd Century precisely because they discuss such “organizational” issues. For many it just doesn’t make sense to imagine the need for an elaborate hierarchy or for mechanisms to enforce doctrinal purity among the small underground group of Christians that must have existed before the end of the 1st Century.

For example, at 1 Timothy 3:1-13, the moral qualifications for such Church officers as “bishops” or “overseers” and “deacons” are laid out. Paul’s own lifetime (which is believed to have ended in the 60s) seems to be far too early for such top-down organizational developments to be happening for a presumably “grass-roots” movement. (If our hypothesis is right and it is an imperial Roman program, however, this presents no problem, and these sophisticated administerial arrangements make perfect sense even at the outset of Christian history.)

The authorship of the first letter attributed to Peter in the New Testament is also considered fraudulent by most scholars, and one of the most important reasons is that the letter is addressed to “Peter’s” fellow “elders.” How could the Church be so officially constituted so early ?

Even more noteworthy, in the Book of Titus 1:5-7, the attributed author, Paul, orders the appointment of elders in every town and again discusses their moral qualifications. “The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.”

Even if these surviving letters were composed as late as the 2nd Century, however, these passages are striking in their implications. The so-called Apostolic Fathers of the 2nd Century not only made use of these letters themselves, they also exhibit precisely the same very early concern for organizational questions that the first Church fathers were apparently considering.

Writing in the first decades of the 2nd Century, for example, St. Ignatius of Antioch commands his flocks:

See that you follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” 19

If there seems to have been a "top-down" organization to Christianity as early as the end of the 1st Century or the start of the 2nd Century, the Book of Acts preserves an even earlier tradition that a group called the "church elders" existed in Ephesus in Asia Minor when Paul visited there. 20 Of course, these may have been Jewish -Christian leaders that Paul was referring to, like those associated with James.

As we have already seen in his letter to the Galatians, Paul was opposing an existing “church” authoritatively led and organized by “Jewish Christians” such as James—against whom Paul appeared to be establishing an alternate leadership—even at this primitive stage.

It is also hard not to see an acute concern for Church hierarchy even in the Gospels themselves in passages like this famous prediction by Jesus:

And I tell you that you are Peter [literally “rock”], and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 21

At their inception the Gospels seem to exhibit a well-developed organizational attention to hierarchical authority, and these early letters, some of them quite possibly from the late 1st Century, suggest an orderly, well-funded and authoritarian organization focused on establishing itself simultaneously across wide-ranging parts of the Roman Empire. (And notice how the leadership role of James, the martyred “Brother of Christ” and Paul’s greatest adversary, has completely disappeared in the Gospels.)

Had the Roman authorities been aware of these large-scale activities, they would certainly have been alarmed and prosecuted such efforts as seditious, especially in the immediate wake of the Jewish War—just as they prosecuted rebel and Jewish-Christian leaders—unless these activities were authorized by the Roman government in the first place. Such sponsorship would explain the Church’s rapid, well-funded, highly organized and empire-wide launch (as well as explaining Christianity’s mild treatment at the hands of most of the emperors who followed the Flavians, such as Trajan.)

The existence of Christians in the imperial family gives us reason to re-examine the relationships Flavian emperors (especially Titus) had with the many traditionally identified “Jews” populating their inner circle of friends and associates. 22

Let us turn our focus now to this extraordinary group of historical figures.

A s we have seen in Part I, the ancient historians Tacitus and Suetonius, pagan Romans of the 2nd Century, sometimes called rebellious 1st Century messianic Jews “Christians” or followers of “Chrestus.” Paul himself refers to a very similar group of Jews as “apostles” of Christ. These historically troublesome Jews, like Paul’s adversaries, fundamentally differ from the followers of the New Testament who are today identified as Christians.

Any “Christians” causing trouble in Rome or elsewhere at those early dates must have advocated the strictly observant form of messianic Judaism that sparked their rebellion against Rome and their conflict with Paul in the New Testament.

These militants were still awaiting the arrival of their messiah, albeit in the form of a warrior who would deliver them from foreign bondage. And of course they expected a thoroughly human messiah, as predicted in ancient Hebrew scripture—and certainly not a sacrificial divine human who modeled obedience to Rome. Their “Christianity,” therefore, despite its other similarities, included none of these things now considered essential to “Christianity” as we know it today.

Among pagan observers at the time, like Tacitus, merely professing a belief in the imminent arrival of the prophesied Jewish messiah may have been sufficient to earn the name “Christian”—and even somehow associated with Jesus. Even in the New Testament, the strict Torah practitioners who follow James and Peter and defy Paul are considered “apostles of Christ,” although exactly what that meant to them is unclear.

It seems only later, after the near annihilation of the Jewish rebels by the Romans, that the name “Christian” would become exclusively associated with the peace-loving adherents of the New Testament. Indeed, by the middle of the 2nd Century the Romans had ruthlessly exterminated or driven out of the Empire all of the militant variety of messianic Jews.

The only forms of Judaism to survive the two Jewish wars against Rome and their aftermath within the Empire were the rabbinic Jews, who de-emphasized the idea of “messiah” for the sake of their own survival, and the cheek-turning, peace-loving Pauline believers of the “New Testament,” who inherited the title of Christians from that point forward. Any Zealot groups that survived at all after the bloody wars with Rome were driven underground or outside the eastern fringes of the Empire, some known as “Ebionites,” and some forever scornful of their fellow Jews and carrying forward many traits in common with a religion that later emerged in the same geographic region centuries later—Islam.

Given the events unfolding today, it is perhaps more important than ever to realize that it was the Roman wars with Jewish fanatics that begat what we know as Christianity and shaped the relatively apolitical form of modern Judaism that enabled it to survive. Indeed, all three monotheisms today echo this same ancient and largely forgotten conflict that cracked the foundations of the Western World.

Also, Titus’s Jewish friends undoubtedly were not rebellious against Rome. Jews such as Josephus, Epaphroditus, Agrippa, Bernice or any of the other Jewish confidants of Titus could hardly follow their radical brothers while remaining friends with the emperor.

Finally, although they were from Jewish families, they must have been renegades of a sort, simply by attaching themselves to Titus, the man who would be reviled forever in the Talmud and by their fellow Jews for reducing God’s Temple to a Wailing Wall.

Titus’s loyal Jewish friends were therefore of a non-observant kind and yet still messianic—the rather paradoxical combination of ingredients that comprises a Pauline Christian. Titus’s Jewish friends in particular would have found it most convenient to embrace the Gospels themselves since they so readily accommodate their own non-Kosher but still nominally Jewish lifestyles. Moreover, the prophecies of Jesus in the Gospels readily lend themselves to establishing Titus as the Jewish Messiah.

Among the emperor’s personal friends was King Herod Agrippa II (properly, Marcus Julius Agrippa ), the son of the famous Herod Agrippa I, who had himself been raised at the Julio-Claudian court and was a childhood friend of the Emperor Claudius.

This younger Agrippa inherited his crown from the “client” kings of Judea loyal to Rome. These kings were descended from Herod the Great, a Roman-installed monarch on what was then the Empire’s eastern frontier and who had famously expanded and remodeled the Temple that Titus would destroy. Marcus Antonius (Mark Anthony), the famous Roman triumvir who married Cleopatra, had appointed Herod the Great as ruler of the Jews even though Herod hailed from an Idumaean family who had only recently converted to Judaism.

Courting both sides of Roman politics, Herod had deftly kept and augmented his position after Augustus became the first Emperor of Rome. Although Herod had married into royal and priestly Jewish families, he and his heirs were Roman appointees and, as such, became objects of hatred for nationalist Jews.

Such was the background of Herod’s great-grandson Herod Agrippa II, one of Titus’s personal friends.

Titus’s elite acquaintances also included Agrippa’s sisters. In fact, Agrippa’s sister Bernice was his mistress for a time, though she was ten years his senior. In fact, Bernice even became Titus’s fiancée before conservative Senatorial opinion against a “new Cleopatra” in Rome prevented the politically ambitious Titus from following through with that marriage, according to our surviving sources. 23

Both Bernice and her brother, Agrippa, were actually present with Titus as his legions sacked Jerusalem and razed the Temple that had been lovingly embellished by their great-grandfather.

The third sister of Titus’s friend Agrippa, Mariamne, married first her Herodian cousin, Archelaus, and later one Demetrius, who was a wealthy Jewish “Alabarch” (a kind of tax collector) in the bustling Egyptian port of Alexandria.

Herod the Great and his son Antipas, and the whole Herodian dynasty, are criticized liberally in the New Testament. Titus was friendly with some of the Herods. So—is this evidence against a Flavian provenance for the New Testament?

Herod the Great killed not only strangers but members of his own family, as well, including three of his own sons. And one of those sons was the father of Agrippa I and the grandfather of Herod Agrippa II and Bernice.

The Jewish historian working for the Flavians, Flavius Josephus, exhibits the same mixed relationship toward the early Herodian kings that appears in the New Testament. Josephus condemns the cruelty of Herod the Great as well as the unjust execution of John the Baptist by Herod Antipas. And yet he, too, simultaneously shares a close personal friendship with Titus’s friend, Herod Agrippa II, who, as we shall see in the New Testament, was also friendly toward St. Paul.

As for the Flavian emperors, they were likewise critical of previous Roman rulers, such as Nero. What is remarkable is not the way both Josephus and the Bible depict Herod, but how early Christian literature seems to be sympathetic to any later Herodian, as well, in the same unique pattern that matches Titus’s personal biases.

Another important Jewish figure in Titus’s inner circle was a man named Tiberius Julius Alexander. For a time he was the Roman-appointed governor of Judea and later the Governor of Egypt. He was also a general who gave his early support to the Flavians’ ambitions in both Judea and Rome. He, too, was present with Titus, as his second-in-command, at the Siege of Jerusalem and the sacking of the Temple.

Tiberius Alexander was the brother of Marcus Alexander, who was a husband of the aforementioned Princess Bernice before his unfortunate death. Their father, Julius Alexander, once an Alabarch himself in Alexandria, is described by Josephus as "an old friend” of the Emperor Claudius and a “steward” of the emperor’s mother, Antonia. 24

This relationship may suggest that connections between the Flavians and this family of Alexanders existed long before the Jewish War, since Vespasian’s own long-time mistress was Antonia’s secretary. Antonia was a daughter of the triumvir Marcus Antonius, a niece of Augustus, and the mother of the Emperor Claudius. It was Claudius who had appointed Vespasian and his brother to their commands in the conquest of Britain during the early 40s, resulting in military successes that advanced the Flavians to the front ranks of Roman politics. 25

The Flavian family may have had connections to other high-ranking Jews in the East, as well, according to Vespasian biographer Barbara Levick. 26 These relationships with important eastern Jews who were collaborating with official Rome could actually help explain why Nero appointed Vespasian the task of quelling the Jewish revolt in 66 CE.

The elder Alabarch, Alexander, who was the Emperor Claudius’s friend, was also the brother of the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria. This means that his sons, including Titus’s second-in-command at Jerusalem, were nephews of this famous sage.

This makes Philo’s ideology well worth noting. We have seen that imperial politics sometimes inspired religious syncretism, like the god Serapis. But in the case of Philo we see an example of that kind of syncretism naturally occurring among Jews as they assimilated into Hellenistic and Roman culture, with or without official influence. Alexandria, the diverse, cosmopolitan, and highly cultured city at the Nile’s delta—and the home of Serapis—was just where one might expect a syncretism like Philo’s to independently arise.

Like both Josephus and the Gospels, Philo’s ideas blended aspects of his native Judaism with pagan ideas, specifically with the ideas of Plato and the Stoics. Some earlier Jewish works, especially The Wisdom of Sirach , had already shown signs of Platonic influence, but it was in the work of Philo that this marriage was fully consummated.

Philo transformed the Jewish God Yaweh into the neo-Platonic Absolute of the Hellenistic philosophers. For Philo, Yahweh became a World-soul, or Form of the Good, or the One, as this Platonic idea has been variously named. In truth, Jewish monotheism already fit more comfortably with this expanding Greek ideology than polytheism ever could and therefore held increasing attraction to pagans. Philo was the first to attempt a complete integration of these two systems of belief.

Philo also employed an allegorical approach to interpreting Hebrew scriptures, one that did not necessarily deny the literal meaning while seeking a deeper, more universal understanding of the text. He developed no less than an integration of Jewish and Stoic thought, taking its concept of Logos to be the agency of the one God’s creation. This is, coincidentally, the basic ideological blend underlying much of the New Testament. 27 It is these very ideas that directly foreshadow the opening lines of the Gospel of John as they are traditionally translated:

In the beginning was the Word [logos ], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. 28

While Philo did not live to see the Flavian dynasty come to power, he probably had a considerable intellectual influence on his nephews, Marcus and Tiberius Alexander. In any case, Philo’s joint Judaic-Hellenic ideology is well known. His nephews connect Philo to Titus’s inner circle.

The Herodian princesses who were friends of Titus were quite notorious for their sexual conduct. While Bernice’s reputation, for example, suffered from her affair with Titus, more damaging were accusations of incest with her brother.

Both sexual licentiousness and tax collecting were objectionable activities among the pious and revolutionary Jews of this period. Even so, the notorious Herodians and the family of Alabarchs from Alexandria were nominally “Jews” themselves. The Flavians, who had been proclaimed Jewish messiahs, were themselves a family of tax collectors. Both Titus’s grandfather and great-grandfather were tax-collectors. 29

So the Herodian royals and wealthy Alexandrian Jews connected with Titus are rather strikingly similar to the unconventional company Jesus keeps in the Gospels; i.e., prostitutes and tax collectors, characters reviled by contemporary Jews. 30 At Matthew 21:31 Jesus himself informs the chief priests and the elders of the Jews, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.” So, we have another curious parallel between the Emperor Titus and the Jesus of the Gospels.

A self-described scion of royal and priestly Jewish lines, Josephus was a reluctant rebel general who was originally named Joseph Ben Mathias (“son of Matthew”). He infamously switched to the Roman side following his defeat at General Vespasian’s hands. Thereafter, he enjoyed official favor and fortune as a writer and historian at the Flavian court, according to his own account.

Josephus tells us he was with Vespasian at Alexandria, although he does not report the celebrated healing miracles that the Roman general performed there. He, too, was present with Titus at the prophetic Siege of Jerusalem along with the others we have mentioned.

Josephus boasts that, after the war, he was awarded a comfortable property near Rome while writing his encyclopedic tome of Hebraic history with Flavian support and approval.

We shall return to this central and yet elusive figure, of whom there is much more to be said, later.

Mingling with the highest elites in Rome, they certainly did not have any of the qualms concerning pagan “pollution” that was condemned by the Dead Sea Scrolls sectarians. They would have welcomed the message of any critic of Jewish purity regulations, like the Jesus Christ of the Gospels, with enthusiasm.

At least in their youth, the Herodians that Rome appointed to rule the Jewish territories and their immediate family members attempted to live a somewhat Kosher lifestyle even when they were “in Rome.” We are told, for example, that Drusilla, the sister of Bernice and Agrippa II, was first married to the King of Emessa only on condition that he be circumcised—an obviously painful concession for an adult man. Likewise, her sister Bernice’s marriage to King Polemon of Cilicia commenced on condition that the groom convert to Judaism and be circumcised, as well. 31 This kind of report suggests that the family was trying, initially, to be observant Jews, at least for public consumption.

Whatever the cost to the groom, Drusilla’s first marriage didn’t take, however. Upon his arrival in the east, Felix, the newly appointed governor of Judea, immediately fell for the beautiful Drusilla, and Drusilla’s marriage was soon dissolved as Governor Felix married her. Unlike her first husband, the Greek Felix did not forfeit his foreskin, it seems, since Josephus reports Drusilla’s marriage tellingly “transgress[ed] the laws of her forefathers.” 32

Felix’s brother, it should be noted, was a man named Pallas, an important secretary to the Emperor Claudius and a supporter of the Emperor Nero’s mother, Agrippina (the woman who had hired the philosopher Seneca to tutor her son, the future emperor), while Felix’s own first wife had been a granddaughter of the Roman general Marcus Antonius and the famous Egyptian queen Cleopatra. (The level of political power and influence Felix enjoyed had undoubtedly given him additional leverage during his marriage negotiations.)

Drusilla’s sister Bernice, who would later be engaged to Titus, had only a short-lived marriage to King Polemon despite his own encounter with the surgeon’s knife. It seems their union had been shaky from the start. Josephus, in fact, records that Bernice only married him to dispel rumors that she was engaged in an incestuous relationship with her brother, Agrippa II. As for Polemon, he had been persuaded by Bernice’s fabulous wealth to acquiesce to the short and painful marriage.

When Bernice left this husband, as Josephus reports it, she was still widely suspected of “impure intentions.” 33 She and her unmarried brother, with whom she was still suspected of incest, visited Rome together after Vespasian was named emperor.

Regardless of their scandalous behavior, these late Herodian royals were not entirely false Jews. After all, as the children of Herod Agrippa I, they could all claim descent from his grandmother, who descended from the authentically Jewish Hasmonean dynasty of kings and high priests. Before the violent rebellion that erupted in Judea during the reign of Nero, however, these Herodian princesses seem to have abandoned the strictures of Jewish tradition, at least with respect to circumcision and marrying men outside of their faith. Indeed, the private conduct of the Herodian royals no doubt provoked the rebels in Judea and helped foment the outbreak of war in 66 CE. In the eyes of Jewish purists, the Herods may as well have been foreigners, polluted by consorting with the Roman elites and authorities who occupied Jewish land.

Some “collaborating” Jews dropped even the pretense of Jewish practice. Tiberius Alexander, Titus’s second-in-command at the Jerusalem siege, for example, “did not continue in the religion of his country” according to Josephus. 34 And, as Dead Sea Scrolls translator Robert Eisenman observes, Josephus’s description of Tiberius is “the equivalent of the pot calling the kettle black. ” 35

Flavius Josephus himself resembles Paul in his opposition to forced circumcision. Though it was the practice of the Jewish rebels to require circumcision of any new allies and converts, Josephus boasts in his autobiography that he would not permit the forced circumcision of new rebel allies under his jurisdiction, arguing that “[e]veryone ought to worship God according to his own inclinations, and not to be constrained by force…” 36 This mirrors the language in Galatians where Paul considers and rejects the requirement that converts should be “compelled to be circumcised.” 37

Circumcision would have been a considerable obstacle for Jews seeking assimilation with the Empire, as well as any Gentiles who considered anything more than dabbling in Judaism. From the stories told about these Herodians, we can see that it was a problem, and that Paul’s position on the subject would have been extremely appreciated.

In addition to dispensing with circumcision, we can be reasonably sure that these “Jews” around Titus also ignored orthodox reservations about “eat[ing] with Gentiles” and sharing their non-Kosher food. Paul scornfully ascribed such stodgy rules to the James community 38 , whose reservations seem identical to those of the so-called “Qumran sectarians” of the Dead Sea Scrolls and to those causing conflict with Rome. Indeed, Josephus informs us that the Essene sect, usually identified today as being the Qumran sectarians who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, were so fanatical that they could not even be tortured into eating forbidden foods. 39

Obviously, then, the privileged and powerful Jews cooperating with the Romans had to reject the xenophobic politics of purist Zealots as well as the nationalist terrorists who called themselves the “Sicarii.” As agents of Rome they were compelled to do so, since they were all, ipso facto , representatives of the Pax Romana .

We know from the reports of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus that Vespasian and Titus proclaimed themselves to be the Jewish messiahs of prophecy. We must assume that, like Josephus, the other “Jews” in Titus’s circle also publicly acknowledged this imperial claim.

The agreement of the Flavians’ Jewish friends on this point of propaganda would have been especially important. There is no doubt that, as Jews, certain “public relations” demands would have applied specifically to them in the aftermath of the Jewish War. These Jewish associates of the Flavians, simply as Jews who professed loyalty to Rome, would have had to agree that Vespasian and Titus, both father and son, fulfilled the messianic prophecy of their faith. This imperial obligation alone, therefore, qualifies them as “messianic Jews,” and more: they were pro-Roman and pro-peace messianic Jews.

In all of these ways, the Jews who populated the Flavian court were more closely akin to “Christians” of Paul’s school than to the “Jews” they are all assumed to have been. Just as the rebellious messianic Jews of the 1st Century were conflated with “Christians,” so, too, have these likely Flavian Christians been conflated with “Jews.”

From all of this, we can surmise that the well-connected “Jews” surrounding Titus would have been most receptive to Paul’s message. Paul preached that it was possible to be both a good believer in the Jewish God, even a messianic one, and yet be “free” from the culturally-alienating constraints of Mosaic practice, such as circumcision, Kosher diet, and avoiding close association with Gentiles. Since among them were tax collectors and women of notorious repute, the fact that Jesus is shown approving of such company would also have been appreciated.

As tax collectors and personal associates of Caesar, it goes without saying that they would have agreed with the “render unto Caesar” rhetoric, as well. Many of the key issues that concerned Paul, like circumcision, were the same concerns of these followers of the Jewish messiah Titus at his imperial court.

All of this seems highly likely from inference alone. Taken at face value, however, the New Testament confirms it—as we shall now see.

For the best detailed account of the activities of Paul, at least as described in the New Testament, the reader is once more directed to the work of Thijs Voskuilen and Rose Mary Sheldon, Operation Messiah . 40 However, any reader of the New Testament can readily see official Roman assistance being provided to Paul’s mission.

In Acts we are told that after the Jewish Sanhedrin accused Paul of crimes against Jewish Law and what is described as an attempted “desecration” of the Temple, Paul was taken to the Roman governor Felix—the husband of Drusilla and brother-in-law to Titus’s future fiancée Bernice. 41

The attorney for the Sanhedrin and Paul both present their cases to Felix, who we are informed was well acquainted with “the Way” (as Christianity is often called in Acts). Although Paul was allegedly under arrest, Felix orders the centurion in charge “to give him some freedom and permit his friends to take care of his needs.” 42 So, Paul’s arrest seems to be an “arrest” only in name.

Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish . He sent for Paul and listened to him as he spoke about faith in Christ Jesus . As Paul talked about righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and said, “That’s enough for now. You may leave. When I find it convenient, I will send for you.” At the same time he was hoping that Paul would offer him a bribe, so he sent for him frequently and talked with him .

But why should Paul be in any hurry here? A Jewish mob is waiting to tear him to pieces outside and, while in custody, he seems to be enjoying an extraordinary degree of “freedom” even as his friends are allowed to attend to his needs. He also seems to have had an interested and captive audience in the exalted Roman Governor Felix, who pays him regular visits while in his “captivity.” Moreover, Felix is actually said to have become afraid when Paul spoke about the Final Judgment. Does this Roman governor actually believe in Paul’s gospel?

For two years, in fact, Paul seems to be a rather important “prisoner.” And his enemies do not like the situation. When the new Governor Festus (a Gentile with no known “Jewish” connections) is installed in the province, we are told that after only three days:

Festus went up from Caesarea to Jerusalem, where the chief priests and the Jewish leaders appeared before him and presented the charges against Paul. They requested Festus, as a favor to them, to have Paul transferred to Jerusalem, for they were preparing an ambush to kill him along the way . (Emphasis added.) 44

Festus opts instead to give them a hearing of their case back in the Roman port city of Caesarea. There, once more, both sides make their arguments, but rather than render a decision on whether to transfer the case to Jerusalem, Festus somewhat unbelievably asks Paul’s own opinion about having his case transferred to Jerusalem. According to Acts, Festus does this in order to “do the Jews a favor.” 45

The next characters to enter the New Testament are none other than Titus’s friends Herod Agrippa II and his future fiancée, Bernice:

A few days later King Agrippa and Bernice arrived at Caesarea to pay their respects to Festus. Since they were spending many days there, Festus discussed Paul’s case with the king. He said: “There is a man here whom Felix left as a prisoner. When I went to Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews brought charges against him and asked that he be condemned.

I told them that it is not the Roman custom to hand over anyone before they have faced their accusers and have had an opportunity to defend themselves against the charges. When they came here with me, I did not delay the case, but convened the court the next day and ordered the man to be brought in. When his accusers got up to speak, they did not charge him with any of the crimes I had expected. Instead, they had some points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive. I was at a loss how to investigate such matters; so I asked if he would be willing to go to Jerusalem and stand trial there on these charges. But when Paul made his appeal to be held over for the Emperor’s decision, I ordered him held until I could send him to Caesar.”

The next day Agrippa and Bernice came with great pomp and entered the audience room with the high-ranking military officers and the prominent men of the city. At the command of Festus, Paul was brought in. Festus said: “King Agrippa, and all who are present with us, you see this man! The whole Jewish community has petitioned me about him in Jerusalem and here in Caesarea, shouting that he ought not to live any longer. I found he had done nothing deserving of death , but because he made his appeal to the Emperor I decided to send him to Rome. But I have nothing definite to write to His Majesty about him . Therefore I have brought him before all of you, and especially before you, King Agrippa, so that as a result of this investigation I may have something to write. For I think it is unreasonable to send a prisoner on to Rome without specifying the charges against him.” (Emphasis added.) 47

Notice the respect that the author of Acts has for the Roman legal system—far greater respect than he shows for the Jewish counterpart, the Sanhedrin. Also observe that Festus had expected the Christian to be charged with real crimes, such as sedition or making rebellion, rather than the sectarian disagreements of religious doctrine Jewish authorities had with Paul. The now obvious political implications of Paul’s message are simply glossed over in the text of Acts. Finally, once more we have a Roman governor who, just like Pilate before him, can find nothing worth punishing in a “New Testament” Christian accused by Jewish authorities.

In Acts, we continue as Paul begins his defense by saying:

King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate to stand before you today as I make my defense against all the accusations of the Jews, and especially so because you are well acquainted with all the Jewish customs and controversies . Therefore, I beg you to listen to me patiently. (Emphasis added.) 48

Titus’s friend Agrippa listens patiently to Paul as he recounts his personal travails in some detail, and also the many plots of “Jews” who have been attacking him. When Paul explains his vision of Christ and his project to convert the Gentiles, “Festus interrupt[s] Paul’s defense. ‘You are out of your mind, Paul!’ he shout[s], ‘Your great learning is driving you insane.’” (Emphasis added.) 49

Notice that even the skeptical Governor Festus with no known Jewish connections, acknowledges Paul’s “great learning.”

“I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king [Agrippa] is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him . I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do .”

Again, echoing Pilate and Festus, both of Titus’s friends are likewise convinced of the Christian leader’s innocence. The mutual admiration exhibited between Paul and Agrippa II is clear in any translation. Later generations would grapple with the following declaration with considerable difficulty because of what appears to be Agrippa’s impossible Christian sympathies: “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”

The Greek original of this pregnant quote ascribed to Agrippa has given birth to a contentious litter of translations:

The first three versions straightforwardly report Agrippa II saying that Paul had almost made him Christian. The next begin to transform the “almost” into “in so short a time” but make it sound as if just Paul thinks he is making headway with King Agrippa. The last two remove that implication but transform what had been an assertion into a question, while the footnote to the NRSV translation makes a bizarre implication that Paul is rapidly making the king “play the Christian .” One need not know the original Greek to find this linguistic evolution both fascinating and enlightening.

As we will see, Paul is not the only apostle to enjoy such agreeable relations with officials of the Roman Empire in the New Testament.

T he Book of Acts may not be reliable history to many scholars, but it is, for the most part, consistent in its theology. In it we find that Peter, like Paul, finds fellowship with Gentiles and, like Jesus before him, reserves his highest praise for a Roman centurion he meets in the course of his ministry. This entire extraordinary account from Acts is noteworthy:

At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, “Cornelius!”

Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked. The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. Now send men to Joppa to bring back a man named Simon who is called Peter. He is staying with Simon the tanner, whose house is by the sea.”

About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance . He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat .”

The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to ask you to come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say.” Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests.

The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the believers from Joppa went along. The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”

While talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection . May I ask why you sent for me?”

Cornelius answered: “Three days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon . Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me and said, ‘Cornelius, God has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor. Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.’ So I sent for you immediately, and it was good of you to come. Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us.”

Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached—how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

“We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a cross, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead . He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

Then Peter said, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have .” So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days. (Emphasis added.) 51

The first thing to note in this passage is that, in the Gospels, Jesus clearly abolished the laws that Peter is still unaccountably obeying during Paul’s time. The whole new doctrine Jesus delivered in the Gospels does not seem to have made any impression on Peter, at all. He seems to have forgotten that Christ said much the same thing about pure and impure foods as the voice he heard in his mystical trance. Peter has also seemingly forgotten that Jesus had said that many would come to “feast with Abraham,” that the Gospel should be spread to the whole world, and that Jesus himself had praised a centurion. In fact, Peter states, point blank: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile” as if Jesus hadn’t associated with unclean persons himself, and as if Christ was a Jewish nationalist or a stickler about ritual purity. Peter clearly never read the Gospels—and he certainly never lived them.

As we have previously observed, it is far more likely that such a Pauline position on Gentiles and the Mosaic Law was not attributed to Jesus until later, when the Gospels were written, after the Jewish War. Only that can explain Paul’s emotional confrontation with Jewish Christians over these very issues in his letter to the Galatians.

Acts describes Peter’s centurion as a “God fearer,” or Jewish convert, implying that he was not circumcised, nor were the others in his house, it seems. We are told that the “circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles .” (Emphasis added.) 52

Recall that in Galatians’ account, Paul confronts Peter for hypocrisy after eating with Gentiles and then later returning to the more orthodox “Jewish-Christian” fold. 53 This account may be no more reliable, but Peter allegedly also wavers after his personal epiphany from God that instructed him to eat with Gentiles.

Notice, too, that in Peter’s vision, he resists eating impure food three times—despite God’s direct command—just as he had infamously denied knowing Christ three times on the night of Jesus’s arrest and trial, according to all four Gospels. Recall that Jesus had predicted that Peter would do so—“before the cock crowed”—at the Last Supper. The number three rattles around this story so many times that it becomes clear: Peter’s resistance to non-Kosher foods is being associated with his betrayal of Jesus. And the issue of Kosher diet is precisely the subject of the heated argument between Paul and Peter (in Aramaic, “Cephas,” meaning “rock”) that we read about in Galatians.

While there is nothing unusual about a Christian having a mystical vision or experience in the Bible, the Book of Acts’ account of Peter’s vision is among the least credible reports in the New Testament. If he actually had such a visionary experience, it is hard to imagine Peter returning to his former Kosher ways only to be “confronted to his face” by Paul, as recounted in Paul’s letter. Notwithstanding Paul’s hypocrisy as one who boasted of chameleon-like adaptability himself, if Peter vacillated so readily after such a direct revelation, he was certainly no “rock.”

We are asked to believe that Peter backslid into Jewish ways twice —the second time after receiving his own personal revelation of Christ’s true message—in addition to ignoring what would be reported as Jesus’s own teachings on the matter of pure and impure foods in the Gospels. 54 This only further suggests that the Pauline doctrine had not yet been attributed to Jesus when this confrontation took place, but that after Paul’s vision two very different camps of “Christians” emerged. Until then, however, it appears that “Christians” were counted among the messianic rebels of the period, and may have been their ideological leaders.

I f the mutual admiration between Paul and King Agrippa II and other Roman officials is remarkable, the consistent enmity of the Jews to Paul’s message makes a symmetrical bookend. As friendly, respectful, and open-minded as Roman officials and their allies are invariably shown to be with Paul and his friends, the Jews are equally depicted as violently opposed to Paul’s message at every turn.

When Paul is threatened or seized by the Jews he is placed in protective custody by Romans and brought before the highest authorities. And those Roman authorities uniformly give him special freedoms, display respect for his message, and render favorable decisions about his fate.

Only days after his famous conversion on the road to Damascus, Paul, still called “Saul” at this point, faced “a conspiracy among the Jews to kill him.” 55 Indeed, “[d]ay and night they kept close watch on the city gates in order to kill him.” 56 Even “Hellenic Jews” tried to kill him, and we are told that following his departure a period of peace broke out in the region. 57

Given the anti-Torah message Paul was preaching, it is easy to understand why many Jews reviled him, and Acts reports that “[w]hen the Jews saw the crowds [Paul drew], they were filled with jealousy. They began to contradict what Paul was saying and heaped abuse on him.” 58 Despite Paul’s strong rebuke, “the Jewish leaders… stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas…” 59 The two escaped to Iconium, and then to Lystra, where “some Jews from Antioch and Iconium” incited the crowd to have Paul stoned and left for dead. 60

It should be kept in mind that even Jews who wanted peace with Rome had reason, at least initially, to be skeptical of any messianic missionary. Normally, these were the trouble makers. And when messianic hardliners soon learned of Paul’s anti-Torah message, it seems, nearly every variety of Jew became his opponent.

After its account of the Council of Jerusalem (the same meeting Paul records in his letter to the Galatians), Acts tells us that Paul returned to Antioch in Syria, and from there traveled through the provinces of Cilicia, Phrygia, and Galatia (in modern-day Turkey) to the Greek city of Philippi. According to Acts, Philippi was the very first city in Europe where Paul preached his message. 61 Paul did, however, find some initial resistance at Philippi and was arrested by the magistrates there, the charges being these:

We are then told that a miraculous earthquake not only opens the doors of the jail where they are held but loosens all of the prisoners’ chains, as well. 63 Paul’s jailer is on the verge of committing suicide as a result when Paul stops him. After some preaching at the jailer’s house, all there are converted to Christianity by Paul. 64

The question, of course, is not whether these reports are historically accurate or represent later invention, but rather: why does Christianity consistently preserve only a tradition of Roman sympathy and even Roman assistance when trouble is encountered during its founding evangelical acts?

Even Paul’s Roman jailer, we are shown, is more righteous than the many Jews who are persecuting Paul. The earthquake, for example, had been for the benefit of the jailer and his family (not Paul) since the city magistrate later ordered Paul released the next morning anyway; the jailer meanwhile was “saved” and converted to the Way. 65

Paul’s quick release was not enough for him, however. His remarkable boldness in the face of Roman authorities is almost as remarkable as their obsequious response:

The officers reported this to the magistrates, and when they heard that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens, they were alarmed . They came to appease them and escorted them from the prison, requesting them to leave the city. After Paul and Silas came out of the prison, they went to Lydia’s house, where they met with the brothers and sisters and encouraged them. Then they left. (Emphasis added.) 66

It is useful here to consider the location of this event. Philippi had been the site of the famous Battle of Philippi, in which the forces of Marcus Antonius and Octavian (Mark Anthony and Augustus) defeated the forces of the assassins of Julius Caesar in 42 BCE. The victors settled veteran legionaries in this city and refounded it as Colonia Victrix Philippensium , only to be renamed again later as Colonia Augusta Iulia Philippensis around 27 BCE after Octavian officially received the title “Augustus” from the Senate. The Book of Acts actually describes Philippi as a “colony” and the most important city in the area. This, again, provides valuable context for our theory. According to one historian:

The population of Colonia Augusta Iulia Philippensis, which included Romans, Greeks, and Thracians, guaranteed that pluralism and syncretism would mark the religious life of the colony. The Augustan character of the colony, and the control of Philippi by the Roman elite, however, assured the imperial cult of a position of prominence at the very center of the settlement’s religious and social life . (Emphasis added.) 67

So it should not be so surprising that it was to his Philippian converts years later that Paul would write from Rome, thanking them for the gifts they had sent through his “brother, co-worker and fellow soldier,” Epaphroditus. Paul also commends his other co-worker, who is named Clement, and closes that letter with warm greetings from those “in Caesar’s household.” 68

As Paul travels to Thessalonia, Athens, and Corinth, making new converts along the way, he continues to irritate, above all, the Jews. 69 One exception in the New Testament is when Paul makes converts of two Jews who had been expelled from Rome under Claudius for those disturbances caused by “Chrestus” that were reported by the historian Suetonius. Possibly, these two had been messianic Jews of the rebellious kind. 70

This particular act of Paul may reveal an underlying imperial purpose for his mission that would explain why it enjoyed so much official support by Nero’s government: the pacification of militant messianic Jews by converting them to something more palatable to the Romans and more easily assimilated into their Hellenized culture. Both the narrative in Acts and the content of Paul’s message suggest that he was acting as a Roman operative in a “psy-ops” program that anticipated the later Flavian project by trying to convert messianic Jews into good Roman citizens.

Paul had, after all, offered a way for Jewish messianic theology to co-exist with Roman society, thereby permitting its survival. In Part I, we read from a Pauline (if not Paul’s own) letter to the Christians in Ephesus how “the dividing wall of hostility” had been “broken down” with Christ’s sacrifice “by abolishing” aspects of the Mosaic Law. We have also read Paul’s commands for obedience to the state as God’s own agent on earth in one of his earliest epistles. The alternative way Paul offered, however, only became viable after the total victory of the Flavian generals in Judea. And, since it was designed as a religious justification for Roman rulers, Christianity would become the perfect validation for a thousand years of kings to follow, surviving long past the empire that created it for this purpose.

In Corinth, once more, Paul reports that the Jews attacked him. And once more the Roman governor steps in to protect him:

While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews of Corinth made a united attack on Paul and brought him to the place of judgment. “This man,” they [the Jews] charged, “is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law.”

Just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to them, “If you Jews were making a complaint about some misdemeanor or serious crime, it would be reasonable for me to listen to you. But since it involves questions about words and names and your own law —settle the matter yourselves. I will not be a judge of such things.” So he drove them off. (Emphasis added.) 71

Acts reports that the crowd then turned against a Jewish leader who had led the assault on Paul and beat him in front of the Roman governor, who shows no concern whatsoever for the fate of the Jew—and none of the same solicitude he had previously shown Paul. 72 Once more, we have a Roman governor who believes an accused Christian leader to be innocent, and, once more, we see what can only be official sanction of Paul’s mission by Roman authorities. And this time, the governor is a high-ranking “proconsul,” and none other than Lucius Junius Gallio Annaeanus, the older brother of the Stoic philosopher Seneca, whose ideas bear such a striking resemblance to those found in the New Testament. Yes—even the philosopher Seneca’s brother makes a favorable appearance in the Bible.

At Ephesus, again, we are told that a “city clerk”—one with the apparent authority to “dismiss the crowd”—intervened to quell rioters at an anti-Christian demonstration. 73 This time, however, the rioters comprise both pagans and Jews, but the official Roman response is once again favorable to Paul.

Time and again in the New Testament we are told how Paul’s continuing missionary efforts are dogged by “Jews” who “plotted against him.” 74 Paul’s followers warn him not to visit Jerusalem, according to Acts, and one can certainly see why. But fear of Romans was not one of their reasons.

As it turns out, their warnings to Paul were well-grounded. The Christian community in Jerusalem, that is, the Jewish-Christian community of Torah purists, seems to share the same worries of Paul’s followers. After hearing news of Paul’s many conversions in the area of Greece, they tell him:

“… You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs . What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law . As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” (Emphasis added.) 75

Notice that Paul’s accusers are not just any Jews—they are Jewish-Christians , those who “have believed,” according to the description of the Jerusalem Apostles. Far from Christ’s message as reported in the Gospels, it is they who are “zealous for the law.” It is they who are a violent threat to Paul. Remarkably, Paul does not defend his doctrine against circumcision in Jerusalem. If Acts is to be believed, he didn’t have to—the established Apostles accept his message without the slightest complaint at this point. This flies in the face of the argument suggested in Paul’s heated letter to the Galatians.

Instead, Paul complies with their strange dietary demands that, along with “sexual immorality,” are mentioned. Nowhere else are Christians subject to such rules in the New Testament. So, it is likely that the “Gentile” converts were then subjected to more than dietary restrictions, at the edge of a knife.

The account in Acts is clearly papering over the intense conflict between Paul and the Jewish-Christians. Silently and almost completely, James and his opposition to Paul have vanished from the story, something both incredible and most convenient to later Pauline Christians. Even so, according to Acts, before the seven days were up, “some Jews from the province of Asia” see Paul at the Temple, seize him and begin to beat him. Even Acts must confess to violent tensions during this period of time.

Once more, the Romans intervene on Paul’s behalf:

While they were trying to kill him, news reached the commander of the Roman troops that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar. He at once took some officers and soldiers and ran down to the crowd. When the rioters saw the commander and his soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. (Emphasis added.) 76

The very idea that anyone arrested by the Romans would be allowed to make a public speech is simply not credible. That someone arrested for inciting unrest among the general population such that the whole city was “in an uproar” would be granted permission to address the angry crowd by Roman authorities is inexplicable. If it is true, we must assume the Roman government endorsed Paul’s mission.

As in the case of Jesus, the Jewish crowd at Jerusalem demands that the Romans get rid of Paul, and it is only in compliance with their demands that the Roman commander orders Paul to be flogged and interrogated. Paul then raises the legal issue of his Roman citizenship, brazenly “one-upping” the Roman officer in charge by observing that he was born a Roman citizen while the officer had to purchase his own Roman citizenship at some expense.

The commander then, we are told, is “alarmed” at this news and releases Paul before he is flogged, in spite of the ugly crowd demanding his punishment. 78 It is almost as if the benefits of Roman citizenship are being advertised in the narrative of Paul’s journeys in Acts.

Once more, as in Jesus’s story, it is the Jewish Sanhedrin, not the Romans, that proves to be the Christians’ worst foe. While Paul argues with them, “[t]he dispute became so violent that the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them. He ordered the troops to go down and take him away from them by force and bring him into the barracks.” 79

Hearing of a plot that “some Jews” had hatched to assassinate Paul, the Roman commander “called two of his centurions and ordered them, ‘Get ready a detachment of two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen to go to Caesarea at nine tonight. Provide horses for Paul so that he may be taken safely to Governor Felix.’” 80 If this is not pure fiction, which is possible, Paul was a prisoner of enormous importance to the Romans, and his wider “Christian” movement can hardly have been the small underground group most scholars assume Christianity to have been at this early stage of its history. Not only was Paul provided with an entire cohort of Roman security forces, the commander informs Felix that “there was no charge against him that deserved death or imprisonment.” 81

These, then, are the circumstances under which Paul was first brought before Governor Felix. And, according to Acts, under Felix (the husband of Titus’s future mistress, Bernice), Paul would spend two years in what must be described as protective custody. Felix’s replacement, Festus, would finally send Paul away from Judea, where calls for his head were mounting, to Rome for trial before Caesar himself in compliance with Paul’s own demand.

On his way to trial in Rome, Paul’s extraordinary luck with Roman authorities continues. This time the centurion in charge of him, one Julius from the “Augustan” or “Imperial” regiment, no less, “in kindness to Paul, allowed him to go to his friends so they might provide for his needs.” 82

Once more, then, Paul’s “arrest” seems more like a formality. Once more, Roman moderation, toleration—even kindness and respect—is dutifully accorded him.

The Gospels, Acts, and even Paul’s letters, show Romans in only one invariably positive light. From Jesus’s centurion to Paul’s own jailer, they are always portrayed as the good guys who are uniformly unwilling to name a Christian guilty of any crime or worthy of any punishment. Only when Jews and Jewish authorities are explicitly blamed, we can be sure, will any martyrdom be recorded in the New Testament, such as that of St. Stephen and, of course, of Jesus. This strict rule would no doubt have applied to the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, too, if it were possible.

So, while it is difficult to argue from a lack of evidence, this failure to discuss the deaths of Paul or Peter in any canonical text may be the best evidence that they were in fact executed by the Romans. After all, such a cruelty would contradict the portrayal of Romans that is thematically consistent everywhere else in the New Testament. The omission of their deaths looks just like the odd void of information we might inherit if the theory we are developing is true.

As a leader of the militant Jewish-Christians, Peter’s execution at Rome is rather easy to understand. And, by bringing his contentious mission to Rome itself, Paul may have helped fuel the Fire of Rome, which, as we noted in Part I, is likely to have been set by Paul’s Jewish-Christian foes. After the Great Fire, Nero may understandably have decided that Paul had outlived any usefulness he had once promised. Indeed, the narrative of Paul’s journey in Acts may be a clue to why Nero might have seen his execution as an expedient way to placate the dangerously aroused Jewish populace.

The outright villainy of “the Jews” as a whole as presented in the New Testament, and the sharply contrasting portraits of not just Romans but Roman officials in the stories of Jesus, Peter, and Paul, goes well beyond cosmetic touches to appease the Romans or to convince them that Christians were harmless to their empire. This constant chorus in the New Testament is too consistent to be coincidental.

The positive Roman portraits and good relations Christians enjoy with Romans in Acts and the Gospels are a deliberate demonstration of the ethics of Jesus and the theology of Paul. They are not incidental but fundamental to the New Testament’s theme. They are not exceptions, they are the rule.

For example, according to the Book of Acts, one of the early Christians associated with Paul’s mission at Antioch was a man named “Manaen,” who was “brought up with Herod the Tetrarch.” 83 In his letter to the Romans, Paul asks his friends to “Greet those who belong to the household of Aristobulus. Greet Herodion, my fellow Jew.” 84 Paul, here, appears to be name-dropping royal Herodians! 85

All of Paul’s powerful connections strongly suggest that the “greetings” he sends from those “in Caesar’s household” in his letter to the Philippian community should be taken at face value. 87 Which brings us, at last, to one of Paul’s most important allies: Epaphroditus.

This most extraordinary figure has been remarkably unsung in history, though he is not only likely to have been a revered associate of St. Paul but also a powerful administrator for Roman emperors including Nero, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. Having had a hand in four imperial administrations, Epaphroditus no doubt had considerable influence over the great events of his time.

Paul wrote to his friends in Philippi:

I am amply supplied , now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent. They are a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God. And my God will meet all your needs according to the riches of his glory in Christ Jesus.

Previously, in the same letter to the Philippians:

I think it is necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus, my brother, co-worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger , whom you sent to take care of my needs . For he longs for all of you and is distressed because you heard he was ill. Indeed he was ill, and almost died. But God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, to spare me sorrow upon sorrow. Therefore I am all the more eager to send him, so that when you see him again you may be glad and I may have less anxiety. So then, welcome him in the Lord with great joy, and honor people like him , because he almost died for the work of Christ. He risked his life to make up for the help you yourselves could not give me. (Emphasis added.) 89

Given the extraordinary credit he is paid in Philippians, Epaphroditus is curiously never mentioned in Acts. If he was a native of Philippi, as some have supposed, he makes no appearance in Christian literature until after Festus delivers Paul to Rome and only in this letter to the Philippians where Epaphroditus is shown personally attending to Paul’s needs.

Another of Paul’s important companions (one named “Titus”) is also not mentioned in Acts, even though he played such an important role in the circumcision controversy between Paul and James described in Paul’s letter to the Galatians, in which Titus is uniquely spared from that initiation. At the very least, the narrative in Acts is deficient for neglecting to follow these two previously instrumental New Testament figures, just as it largely ignores the leadership role played by James the Just.

Leaving that aside, let us consider what Paul says about Epaphroditus, a man who was probably a loyal friend of both the emperors Vespasian and Titus. Paul tells us that “Epaphroditus” helped deliver material support and messages from Paul’s friends in Philippi, enough for Paul to say that he was now “amply supplied.” Epaphroditus had apparently been ill and this may have brought him close to death, much to his Philippian friends’ distress, but he has also “risked his life” in order to help Paul in a way that the Philippians could not.

For all of their “ample” material support, the Philippians could not do the risky thing that Epaphroditus did for Paul, suggesting that Epaphroditus was in a position to assist Paul in some unique way in the city of Rome. This alone suggests that Epaphroditus may have had some special sort of influence that others did not.

It was to Caesar himself that Paul had appealed his case. Apart from material support, what Paul needed in Rome were friends in high places. Epaphroditus, if he had such influence there, apparently used it for Paul at this time—successfully, it seems, but at some personal risk. Paul urges the Philippian Christians to honor men like Epaphroditus.

Any doubt about Paul’s relative freedom under Roman captivity is dispelled by Paul himself in the same letter, in which he reassures his Philippian friends:

Now I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that what has happened to me has actually served to advance the gospel. As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. And because of my chains, most of the brothers and sisters have become confident in the Lord and dare all the more to proclaim the gospel without fear . (Emphasis added.) 90

Given the nature of Paul’s imprisonment, it is easy to see why other Christians would have lost any fear of “proclaiming the gospel”; at least, Paul’s gospel. Paul’s friends are allowed to attend to his needs, Paul is free to correspond, and, even more remarkably, Paul is free to communicate with the whole of the Praetorian Guard about his situation. He has somehow gained the sympathy of the entire imperial bodyguard in Rome!

It is clearly implied that the Philippians to whom Paul is writing have some special relationship with Epaphroditus. They also seem to have a connection to those “in Caesar’s household,” since Paul winds up his letter with greetings from the imperial palace.

Who else could Paul have meant when, writing from Rome, he makes such a casual, unexplained reference to “Caesar’s household”—other than Caesar himself? The progress he has made in persuading Caesar’s Praetorian Guard to Christianity only reinforces the authenticity of this imperial reference.

But how is this possible? That St. Paul should have connections to the highest levels of the administration of the Roman emperor is baffling under any traditional assumptions about Christian history. And it might simply be speculative—if other sources did not actually verify that a real person named “Epaphroditus” did in fact live in Rome at this time.

When Jesus states that his Second Coming will occur within a lifetime, when Josephus calls his imperial master the true Jewish messiah, and when Paul refers casually to Caesar and the Praetorian Guard, we must first consider these astonishing claims at face value if we are to understand what is actually happening. Modern Christianity dismisses or deflects the import of these statements, and yet, without evidence to contradict them, we must start by testing the literal meaning, since—in contrast to so much else in the New Testament—they are factually specific, non-miraculous assertions found in contemporary personal correspondences of St. Paul and some of the oldest Christian literature.

The wider context of Paul’s high-ranking connections, along with the friendly way Roman officials uniformly treat him, all support taking him literally when he name-drops Epaphroditus, “Caesar’s household,” and the Praetorian Guard in the same letter to his compatriots in Philippi.

Epaphroditus was certainly of “Caesar’s household.” As the Roman historian Suetonius recounts, he was Nero’s powerful “Secretary of Letters.” While he may have already been working for the emperor previously, Epaphroditus might have won his exalted position by exposing to Nero the famous “Piso Conspiracy,” as Tacitus reports. 91 This was the same conspiracy prosecution that led to Seneca’s demise. What connections Epaphroditus may have had to Seneca and his circle, perhaps allowing him to become an effective informer against them, is unknown.

Suetonius informs us that Epaphroditus had a heavy hand in history, indeed. According to Suetonius 92 , Epaphroditus helped Nero stab himself in the throat following the outbreak of the Vindex Revolt in Gaul. The ancient historian Cassius Dio echoes this, 93 telling us that Epaphroditus accompanied Nero in his final flight from rebels and that it was he who delivered the fatal blow to Nero’s neck during Nero’s prolonged and reluctant suicide.

The historian Cassius tells us this about the end of Epaphroditus’s own life, many years later:

As a consequence of his cruelty the emperor [Domitian] was suspicious of all mankind, and from now on ceased to repose hopes of safety in either the freedmen or yet the prefects, whom he usually caused to be brought to trial during their very term of office. He had first banished and now slew Epaphroditus, Nero's freedman, accusing him of having failed to defend Nero; for he wished by the vengeance that he took on Nero's behalf to terrify his own freedmen long in advance, so that they should venture no similar deed. 94

Suetonius plainly reports that Domitian executed Epaphroditus because he had helped Nero kill himself. 95 This is interesting because the official Flavian position on Nero was quite negative as the Flavians sought to reassure Rome that they were a new breed of emperor following Nero’s calamitous reign—and also because Domitian’s own enemies accused him of being a “new Nero,” in contrast to his father Vespasian and his much-beloved brother, Titus.

The Flavian emperors who employed Epaphroditus in the same position of “Secretary of Letters” that he had enjoyed under Nero had long known about his role in Nero’s death without it ever being a concern until the latter years of Domitian’s reign. Even if Suetonius correctly reported Domitian’s stated motive, therefore, the charge was a remarkable change in the Flavians’ previous policy.

Suetonius tells us about Epaphroditus’s execution immediately after describing the execution of Titus Flavius Clemens. The two events seem to be connected, chronologically at least, and they suggest that Domitian’s real motive may have been the purging of the “Jewish” elements within the Flavian court that he had inherited from his father and brother.

This man named Epaphroditus is thus connected to Christians in yet another way. As we have already seen, the “Clemens” who was executed at about the same time with Epaphroditus was the 1st Century pope, St. Clement of Rome, the cousin of Titus and Domitian.

And Epaphroditus had yet another imperial and “Jewish” connection to the Flavians. In a sort of dedication at the start of his monumental work, Antiquities of the Jews , the Jewish historian Titus Flavius Josephus praises “Epaphroditus” as his beloved patron who encouraged him to undertake the task of recording the heritage of the Hebrew people.

Josephus describes this “Epaphroditus” as a lover of all kinds of learning with a special love for history, and someone who participated in the “great affairs” of their time. Josephus notes that Epaphroditus experienced different “turns of fortune” as a result of his participation in these great affairs. 96

Josephus also dedicates his own autobiography to Epaphroditus. 97 And Josephus addresses to Epaphroditus his later work, Against Apion , in which the historian defends the Jewish religion from the slander of the Greek writer Apion. Josephus ends that work with yet another dedication to “Epaphroditus.” 98

According to Suetonius, the same Epaphroditus must have served emperors from Nero to Domitian. The charge of participating in killing an emperor that he reports as the reason for Epaphroditus’s execution would make utterly no sense if Nero and Domitian had not been served by the same “Epaphroditus.”

Since we know that both Josephus and the Epaphroditus mentioned by Suetonius worked for the Flavian emperors, it is highly probable that Josephus’s Epaphroditus is the same man. In the unlikely event that there had been two men named “Epaphroditus” connected to the same Flavian court, we would expect our sources to distinguish them for us. Furthermore, Josephus mentions that his Epaphroditus had participated in the great events of his time . This can only be the same man who exposed an important conspiracy to Nero and who “helped” that emperor commit suicide, precipitating a tumultuous civil war that was finally pacified by the Flavians.

From Nero to Domitian, this is the one Epaphroditus prominent in public affairs who is remembered in history—the only one mentioned, for example, by the historians Suetonius and Dio to have existed during this period—a prominent Secretary of Letters who served four emperors.

That Paul’s Epaphroditus is the same man Suetonius mentions is suggested by the fact that he was in a unique position to offer Paul assistance in Rome, help of a type that the Philippians apparently could not provide, and help that somehow risked Epaphroditus’s own life. Such help, which arrived after Paul appealed his case to Nero Caesar himself, might uniquely come from the emperor’s own Secretary of Letters. Such an imperial position also explains the otherwise inexplicable references in the same letter to members of “Caesar’s household,” and Paul’s access to the emperor’s own Praetorian Guard.

That Josephus ’s Epaphroditus is the same man Paul refers to is suggested by the avid interest in Jewish history Josephus ascribes to him. Paul’s lengthy historical exegeses are not as voluminous as Josephus’s histories, but they are strikingly similar in their pride in Jewish history and their simultaneously pro-Roman outlook. Paul’s focus is theology as revealed in history; Josephus’s focus is history proper. But, in their “moderate” Jewish positions and their interest in Jewish religion and heritage, the work of both Paul and Josephus would have the same appeal to the same man for the same reasons.

To be sure, “Epaphroditus” was not an uncommon name in the classical world. We know of multiple individuals named Epaphroditus. Augustus had a servant of this name. We have a famous inscription from the reign of Trajan in the early 2nd Century with the name “Epaphroditus.” We also know of a grammarian from Alexandria named “Mettius Epaphroditus.”

Predictably, scholars once thought that the Epaphroditus mentioned by Paul could not be the same one that is mentioned by Josephus. Their reason is that in both Against Apion and his autobiography, Josephus addresses Epaphroditus as a person still living, while in his autobiography Josephus also mentions the death of the Herodian king, Agrippa II. Since the 9th Century Byzantine writer Photius of Constantinople places the death of Agrippa II in the “third year of Trajan,” or 100 CE, for a long time scholars believed Josephus’s later works could not have been composed until around 100 CE. From this they reasoned that the “Epaphroditus” Josephus mentions could not be the same Epaphroditus executed by the Emperor Domitian in the year 95 CE as reported by Suetonius.

However, today most scholars regard Photius as inaccurate and recognize that Herod Agrippa II probably died before 93 CE. 99 This means that the works of Josephus may well have been composed before 95 CE. If this is correct, then the Epaphroditus of Nero and Domitian would have been alive when Josephus dedicated his works to him.

Considering the interest that Epaphroditus devoted to the work of both Paul and Josephus, it is likely that he was Jewish himself, at least by birth. This would also shed light on why his execution is associated with that of Flavius Clemens, who was executed, according to Cassius Dio, for “adopting Jewish ways.”

Epaphroditus would not have been the only person at Nero’s court interested in things Jewish. From suggestions by Josephus, it may be possible to infer that Nero’s second wife, Poppea, was a “God fearer,” the term given to “soft” converts to Judaism who did not follow strict Jewish practice. 100 Josephus himself reports that Poppea was sympathetic and helpful to him during his own mission to Rome in his youth before he would become the Flavian historian. ( Poppea was later kicked to death by Nero while she was pregnant.)

The main objection by scholars to this three-way identification of Paul, Josephus and the historians’ Epaphroditus has always been the mere incredulity that Christian connections could reach so high at this foundational stage of the Church. And yet, as we have so often seen now, when all of the evidence is simply taken at face value, the position most supported is that all of these Epaphrodituses are the same person, who, by himself, joins the roots of Christianity to imperial Rome and the Flavian dynasty itself.

Scattered throughout the New Testament are many references to prominent political figures from the Roman Empire of the 1st Century, and many of these mentions do not involve any controversial identification. Princess Bernice, for example, the mistress of an emperor who claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, and her brother, the last prince from a house of Jewish kings, are both recalled positively in the New Testament, as are all Roman governors, state officials, and even Paul’s jailer. One of the consistent thematic concerns of both the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles is depicting the relationship of the first Christians to the Roman state positively .