It is time to be introduced to this group of people, as well as others historically acknowledged to have much in common with Christianity—who were all, as it turns out, friends of the Flavians.
PART II
Jews and Christians at the Flavian Court
I.
Jews—or Christians?
The 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.
This earlier Titus Flavius Clemens, who lived during the imperial rule of his Flavian relatives, was known as St. Clement of Rome—one of the first popes.
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.
How could such a close relative of the Flavian emperors be the second, third or fourth pope, or any such high ranking figure in the early Church?
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)
Cassius Dio tells us that Titus Flavius Clemens was a consul and great-nephew of Vespasian himself. Cassius Dio also reports that this Clemens was executed by his cousin, the Emperor Domitian, in 95 CE.
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.
Vespasian, “Pontifex Maximus”
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.