REVIEWS
565
their extended families; it was a new and unfamiliar idea. Green mentions the existe existence nce of the tomb of Novatian Novatian and the Gaudentius Gaudentius inscrip inscription tion ( pp. 183–4). 183–4). But the really important question to be raised in connection with this is why the tomb, monum monumen enta tali lise sed d in the the fourt fourth h centu century ry,, is not not surr surrou ounde nded d by the tomb tombss of the the succession of Novatian bishops. Was it not because Fabian’s novel and monarchical concept of burying the leaders of the community like emperors, apart in their own vault, was not considered appropriate by everyone, like those responsible for the interment of Cornelius? Green’s third chapter (‘Persecution’), with an analysis of the legal position of early Christianity, follows Barnes and is basically sound, as is his description of the Decian events. The dispute with Stephen could have been better illum illumina inate ted d from from the the argum argumen ents ts of the anon anonym ymous ous De rebaptisma rebaptismate te , repres representi enting ng Steph Stephen’ en’ss posi positio tion n even even if he were were not not the the auth author or of that that work work itsel itselff ( p. 156) 156).. An important distinction between Decius’ and Valerian’s edicts should have been made, with with refe refere renc ncee to the the work ork of Mart Martha ha Sord Sordii whic hich is not not inc include luded d in the the bibliography: Decius’ edicts did not target Christianity directly, but Valerian’s did, and specifically (in the first edict) the church hierarchy. This fact bears eloquent test testimo imony ny to the ideo ideolo logy gy of Cy Cypr pria ian n and and the resp respon onse se of Ch Chri rist stian ianity ity to that that persecution in producing a more structured ecclesial edifice than there had been before. Despite some problems, the fourth chapter (‘Catacombs’) is generally very good, and a valuable overview, as is the fifth (‘Constantine’). Bernard Green has produced an interesting and important account of his subject. ST EDMUND’S COLLEGE, C AMBRIDGE
ALLEN BRENT
Early Christian hagiography and Roman history. history . By Timothy D. Barnes. (Tria Corda. Jenaer Vorlesungen zu Judentum, Antike und Christentum, 5.) Pp. xx+439. Tu¨ bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. E29 ( paper) paper).. 978 3 16 15022 150226 6 2 ; 1865 5629 5629 JEH (62) (62) 2011; doi:10.1017/S0022046911000108 Reading any work by Timothy Barnes is an exhilarating experience. His formidable command of both sources and bibliography never clouds his lucid prose or incisive arguments. He seems to inhabit a world of infinite clarity and irrefutable certainty. The book under review is vintage Barnes. His admirers will not be surprised to find him upending Momigliano’s famous complaint that Otto Seeck ‘never believed anyt anythi hing ng to be auth authen enti ticc if he coul could d help help it’ ( p. x). x). Barn Barnes es like likess exac exactl tlyy wh what at Momigliano disliked. He presents Seeck’s scepticism as the very model of how to proceed in the analysis of documents and literary texts for early Christianity. He asso associ ciate ates, s, not not unrea unreason sonab ably ly,, his teac teache herr (and (and mine mine), ), Rona Ronald ld Syme Syme,, with with this this procedure. But the tone of Barnes’s writing is much less austere than Seeck’s and markedly less oblique and ironic than Syme’s. He distributes unqualified accolades to scholars whom he judges enlightened, enlightened, and he hurls thunderbolts thunderbolts down upon those who have failed to perceive what he regards as the truth. Barnes is ever impartial, and on occasion we can find the same scholar basking in an accolade and writhing under a thunderbolt. Barnes likes both contradiction and certainty. He starts off his new book with some arresting assertions: St Peter was not crucified at Rome, upside down or not,
566
JOURNAL OF ECCLESIAST ICAL HISTORY
but was dressed in a combustible garment and burned alive. We are told that the emperor Domitian never persecuted the Christians but simply acquired his reputation as a persecutor because he had a reputation as a bad emperor. The revisionist account of Peter’s death depends entirely on John xxi. 18–19, which Barnes acknowledges to be a text that all historians of the early Church have known, but he claims with characteristic confidence that ‘they have virtually without exception misunderstood it’ ( p. 7). The risen Christ is made to prophesy that, although Peter had dressed himself when he was young and went wherever he wished, someone else will dress him as an old man and take him where he does not want to go (this is explicitly glossed as indicating death). Barnes insists that this cannot allude to crucifixion because Peter’s clothes would have been removed for the purpose. Hence Barnes thinks he was clad specially in a combustible garment to undergo a fiery end among those Christians whom Nero burned alive on crosses during the persecution that Tacitus described. For Barnes this does not count as a crucifixion but a parody of one. Before we ask how generations of serious scholars could have been so imperceptive, we have to wonder why Barnes denies Peter a traditional crucifixion in the nude and yet allows him a crucifixion in an inflammable tunic. For that matter, Peter could even have been burned upside down. As for Domitian’s persecution, Barnes declares that it was ‘ widely accepted as historical by later authors both ancient and modern’ ( p. 37). This tradition has been good enough for most people to credit, but Barnes claims that it ‘is not attested by any reliable evidence at all’. When does evidence become reliable? Barnes may conceivably be right in believing that Melito of Sardis made up the whole story, but there is no reliable evidence for that either. Barnes’s contrarian streak surfaces conspicuously in his account of the Greek and Latin texts for the martyrdom of Perpetua. He resists Louis Robert’s compelling argument for the priority of the Greek version, and claims priority for the Latin because at 16.3 the Greek provides an equivalent for a Latin phrase that he believes ‘is surely a corruption of the original text’. Barnes helpfully puts up warning flags before his more startling revisions: ‘surely’ and ‘presumably’ are among them, and sometimes even stronger expressions such as ‘ it is an irresistible inference ’ ( p. 101). In the case of Pass. Perp. 16.3, the imprisoned martyr-in-waiting asks why comfort could not be provided since she and the other prisoners were going into the arena on the emperor’s birthday : ‘ nobis refrigerare noxiis nobilissimis Caesaris scilicet et natali eiusdem pugnaturis’. Barnes is certain that Perpetua would have equipped Geta with his official title nobilissimus , although it is hard to imagine why she would have bothered at that moment. He insists that the transmitted text is a corruption of ‘noxiis nobilissimi Caesaris’. His postulated Greek translator is thought not to have detected this error and therefore to have written onomastois katadikois Kaisaros . But there is no way that onomastois could be a translation of nobilissimis . Instead it looks as if the Latin writer misunderstood the Greek. The follies of historians of early Christianity are compounded when Barnes reports unequivocally that ‘Christianity was recognised as a lawful religion by the emperor Gallienus in 260.’ He writes of ‘incalculable damage’ caused by the failure of everyone in the past to see this great truth. Yet, the sharp-eyed G. E. M. de Ste Croix, had written, very judiciously, in his classic article of 1954 on the Great Persecution of Diocletian that ‘Since the edict and rescripts of Gallienus in the early 260s, recorded by Eusebius, the Christian Church (or churches) had received a certain measure of toleration and recognition – how complete, and according to
REVIEWS
567
what constitutional principles, there is fortunately no need to discuss here ’ (reprinted in Christian persecutions, martyrdom, and orthodoxy, Oxford 2006, 38). Barnes neither mentions de Ste Croix nor considers the issues of completeness or constitutional principles.This is a pity because de Ste Croix himself was not unlike Barnes in his relentless search for clarity in ecclesiastical history. The foregoing observations represent but a small part of the immensely rich material in Barnes’s new book. They serve only to illustrate the more treacherous paths into which his crusade against error can sometimes lead him. History will always be full of unsolved problems, inauthentic texts and, alas, unwarranted dogmas. Timothy Barnes deserves the gratitude of all historians for his vigilance and erudition in trying to set the record straight. INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY, PRINCETON
G . W . BOWERSOCK
Roman attitudes toward the Christians . By John Granger Cook. (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 261.) Pp. xv +375. Tu¨bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. E99. 978 3 16 150553 9; 0512 1604 JEH (62) 2011; doi:10.1017/S0022046911000182 This book’s subject is an old one. Its author, John Granger Cook, discusses the relevant and much dissected texts in a straightforwardly historical manner, adopting an approach equivalent to that of a commentator. We begin with a chapter on Claudius and the Christians, and end with one on Justin’s reference to a supposed rescript of Hadrian concerning the Christians. In between there are detailed chapters on the Neronic persecution, evidence for persecution under Domitian, and the correspondence of Pliny with Trajan. Cook’s tone throughout is sober and he rarely seeks to squeeze anything too unconventional or surprising from the small clutch of texts relevant to his subject. The reference in Suetonius’ Life of Claudius 25.4 where the author mentions an expulsion of the Jews impulsore Chresto is to an expulsion caused by a dispute about Christ, rather than one instigated by an otherwise unknown Jewish agitator called ‘Chrestus’. A reference to an expulsion of the Jews under Claudius in the epitomated Cassius Dio 60.66.6 may be to the same event, though this is by no means certain. Nero’s persecution of the Christians as arsonists may have exploited already existing prejudices against them. Cook is clear that Tacitus, while sceptical of the specific charge of arson, shared these common prejudices, one of which, ‘hatred of the human race’, probably refers to a hatred of Rome itself, seen in Christian contempt for Roman religious practice. Cook rejects any idea that Tertullian’s institutum Neronianum refers to a new-found policy against the Christians originating with Nero (the reference is probably to the persecution itself), but is clear that the types of punishments recorded by Tacitus in his account of the persecution may well be reflected quite specifically in the Gospel of Mark and more generally in Revelation. Cook goes on to reject the view that there was any concerted effort to persecute Christians in the reign of Domitian, arguing, amongst other things, that the evidence adduced in favour of such a thing is restricted to a Eusebian reference to an otherwise unknown author, Bruttius, and that the failure of Dio to associate any of Domitian’s persecutions of certain important individuals for atheism with Christianity, not least Flavius Clemens and Flavia Domitilla, is difficult
