PETER, FIRST EPISTLE
784
spoken of, then a social fault. The word itself, when examined, confirms this view. It is best illustrated by Epictetus, Encheir. iii. 22 (quoted by Zahn, Find. ii. p. 39), οὐ yap τὰ ἀλλότρια πολυ- πραγμονεῖ [i.e. the Cynic) ὅταν τὰ ἀνθρώπινα ἐπισ- κοπῇ, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἴδια, and Hor. Sat. ii. 3. 19, ‘aliena negotia curo Excussus propriis’—the former pas- sage being a protest against, the latter a playful pleading guilty to, the charge often brought against the philosophers of a themselves with their neighbours’ concerns. The Christians, in their first for the Divine law of purity and love, would be apt to be betrayed into an exasperating officiousness, into making a vain attempt to set the world around them to rights. Such a social indiscretion would not bring ari within the law, but it would most surely involve them in much suffering—hence such apostolic precepts as Col 4°, Eph 5" (cf. 1 Th 44, 2 Th 34). The word ἀλλοτριο- exicxoros, then, ap’ to show that the word πασχέτω has a wider reference than to punishments inflicted by a magistrate (cf. 2). (c) A distinction is drawn Netween the proceedings against Chris- tians under Nero in A.D. 64 and those which took place at a later time. In the earlier period, it is said, Christians suffered not as Christians but as those who were proved guilty of crime. In the later period the name Christian itself ensured con- demnation. No evidence, it is allowed, is extant as to the time when the earlier procedure gave place to the later. The transition had taken
lace before the correspondence of Trajan and
liny ; at poseiy, took place as early as Vespasian’s reign. The language of 1 P 4", it is urged, pre- supposes the circumstances of the later period, when a Christian suffered as a Christian. But surely this conclusion is due to a confusion of thought. It is obviously true that such language could be used by a Christian teacher after, but it by no means follows that it coulda not be used before, the alleged change in the attitude of the State towards the Church. For even if it be granted that in the eyes of the law each Christian who suffered in Nero’s gardens suffered as a con- victed incendiary, yet in the eyes of his fellow- believers he suffered for Christ ; and when once the nickname Christian had become a current term, the phrase ‘to suffer as a Christian’ would become a natural synonym of the older phrases ‘ to suffer for Christ’ or ‘for the name of Christ’ (Mt 24°, Lk 2123, Ac 54 916 15% 2118, Ph 15).
It is, moreover, open to serious question whether the evidence maples any essential difference be- tween the proceedings under Nero and those under, e.g., Trajan, All that we know of the Neronian persecution is derived from the somewhat rhetorical account in Tacitus (Ann. xy. 44), one brief sentence of Suetonius (Vero 16), and the allusion in Clement’s Epistle. To the present writer, the evidence seems to point clearly to the conclusion that in A.D. 64 at Rome the Christians suffered legally for their re- ligion. The reasons for this view are briefly these: (1) It would have ill-suited Nero’s position to throw the blame of the great fire on persons who would have to be proved guilty of incendiarism before they were punished. We must surely con- clude that he adopted the simple and sensible plan of slaking the public thirst for vengeance by the dramatic punishment of an unpopular class of people on whom he could shift the odium of being the authors of the fire, but who could be legally condemned without more ado as the votaries of a religio wlicita. ‘The legal grounds for inter-
ference were in existence from the first, and no special edict was needful’ (Harnack, Die Chronol. p. 454n.; ef. Lightfoot, Ignatius i. p. 11; West- cott’s Essay on ‘The Church and the World’ (in Epistles of St. John)). (2) The language of Tacitus
PETER, FIRST EPISTLE
is quite consistent with, even if it does not require, this interpretation of the situation. Thus, in re- gard to the clause ‘Primum correpti qui fatebantur,’ the whole context refutes the idea that the con- fession was of incendiarism. The meaning can only be ‘fatebantur se esse Christianos.’ The admission of Christianity was the turning-point of their case. Again, in the following clause (‘Multitudo ingens haud perinde in crimine in- cendii quam odio humani generis conuicti sunt’) the word conuicti, which appears to imply judicial investigation of detailed criminal charges, is a conjecture for the MS reading coniwncti—a word which may justly be thought to be more in Tacitus’ manner than the prosaic conuicti. Nor can the phrase ‘odium humani generis’ be taken as naturally pointing to dlegal actions or conduct. It has a close parallel in the phrase which Tacitus uses in his description of the Jews (Hist. v. 5), aduersus omnes alios hostile odium. Jews and Christians would alike hold aloof from the social life of pagans ; they would alike rebuke by their conduct, if not by their words, the idolatries and the profligacies of their neighbours. If the Roman Christians used such words as we find in St. Paul’s Roman Epistle (e.g. Ro 118 2%), they might easil be represented as ‘haters of the human race. (3) The words of Suetonius (‘afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis nouz ac malefice’) are most naturally interpreted as asserting that Christians suffered as Christians. Moreover, if Nero was the first to act on the essential illegality of their position, and so stamped Christianity as illegal, the historian had a good reason for placing his notice of the fact among various police regulations. If, on the other hand, they were condemned not for their Christianity but for their criminal actions (real or supposed), there would be nothing new about the procedure— nothing to differentiate their case from that of criminals generally. (4) It is difficult to suppose that the ingens multitudo (cf. πολὺ πλῆθος, Clem.), including, according to Clement, matrons and girls and slaves, were one and all convicted of criminal actions. Their condemnation as votaries of an illegal religion, capestally in a time of excitement and panic, would be an easy and expeditious matter (cf. Tac. Ann. ii. 85; Suet. Claud. 25).