1. The fire that resulted in much of the city of Rome being severely damaged in 64 CE played a significant role in the changing architectural landscape of the city. Nero quickly seized the occasion as an opportunity to commence work on a mas sive palatial palace, the Domus Aurea, and on redesigning other parts of the city (Tacitus, Ann.15.42–43).
2. The fire in Rome
3. During the night of either the 18th or the 19th of July in 64 CE the fire broke out near the southeast end of the Circus Maximus in Rome (Tacitus, Ann. 15.38–44; Suetonius, Nero 38; Cassius Dio, Roman History 62.16.1–18.5). It quickly spread beyond the Circus and engulfed other sections of the city. The fire was eventually brought under control on the sixth day at the base of the Esquiline, only for an other fire to commence near the Aemilian estates of Ofonius Tigellinus, the praetorian prefect (Tacitus, Ann. 15.40; Suetonius, Nero 38.2; Cassius Dio, Rom. Hist. 62.17.1). Many parts of the city, including Nero’s recently constructed pal ace, were affected by the extent of the fire (Tacitus, Ann. 15.41; Suetonius, Nero 38.2; Cassius Dio, Rom. Hist. 62.18.2). According to Tacitus, of the fourteen districts into which the city was divided three were totally destroyed, seven were badly damaged and only four remained unscathed (Ann.15.40.2). Much of Rome, therefore, lay in ruins and a major reconstruction program of both public build ings and private dwellings was required (Cassius Dio, Roman History 62.16.3–18.1, 62.17.3, 62.18.2; Tacitus, Ann. 15.38.3–7; Howard V. Canter, “Conflagrations in Ancient Rome,” Classical Journal 27/4 (1932): 270–88). A key aspect of the surviving accounts of the fire is the role played by Nero. Tacitus reports that Nero was away at Antium when the fire started and that he only returned when the fire reached his house (Ann. 15.39.1). Once in the city Nero offered practical assistance, allowing people to seek respite on the Plain of Mars and around the monuments of Agrippa (Ann. 15.39.2).

In the aftermath of the fire Nero oversaw some of the reconstruction work, including offering to pay for buildings designed in a fire-retardant manner, making plans for the re moval of rubble, the acquisition of new materials and the provision of fresh water (Ann. 15.43.1–4). However, these positive comments regarding Nero’sbe haviour are strongly outweighed by criticism of his involvement in the whole in cident. Suetonius provides a very negative account of Nero’s role. He claims that the fire was started at the behest of Nero, out of his displeasure for the urban sprawl within the city and his desire to acquire land for the construction of his new palace (Nero 38.1) (Cassius Dio, Rom. Hist. 62.16.2). Nero requisitioned much of the booty from the rubble and the funds raised to pay for the reconstruction work (Nero 38.3). Adding further insult, Nero performed the “sack of Ilium” as the fire spread across the city (Nero 38.2) (Cassius Dio, Rom. Hist. 62.18.1).

While Tacitus avoids making similar overt, direct criticism of Nero’s involve ment, he does include information that calls into question the precise nature of the role the emperor played in the whole incident. At the outset he notes that there were several versions regarding how the fire started, including the view that it was Nero’s plan (Ann. 15.38.1). He also reports the “rumour” that Nero per formed on stage while the fire spread through the city (Ann. 15.39.3). Adding fur ther to the negative view of Nero’s involvement, Tacitus states that Nero desired to found a new city, using his own name (Ann. 15.40.2) and, most important of all, when Tacitus turns to describing the reconstruction work he commences with an account of Nero’s new palatial palace and related works (Ann.15.42).Tac itus then explains that, despite Nero’s efforts to win favour in the aftermath of the fire by organising various offerings to the gods, the public perception was that the emperor had been responsible for the fire starting (Ann. 15.44.1–2).

1. Tacitus states that in order to counter this persistent view Nero laid the blame on the Christians (Ann. 15.44.2). His account of what happened next is as follows: Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices,whom the crowd styled Chris tians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for the moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world col lect and find vogue. First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race. And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts’ skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night. Nero had offered his gardens for the spectacle, and gave an exhibition in his Circus, mixing with the crowd in the habit of a charioteer, or mounted on his car. Hence, in spite of a guilt which had earned the most exemplary punishment, there arose a sentiment of pity, due to the impression that they were being sacrificed not for the welfare of the state but to the ferocity of a single man (Tacitus, Ann. 15.44.2–5).
2. In the present context, there are two significant observations to make regarding the way Nero resolved the perception that he was responsible for starting the fire (Tacitus, Ann. 15.40; Suetonius, Nero 38.2; Cassius Dio, Rom. Hist. 62.17.1; Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, 82–84). First, it was widely acknowledged that the Christians were used as a scape goat, a means of laying responsibility for what had happened on someone other than the emperor. The Christians had not played any part in the fire. Tacitus makes this very clear in several ways: the introductory remark about the need for Nero to find a way of dispelling the rumour that he had ordered the fire; Nero taking the initiative to put forward the Christians as the ones responsible; and, in the comment about the punishment being for crimes other than the fire. Second, Nero was in a position to identify people that were known by the name “Christians.” In other words, the Christians were a distinguishable group among the numerous mix of people that resided in Rome. Furthermore, they could be targeted as a scapegoat for causing the fire without fear of any no table backlash for Nero. Tacitus refers to public ambivalence regarding the pre cise nature and extent of the punishment inflicted upon the Christians (Ann. 15.44.5). However, there is no suggestion of any doubt regarding the initial decision to punish the Christians; Tacitus indicates there was public consensus at the time that the decision was entirely justified (Ann. 15.44.2, 4).

The decision to punish Christians

Why did Nero target the Christians as opposed to any other group? Second, how did Nero identify the Christians? Tacitus claims that the Christians were used as a scapegoat and they were deemed worthy of being punished. What is not explained, however, is why the Christians were chosen above any other sec tion of the population of the city of Rome. In terms of the means by which the Christians were identified, Tacitus states that the first people to be punished “confessed.” It is appropriate, therefore, to explore these two questions regarding the process by which Nero used the Christians as the scapegoats for the fire. Aware that the discussion of these questions is entering into an area where the source material is silent, the principle that guides what follows is to draw insight from placing the incident within the wider social and political con text of life in early imperial Rome (Fergus Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World, 554; James C. Walters, “Romans, Jews, and Christians: The Impact of the Romans on Jewish/Christian Relations in First-Century Rome,” in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome, 175–95).

1. We commence with the question of why Nero chose to blame the Christians. The context for the choice of Christians as the scapegoat is relatively straightfor ward, a readiness to lay blame on people deemed to fall under the broad label of being foreigners. In general terms, as well as referring to a person’s country of origin, the label could also apply to any customs, practices and beliefs carried out that were not deemed to be Roman in origin or those viewed as not being supportive of the Roman way of life. While the population of Rome was cosmopolitan and both the authorities and the public at large were generally tolerant of diversity in the city, there was a persistent belief that foreigners and foreign customs and beliefs were, at the very least, inferior to all things identified as being Roman (Benjamin H. Isaac, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity; David Noy, Foreigners at Rome: Citizens and Strangers, esp. 31–47; Martin Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations, 156–60). Along with persons of no or very minor social standing, such as slaves, and people associated with certain professions, such as astrologers, foreigners were often targeted as the cause of disruption and disorder in Rome (Noy, Foreigners, 39–47; Leonard V. Rutgers, “Roman Policy toward the Jews: Expulsions from the City of Rome during the First Century C.E.,” in Judaism and Christianity, 93-116 at 107–109; Tacitus, Ann. 2.85, 12.52; Suetonius, Tib. 36; Josephus, A.J. 18.65–84). The course of action normally taken involved short-term expul sion from Rome of the offending people. Occasionally it also involved banning the activity of the foreign custom, possibly even to the extent of destroying pla ces of worship (A.J. 18.79).
2. In other words, when Nero made the decision to find a scapegoat, the obvi ous choice was to find such a culprit among the foreigners that resided in the city. Tacitus makes it clear that the Christians fitted this general profile. In his explanation of the group he notes that it originated in Judaea and that it was brought to the city (Ann. 15.44.3). Furthermore, the Christians had a track record for being un-Roman: they were known for “their vices” and to be a “pernicious superstition.” Tacitus indicates that the Christians were despised, a view also expressed by Suetonius (Nero 16.2), there is no particular reason evident from a Roman perspective as to why they should be singled out and chosen by Nero. In fact,Tacitus’ brief intro duction to the Christians indicates that they were a relatively new group and that their appearance in Rome was particularly recent. It is also difficult to see how they would immediately appear as a good option to be the scapegoat. For those who favour the incident involving a dispute among Christians and Jews see: Walters, “Impact,” 177; Lampe, Paul, 11–16; and E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian, 212. Cf. Rutgers, “Roman Policy,” 105–106; and Edwin A. Judge, “The Origins of the Church at Rome: A new Solution?,” in The first Christians in the Roman World, WUNT 229, 442–55 at 445. Dixon Slingerland, “Chrestus: Christus?,” in The Literature of Early Rabbinic Judaism: Issues in Talmudic Redaction and Interpretation, 133–44.

As well as being a relatively new addition to Rome there is no evidence to indicate that the Christians had established a presence within the physical landscape of the city, let alone within the community at large. While it is possible that Paul’s arrival in Rome had marked both an increased level of activity and a greater level of public attention being placed on the group, it did not extend to a definable footprint for which any evidence survives (Leonard V. Rutgers, The Hidden Heritage of Diaspora Judaism).

In terms of the actual process by which the culprits were identified Tacitus states that the first Christians punished were those who “confessed.” These peo ple provided names of others, presumably as the result of being tortured in the process of confessing their standing as Christians. The key issue, therefore, was for the Roman authorities to be able to lay their hands on some people who called themselves Christians. One possibility was for a search to be undertaken among people already imprisoned. It was not, however, a reliable option. The broader social and political context of life in Rome indicates that there was, how ever, another well-established means by which Nero could be highly confident that he would achieve a successful outcome in his quest to locate Christians (Steven H. Rutledge, Imperial Inquisitions: Prosecutors and Informants from Tiberius to Domitian). Although the vast majority of such activity centred on the alleged behaviour of wealthy, elite members of Roman society,vis-à-vis the emperor (Tacitus, Ann.1.74.1–2; 3.25.1; 3.28.3–4; 4.36.1; and 6.29.1), the significance of this culture of delatores and accusatores is that when Nero decided to use the Christians as his scapegoat there was an accepted process in place by which they could be identified.

1. Nero declared that he needed a scapegoat and someone proposed that is should be the Chris tians. If the latter, the people who acted as the informants may have already identified the Christians so that Nero was provided with a complete solution, or they may have acted only once the choice of the culprit was known. Although the specific identity of those who informed on the Christians is a matter of speculation, there is good reason to support the view that it was mem bers of the Jewish community residing in Rome. Such a view has no direct sup port from Tacitus’ account. Nor does Tacitus refer to the Christians as a group that had its origins from among the Jewish way of life (Edwin A. Judge, “Judaism and the Rise of Christianity: A Roman Perspective,” in The first Christians, 431–41 at 432, 435; Walters, “Impact,” 179–80; Lampe, Paul, 11–16; Smallwood, Jews, 217).
2. One of the explanations previously offered as to why Jews would assist Nero is that they hoped to see the Christians punished for trouble they had caused for the Jewish community (William H.C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church, 164–65; Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire, 117; cf. Smallwood, Jews, 217–19). It is a line of argument that is not viable for one key reason, the manner of Nero’s treatment of the Christians. Past experience, including recent first-hand experience under Claudius, showed that the Roman authorities normally employed short term measures against the offenders. While a growing concern about the character of Nero combined with the severity of the damage caused by the fire may have resulted in hope for a more substantive type of punishment, there was no reason to think it would be as vicious as what Tacitus de scribes. Angst and concern about the activity of this new group may have developed, especially after the arrival of Paul. It may have encouraged members of the Jewish community to try to distance the Christians from themselves and to see the fire as an opportunity to implicate the Christians in the hope that they may be forced to leave the city, even if only on a temporary basis. Instead, what makes members of the Jewish community the likely informants in this in cident is their concern to protect their own position in Rome. The immediate po litical context in which the Jewish community found itself confirms that there were very strong grounds for self-preservation to be a genuine concern (Walters, “Impact,” 180–82, Smallwood, Jews, 219).

For the Jewish community, there was good reason for them to think that they would come under consideration as a potential scapegoat.Two of the three previous emperors had found reason to expel members of their com munity from the city. There were, therefore, grounds to believe that false accusa tions could be made against them and, once levelled, there would not be an op portunity to offer a response. It is, however, recent events specific to the time since Nero had become emperor that are of particular relevance. They provide a context of increased anxiety and concern as to how Nero would deal with the current situation (Tacitus, Ann.14.51–56).

The Jewish community in Rome found themselves coming to the direct attention of the emperor simply by their association with issues pertaining to their homeland. There are three separate incidents that would provide cause for concern regarding how the emperor might view the Jewish community in the after math of the fire. The first was the presence in Rome of two Jewish priests who had been sent there by Felix (Josephus, Vita 13). Exactly when they were sent to Rome and the na ture of their offence is not clear. The important point to note here is that they were imprisoned in Rome awaiting trial (Josephus, A.J. 20.161). The second incident was the resolu tion of a dispute regarding civic rights in the city of Caesarea Maritima (Josephus, A.J. 20.173–78, 183–84). Unable to resolve the matter at a local level, the governor dispatched representatives to Rome for Nero to adjudicate. The third incident was the resolution of the dispute regarding extensions made to the height of the wall surrounding the Temple (Josephus, A.J. 20.189–98; James C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile, 470–75). Josephus attributes the decision of Nero to the influence of his wife, Poppaea. On this occasion Jews were in dispute with fellow Jews and the governor. The tensions and complications associated with this incident are, in part, evident from the decision that the high priest and the treasurer of the Temple were required to stay in Rome. All of these incidents were recent occasions where Nero’s attention had been drawn to Jews in a way that left them open to being characterised as a disruptive influence (Peter Schäfer, Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World; Erich S. Gruen, Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans, 15–53; Rutgers, “Roman Policy,” 111–15).

1. Whether they took the initiative and provided Nero with the idea of blaming the Christians or they waited until it became known that Nero was seeking a scapegoat and then helped identify Christians as suitable tar gets is not possible to establish. Nero had already named the Christians, so that the Jews simply helped with the process of locating them. Whatever the precise timing of their involve ment, though, in order to protect their own position it is understandable that Jews readily helped make this relatively new, peculiar group the target of Nero’s desire to find a scapegoat. A possible, further dimension of the motivation for self-protection included depicting the Christians as a group that had no direct link with the Jewish way of life in order to help ensure they were not mistakenly lumped together. Given the reference in Tacitus to the origins of the group, in Judaea, it could be easily assumed that the Christians were in some manner or another connected with the Jewish way of life. As such, part of the process of informing on the Christians as a group worthy of being punished may have included a claim that they were not a subgroup of the wider Jewish community. In this context, the socio-ethnic profile of the early Christian community in Rome would have had an important bearing on the relative success or otherwise of such a line of argument (Judge, “Origins,” 454; cf. Smallwood, Jews, 215).
2. The fire within early Christian polemic
3. The fire and the subsequent actions of Nero in the vicious way he punished the Christians is notable by its absence from subsequent Christian writings. There are several references to Nero as an enemy of God and as an evil ruler, often in tandem with reference to Domitian (Tertullian, Apol. 5.3; 21.25 (CCSL 1.95, 127); Eusebius, HE 2.25.3–4 (citing Tertullian); 3.17; 3.20.6–7 (citing Tertullian) (Eusèbe de Césarée. Histoire ecclésiastique (Livres I–IV), ed. Eduard Schwartz and Gustave Bardy, SC 31, 92, 121, 124); Lactantius, Mort. 2.6). There is, however, no version of the in cident in later Christian tradition (1 Clem. 5.6; Eusebius, HE 4.26.9; Smallwood, Jews, 218). It is in the New Testament depiction of Jews where the impact of the fire and the identification of the Christians as the cul prits are most immediately evident. A clear divide exists in the depiction of Jews between texts written prior to the fire and in those written after the fire (Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, 5–15; Brian J. Incigneri, The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark’s Gospel). By contrast, in the latter there is significant criticism of Jews and they play a prominent role in much of the subject matter in the syn optic Gospels and in Acts of the Apostles. Jews hardly feature in the writings of Paul, which all predate the fire. While he indicates that there were direct interactions between Jews and Christians, in his capacity as someone who tried to sup press the new movement and as someone who was subsequently on the receiving end of such attacks, Paul does not dwell on such topics. Whenspeakingof rivals and/or opponents Paul’s attention focuses on other peo ple he regards as distorting the message of Christ as saviour (Gal 2:1–14; 6:12–13; 1 Cor 1:10–17; 3:1–23; 2 Cor 10:1–11:15).

In fact, there is only one occasion where Paul is openly critical of Jews (1 Thess 2:13–16). In drawing a parallel between the experience of the believers in Thessalonica and of those in Judaea Paul blames the Jews for attacking Christians, killing Jesus and forcing Christians to flee Judaea.

The only occasion where Jews are subject to direct attention, Romans 9–11, presents Jews as people assured of a future in divine salvation history (A. Andrew Das, Paul and the Jews). In a number of the texts dated after the fire Jews feature prominently and do so in a largely negative manner. Here we focus on the earliest text to be written in the aftermath of the fire, Mark’s Gospel. Throughout the account of Jesus’ public ministry various Jews are presented as questioning and even opposing his activity (Mark 2:16–17.18–20.24–28; 3:1–6; 6:1–6.14–29; 8:14–21;10:2–9;11:27–33; 12:1–12.13–17.18–24.38–40). Then, within the account of Jesus’ arrest and execution various Jews play a particularly significant role, actively working to ensure that he is executed (Mark 14:1–2.10–11.43–50.53–65; and 15:1–32). The three other canonical Gospels refine and develop the manner in which Jews are depicted as opposing the activity of Jesus, while in Acts of Apostles the main protagonists trying to attack the activity of Jesus’ followers are various members of the Jewish community, not Roman officials (Acts 18:12–17; Acts 13:5; 13:50; 14:1–2; 17:1, 5; 17:15–17; 18:1, 12; Matt 26:3–4; Luke 20:20; John 11:48–53). The earliest layers of tradition regarding the death of Jesus give no hint of an interest in attacking Jews (Phil 2:6–11, esp.v.8;1 Cor 11:23–26; and 15:3–4). The Jews who had been informants against the Christians in 64 CE became the inspiration for how Jews would be remembered in relation to the career of Jesus.