Apotheosis of the Roman Emperor

Author(s): Larry Kreitzer

Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 53, No. 4 (Dec., 1990), pp. 210-217
Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3210166 .
Accessed: 28/04/2012 10:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Biblical Archaeologist.
http://www.jstor.org
Apotheosis
of the
Roman
Emperor
by Larry
Kreitzer
ew Testament scholars
have
spent
a
great
deal
of
energy
in recent
years
trying
totrace the devel-
opment
of
Christology,
the
theologi-
cal
interpretation
of the
person
and
work of
Jesus (Dunn 1980;
Kreitzer
1987b).
How is it that the man
Jesus
of Nazarethwas
eventually
declared
by
the Churchto
partake
of the
very
nature of God? More
important
in
terms of New Testament
studies,
how
much,
if at
all,
can we
rely upon
the New Testament documents to
initiate or
support
sucha belief ?
Certainly
these
questions
are much
too
complicated
to
try
and answer in
one brief
article,
but I would like to
call attention toone
category
of evi-
dence that is of ten overlooked in at-
tempts
tosolve the
Christological
puzzle by examining background
evidence. The
category
towhichI
am
ref erring
is the
apotheosis,
or
deif ication of the Roman
emperor.
The
practice
of
apotheosis
of the
Roman
emperor
was
certainly
wide-
spread
and inf luential
enough
to
have touched
upon
the lives of some
of the
early
Christians.
Thus,
it is
perhaps
not toof arf etched to
suggest
that a f reshlook at the
practice
might
shed some
light
on how
many
common
people living
in the f irst
and second centuries C..
might
have
conceived of the
relationship
be-
tween
god
and humankind. Sucha
look
might
also
help
toilluminate
some of the ideas
being
f ormulated
in the
background
of ancient Near
Eastern cultures that
helped shape
the
development
of New Testament
Christological thought.
The deif ication of the Roman
emperor eventually
became a stan-
dard
religious practice
that was
gen-
erally
conf irmed
by
senatorial vote
(f or
the twobest volumes on the sub-
ject
see
Taylor
1931 and Weinstock
1971;
alsosee Bowerstock 1984 and
Sweet
1919).
Ratif ication f ollowed
the deathof the
emperor
and was
virtually guaranteed
unless the
emperor
did
something during
his
reign
toof f end the Senate and there-
by jeopardize
his chances of
being
enrolled withthe
gods. By
chance
we have one historian's account of
the
apotheosis ceremony.
Herodian
of
Syria,
a
biographer writing during
the third
century C.E., composed
an
account of
imperial
rule f rom the
time of Marcus Aurelius in 180 C.E.
tothe deathof Gordian III in 238
C.E.. Included in Herodian's work is an
account of the ritual
ceremony
of
the
apotheosis
of
Septimius
Severus
(193
to211
C.E.).'
The
story
mentions
a f uneral
pyre and,
at the climax of
the
ceremony,
the
releasing
of an
eagle
to
symbolize
the
emperor's
ascent intothe heavens.
The
apotheosis
of the
emperor
alsof ound its
way
intoRoman
sculp-
ture and art. Most of us have seen a
picture
of the Archof Titus
(79
to81
C.E.),
whichshows the
spoils
of the
f irst
Jewish
revolt
being
carried of f
by
the
conquering
Romans. Less well
known is another carved scene in
the interior of the archthat
depicts
the
apotheosis
of Titus. The
apothe-
osis of
Augustus
is the
subject
of a
very beautif ully
carved
cameo,
the
Gemma
Augustea,
in the Kunsthis-
torisches Museum in Vienna. The
idea was
apparently
muchmore
widespread
than we of ten realize.
This article is limited tothe
period
45 B.C.E. to68
C.E.,
the end of
Julius
Caesar's
reign
tothe deathof
Nero. This
Julio-Claudian period
is
most relevant tothe f ormulation of
New Testament
Christology
as some
of the most
signif icant Christological
developments undoubtedly
took
place
during
this time. Because coins con-
stitute our most
important primary
evidence f or this
period,
I will use
numismatic evidence as a
guide.
Given that
Judea
was a Roman
prov-
ince,
and
given
that we know a
great
deal about the
prevailing
economic
policies
of the Roman
Empire,
we
can rest assured that
many early
Christians, especially Gentiles,
would have had
daily
contact with
Roman coins and thus were
regularly
exposed
tothe
imperial propaganda
that such
coinage displayed.
It is
hoped
that this brief excursion will
sensitize students of the New Testa-
ment tothe contribution that nu-
mismatic evidence has made tothe
subject
of
Christology.
Numismatic Evidence f rom the
Julio-Claudian
Period
For the
purposes
of this
article,
I will
limit
myself
toa consideration of
the
of f icially
sanctioned
imperial
numismatic evidence. Rome
per-
mitted
many
Greek cities and states
tomint their own
coins,
but their
contribution will not be considered
here. These coins dohave a
great
contribution to
make, especially
as
they
of ten ref lect a muchmore f luid
understanding
of how
great
rulers
were accorded divine status. Af ter
Biblical
Archaeologist,
December 1990 211
Titus was one
of f ive
caesars mentioned
by
Suetonius as
having apotheosis conf erred upon
him
af ter
death. Above:
This well-known
bas-relief f rom
the interior
of
the Arch
of
Titus, erected
af ter
his deathin 81
c.E.,
depicts
the
spoils
of Jerusalem, including
the seven-branched menorah,
being
carried
of f by
Roman soldiers
af ter
the destruction
of
the
Jerusalem Temple
in 70 C.E.
(BA
archive
photo.)
Below: Less
f amiliar
is the
opposite bas-relief ,
which
shows Titus in a
triumphal procession;
behind him the
winged personif ication of Victory
holds a laurel crown
over his head
(hard
todiscern because this
portion of
the
relief
is
badly damaged). Right:
In the center
of
the interior
of
the arch, directly
above the
opposing bas-relief s,
is this
niche
relief
that shows the
apotheosized f igure of
Titus
surrounded
by eagles
whobear him toheaven on their
wings.
Photos
f rom
Der
Titusbogen by
Michael
Pf anner
(Mainz: Philipp
von Zabern, 1983).
210 Biblical
Archaeologist,
December 1990
The coin
represented
in this
drawing
is an
antoninianus
minted between 257 and 258 C.E.
during
the
reign of
Valerian I. The reverse
shows his son Valerian
II, whodied as a
boy,
being
carried toheaven on the back
of
an
eagle;
the
accompanying inscription
reads CON-
SECRATIO. The obverse is a
portrait of
the
boy
withthe
inscription
DIVO VALERIANO
CAESAR
(The
Divine Caesar
Valerian).
All
coin
drawings
are
by Rosemary
Lehan.
all,
the Greeks had a
long history
of
deif ying
their
kings,
a
practice
that
is traceable in
coinage
at least as f ar
back as the
reign
of Alexander the
Great
(336
to323
B.C.E.)?
Some
kings
actively promoted
this
policy during
their
reigns, perhaps
the most f a-
mous
example being
the Seleucid
king
Antiochus IV
(175
to163
B.C.E.),
This silver tetradrachma was minted
by
Antiochus IV a successor
of
Alexander
theGreat whoruled
f rom
175 to163 B.C.E.
The
inscription,
translated as BASILEUS
ANTIOCHUS THEOS EPIPHANES, declares
King
Antiochus as God made
manif est.
This
attitude
helped bring
Antiochus into
conf lict
withhis
Jewishsubjects, eventually leading
tothe Maccabean Revolt.
one of Alexander's successors. This
act
eventually brought
Antiochus
intodirect conf lict withhis
Jewish
subjects
and set the
stage
f or the
ensuing
Maccabean revolt.
As the Romans absorbed the
remnants of Alexander's
empire,
the
remaining generals
and
provincial
governors
of ten f ound themselves
the
objects
of divine honors and
acclaim. This was
especially
true of
Pompey
the Great and
Julius
Caesar.
Following
Caesar's
victory
at the
Greek
city
of Pharsalus in 46
B.C.E.,
his statues of ten bore
inscriptions
that
proclaimed
him a
god.
An in-
scription
f rom
Ephesus
in the
prov-
ince of
Asia,
located
along
the west-
ern coast of Asia
Minor,
f or
instance,
calls him THEOS EPIPHANES
(God
Made
Manif est).
Suchdivine honors
abounded in the East.
Returning
tothe
early impera-
torial
period,
I should
point
out that
religious practice operated
on sev-
eral dif f erent levels in the
Empire.
Many
of the associations that were
made between the
great
leaders and
deities of the East would have been
unacceptable
in the West. It was al-
right
f or Roman
generals
tobe show-
ered withdivine honors when
they
were in the Eastern
world,
but such
honors were f rowned
upon
in Rome.
Theref ore,
whenever we can see
sig-
nif icant senatorial
developments
toward
apotheosis
of the
emperor,
we can be certain that such
develop-
ments had
long
been a
part
of
religi-
ous
activity
in the East. In a
way, by
examining
the of f icial senatorial
steps
toward
apotheosis
we
give
our-
selves a
starting point
f rom whichto
understand what must have been a
more
popular perception among
many
Eastern
peoples
of the
Empire.
Following
the
precedents
of the
Eastern
provinces
in
relating king-
ship
and
divinity,
we f ind that a
series of senatorial honors were
decreed on
Julius
Caesar f rom 45 to
44 B.C.E. These honors established a
pattern
that was toculminate in his
f ull enrollment intothe
pantheon.
Although
not
technically
constitut-
ing deif ication,
all of these honors
contributed toan
atmosphere
of
public
adulation of Caesar's rule in
a manner and scale heretof ore un-
known in Rome. The numismatic
evidence bears this out. One
striking
f act underlies the direction in which
these senatorial honors were head-
ing:
Until 44 B.C.E. no
living person
had ever
appeared
on Roman
coinage;
yet,
in that
year many moneyers
minted coins withCaesar's
portrait
on them. The obverse of one coin
Until 44 B.C.E., no
living person
had ever
appeared
on Roman
coinage, yet in that
year
all the
moneyers
minted coins witha
portrait
of Julius
Caesar. One
example
is this obverse
of
a coin
portraying
Caesar as a
priest
and
bestowing
a
f atherly image upon
him with
the
inscription
CAESAR PARENS PATRIAE
(Caesar,
Father
of
the
Nation).
portrays
Caesar as a
priest
and be-
stows a
f atherly
character on the em-
peror
withthe
inscription,
CAESAR
PARENS PATRIAE
(Caesar,
Father
of the
Nation).
This title was one
of
many
senatorial honors
given
to
Caesar
prior
tohis deathin March
of 44 B.C.E.
Another of the senatorial honors
bestowed on Caesar was the
placing
of his
statue,
withthe
inscription
DEUS INVICTUS
(To
the
Conquer-
ing God),
in the
temple
of
Quirinius.
This
quasi-divine
honor
prompted
Cicerotomake some sarcastic com-
ments in his Letters toAtticus
(com-
pare
book
12,
letter 45 and book
13,
letter
28;
see Winstedt 1967: 95-96
and
165-67).
Caesar's statue was
associated withother
gods
and other
temples
as well. The obverse of one
coin,
f or
example, depicts
the
temple
One
of
the honors bestowed on Caesar
by
the
Roman Senate was the
placement of
his statue,
withthe
inscription
DEUS INVICTUS
(7b
the
Conquering God),
in the
temple
of
Quirinius.
Caesar's statue was associated withother
gods
and
temples,
suchas on this obverse
of
a
denarius
showing
the
temple of
Clementia
and Caesar withthe
accompanying inscrip-
tion CLEMENTIACAESAR. Some doubt this
temple
was ever built
(it
has never been lo-
cated),
but the coin illustrates that Caesar was
associated with
gods of
the Roman
capital.
212 Biblical
Archaeologist,
December 1990
of Clementia and Caesar.
Although
this
temple
has never been located
(and
some doubt its
existence),
its
image
on the coin
speaks
tothe
trend of
associating
Caesar withthe
gods
of the Roman
capital.
The iden-
tif ication of Caesar with
Jupiter
is
certainly
another
example
of the
way
in whichthe
emperor
and God
were
merging
in the
popular imagi-
nation. Let us not
f orget
that Sueto-
nius wrote that on the
night
bef ore
Caesar was murdered he had a dream
in whichhe ascended the heavens
and shook hands withthe
god Jupi-
ter
(The Deif ied Julius, chapter 81,
verse
3;
see Rolf e 1960:
109).
Also
remember that the mob wanted to
cremate Caesar's
body
and inter his
ashes in the
temple
of
Jupiter
lo-
cated on the
Capitoline
hill
(The
Deif ied Julius chapter 84,
verse
3;
see Rolf e 1960:
115).
One f inal senatorial honor is
represented
on the
coinage
of the
time.
Just prior
toCaesar's assassi-
Prior tohis assassination in March
of
44 B.C.E.,
Julius
Caesar was awarded the title DICTATOR
PERPETUO
(Dictator f or Lif e).
As a
part of
that honor he was
granted
a
gold
crown and
throne
f or
use in
public displays
and theaters.
The crown and throne are
subjects of
this
denarius reverse
f rom
the
coinage of Octavian,
Caesar's
adopted
heir and successor. The in-
scription
reads CAESAR DIC PER
(shorthand
f or Caesar, Dictator
f or Lif e).
nation,
between
January
26 and Feb-
mruary
9 in the
year
44
B.C.E.,
the
Senate awarded Caesar the title
Dictator
Perpetuo(Dictator
f or
Lif e)
and
granted
him a
gold
crown and a
gold
throne f or use in
public displays
and theaters. The crown and throne
are
depicted
on the reverse of a coin
minted
during
the time of Octavian
(later
named
Augustus).
This act
clearly spoke
of
quasi-divine rights.
It was not until af ter the assassi-
nation of
Julius
Caesar in Marchof
44
B.C.E., however,
that the Roman
Senate took the of f icial
step
of deif i-
cation? On
January 1,
42
B.C.E.,
Caesar
was
of f icially
declared a
god,
a move
nodoubt
prompted by
his
adopted
heir Octavian
(27
B.C.E. to14
C.E.),
whosaw in the act a means of con-
solidating
his own
power.
Octavian
was involved at the time in a des-
perate political struggle
withMark
Octavian was
quick
to
capitalize
on his
adoptive
status and issued a series
of
coins
proclaiming
his
position
as son
of
the Divine
Caesar. This is one suchcoin, issued
af ter
Octavian's
victory
over Mark
Antony
at the
Greek town
of
Actium in
September of
31 B.C.E. Theobverse
shows
thehead
of
the
goddesss Venus, towhom Octavian and
Caesar attributed much
of
their success in
battle. The reverse is
of
Octavian
brandishing
a
spear
withthe
inscription
CAESAR DIVI F
(Son of
the Divine
Caesar).
Antony,
who
vigorously opposed
the
deif ication of
Julius Caesar,
and he
used the deif ication of Caesar as a
way
of
legitimizing
and
elevating
his
own
position.
Octavian was
quick
to
capitalize
on his
adoptive
status and
issued a series of coins
proclaiming
his
position
as son of the Divine
Caesar. One suchcoin was issued
f ollowing
Octavian's
victory
over
Antony
at the Greek town of Actium
in
September
of 31 B.C.E. The obverse
shows the head of the
goddess Venus,
towhom bothCaesar and Octavian
attributed most of their
military
successes,
and the reverse is of Octa-
vian
brandishing
a
spear
withthe
accompanying inscription,
CAESAR
DIVI F
(Son
of the Divine
Caesar).
One of the most
interesting
coins
issued
by
Octavian commemorates
the
appearance
of a comet
during
the
games
he held in honor of
Julius
Caesar's
military
victories in
July
of
44 B.C.E. The comet f irst
appeared
on
the f irst
day
of the
games,
which
lasted f or seven
days.
Its
appearance
was
conveniently interpreted
as be-
ing
the soul of Caesar
ascending
heaven. The
comet,
or
star,
became a
common f eature in
subsequent
coin-
age
of
Octavian, again
as a means of
emphasizing
his
relationship
tothe
Divine Caesar. All of the coins con-
taining
star or comet
images
are
charged
with
symbolism-the
kind
of
symbolism
that can be used to
great political advantage.
In 27
B.C.E.,
when the Roman
Senate
granted
Octavian the title of
Augustus,
the Roman
Empire, prop-
erly speaking, began.
It was at this
time,
within the Eastern
provinces
of the
Empire,
that the f irst
logical
step
toward the
practice
of
worship-
ping
the son of a
god
as a
god
was
taken. The
province
of
Bithynia,
located
along
the northwest coast of
Asia
Minor,
and the
province
of
Asia,
located
along
Asia Minor's western
coast,
were the f irst areas authorized
by
Rome tobuild a
temple
tothe
god
Augustus. They
were allowed to
build the
temple
on the
proviso
that
worship
would alsobe accorded to
the
goddess
Roma.
According
to
Suetonius, Augustus
did not want
The comet, or star, became a common
f eature
in the
coinage of Augustus,
a
way of empha-
sizing
his
relationship
tothe Divine Caesar.
The
obverse
portrait
on this denarius, below,
whichdates to17 B.C.E., is of Augustus; the
reverse is
of Julius Caesar
wearing
a crown.
Note the star above Caesar's head. The obverse
of
this
coin, above, also
dating
to17 B.C.E., is
a portrait of Augustus (CAESAR AVGVSTVS).
The reverse has a comet and an
inscription
reading
DIVVS IVLIVS
(Divine Julius).
Biblical
Archaeologist,
December 1990 213
In 27
B.C.E.,
when
the Roman Senate
granted
Octavian the
title of
Augustus,
the Roman
Empire,
properly speaking,
began.
the
worship
of himself tobe inde-
pendent
of that
given
tothe
personi-
f ication of the
ruling city (The Deif ied
Augustus, chapter 52;
see Rolf e
1960:
207;
alsosee Price
1980).
In
so
stipulating, Augustus
was at the
same
time,
of
course, strengthening
the
provincial allegiance
toRome-a
remarkably perceptive
and
politically
astute move.
Temples
were raised in
Nicomedia and
Pergamum,
the re-
spective capital
cities of
Bithynia
and Asia. The
temple
erected at
Pergamum
is
depicted
on a coin dat-
ing
to19 B.C.E. The coin shows the
edif ice of the
temple,
whichbears on
its
pediment
the
inscription
ROM ET
AVGVSTUS
(Rome
and
Augustus).
The other
inscription,
COM ASIA
(shorthand
f or COMMUNIAE
ASIA),
indicates that the coin was issued
by
the common
league
of Asia. The
f irst Western
province
toinstitute a
similar cult was
Gaul,
a
region
com-
prising
muchof modern
France,
Belgium
and northern
Italy.
At
Lug-
dunum, capital
of the three districts
Pergamum
was the
capital city of
the
province
of Asia, whichwas one
of
the
f irst
areas
authorized
by
Rome tobuild a
temple
tothe
god Augustus.
That
temple
is
depicted
on
this coin, dating to19 B.C.E. The
inscription
on
the
pediment,
ROM ETAVGVSTUS, stands
f or
Rome and
Augustus,
whodid not want
worshipof himself
tobe
independent of
that
given
tothe
personif ication of
the
ruling city
of
the
empire.
The other
part of
the
inscription,
COM ASIA
(shorthand f or
COMMUNIAE
ASIA),
indicates that the coin was issued
by
the common
league of
the
province of
Asia.
The obverse
portrait
is
of Augustus;
the in-
scription,
IMP IX TR PO V
(Imperator
nine
times; Tribunicea Potestas
f ive times),
is
shorthand
f or
Holder
of
the Tribunal Power.
This is an
example of
an extensive series
of
coins
depicting
the altar erected tothe gods
Roma and
Augustus
at
Lugdunum
in 10 B.C.E.
The
inscription
reads ROM ET AVG
(the
"R"
is
of f
the
edge of
the
coin).
The obverse, a
por-
trait
of Augustus,
is not shown.
Lugdunum
was the
capital of
the three districts of Gaul,
the
f irst
Western
province
toinstitute a cult
of Augustus.
Similar
temples
were erected in
Germania and
Spain.
of
Gaul,
an altar was erected tothe
gods
Roma and
Augustus
in 10 B.C.E.
This altar is
depicted
in a series of
coins. Similar
temples
and altars
were erected in Germania and
Spain.
Augustus
was not deif ied in
Rome until af ter his deathin 14 C.E.
His
successor,
Tiberius
(14
to37
C.E.),
was
largely responsible
f or
propagat-
ing
the cult of the Divine
Augustus.
Tiberius was
emperor during
the
public ministry
of
Jesus.
One coin
f rom the
reign
of Tiberius bears on
its reverse side a
portrait
of the
Divine
Augustus
and an
inscription
Emperor
Born Years of Rule
Family
Relations Comments
Octavian 63 B.C.E. 27 B.C.E. to14 C.E.
Grandnephew
and
adopted
From 43 to28 B.C.E. co-ruled as Second Trium-
(Augustus)
son of
Julius Caesar;
virate withMarcus Aemilius
Lepidus
and Mark
married toLivia
Antony.
Def eated
Antony
at Actium in 31 B.C.E. to
solidif y power
base. WithOctavian the Roman
Empire, of f icially speaking, began.
Tiberius 42B.C.E. 14 to37 C.E.
Stepson
of
Augustus; Emperor during
the
public ministry
of
Jesus.
son of Livia
Largely responsible
f or
propagating
cult of the
Divine
Augustus.
Caligula
12 C.E. 37 to41 C.E.
Grandnephew
of
Tiberius;
Accorded
quasi-divine
status tohis three
sisters,
Great-grandson
of Livia
Agrippina,
Drusilla and
Julia.
Continued Tiberi-
us's
policy
of
issuing
coins to
support
cult of
Divine
Augustus.
Tried to
promote
his own divin-
ity
but was assassinated.
Claudius 10 B.C.E. 41 to54C.E.
Nephew
of
Tiberius;
Petitioned Roman Senate to
grant
Livia deif i-
grandson
of
Livia;
cation. Also honored Antonia
by issuing
coins
son of Antonia
personif ying
her as the virtue
Constancy.
Nero 37 C.E. 54 to68 C.E.
Stepson
of Claudius Issued a series of coins
commemorating
Claudius
but later annulled honor of
apotheosis (eventually
restored
by
the
emperor Vespasian).
Fell out of
f avor and committed suicide.
214 Biblical
Archaeologist,
December 1990
that
reads,
DIVI F DIVOS AUGUST
(Son
of the Divine
Caesar,
the Divine
Augustus).
The characteristic ascen-
sion star is
placed
above the head of
Augustus;
it is reminiscent of his use
of a
comet,
or
star,
on coins tocom-
memorate the
appearance
of a comet
during
the
games
he held
in honor of
Julius
Caesar's
previous military
vic-
tories. The Senate
opposed
the deif i-
cation of Tiberius in
spite
of
attempts
by
his successor
Caligula (37
to41
C.E.)
tobestow this honor on his
granduncle.
Neither did the Senate
conf irm the
apotheosis
of
Caligula;
thus,
we have nocoins
proclaiming
the
divinity
of either
emperor.
Nevertheless, Caligula
still holds
an
important place
in our
study
of
the
apotheosis
of the
emperor.
For
one
thing,
he continued Tiberius's
policy
of
issuing
coins to
support
the
cult of the Divine
Augustus.
He also
accorded
quasi-divine
status tohis
three
sisters, Agrippina,
Drusilla and
Julia (with
whom he had incestuous
relationships), by portraying them,
respectively,
as the
personif ications
The reverse
of
this sestertius
depicts
the
Temple of Augustus completed during
the
reign of Caligula (37
to41
c.E.). Caligula,
second
f igure f rom
the
right,
stands
by
the
altar
preparing
tomake a
sacrif ice
toa bull
in honor
of
his
imperial predecessor.
The
obverse is
of
Pietas. The
inscription
is dedi-
cated tothe divine
Augustus
as Holder
of
the
Tribunal Power.
Caligula's incestuous relationships withhis
three sisters
Agrippina,
Drusilla and
Julia
are
well known. Less well known is the
quasi-
divine honors he bestowed on them
by por-
traying
them,
respectively,
as Securitas,
Concordia and Fortuna. These associations
are
depicted
on this sestertius reverse.
of
Securitas,
Concordia and Fortuna.
Caligula
was
particularly
attached
toDrusilla and did all he could to
promote
her elevation tothe
gods-
as he did f or himself . It is well
known that he caused a near revolt
in
Judea by insisting
that his statue
be
placed
within the
holy
of the
holies in the
Jerusalem Temple.
This
is but one
example
of how
Caligula's
twisted mind worked in
trying
to
promote
his own
divinity during
his
reign. Fortunately,
he was assas-
sinated bef ore the situation came to
a
head,
and the Roman Senate
repu-
diated his
reign by ref using
his
apotheosis.
Next totake the throne was
Claudius
(41
to54
c.E.).
By
a
strange
coincidence Claudius was born in
Lugdunum
on
August
1 of the
year
10
B.C.E.,
the
very day
on whichthe
f amous altar tothe Divine
Augustus
and Roma was dedicated there.
Claudius
appears
tohave revived
this
type
of altar
coinage, possibly
in
celebration of his own f if tiethbirth-
day.
One f urther
development
in
the divine cult
during
the
reign
of
Claudius was the deif ication of
Livia,
the wif e of
Augustus
and
grand-
mother of Claudius. Livia had
already
appeared
on a
variety
of coin
types,
usually
as a
personif ication
of
Roman virtues and divine attributes.
For
instance,
three coins issued
by
Tiberius in 22 C.E.
depict
Livia as the
personif ication
of
Justice, Piety
and
Salus
(Health).
Claudius went one
step
f urther
by actually petitioning
the Senate to
grant
Livia
deif ication,
something
neither
Tiberius,
her
son,
nor
Caligula,
her
great-grandson,
ever
attempted.
The Senate
complied,
and Claudius celebrated this honor
by minting
a
pair
of coins called
dupondii,
one of whichbears on its
obverse a
portrait
of Divus
Augustus
and,
on the
reverse,
Diva
Augusta;
Livia is
represented
as seated on a
throne and
holding
a
scepter'
Claudius alsohonored his mother
Antonia
by minting
coins
bearing
her
portrait
on the obverse
and,
on
the
reverse, displaying
her as a
per-
sonif ication of the virtue
Constancy.
These coins are similar to
Caligula's
sestertia,
mentioned
previously,
whichbestowed such
quasi-divine
Claudius
(41
to54
c.E.)
honored his mother
Antonia
by minting
coins suchas this one,
whichshows her
portrait
on the obverse
(ANTONIAAVGVSTA)
and
portrays
her as
the virtue
Constancy
on the reverse. This
coin is similar tothe sestertius issued
by
Caligula,
whichbestowed such
quasi-divine
honors on his sisters.
honors on his three sisters.
Claudius died on October
13,
54
C.E. and was succeeded
by
his
adopted
son Nero
(54
to68
C.E.). Shortly
af ter
taking power,
Neroissued a series of
coins tocommemorate his
step-
f ather, Claudius,
whose rule was
deemed
worthy enoughby
the Senate
toconf er
upon
him the honor of
apotheosis.
Suetonius tells us that
Nerolater annulled the honor but
that it was
eventually
restored
by
Emperor Vespasian (The Deif ied
Claudius, chapter 45;
see Rolf e
1970:
81). Apparently
Nero's
opinion
of Claudius was not as unf avorable
in the
beginning
of his
reign
as it
was at the end because he did mint
a Divus Claudius series in 54 to55
Biblical
Archaeologist,
December 1990 215
This didrachma
f rom
Caesarea in
Cappadocia
was minted
by Nero, whose
reign
lasted
f rom
54 to68 C.E. Theobverse, lef t,
is a
portrait of
thedivine Claudius; thereverse, right,
is a
portrait
of
Nero. This coin was
probably
issued between 54 and 55 C.E., when Nerominted a Divus
Claudius series. Helater tried torevokethe
apotheosis of Claudius, but it was restored
by
Emperor Vespasian (69
to79
C.E.).
Nerocommitted suicide in 68 C.E.
during
the
f irst Jewish
revolt
against
Rome. Hewas never
deif ied by
theRoman Senate, and nocoins
depict
his
apotheosis.
C.E. It should be noted that Seneca
poked
f un of the idea of the
apothe-
osis of Claudius. He wrote a satirical
work on the
subject
called the
Apococyntosis of Claudius, which,
translated
literally,
means the
"pumpkinf ication
of Claudius."
Nerof ell out of senatorial f avor
by
his
mismanagement
of rule and
ended
upcommitting
suicide on
July 8,
68 C.E. in the midst of the
f irst
Jewish
revolt
against
Rome
(66
to70
C.E.).
Nerowas never deif ied
by
the Roman
Senate,
and nocoins dis-
play
his
apotheosis.
Withhis death
the
Julio-Claudian
house of rule
came toan end.
Political Aims and Monotheistic
Reactions
The
development
of the Divine Man
cult was
by
no means
peculiar
to the
Roman
Empire althoughduring
the
imperial period
this
worshipsystem
reached
unparalleled heights.
The
roots of
emperor worshiplay deep
in
many
ancient Near Eastern cultures
in which
great
rulers took on divine
qualities. Nevertheless,
Rome had
its own contribution to
make;
ruler
worship
was
organized
and ref ined
into a
unif ying political
f orce.
The
worship
of the Roman
emperor
as the
personif ication
of
divinity
was used to
great political
advantage, particularly
as a means of
welding
various
peoples
and cultures
into a
single empire.
The
political
dynamic
of the divine cult cannot be
overlooked. It is central to
any proper
understanding
of how the cult f unc-
tioned within the Roman
Empire,
particularly during
the time of
Augustus
when the civilized world,
yearning
f or relief af ter decades of
civil
war, sought
in the
young
em-
peror
a deliverer f rom turmoil and
bloodshed. There is nobetter ex-
ample
of the statesman's
approach
to
religion
than in the
person
of
Augus-
tus. He more than
any
other
emperor
utilized
religion
as a means of
unif y-
ing
the
f ar-f lung provinces
and
peoples, f orging
out of them a vast
new
empire.
This situation
brings up
an
important
consideration: the reac-
tions of
persons
f rom
traditionally
monotheistic f aiths tothe
develop-
ment of this
imperial
cult. It is
important
toremember that
signif i-
cant numbers of
Jews
and Christians
lived within the boundaries of the
Roman
Empire during
the
Julio-
Claudian
period. Judea
f irst came
under Roman rule
during
the time
of
Pompey
the Great in 63
B.C.E.,
and
the rule of Herod the Great and his
sons amounted tolittle more than a
temporary respite
f rom direct Roman
rule. With
Augustus's appointment
of
Coponius
as
pref ect
in 6
C.E.,
Judea
once
again
became a
province
under direct Roman rule and con-
tinued tobe so
throughout
the
Julio-
Claudian
period.
This
period
is
perhaps
one of
the most f ormative in terms of the
development
of
Christianity,
a new
f aiththat
began
as a messianic sect
within the conf ines of
Judaism.
How
did the monotheistic f aithof
Judaism
and its
of f spring Christianity
react
tothe
developing imperial
cult?
What
responses
can we trace within
Judaism
and
Christianity
tothis
religio-political
cult
f ocusing
on the
person
of the
emperor?
Would it be
true to
say
that the idea of a man
becoming god, apotheosis,
was ac-
ceptable
to
Christianity
but not to
Judaism?
Could this have been what
eventually
made
Christianity
more
acceptable
tothe Roman world?
Toreturn tothe
primary ques-
tion
regarding
the
imperial cult,
how did the monotheistic f aiththat
was the f oundation of both
Judaism
and
Christianity
react tothe devel-
oping imperial
cult? The
major
dif -
f erence in reaction seems tobe
Christologically
derived. That is to
say,
Christians f ound that the in-
carnational basis of their f aithwas
more
readily synthesized
withthe
prevailing religious system
of the
Romans,
whichincluded the
apothe-
osis of the
emperor.
The Roman con-
cept
of
apotheosis
moved a man f rom
earthtoward
heaven,
whereas the
Christian
concept
of incarnation
moved God f rom heaven toward
earth,
but the twoare similar in that
they
bothdeal withthe
relationship
between the human and the divine.
It is
important
tonote that the bar-
rier between humans and God was
transcended in
Christianity
in a
way
that it was not in
Judaism. Perhaps
this
aspect
more than
any
other
allowed
Christianity
to
gain
a f oot-
hold in the lif e of the
average
Roman
citizen in a
way
that
Judaism
was
unable todo.
What
essentially began
as a
welding together
of the
religious
lif e
of the
Empire
withan astute
political
expedience eventually
culminated
in the
continuing practice
of the
apotheosis
of the
emperor.
This
meant that
Christianity,
withits
belief in
transcending
the barrier
between human and divine
through
the incarnation of
Jesus Christ,
was
able tof ind f ruitf ul
ground
and
f lourishwithin the Roman world.
Conclusion
From the brief
survey presented here,
I
hope
it is clear that the
apotheosis
of the Roman
emperor,
and its atten-
dant
implications,
were
very
much
a
part
of the
religious heritage
of
many peoples
of the
early
Roman
216 Biblical
Archaeologist,
December 1990
Empire.
Sucha
heritage
must take
its
proper place
in
any attempt
to
trace the
development
of New Testa-
ment
Christological thought.
It is
also
my hope
that this article will
serve to
inspire
interest in the use of
numismatic evidence f or historical
study, particularly
within New Testa-
ment historical research
(as
in Stauf -
f er
1955;
Kreitzer
1987a).
Notes
'All dates
given
in relation tothe
Roman
emperors
ref er totheir
years
of
imperial
rule.
2The
process
of the deif ication of
Hellenistic monarchs is discussed in
Grant
(1982: 91-104).
30f the twelve
Caesars,
Suetonius
mentions f ive as
having apotheosis
con-
f erred
upon
them af ter death:
Julius
Caesar, Augustus (Octavian), Claudius,
Vespasian
and Titus.
4Emperor
Galba
(68
to69
cE.)
also
issued a similar series of coins in honor
of Livia.
Apparently,
Livia was Galba's
patroness
and
bequeathed
him a
large
sum of
money.
Bibliography
Bowerstock,
G.
W.
1984
"Augustus
and the East": The Problem
of the Succession.
Pp.
169-88 in
Caesar
Augustus:
Seven
Aspects.
London: Oxf ord
University
Press.
Dunn, J.
D. G.
1980
Christology
in the
Making.
London:
SCM Press.
Grant,
M.
1982 From Alexander to
Cleopatra.
London: Weidenf eld and Nicolson.
Jones,
D. L.
1980
Christianity
and the Roman
Imperial
Cult.
Pp.
1023-54 in
Auf stieg
und
Niedergang
der
R6mischen
Welt,
volume II 23:2. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter.
Kreitzer,
L.
J.
1987a ANumismatic Clue toActs 19.23-41:
The
Ephesian Cistophori
of Claudius
and
Agrippina. Journal f or
the
Study
of
the New Testament 30: 59-70.
1987b
Jesus
and God in Paul's
Eschatology.
Shef f ield: Shef f ield Academic Press.
Nock,
A. D.
1934
Religious Developments
f rom the
Close of the
Republic
tothe Death
of Nero.
Pp.
465-511 in
Cambridge
Ancient
History,
volume 10. Cam-
bridge University
Press.
Price,
S. R.
FE
1980 Between Man and God: Sacrif ice in
the Roman
Imperial
Cult.
Journal of
Roman Studies 70: 28-43.
Rolf e, J. C., translator
1960 Suetonius: The Lives
of
the Caesars,
volume 1: Books 1-4. Series: Loeb
Classical
Library. Cambridge, MA,
and London: Harvard
University
Press and Heinemann.
1970 Suetonius: The Lives
of
the Caesars,
volume 2: Books 5-8. Series: Loeb
Classical
Library. Cambridge, MA,
and London: Harvard
University
Press and Heinemann.
Stauf f er,
E.
1955 Christ and the Caesars. London:
SCM Press.
Sweet,
L. M.
1919 Roman
Emperor Worship.
Boston:
Gorham Press.
Taylor,
L. R.
1931 The
Divinity of
the Roman
Emperor.
Middletown,
CT: The American
Philological
Association.
Weinstock,
S.
1971 Divus
Julius.
London: Oxf ord Uni-
versity
Press.
Winstedt,
E.
O.,
translator
1967 Cicero: Letters to
Atticus,
volume 3.
Series: Loeb Classical
Library.
Cam-
bridge, MA,
and London: Harvard
University
Press and Heinemann.
LI
Recent
Archaeological
Discoveries
and Biblical Research
William G. Dever
Does the Bible record historical events? Does
archaeology prove
the
accuracy
of the Bible?
William Dever believes that we can at last
begin
to answer these controversial
questions by
using archaeological
evidence f rom excavations and
surveys
done in Israel
during
the last
generation,
as well as the Hebrew Bible and other ancient texts. His
provocative analysis
of f ers the
departing point
f or a new model of ancient Palestine that conf orms bothto recent
archaeological
work and the Bible.
The Samuel and Althea Stroum Lectures in
Jewish
Studies
Clothbound, $17.50
Available at
your
local bookstore or call 1-800-441-4115
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON PRESS
P.O. Box 50096
*
Seattle,
WA98145
.
Biblical
Archaeologist,
December 1990 217