So I’m reading a text on the biblical book of Revelation. On one of its pages I read this discussion that summarizes some assertions I’ve encountered before, but which I find to be overstated: “Beginning with Augustus Caesar (the Roman ruler at the time of Jesus’s birth) some one hundred years before the writing of the book of Revelation, every Roman ruler took on more and more titles that were divine. By the time of the writing of the book of Revelation, the Roman ruler Domitian was to be addressed as “Lord and God.” And the common people knew these titles because the very coins that they used bore a likeness of the Roman ruler and one or more of his divine titles. In our context, it would be like altering pennies, nickels, and quarters from "In God we trust" to "Lincoln is God," "Jefferson is Lord," and "Washington is God." In the day-to-day exchange of coins, the expressions of blasphemy would pass from hand to hand.” When it comes to Christian blasphemies on Roman coins, I just don’t find very much evidence for that, aside from the simple fact that the reverses feature the deities of Roman religion. But this writer—who is clearly not a numismatic specialist—seems to be focusing on the obverse legends. The only legends that might qualify are those of Augustus and maybe Tiberius (shown below), which feature the DIVI F “Son of the Deified” titles. Most other first-century titles seem to focus on various victories and consulships held. Is the writer overstating his case, or are there some provincial legends that might better fulfill his description? Or am I missing something regarding Roman imperial issues?
I have six children greatly ranging in age, and I have always taught them that everybody has an opinion. And, our own opinions tend to override and outweigh the facts in most cases. When you read anything, you have to be able to discern fact from opinion, which means that you need to be able to have evidence to prove or disprove whatever it is that is being stated. My kids always ask me, also, why I am always looking at and reading about coins. Well, coins are part of the evidence of history. History is strewn with conflict. And the victor in any conflict gets to write the history surrounding any said conflict. Whether that conflict involves actual war, religion, science, or the price of tea in China, there will persist evidences. So, we should look at this evidence directly to determine whether or not the writer is overstating his case, or even misrepresenting it to support his own opinion. The obvious evidence to consider in this case is obviously the coins themselves. Your own evidence you point out shows very little support for his position. At best, his position would then be overstated. However, if we dig a bit further (ahead), we will find some interesting evidence. Fast forward another three centuries to "Constantine the Great" and we begin to see an interesting entry in the legend: D N (Dominus Noster) or Our Lord. We now have a link to the writer's position. However, it is centuries ahead of its time. On top of that, this blasphemy is from none other than "the first Christian Emperor". I would say that the archaeology of numismatics does not support the writer's position, even in overstatement. But, rather, I would have to say that the position is misrepresented. But, that is just my opinion. Here is an interesting link on Constantine and his coins.
Or, for a more thorough look at his coinage and history behind the coins, @Victor_Clark's website, http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/
I suppose by a general, overall sense; any human claiming deity aside from Christ would be considered blasphemy to Christians and the Biblical God. But, why call out a specific historical figure when there have been hundreds claiming Godhood before and after Domitian? The writer may not realize that the ratio of Christians to Roman Pagans was very small. Seems the writer thought that Christianity was prevalent enough for Domitian to realize this and not address himself as deity? Why would he? "When in Rome;" literally.
The DN, which becomes ubiquitous in LRBs, first appears under Diocletian. Indeed, long after the first century.
Yes, I’d agree. But the writer seems to call specific attention to coin legends of the first century as a locus of this blasphemy. I just don’t see it, beyond Augustus and Tiberius.
This is the problem when we take modern values or understandings and apply them to a historical era, the original meanings are lost or misunderstood.
If I remember right, the extent of Constantine's blasphemy was that he considered himself to be on par with the 12 disciples. Hence the name Constantinople...
I agree the writer is vastly overstating their case (where is this published?), but the answer to this particular question is yes. The following coin is an example which hails both Nero and Agrippina as deities, "theoi" (AE 17 from Aeolis in Myrina): Obverse legend: ΘΕΩΝ ΝΕΡΩΝΑ CΕΒΑCΤΟΝ Reverse legend: ΘΕAΝ ΑΓΡΙΠΠΙΝΑΝ
Having not read the entirety of the quoted referenced text, I would only have to assume that Domitian fit perfectly into the writer's argument. Perhaps not quite fully understanding the span of time that "ancient roman coins" have traversed, the author may have assumed that the coinage of the early roman Caesars included similar legends on their coinage and thus prove his thesis. True! Coins with the image of Diocletian began to appear in 305 with the DN legend. But, they were SEN AVG, thus after his abdication. So, I would be under an assumption that Constantine would had been the one to authorize such a declaration, possibly for political reasons as a forerunner to his own use of the term? Roman coinage is not my forte. I'm still just touching the tip of that ice burg. Are there any samples you can point to prior to his abdication? I would be interested in those! Roman history is one thing I do delve into (even similar texts like the one this post originated with), and it's always nice to have references when fishing through all the opinions, assumptions, and possibilities.
Nice examples. Thank you for sharing. I am curious, do you know of examples with Latin legends from the same era?
It is called "presentism" " uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts."
The Revelation passage comes from this text: https://www.amazon.com/Revelation-Interpretation-Studies-William-Pender/dp/0664228585/ref=nodl_ I generally have a positive view of this slim book. But because it is meant for a devotional context, it may not be designed to satisfy historians. The general point is sound that an imperial cult is developing. The provincial coins might help justify the numismatic details.
Have you read the full context of his argument, yet? Is he pushing a 1st century tribulation theory? Saying that times were so evil.
Mercifully, this author is staying clear of the kind of hysterical interpretations of Revelation that have marred thoughtful--and especially devotional--studies of this book. I haven't gotten to the chapter that provides fuller context for the quoted passage, but I think it simply tries to show the Revelation author "John" striving to encourage a Church facing increasing persecution, using the apocalyptic language that was not uncommon for the genre which Revelation represents.
