Facing the Mob: Rome, the Crowd, and the New Testament

By Benjamin Browning

Whether you are reading the story of Pilate's encounter with angry crowds during the trial of Jesus or reading one of the numerous accounts of mob violence in the book of Acts, you will find that the threat of crowd violence is a common theme in the New Testament, particularly in the Gospels and Acts. In Facing the Mob, Benjamin Browning provides a thorough examination of how government officials in the early Roman Empire responded to civil unrest. He then uses these insights from the ancient world to provide readers of the New Testament with tools that will help them to interpret civil unrest passages more effectively.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Release date: Feb 25, 2022
• ISBN: 9781666706994

Book preview

Introduction

Civil unrest is a common theme in the New Testament.

¹

Disorganized crowds or organized groups threatened public order, and government officials were forced to address the problem. A group of religious leaders, supported by an angry crowd, confronted Pilate during the trial of Jesus (Matt 27:11–26; Mark 15:1–15; Luke 23:1–25; John 18:28—19:16). An unknown group in Corinth attacked Sosthenes, a synagogue leader, while the proconsul, Gallio, was present (Acts 18:12–17). In Ephesus, local leaders halted a riot by threatening the mob with Roman military intervention (Acts 19:23–41). Additionally, when a mob attacked Paul on the Temple mount in Jerusalem, a Roman military commander was forced to defend the apostle with armed soldiers (Acts 21:27—22:30). In short, New Testament writers recorded numerous examples of government officials encountering and responding to civil unrest.

²

Therefore, readers of the New Testament would benefit from gaining a deeper understanding of how government officials interacted with and responded to civil unrest.

The New Testament was written and set in the Roman Empire of the first century AD, and a cursory examination of this historical and social context reveals significant similarities with the situations described in the New Testament. Civil unrest and political dissidence were common in the Roman Empire during the first century AD. Famine, local rivalries, religious unrest, and other triggers could cause collapses in public order. Organized groups or disorganized crowds could cause riots, revolts, or rebellions that might compromise the stability of the empire. During the reign of Caligula, an anti-Jewish riot in Alexandria resulted in the deaths of numerous Jews.

³

In AD 51, an angry crowd surrounded Emperor Claudius during a famine and threw bread at him.

⁴

Additionally, under Nero, two rival factions caused a riot when they confronted each other at a theater in Pompeii.

⁵

Therefore, since the experience of civil unrest in the Roman Empire is the social and historical context within which New Testament accounts are set, a thorough examination of the ancient Roman context should provide useful insights for studying New Testament passages in which government officials encountered civil unrest. This raises the question, What insights do government responses to civil unrest in the Roman Empire provide for the study of the New Testament? In this book, I will provide a thorough exploration of how government officials in the early Roman Empire responded to civil unrest, and I will present a model that readers of the New Testament can use when examining passages that record an official dealing with civil unrest.

Defining Terms

Before moving forward, it is necessary to define terms. Civil unrest in a broad sense is any situation in which a hostile group or hostile crowd disrupts public order through violence or the threat of violence. This includes public protests where the potential for violence is present (whether implicit or explicit), mob violence, riots, revolts, terrorist activity, and banditry. In a more restricted sense, civil unrest is any situation in which a group or crowd disrupts public order through public protests, mob violence, or riots. I will use the restricted sense.

⁶

A hostile group is an organized collection of people whose connection to each other is long-term in nature and who generally share a group identity and common goals.

⁷

Furthermore, a hostile group has some grievance with or hostility toward the government or another person or group within the society, whether short-term or long-term. For example, in Luke 23, the religious leaders were a hostile group because they were an organized collection of individuals who shared a collective identity within Jewish religious society and had a grievance with an official. A hostile crowd is a collection of people that is temporary in nature, lacks a well-defined organizational structure, shares little or no group identity, and has some grievance with or hostility toward the government or another person or group within the society.

⁸

The crowd mentioned in Luke 23:1–25 is an example. The crowd was a temporary gathering of people for a particular grievance. They were led and influenced by the religious leaders, but they were not part of that group.

In this book, a government official is any person within the Roman Empire who holds official power that is recognized as legitimate by the imperial government. Provincial governors (such as proconsuls, imperial legates, and prefects or procurators) held imperium over their provinces, which meant that they had a great deal of authority, including the power to impose capital punishment.

⁹

However, the Roman government also allowed local leaders and governing bodies (such as local magistrates, client kings, and the chief priests and Sanhedrin in Jerusalem) to exercise official authority within their regions. The emperor limited the extent of their authority and could intervene, either personally or through a representative, if local officials acted in a way that was considered inappropriate, but they still held legitimate authority within the empire. Thus, local officials should be seen as part of the broader Roman governmental structure and not as an independent category.

¹⁰

Delimitations

In order to keep this book at a manageable length, I must limit its scope. Therefore, in this book, I will use the more restricted sense of civil unrest, thus limiting my examination to public protests, mob violence, and riots.

¹¹

However, mutinies will be included in the study so long as they have the characteristics of public protests, mob violence, or riots, and they have not escalated into full-scale military revolts or revolutions. The reason for this delimitation is that the New Testament contains few explicit examples of revolt, revolution, terrorism, or banditry.

¹²

Furthermore, other scholars have explored the influence of revolt, revolution, terrorism, and banditry on the social world of the New Testament in a satisfactory manner.

¹³

The goal of the present work is to fill a gap in research, not to revisit previous work. The New Testament has numerous examples of government officials responding to public protests, mob violence, or riots; but insufficient research has been done on this topic. The present work is meant to address this deficiency, and the inclusion of material on revolts, revolutions, terrorism, and banditry would distract from this goal.

Methodology

In this book, I will use social-scientific criticism, which means I will employ methods gleaned from the social sciences in order to gain a better understanding of the society within which the New Testament was set. The book is divided into three parts.

In Part I, I will examine the ancient context to gain an understanding of the manner in which government officials in the early Roman Empire dealt with civil unrest. I will identify the specific tools and methods that government officials used to respond to civil unrest, and I will identify the situational and sociopolitical factors that could have influenced an official’s decision to choose a particular approach. When exploring the ancient context, I will use primary sources from various genres, including historical works (such as those written by Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, Plutarch, and Dio Cassius), polemical works (such as Philo’s Embassy to Gaius), philosophical works (such as Seneca’s On Clemency), and fictional works (such as Octavia, and Juvenal’s Satires).

¹⁴

However, in general, I will limit my research to primary source material written in or about the first century AD, because this is the period within which the New Testament was written and set. For example, despite their later dates of composition, I will include information from Suetonius’s Twelve Caesars and Dio Cassius’s Roman History because they record events that took place in the first century AD. However, as an exception, I will also use ancient sources written in or about the first century BC or the second century AD if the information reflects practices or policies that probably existed in the first century AD. For example, Appian’s description of an encounter in which Octavian and Marc Antony responded to a violent crowd in Rome is admissible because, as emperor, Octavian had a significant influence on the laws and customs that characterized the first century AD.

¹⁵

Furthermore, Pliny the Younger’s letters are admissible because he wrote in the early second century, and Roman policing policy during this period was similar to that of the first century. I will also consult secondary sources to study the first-century context, but only if the primary source material supports their conclusions.

In Part II, I will analyze contemporary social-scientific models in order to provide insights for developing a model to study the ancient Roman context. I will provide a brief overview and critique of models produced by anthropologists, sociologists, and political scientists concerning social control, political dissidence, public order, and related issues. I will then combine insights gained from contemporary models with insights gained from exploring the Ancient Roman context to create a Roman civil unrest management model for the first century AD. The model will account for situational and sociopolitical factors that could have influenced Roman responses, consider the range of methods available to government officials in a given circumstance, and predict probable responses.

In Part III, I will apply the Roman civil unrest management model developed in Part II to select New Testament passages to determine whether the model provides insight into those passages. All four Gospels and the book of Acts include passages that record government encounters with hostile groups and crowds. The limited length of the book makes an analysis of every applicable passage infeasible. Therefore, I will apply the model only to the following passages: Matt 14:3–12; Mark 14:1–2 and 10–11; Luke 23:1–25; John 18:28—19:16; and Acts 21:27—22:30. The five passages are drawn from judicial, public, and religious settings. Matthew 14:3–12 is a public setting. Herod feared the popular reaction that executing John the Baptist would bring and adjusted his behavior as a result. Mark 14:1–2 and 10–11 describe a religious setting. The chief priests and scribes adjusted their plans to attack Jesus because they feared the reaction of the people if they attacked him during Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Luke 23:1–25 and John 18:28—19:16 are both judicial and religious settings. Luke 23 is a representative of the synoptic account of the trial of Jesus. John 18 and 19 present the Johannine account of the trial of Jesus. Acts 21:27—22:30 is a religious setting. A Roman military commander responded to a Jewish crowd outside of the Temple. These passages should provide the reader with an understanding of how the model works across various settings and situations.

1

. Civil unrest or the fear of civil unrest occurs in the following

26

passages: Matt

14

:

5

;

21

:

23

–

27

;

21

:

46

;

26

:

3

–

5

,

47

–

56

;

27

:

11

–

26

; Mark

11

:

18

;

14

:

2

,

43

;

15

:

1

–

15

; Luke

4

:

16

–

29

;

21

:

3

–

6

;

22

:

47

–

53

;

23

:

1

–

25

; John

7

:

10

–

32

;

18

:

28

—

19

:

16

; Acts

5

:

24

–

27

;

6

:

8

—

7

:

60

;

14

:

19

;

16

:

16

–

24

;

17

:

5

–

9

,

10

–

15

;

18

:

12

–

17

;

19

:

23

–

41

;

21

:

27

—

22

:

30

; and

23

:

12

—

24

:

27

.

2

. Government officials respond to civil unrest or the threat of civil unrest in the following

17

passages: Matt

14

:

3

–

12

;

21

:

23

–

27

,

45

–

46

;

26

:

1

–

5

;

27

:

11

–

26

; Mark

14

:

1

–

2

;

15

:

1

–

15

; Luke

23

:

1

–

25

; John

18

:

28

—

19

:

16

; Acts

5

:

24

–

27

;

6

:

8

—

7

:

60

;

16

:

19

–

24

;

17

:

5

–

9

;

18

:

12

–

17

;

19

:

23

–

41

;

21

:

27

—

22

:

30

; and

23

:

12

—

24

:

27

.

3

. Philo, Embassy

20

.

132

.

4

. Tacitus, Ann.

12

.

43

; Suetonius, Claud.

19

.

5

. Tacitus, Ann.

14

.

17

.

6

. See Delimitations section.

7

. Mannheim, Systematic Sociology,

109

–

11

.

8

. Mannheim, Systematic Sociology,

103

.

9

. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law,

1

–

23

.

10

. Garnsey and Saller, Roman Empire,

35

–

54

; Lintott, Imperium Romanum,

22

–

69

,

129

–

60

; Alston, Aspects of Roman History,

338

–

53

.

11

. See Defining Terms section.

12

. However, these topics do influence the social world of the New Testament and are, therefore, important for New Testament interpretation.

13

. For example, Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs; Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence.

14

. For a thorough discussion of the challenges associated with ancient sources about riot control and civil unrest in the Roman Empire, see Kelly, Riot Control,

151

–

56

.

15

. Appian, Bell. civ.

5

.

67

–

68

.

Part I

Facing Unrest in the Roman Empire

Public protests by groups and crowds had an important role in the ancient Roman world. They were a medium through which the populace could voice concerns and convince, or even coerce, leaders to meet particular needs.

¹

In essence, public protest, particularly in the form of urban crowds, provided the population of the Roman Empire with a form of political representation that was not available through formal governmental structures.

²

However, public protest could lead to civil unrest and revolt if handled improperly.

In the last century of the Roman Republic, civil unrest and political turmoil contributed to the collapse and reformation of the Roman political system.

³

Tiberius Gracchus, a tribune of the plebs, harnessed the power of large Roman crowds when he sought to institute popular land reform. Gracchus never directly sponsored crowd violence, but the crowds supporting him intimidated and attacked his opponents, regardless of his intentions.

⁴

Eventually, a group of senators started a mob that murdered Tiberius Gracchus.

⁵

Nevertheless, during his time in the political spotlight, he demonstrated that the populace was a political force that could be used to effect change. Other elites, such as Gaius Gracchus, Publius Clodius Pulcher, and Julius Caesar, followed Tiberius Gracchus’s example and used popular sentiment as a tool for achieving their political aims. Mob violence became a common feature of the late Roman Republic, with popular leaders hiring gangs and convincing mobs to intimidate and sometimes murder political rivals.

⁶

Popular violence and civil unrest were not the primary causes of the Republic’s collapse, but they were significant factors in creating the political instability that Roman military leaders exploited in order to seize power.

⁷

After a series of civil wars, Octavian (Augustus) Caesar emerged as the sole ruler of the Roman Empire. He restructured the Roman political system and restored stability to the Roman state.

⁸

The collapse of the Roman Republic and the rise of Augustus ushered in a period known as the Pax Romana or the Roman peace.

⁹

During this period, the Roman Empire dominated large portions of territory and enforced, with some notable exceptions, a level of political and social stability that was higher than that of the last century of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire in the third century AD.

¹⁰

The stability the Roman government provided during the Pax Romana allowed communication, education, art, and trade to flourish within the borders of the empire.

¹¹

However, one must be careful not to overstate the level of security, stability, and prosperity provided during this period. Augustus reduced some of the problems that led to civil unrest in the late Republic, but he could not eliminate them. Living conditions in the ancient world, particularly in the urban centers, were often poor. Cities were densely populated, crime was a significant problem, and poverty was widespread.

¹²

These conditions often resulted in mob violence or public demonstrations in which the threat of violence was implicit. Food shortages, sporting events, theater performances, high taxes, and unpopular government actions could contribute to Mob violence.

¹³

Food shortages and public gatherings were particularly troublesome. During a food shortage, the lower classes could become desperate and begin to harass government officials, even the emperor.

¹⁴

Public gatherings, such as gladiatorial games and theater performances, were vulnerable to public outbursts that could turn violent because they offered the lower classes an opportunity to voice grievances to government officials and because they allowed people from various factions to come within close proximity of each other.

¹⁵

Thus, in the first century AD, officials within the Roman Empire had to address and respond to civil unrest without ignoring the important role of public protest in the ancient world.

1

. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence,

90

–

99

; Africa, Urban Violence,

3

–

21

; see also Rudé, Crowd in History.

2

. During the Republican Era, the lower classes (Plebs) had official power; but in practice, this power was limited by laws, customs, and political alliances that allowed the political elites to control the government. During the Imperial Era, the official power of the lower classes was largely dissolved.