History Podcasts

Who founded Rome?

Who founded Rome?

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

According to myth "…

the Trojan refugee Aeneas escape[d] to Italy and found[ed] the line of Romans through his son Iulus, the namesake of the Julio-Claudian dynasty."

*Aside: Livy (1797). The history of Rome. George Baker (trans.). Printed for A.Strahan

The founding of Rome was known to be a myth and Romulus and Remus were founders of Rome and Romulus killed Remus to control Rome at the time.*

Is there a evidence to suggest that refugees from Troy founded Rome?

Even the legends make no such statement. Aeneas and his followers travel to Latium, the area near the site of Rome and mix with the population. Later, Romulus and Remus, of the line of the Kings of the Latin town of Alba Longa found Rome. According to myth, the Kings of Alba Longa are linked to the Trojans.

Julius Caesar's family traced their heritage back to Aeneas himself, and was proud of that link to the God Venus.

Herodotus and other ancient writers claimed the Etruscans were immigrants from Asia minor, possibly from the area of Lydia. It's sometimes asserted that they came west in search of metal: they were famous in antiquity for their metalworking skills and (the theory goes) they came from a much more technoiogically advanced area to exploit the resources of the area.

Given the undoubted intermingling of Etruscans and Romans in the early days of Rome, it's not hard to see how this could give rise to the legend of Trojan immigration to Latium.


The History of Rome

How was Rome founded? How did it become an Empire? What was the role of the Catholic Church throughout Rome’s history? Learn about the fascinating past of this striking city before you travel to Rome.

The exact origins of the city of Rome are still somewhat of a mystery. There are several theories all based on the writings of ancient authors and the archaeological discoveries.

For this reason, the founding of Rome is based mainly on legend and myth, instead of solid facts and figures. The existence of a Roman Kingdom was even questioned during practically two centuries by expert historians.

During the nineteenth and twentieth century, they dismissed the idea of the early kings of Rome (Romulus, Numa Pompilius, Tullus Hostilius) as well as the date of the founding of what would later become the capital of Italy, in 753 BC. This part of history was merely considered a legend and not taken seriously.

It was only during the late twentieth century when, thanks to the findings of numerous archeological digs and other sciences, that the myths surrounding the establishment of the city and its first rulers were reconsidered.

It is believed that the first inhabitants of Rome came from various parts of the region, and had neither the economic nor the cultural development of their northern neighbors, the Estrucans, nor the southern civilization called the Sabines and Latins.

In the Palatine Hill archeologists found the remains of a primitive settlement from the eighth century BC, with burials on the outskirts of the village. It is thought that as the population grew, the inhabitants settled on the slopes of the nearby hills, and during the next century they established themselves in the valley.

The legend of Aeneas

According to another legend, the Trojan prince, Aeneas, reached the Italian coast and married Lavinia, the daughter of King Latinus, thus becoming king.

This myth is not only told by Greek historians, but it is defended in Italy compared to other legends that give Rome an Arcadian origin, related to the myth of Evandro, or Achaean, related to Odysseus or Ulysses. The myth of Aeneas gives Rome a divine and Greek founding.

Sadly, the legend of Aeneas is not possible as Troy was destroyed in 1200 BC

Capitoline Wolf

DMCA Complaint

If you believe that content available by means of the Website (as defined in our Terms of Service) infringes one or more of your copyrights, please notify us by providing a written notice (“Infringement Notice”) containing the information described below to the designated agent listed below. If Varsity Tutors takes action in response to an Infringement Notice, it will make a good faith attempt to contact the party that made such content available by means of the most recent email address, if any, provided by such party to Varsity Tutors.

Your Infringement Notice may be forwarded to the party that made the content available or to third parties such as ChillingEffects.org.

Please be advised that you will be liable for damages (including costs and attorneys’ fees) if you materially misrepresent that a product or activity is infringing your copyrights. Thus, if you are not sure content located on or linked-to by the Website infringes your copyright, you should consider first contacting an attorney.

Please follow these steps to file a notice:

You must include the following:

A physical or electronic signature of the copyright owner or a person authorized to act on their behalf An identification of the copyright claimed to have been infringed A description of the nature and exact location of the content that you claim to infringe your copyright, in sufficient detail to permit Varsity Tutors to find and positively identify that content for example we require a link to the specific question (not just the name of the question) that contains the content and a description of which specific portion of the question – an image, a link, the text, etc – your complaint refers to Your name, address, telephone number and email address and A statement by you: (a) that you believe in good faith that the use of the content that you claim to infringe your copyright is not authorized by law, or by the copyright owner or such owner’s agent (b) that all of the information contained in your Infringement Notice is accurate, and (c) under penalty of perjury, that you are either the copyright owner or a person authorized to act on their behalf.

Send your complaint to our designated agent at:

Charles Cohn Varsity Tutors LLC
101 S. Hanley Rd, Suite 300
St. Louis, MO 63105


Livy was born in Patavium in northern Italy, now modern Padua. There is a debate about the year of his birth – either in 64 BC, or more likely, in 59 BC (see below). [3] At the time of his birth, his home city of Patavium was the second wealthiest on the Italian peninsula, and the largest in the province of Cisalpine Gaul (northern Italy). Cisalpine Gaul was merged in Italy proper during his lifetime and its inhabitants were given Roman citizenship by Julius Caesar. In his works, Livy often expressed his deep affection and pride for Patavium, and the city was well known for its conservative values in morality and politics. [4] "He was by nature a recluse, mild in temperament and averse to violence the restorative peace of his time gave him the opportunity to turn all his imaginative passion to the legendary and historical past of the country he loved." [5]

Livy's teenage years were during the 40s BC, when a period of numerous civil wars throughout the Roman world occurred. The governor of Cisalpine Gaul at the time, Asinius Pollio, tried to sway Patavium [ when? ] into supporting Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony), the leader of one of the warring factions. The wealthy citizens of Patavium refused to contribute money and arms to Asinius Pollio, and went into hiding. Pollio then attempted to bribe the slaves of those wealthy citizens to expose the whereabouts of their masters his bribery did not work, and the citizens instead pledged their allegiance to the Senate. It is therefore likely [ citation needed ] that the Roman civil wars prevented Livy from pursuing a higher education in Rome or going on a tour of Greece, which was common for adolescent males of the nobility at the time. Many years later, Asinius Pollio derisively commented on Livy's "patavinity", saying that Livy's Latin showed certain "provincialisms" frowned on at Rome. Pollio's dig may have been the result of bad feelings he harboured toward the city of Patavium from his experiences there during the civil wars. [6]

Livy probably went to Rome in the 30s BC, [7] and it is likely that he spent a large amount of time in the city after this, although it may not have been his primary home. During his time in Rome, he was never a senator nor held a government position. His writings contain elementary mistakes on military matters, indicating that he probably never served in the Roman army. However, he was educated in philosophy and rhetoric. It seems that Livy had the financial resources and means to live an independent life, though the origin of that wealth is unknown. He devoted a large part of his life to his writings, which he was able to do because of his financial freedom. [8]

Livy was known to give recitations to small audiences, but he was not heard of to engage in declamation, then a common pastime. He was familiar with the emperor Augustus and the imperial family. Augustus was considered by later Romans to have been the greatest Roman emperor, benefiting Livy's reputation long after his death. Suetonius described how Livy encouraged the future emperor Claudius, who was born in 10 BC, [9] to write historiographical works during his childhood. [10]

Livy's most famous work was his history of Rome. In it he narrates a complete history of the city of Rome, from its foundation to the death of Augustus. Because he was writing under the reign of Augustus, Livy's history emphasizes the great triumphs of Rome. He wrote his history with embellished accounts of Roman heroism in order to promote the new type of government implemented by Augustus when he became emperor. [11] In Livy's preface to his history, he said that he did not care whether his personal fame remained in darkness, as long as his work helped to "preserve the memory of the deeds of the world’s preeminent nation." [12] Because Livy was mostly writing about events that had occurred hundreds of years earlier, the historical value of his work was questionable, although many Romans came to believe his account to be true. [13]

Livy was married and had at least one daughter and one son. [8] He also produced other works, including an essay in the form of a letter to his son, and numerous dialogues, most likely modelled on similar works by Cicero. [14]

Titus Livius died in his home city of Patavium in either (see below) AD 12 or 17 the latter would have been three years after the death of the emperor Augustus. [4]

Livy's only surviving work is commonly known as "History of Rome" (or Ab Urbe Condita, ''From the Founding of the City''), which was his career from his mid-life, probably 32, until he left Rome for Padua in old age, probably in the reign of Tiberius after the death of Augustus. When he began this work he was already past his youth presumably, events in his life prior to that time had led to his intense activity as a historian. Seneca the Younger [15] gives brief mention that he was also known as an orator and philosopher and had written some treatises in those fields from a historical point of view. [b]

Imperial era Edit

Livy's History of Rome was in high demand from the time it was published and remained so during the early years of the empire. Pliny the Younger reported that Livy's celebrity was so widespread, a man from Cádiz travelled to Rome and back for the sole purpose of meeting him. [16] Livy's work was a source for the later works of Aurelius Victor, Cassiodorus, Eutropius, Festus, Florus, Granius Licinianus and Orosius. Julius Obsequens used Livy, or a source with access to Livy, to compose his De Prodigiis, an account of supernatural events in Rome from the consulship of Scipio and Laelius to that of Paulus Fabius and Quintus Aelius. [ citation needed ]

Livy wrote during the reign of Augustus, who came to power after a civil war with generals and consuls claiming to be defending the Roman Republic, such as Pompey. Patavium had been pro-Pompey. To clarify his status, the victor of the civil war, Octavian Caesar, had wanted to take the title Romulus (the first king of Rome) but in the end accepted the senate proposal of Augustus. Rather than abolishing the republic, he adapted it and its institutions to imperial rule.

The historian Tacitus, writing about a century after Livy's time, described the Emperor Augustus as his friend. Describing the trial of Cremutius Cordus, Tacitus represents him as defending himself face-to-face with the frowning Tiberius as follows:

I am said to have praised Brutus and Cassius, whose careers many have described and no one mentioned without eulogy. Titus Livius, pre-eminently famous for eloquence and truthfulness, extolled Cn. Pompeius in such a panegyric that Augustus called him Pompeianus, and yet this was no obstacle to their friendship. [17]

Livy's reasons for returning to Padua after the death of Augustus (if he did) are unclear, but the circumstances of Tiberius' reign certainly allow for speculation. [ citation needed ]

Later Edit

During the Middle Ages, interest in Livy declined because Western scholars were more focused on religious texts. [18] Due to the length of the work, the literate class was already reading summaries rather than the work itself, which was tedious to copy, expensive, and required a lot of storage space. It must have been during this period, if not before, that manuscripts began to be lost without replacement.

The Renaissance was a time of intense revival the population discovered that Livy's work was being lost and large amounts of money changed hands in the rush to collect Livian manuscripts. The poet Beccadelli sold a country home for funding to purchase one manuscript copied by Poggio. [18] Petrarch and Pope Nicholas V launched a search for the now missing books. Laurentius Valla published an amended text initiating the field of Livy scholarship. Dante speaks highly of him in his poetry, and Francis I of France commissioned extensive artwork treating Livian themes Niccolò Machiavelli's work on republics, the Discourses on Livy, is presented as a commentary on the History of Rome. Respect for Livy rose to lofty heights. Walter Scott reports in Waverley (1814) as an historical fact that a Scotchman involved in the first Jacobite uprising of 1715 was recaptured (and executed) because, having escaped, he yet lingered near the place of his captivity in "the hope of recovering his favourite Titus Livius". [19]

Livy was likely born between 64 and 59 BC and died sometime between AD 12 to 17. He started his work sometime between 31 and 25 BC. St. Jerome says that Livy was born the same year as Marcus Valerius Messala Corvinus and died the same year as Ovid. [20] Messala, however, was born earlier, in 64 BC, and Ovid's death, usually taken to be the same year as Livy's, is more uncertain. As an alternative view, Ronald Syme argues for 64 BC–12 AD as a range for Livy, separating Livy's death from that of Ovid in 17. [21] A death date of 12 AD, however, removes Livy from Augustus' best years and makes him depart for Padua without the good reason of the second emperor, Tiberius, being not as tolerant of his republicanism. The contradiction remains.

The authority supplying information from which possible vital data on Livy can be deduced is Eusebius of Caesarea, a bishop of the early Christian Church. One of his works was a summary of world history in ancient Greek, termed the Chronikon, dating from the early 4th century AD. This work was lost except for fragments (mainly excerpts), but not before it had been translated in whole and in part by various authors such as St. Jerome. The entire work survives in two separate manuscripts, Armenian and Greek (Christesen and Martirosova-Torlone 2006). St. Jerome wrote in Latin. Fragments in Syriac exist. [22]

Eusebius' work consists of two books: the Chronographia, a summary of history in annalist form, and the Chronikoi Kanones, tables of years and events. St. Jerome translated the tables into Latin as the Chronicon, probably adding some information of his own from unknown sources. Livy's dates appear in Jerome's Chronicon.

The main problem with the information given in the manuscripts is that, between them, they often give different dates for the same events or different events, do not include the same material entirely, and reformat what they do include. A date may be in Ab Urbe Condita or in Olympiads or in some other form, such as age. These variations may have occurred through scribal error or scribal license. Some material has been inserted under the aegis of Eusebius.

The topic of manuscript variants is a large and specialized one, on which authors of works on Livy seldom care to linger. As a result, standard information in a standard rendition is used, which gives the impression of a standard set of dates for Livy. There are no such dates. [ citation needed ] A typical presumption is of a birth in the 2nd year of the 180th Olympiad and a death in the first year of the 199th Olympiad, which are coded 180.2 and 199.1 respectively. [20] All sources use the same first Olympiad, 776/775–773/772 BC by the modern calendar. By a complex formula (made so by the 0 reference point not falling on the border of an Olympiad), these codes correspond to 59 BC for the birth, 17 AD for the death. In another manuscript the birth is in 180.4, or 57 BC. [23]

Legend Has It

The fate of the twins was predetermined when their grandfather, King Nimitor who ruled over the city of Alba Longa along River Tiber, was dethroned by his brother Amulius. The latter, after seizing power, wanted to rule forever so he killed all other male heirs to the throne and forced Nimitor's daughter Rhea Silvia to be a Vestal Virgin. He believed that the woman's vow of chastity will prevent her from bearing sons who will have a claim to the throne.

But Rhea Silva was impregnated by war God Mars and gave birth to twin boys. Amulius sent her to prison and condemned the twin babies to death. They were sent to Tiber river to be drowned. However, the servant who was tasked with getting rid of the babies took pity on the twins and instead placed them inside a basket. The basket was carried by the water along the river until it reached the seven hills. According to legends, the twins were then found by a she-wolf who took the boys in and took care of them in her lair. They stayed with the she-wolf until a shepherd found them.

The Shepherd Faustulus Bringing Romulus and Remus to His Wife, Nicolas Mignard (1654)

Another legend though, tells of a story of a woman named Roma, who according to stories traveled to the area from Troy after the famed city’s demise. She along with the Aeneas and other survivors reached the shores of the Tiber river. This, they believe was where they settled and founded what soon became Italy’s capital and one of the mightiest empires of the ancient world.

Rome's origins and the founding of Rome

There are many reasons why these settlements and eventually the city of Rome prospered. The river Tiber allowed trade and was used to easily reach other locations (the sea or other villages). The soil was very fertile and the hills surrounding what would later be the city of Rome made it easy to protect and defend the city.

The founding of Rome

The city of Rome was founded from these settlements in the 8th century BC. The founding of Rome is traditionally dated to 753 B.C., date which also marks the beginning of the Roman Kingdom. According to legend, the first Roman King was Romulus who named the city "Roma" (see the myth of the founding of Rome below). Romulus built the city upon the Palatine Hill and made great efforts to attract new people. He encouraged men of all kinds and even slaves to come to Rome and contribute to the building and development of the city.

The Rape of the Sabine Women: is the story true?

However, the men inhabiting Rome, sometimes slaves or ex-criminals, did not have the best reputation. Many of them were unwanted men from other towns and therefore most of the neighboring tribes refused to have marriages arranged with them. Neighboring tribes also feared that Rome's growing power would become a threat.

Romulus then came up with an idea. According to the ancient writer Plutarch, Romulus invented the Consualia festival after discovering an altar of a god called Consus underground. Consus was the protector of grains and the god of councils. During the festival, horses and mules adorned with flowers and garlands were led through the streets. Chariot races were also held and according to Levy the festival honored the Equestrian Neptune.

Romulus invited the surrounding tribes to the festival including the Caeninenses, the Crustumini, the Antemnates, and the Sabines. At the festival, Romulus gave a signal and the Romans captured the virgin Sabines women while fighting off the Sabine men. Romulus then implored the outraged captured women to take Romans as husbands. Livy wrote that Romulus talked to every single Sabine woman and promised each one of them more rights in Rome including civic and property rights.

The king of the Caeninenses then attacked Rome to be killed and his army defeated. Romulus later took over Caenuna. The Antemnates and later the Crustumini invaded Roman territory to also be defeated and have their town captured by the Roman army. Finally, the Sabines declared war, a war which turned out to be bloodier than the wars with the other tribes. The king of the Sabines, King Titus Tatius almost succeeded in capturing Rome thanks to a treator among the Romans. Tarpeia, the daughter of Spurius Tarpeius, the governor of the citadel on the Capitoline Hill, opened the city gates to the Sabines in return for gold she was promised. Later Tarpeia would be crushed to death by the shields of the Sabines and her body thrown from a rock ever since named after her, the Tarpeian Rock.

The Intervention of the Sabine Women

The Sabines held the citadel on the Capitoline Hill. The Romans led by Hostus Hostilius attacked the citadel held by Mettus Curtius. Hostus fell in battle and the Romans retreated to the gate of the Palatium. Romulus then rallied his men, promising them a temple to Jupiter Stator on the very site. The Romans attacked the Sabines and Mettus Curtius fell from his horse to flee on foot.

At this point, the Sabine women intervened and threw themselves and their children between the two fighting armies, imploring their husbands to stop fighting against their fathers and brothers. Livy wrote:

At this juncture the Sabine women, from the outrage on whom the war originated, with hair dishevelled and garments rent, the timidity of their sex being overcome by such dreadful scenes, had the courage to throw themselves amid the flying weapons, and making a rush across, to part the incensed armies, and assuage their fury imploring their fathers on the one side, their husbands on the other, “that as fathers-in-law and sons-in-law they would not contaminate each other with impious blood, nor stain their offspring with parricide, the one their grandchildren, the other their children. If you are dissatisfied with the affinity between you, if with our marriages, turn your resentment against us we are the cause of war, we of wounds and of bloodshed to our husbands and parents. It were better that we perish than live widowed or fatherless without one or other of you."

At this point, the battle ended and the leaders of the Romans and the Sabines signed a peace treaty, which was more than a peace treaty: they agreed to form one state under the sovereignity of Rome jointly ruled by Romulus and Tatius, until Tatius's death five years later. The Sabines settled on the Capitoline Hill and for three centuries knights were called Ramnenses, from Romulus, and Tatienses, from Tatius.

Is the Rape of the Sabine Women story true? Even though it is said to be a legend, it is probably more of a semi-legend, and a lot of the story is probably true. There probably was a shortage of women in Rome and Roman men were probably unwanted in other towns. It is probably true that the Romans somehow took women from the Sabines and then war ensued. There are a lot of beautiful paintings related to the Rape of the Sabine Women (rape or "raptio" in Latin meaning "kidnapping"). One of the most well-known painting is the one by Jacques-Louis David called The Intervention of the Sabine Women

The founding of Rome myth

The story of the founding of Rome is mostly based on a myth. According to this myth the city was founded in 753 BC by Romulus and Remus which were twins. Their grandfather was a Latin King named Numitor of Alba Longa who had a daughter called Rhea Silvia. Rhea was raped by Mars, the God of War and she gave birth to the twins Romulus and Remus who therefore were half-gods.

Romulus and Remus and the she-wolf

The king that replaced King Numitor feared that Romulus and Remus would take the throne so he ordered that they be drowned. The two children were saved by a she-wolf who raised them. When the twins reached adult age they deposed the king and gave the throne back to Numitor.

They founded the city of Rome. But then Romulus killed Remus. There are various reasons given for this fratricide. One reason given is that they fought over the name of the city. Another reason is that they couldn't agree on the location of the new kingdom.

The she-wolf suckling Romulus and Remus became the symbol of Rome. A symbol of nurturing and strength.

The founding of Rome, the Greek myth

There is another myth that explains the founding of Rome. The Greek myth that says that Romulus was a direct descendant of Prince Aeneas. Prince Aeneas sailed towards Italy with a group of Trojans after Troy (located in today's Turkey) was completely destroyed following the Trojan War. His intention was to find a new Troy. After a long and perillous voyage his ship landed on the banks of the river Tiber.

The men on the ship wanted to leave and continue their journey but the exhausted women decided that they wanted to stay. One of the women named Roma decided to burn the ships so that the men would be forced to stay. The men were initially angry at her but then they realized that they had found an ideal place to form a settlement. Eventually they named their settlement after the woman that burned their ships. This is the Greek myth of the founding of Rome.

The Origins of the Church at Rome

When Paul wrote his letter to Christians at Rome towards the end of his third missionary journey, he was communicating with what appears to be a firmly established collection of believers in that city. This article tackles a question that primary extant sources do not specifically address: how did that collection of believers in Rome come into existence? The earliest available sources leave only indirect clues towards solving this puzzle. As a result, the answer to the question of how the Roman church began must be framed in terms of probabilities rather than certainties. In this article, we will examine the major sources that contribute to the discussion, analyze how scholars have assessed the material, and propose tentative solutions that best explain the data.

Jews in Rome Prior to the Origin of the Church

Sources indicate that before Christians emerged in Rome, Jews had already established a presence in the city. Inscriptions from Jewish catacombs and comments from literary documents open a window into the life, organization, and struggles of the Jews in Rome. The catacomb inscriptions have most recently been dated from the late second through the fifth centuries A.D. 1 Richardson concludes that the inscriptions attest to the existence of at least five synagogues in Rome in the early first century, with the possibility of even more. The “Hebrew synagogue” probably arose first, with subsequent synagogues named after famous allies of the Jews. 2 The language used in inscriptions suggests that many of the synagogues were in the poorer districts of the city. 3 Scholars have noted the lack of evidence for a central organization or leadership structure that oversaw the different synagogues. 4 At the same time, in the inscriptions only leaders are identified in relation to their synagogues. Ordinary Jews affiliated themselves with Judaism as a whole rather than their particular synagogue. 5 Thus the Jews viewed themselves as a unified group despite the apparent lack of a controlling body of spiritual leaders in the city.

Literary excepts describe the social and political environment of the Roman Jews. For instance, as early as 59 B.C., Cicero offers his opinion on the Jews during his defense of Flaccus: “You know what a big crowd it is, how they stick together, how influential they are in informal assemblies… every year it was customary to send gold to Jerusalem on the order of the Jews from Italy and from all our provinces.” 6 Cicero’s remarks confirm the presence of a large community of Jews in Rome and indicate misgivings about their separatist tendencies. Comments by Philo about events under the reign of Augustus provide further information:

“[T]he great section of Rome on the other side of the Tiber is occupied and inhabited by Jews, most of whom were Roman citizens emancipated. For having been brought as captives to Italy they were liberated by their owners and were not forced to violate any of their native institutions… . [T]hey have houses of prayer and meet together in them, particularly on the sacred Sabbaths when they receive as a body of training in their ancestral philosophy … [T]hey collect money for sacred purposes from their first-fruits and send them to Jerusalem by persons who would offer the sacrifices.” 7

Like Cicero, Philo notes that the Jews maintained a distinct identity. The section of Rome Philo mentions (Trastevere) was “the chief foreign quarter of the city, a district characterized by narrow, crowded streets, towering tenement houses, teeming with population.” 8 Philo also refers to the reason some of the Jews now lived in Rome: their ancestors had been forcibly taken to Rome as slaves (under Pompey). 9 Once freed, the Jews bore the title libertini .

As seen from Philo, the Jews were permitted to freely engage in Jewish practices under the favorable policy of Augustus. Things changed under the emperor Tiberius. Tacitus reports that Tiberius took action against the Jews in 19 A.D.:

“Another debate dealt with the proscription of the Egyptian and Jewish rites, and a senatorial edict directed that four thousand descendants of enfranchised slaves, tainted with that superstition and suitable in point of age, were to be shipped to Sardinia and there be employed in suppressing brigandage … The rest had orders to leave Italy, unless they had renounced their impious ceremonial by a given date.” 10

Tacitus thus adds another witness that many Roman Jews were freed slaves. He also labels their beliefs as “superstition,” alluding to the scorn Jews endured as a result of their special religious practices. Most important, the record of Tiberius’ move against the Jewish population stands as the first of several actions against the Roman Jews in the first century. 11

The pre-Christian sources about Jews in Rome are valuable in two ways. First, they provide a glimpse at the Jewish environment from which Christianity likely emerged. Jews maintained their distinct identity and practices through participation in synagogues that were found mostly in poorer districts of the city. They encountered suspicion from outside observers and occasional unwelcome intervention by the government. Second, the Jewish sources help us to understand later important texts more accurately. The lack of central oversight by Jewish religious authorities, the presence of separate synagogues throughout the city, the existence of a group of libertini , and the government’s policy towards the Jews all set the stage for interpreting later texts related to Christianity’s emergence in Rome.

Christianity’s Presence in Rome in the Time of Claudius

Several important texts relating events in the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54) rest at the center of any discussion of the origins of the church in Rome. In this section we will inspect the primary testimony of Cassius Dio, Suetonius, and Luke, supplemental information presented by Josephus and Orosius, and conflicting theories derived from the records.

The historian Cassius Dio reports the following action taken by Claudius against Roman Jews: “As for the Jews, who had again increased so greatly that by reason of their multitude it would have been hard without raising a tumult to bar them from the city, he did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing their traditional mode of life, not to hold meetings.” 12 Most scholars agree that Dio places this event at the beginning of Claudius’s reign (A.D. 41). The text states clearly that Jews, while restricted from congregating, were not removed from Rome. 13

Difficulties arise when Suetonius relates the following account during Claudius’s reign: “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.” 14 It is not impossible that Dio and Suetonius have the same event in mind. There are similarities between the two descriptions (Claudius enacting measures against the Jews), and neither Dio nor Suetonius mentions two separate edicts. Suetonius does not list this event as part of a chronological sequence, allowing correspondence to Dio’s date of A.D. 41. Still, Dio specifically indicates that Claudius did not expel the Jews, which seems to contradict the account by Suetonius. The arguments for these options will be further evaluated in a later section.

Luke’s passing comment in Acts 18:2 aligns closely with Suetonius’s record: “And he (Paul) found a certain Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently arrived from Italy with Priscilla his wife, on account of Claudius commanding all the Jews to leave Rome.” Paul’s first encounter with Aquila and Priscilla can be dated to around A.D. 49, based on Acts 18:12 and the Gallio inscription, as well as the chronological marker in Acts 18:11. The couple’s arrival can likewise be located near A.D. 49, based on the term prosfavtw" (“recently”).

Josephus further complicates matters by painting a picture of Claudius’s early reign that appears to diverge from Dio’s depiction. Josephus presents an edict given by Claudius:

“Kings Agrippa and Herod, my dearest friends, having petitioned me to permit the same privileges to be maintained for the Jews throughout the empire … I very gladly consented, not merely in order to please those who petitioned me, but also because in my opinion the Jews deserve to obtain their request on account of their loyalty and friendship to the Romans… . It is right, therefore, that the Jews throughout the whole world under our sway should also observe the customs of their fathers without let or hindrance.” 15

Josephus’ portrayal does not allude to any negative action by Claudius early in his rule. Instead, Claudius appears to guarantee certain Jewish rights. 16

Finally, Orosius, who as a Christian authored an account of history in A.D. 417, makes the following contribution:

In the ninth year of his reign, Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome. Both Josephus and Suetonius record this event, but I prefer, however, the account of the latter, who speaks as follows: ‘Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because in their resentment against Christ they were continually creating disturbances.’ 17

Orosius claims that Claudius’s action against the Jews occurred in A.D. 41. The problem is that the sources he relies on cannot verify the date he puts forward. Suetonius’s report does not fall within a chronological framework, and no known record of this event by Josephus exists. Most scholars view this testimony with suspicion, regarding Orosius as biased and unreliable. 18

The major questions surfacing from the above documents are 1) were there one or two moves by Claudius against the Jews, and 2) did one or both events involve conflicts between Christians and Jews?

Following the majority view, it is most likely that Claudius initiated two actions against the Jews in Rome, with the event recorded by Dio preceding that of Suetonius. 19 Dio’s date of A.D. 41 for the restrictions on Jewish assembly is too difficult to reconcile with Luke’s date of the late 40’s in Acts 18:2. In addition, Luke and Suetonius agree that Claudius actually expelled the Jews, while Dio specifies that Claudius did not remove them. Incidentally, Orosius’s viewpoint, though suspect, conforms to the view that there was a separate expulsion in A.D. 49.

The attempt to harmonize the different accounts of edicts against the Jews fails to convince. Major contradictions in dates (Dio versus Luke) and outcome (Dio versus Suetonius and Luke) must be resolved through assuming a major error or omission by one or more of the historians. Penna dismisses the historical value of the account in Acts 18 and opts for an early date (A.D. 41) for Dio and Suetonius. 20 Benko appeals to the apparent inconsistency between the portrayal of Claudius’s early policy towards the Jews in Dio and Josephus to conclude that Dio’s description aligns with Suetonius’s, at the later date of A.D. 49. 21 Hoerber attempts to relate all accounts to one event by assuming that only the leaders of the disputes were driven out. 22

If two different events are distinguished, it remains to be seen whether one or both were instigated by controversy over the claims of Christianity. It is possible that the decree in A.D. 41 was caused by disputes over Christ, as implied by Dio in the juxtaposition between permitting Jewish traditional practice (apart from Christ) while outlawing turbulent meetings. 23 Evidence shows, however, that starting with the reign of Tiberius, Romans viewed the Jewish population with suspicion. Indeed, in A.D. 19 Tiberius had dealt with perceived Jewish liabilities by removing many Jews from Rome. Similar dynamics in A.D. 41 provide a plausible explanation of events without requiring the identification of Jewish-Christian conflicts. 24

Stronger evidence supports that Jewish-Christian turmoil led to Claudius’s reaction in A.D. 49. First, it is easier to place the conversion of Aquila and Priscilla in Rome rather than in Corinth, after they met Paul. 25 Paul’s immediate cooperation with the husband and wife team suggests that they already shared his faith in Christ (see Acts 18:3). It is noted also that Paul does not mention baptizing Aquila or Priscilla (1 Cor 1:14-16). 26 The religious status of Aquila and Priscilla alone does not prove that Jewish-Christian disagreements provoked Rome’s action. More significantly, Suetonius’s reference to Chrestus is best understood as referring to Jesus Christ. Early sources exhibit evidence of inadvertent or deliberate spelling variations related to “Christ.” For instance, in the early fourth century, Lactantius comments, “But the meaning of this name must be set forth, on account of the error of the ignorant, who by the change of a letter are accustomed to call Him Chrestus.” 27 Finally, a disruption within Judaism over the claims of Christ accords well with events unfolding in cities such as Jerusalem, Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Corinth. 28 Therefore, Suetonius’s mention of Chrestus probably identifies Christ as the reason for the conflicts.

The claim that Christ stands at the center of the conflict of A.D. 49 is contested on several fronts. First, the most straightforward reading of Suetonius’s account implies that Chrestus himself was present in Rome, as an instigator of the unrest. 29 In response to this objection, some advocates of seeing Christians in the mix of the unrest of A.D. 49 propose that either Suetonius or his source was confused about the event. 30 Other scholars have supposed that instead of Suetonius confusing the vowels in the name, Christian copyists incorrectly copied the document. 31 Alternatively, it is contended that the Latin sentence structure allows for Chrestus being simply identified as the cause of the disturbance rather than being physically present in Rome. 32 In further rebuttal of the Christian hypothesis, critics point out that Suetonius only later introduces Christian movement, at the time of Nero. 33 This suggests that the Christianity had not been on Suetonius’s radar up to that point. Spence counters by explaining that the chief aim in Claudius 25.4 is to highlight the Jewish rather than Christian experience, even though the claims of Christ were involved. 34

Scholars skeptical of a Christian angle to the controversy offer an alternative theory. They assert that the reference to Chrestus indicates that a messianic figure living in Rome was generating turmoil among the Jews. 35 One problem with this theory is that no such person is known from any other historical sources. Moreover, Suetonius does not qualify his description by designating the character as “a certain Chrestus,” which would be more expected if the leader had been a figure of only fleeting interest. 36 Finally, a rebellion led by a messianic figure would have evoked a more violent response from the Roman authorities. 37 The more likely scenario is that Jewish contentions involving the claims of Christ brought about the Roman opposition.

The State of Christianity in Rome as Seen in Paul’s Letter to the Romans

Years after the expulsion of the Jews from Rome, Paul addresses Christians in the city. Once the whole letter of the Romans is admitted into evidence, we may attain a detailed picture of the state of Roman Christianity in the late 50’s.

Some scholars contend that Romans 16 was actually written to Christians in Ephesus and was attached to Paul’s original letter to Rome. Advocates of this view argue that in this chapter Paul names too many people for a city he had never visited, and that some of the names fit especially well with Ephesus rather than Rome. 38 The diverse locations of Romans 16 in the manuscripts (see especially P 46 , which places the doxology of Rom 16:25-27 at the end of chapter 15, with the rest of chapter 16 following the doxology) are used as further support. 39

Against this hypothesis, Donfried maintains that Paul includes a long list of names in order to boost his credibility with the Roman recipients of his letter. 40 Lampe observes that Paul did not necessarily personally know every believer in the list, since the wording only requires personal acquaintance with twelve of the people. 41 Furthermore, there are too few names for the Ephesian scenario, since Paul omits mention of important co-workers expected to be found in Ephesus. 42 Finally, the final remark in 15:33 is atypical to Paul’s style of closing a letter, and the particle de in 16:1 assumes prior material, making the Ephesian theory less plausible. 43

Accepting the integrity of the letter, the believers’ established history in the city is indicated (Rom 15:23), along with the presence of Christians who had believed before Paul had (16:7). The presence of these believers and the many others listed in Rom 16 adds further evidence for the development of Christianity in Rome in the years before Paul’s direct contact with the people there. Christians such as Prisca and Aquila had returned to Rome after having been banished from the city, while Christianity among the Gentiles had blossomed in the city outside the synagogue structure, perhaps from even before Claudius’s edict. 44

From Paul’s greetings in Rom 16, we can discern the existence of several gatherings of Christians in the city. Rom 16:3-4 speaks of the house church of Prisca and Aquila. 45 Also, two more groupings of Christians surface in verses 14 and 15. Beyond this, the existence of additional groups is less clear. The wording in verses 10 and 11 may suggest that house churches are associated with these households. 46 The references to other individuals throughout the chapter create possibilities of other Christian meetings in which these believers participated. The evidence points to the existence of at least three house churches, with the possibility of even more.

Some scholars have highlighted the divisions between the house churches, normally along Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian lines, based on Paul’s instruction in 14:1-15:13. 47 This, however, understates the underlying unity assumed by Paul’s address to them as a single entity. 48 In Rom 16, some of the individuals are identified as Jews (note use of term suggenhv" in Rom 16:7, 11 cf. Rom 9:3), while many of the remaining are likely Gentiles. The names of believers are presented side-by-side without insinuations of friction between them. The absence of the term ejkklhsiva as applied to the Roman believers as a group has been used as to contend that the Roman Christians were independent from each other. 49 But Paul omits this attribution in Philippians, Ephesians, and Colossians as well. 50 The fundamental Christian unity mirrors the shared identity the Jews felt in spite of their participation in separate synagogues.

The Gospel’s Spread from Jerusalem to Rome

Next, we evaluate different possibilities about how Christianity made its way from Jerusalem to Rome. In addition to clues from Luke’s account in Acts, both ancient Christians and modern scholars propose theories about how Christianity spread from Jerusalem to Rome.

Acts 2:10 includes visitors from Rome in the list of people who witnessed the events of Pentecost. The term for visitors, also seen in Acts 17:21, is a participle of the verb ejpidhmevw , which denotes “to stay in a place as a stranger or a visitor.” 51 A number of scholars suggest that these temporary residents of Jerusalem may have taken the gospel back to Rome. 52

In Acts 6:9, Luke mentions Stephen’s confrontation with Jews from the Synagogue of the Freedmen ( tine" tw'n ejk th'" sunagwgh'" th'" legomevnh" Libertivnwn ). These libertini likely correspond to the freed slaves mentioned in sources examined earlier. If some of these freedmen eventually received the gospel message, their contact with libertini elsewhere could have facilitated the spread of the gospel to other regions, including Rome. 53 The geographical spread of the gospel to new regions would have been further encouraged when persecutions against Christians erupted in Jerusalem (see Acts 8:1).

Clues from Acts may be incorporated into a wider model that surmises that geographical dispersions of Christians in the first century likely brought Christianity to Rome. 54 Both Roman inhabitants who visited Jerusalem before returning to Rome and Jews who settled into Rome for the first time may have played a role. 55 Once Jewish Christians reached Rome, they would have had relatively unhindered ministry access in the synagogues, since no Jewish controlling authority could step in to quickly and definitively oppose the propagation of the message. 56

A competing theory promotes Peter as the carrier of the gospel to Rome. The mysterious reference in 12:17 (Peter “went to another place”) opens the door to speculation that Rome was the destination. 57 Later church tradition asserts that Peter’s ministry as bishop of Rome spanned 25 years. While the biblical evidence rules out a continuous presence in Rome, it is surmised that Peter could have founded the church in A.D. 42 and then continued his leadership over the church even when in other locations. 58 Finally, Rom 15:20-24 could contain an allusion to Peter’s ministry to the Romans, which dissuaded Paul from focusing his outreach in Rome. 59

A closer look at earlier Patristic testimony lessens the probability that Peter established the church at Rome. In the mid-second century A.D., Irenaeus envisions a founding role for Peter alongside Paul: “Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, laying the foundations of the Church.” 60 Soon after, he refers to the “universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.” 61 Immediately, the problem surfaces that in comparing Peter to Paul, who arrived to Rome relatively late in the church’s history, Peter’s unique founding influence in the church becomes less likely. 62 More likely, relatively obscure Christians made contributions to the church’s establishment, leading to a vital and growing community. As a parallel, Christianity surfaces in places like Cyprus and Cyrene without any apparent missionary journey by noted apostles (Acts 11:20). In the fourth century, the theologian Ambrosiaster shares a similar perspective on the beginnings of the Roman church:

“It is established that there were Jews living in Rome in the times of the apostles, and that those Jews who had believed [in Christ] passed on to the Romans the tradition that they ought to profess Christ but keep the law … One ought not to condemn the Romans, but to praise their faith because without seeing any signs or miracles and without seeing any apostles, they nevertheless accepted faith in Christ.” 63

Scholars are quick to discount the value of Ambrosiaster’s viewpoint as independent testimony. 64 Even so, one would expect that the memory of a prominent founder such as Peter or Paul would not likely be forgotten if one of them had indeed established the church of Rome. 65


Based on a study of relevant biblical and extra-biblical documents, it is generally agreed that non-apostolic Jewish Christians brought the faith of Christ to Rome in the early decades of the church. After generating both interest and controversy within the synagogues, Christianity was forced to reorganize in the wake of Claudius’s edict against the Jews. The resulting Gentile-dominated church that received Paul’s letter in the late 50’s met in small groups around the city of Rome but maintained communication and held onto a common identity and mission. Paul and Peter leave their mark on these believers, though they merely strengthen the work that had already begun to flourish in the capital city. Beyond these main points, scholars still differ on the exact timeline of the birth and growth of the Christian community, as well as on to what degree Roman reactions against Jewish instability stem from disagreements about Christ. When all is said though, the overall picture of the emergence of Christianity in Rome constitutes yet another significant example of God’s extraordinary work in the early church during the decades following Christ’s death and resurrection.

1 Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2000), 264.

2 Peter Richardson, “Augustan-Era Synagogues in Rome,” in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome (ed. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 19-29. Richardson notes that as many as thirteen synagogues have been identified from Roman inscriptions, but only these five can be assumed to have existed before the arrival of Christianity to Rome.

3 Harry J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome (The Morris Loeb Series Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1960), 92.

5 Stephen Spence, The Parting of the Ways: The Roman Church as a Case Study (Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 5 Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 25.

6 Cicero, Flac. 28.66 (Lord, LCL).

7 Philo, Legat. 155-156 (Colson, LCL).

8 Leon, Jews of Ancient Rome, 136. This later becomes the home to a significant number of the early Christians in Rome (Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries [ed. Marshall D. Johnson trans. Michael Steinhauser Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003], 65).

9 Most notably, King Aristobulus and his family were removed to Rome (Plutarch, Pomp. 45.4 Josephus, Ant. 14.79). Levinskaya notes that Cicero’s speech, given shortly after this event, assumes that a substantial Jewish population already existed before the addition of these slaves (Irina Levinskaya, The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting [vol. 5 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting ed. Bruce W. Winter Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], 169).

10 Tacitus, Ann. 2.85 (Jackson, LCL). The “disenfranchised slaves” mentioned in this passage refer to the libertini mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

11 In Josephus’ version of Tiberius’ decision against the Jews, he reports the same basic historical reality: “[Tiberius] ordered the whole Jewish community to leave Rome. The consuls drafted four thousand of these Jews for military service and sent them to the island of Sardinia but they penalized a good many of them, who refused to serve for fear of breaking the Jewish law” (Josephus, Ant. 18.83-84 [Feldman, LCL]).

12 Cassius Dio 60.6.6 (Cary, LCL).

13 It is observed that Dio does not offer an explicit explanation of the reason for Claudius’s decision to forbid Jewish assemblies. He only provides the reason for the action Claudius did not take.

14 Suetonius, Claud. 25.4 (Rolfe, LCL).

15 Josephus Ant. 19.288-290 (Feldman, LCL).

16 Though Josephus appears to contradict Dio, it is possible that Josephus is emphasizing the positive aspects of Claudius’s early policy, which would correspond to the allowances made for the Jews’ “traditional mode of life,” as mentioned by Dio.

17 Orosius 7.6, in Seven Books of History Against the Pagans: The Apology of Paulus Orosius (trans. Irving Woodworth Raymond New York: Columbia University Press, 1936 ).

19 The position is adopted by, among others, Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, Vol 1: Jesus and the Twelve (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2004), 806 F. F. Bruce, “The Romans Debate – Continued,” in The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition (ed. Karl P. Donfried Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991),179 Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking, 106 Spence, Parting of Ways , 67. Wiefel departs from the majority by positing that Claudius expelled leaders of the Jewish conflicts first (from Suetonius) and then introduced a moderating policy allowing for residence in Rome without rights to assembly (with Dio). His main argument is that Dio and Josephus disagree, meaning that Dio must report a later reality. Though this order fits nicely into Wiefel’s reconstruction of the origins of the church at Rome, he fails to make a strong enough case for abandoning the widely accepted date of A.D. 41 for Dio’s account. (Wolfgang Wiefel, “The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity,” in The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition [ed. Karl P. Donfried Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991],94).

20 Romano Penna, “Les Juifs a Rome au Temps de L’Apotre Paul,” NTS 28(1982): 331.

21 Stephen Benko, “The Edict of Claudius of A.D. 49 and the Instigator Chrestus,” TZ 25 (1969): 407-408. He harmonizes Suetonius and Dio by supposing that some Jews decided to depart Rome (Suetonius) since they were no longer permitted to meet (Dio).

22 Robert O. Hoerber, “The Decree of Claudius in Acts 18:2,” CTM 31 (1960): 692. Like many other scholars, he believes that Luke’s use of pa'" is literary rather than literal (Acts 2:5 3:18 8:1 9:35 19:10), allowing for a portrayal that corresponds to Suetonius and Dio. An alternative theory regarding Luke’s assertion that all the Jews were expelled posits that the edict was comprehensive but not fully enforced (Schnabel, Christian Mission , 811). Both explanations envision a smaller-scale expulsion that helps explain the silence of Josephus and Tacitus on the event. In addition, it is important to remember that pertinent periods from some sources (Dio, Tacitus) are known only through secondary references: the original accounts are not extant.

23 See Schnabel, Christian Mission, 806.

24 In addition, if Jewish-Christian conflicts were already erupting in A.D. 41, then we must assume either that the disputes subsided for a while and then resurfaced, or that the Romans tolerated the growing disturbances for another eight years, until the eventual expulsion of those involved.

25 Luke does not explicitly state that Aquila is a Christian because his interest lies “not on his religious convictions but on his ethnic affiliation” (Schnabel, Christian Mission, 811).

26 Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 11.

27 Lactantius 4.7 (Fletcher, ANF ). See also Tacitus, Ann. 15.44 Codex Sinaiticus: Acts 11:26, 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16.

28 Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 12.

29 Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking, 207.

30 Bruce, “Romans Debate,” 179 Wiefel, “Origins,” 93 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33 New York: Doubleday, 1993), 31.

31 Levinskaya, Acts in Diaspora Setting, 179-180 Schnabel, Christian Mission, 809. Note the scribal confusion in the verses from Codex Sinaiticus, as mentioned earlier.

32 Spence, Parting of Ways, 76-77.

33 This argument is made by E. A. Judge and G. S. R. Thomas, “The Origin of the Church at Rome: A New Solution,” RTR 25 (1966): 85. Suetonius says, “Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition,” Suetonius, Nero 16.2 (LCL, Rolfe).

34 Spence, Parting of Ways, 77.

35 Judge and Thomas, “Church at Rome,” 85-86 Benko, “Edict of Claudius,” 412-413. Proponents of this viewpoint note that Chrestus was a common name for slaves in the Roman Empire.

36 Spence, Parting of Ways, 99.

38 In particular, the reference to Prisca and Aquila’s house church in Rom 16:3 resembles their situation in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:19).

39 T. W. Manson, “St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans – and Others,” in The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition (ed. Karl P. Donfried Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 12-13.

40 Karl P. Donfried, “A Short Note on Romans 16,” in The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition (ed. Karl P. Donfried Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 48-49.

41 Peter Lampe, “The Roman Christians of Romans 16,” in The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition (ed. Karl P. Donfried Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 216.

42 Ibid., 216. Lampe notes that the missing names include “Epaphras, Mark, Luke, Aristarchus, Demas (Phlm, 23-24 cf. Col 4:17-14) Sosthenes (1 Cor 1:1) Apollos, Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus (1 Cor. 16:12, 17).”

44 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 (ed. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 177.

45 Jeffers discusses the design and function of apartment structures ( insulae ) in first century Rome. Most dwellings would have been too small for Christian gatherings, though the largest few rooms in each unit could have accommodated the type of small meetings envisioned from a reading of Rom 16 (James S. Jeffers, “Jewish and Christian Families in First-Century Rome,” in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome (ed. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 132-133).

46 Schnabel, Christian Mission, 812, favors a reference to a house church here, while Caragounis is skeptical (Chrys C. Caragounis, “From Obscurity to Prominence: The Development of the Roman Church between Romans and 1 Clement,” in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome (ed. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 255-256).

47 Walters, “Romans, Jews, and Christians,” 178-179.

48 See Rom 1:7, 11-12 15:15, 30-33 16:1-2, 19.

49 Lampe, “Roman Christians,” 229.

50 Caragounis, “Obscurity to Prominence,” 253.

51 BDAG, “ ejpidhmevw ,” 370. This term has more relevance for the identity of the Roman onlookers than the word for longer-term residents ( katoikou'nte" ) that introduces the list of Pentecost observers in Acts 2:5 (contra Judge and Thomas, “Church at Rome,” 83).

52 Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 4 Fitzmyer, Romans, 29.

53 Schnabel, Christian Mission , 805 Bruce, “Romans Debate,” 178, Cranfield, Romans, 790.

54 Fitzmyer sees slaves and merchants as possible candidates for spreading the gospel in the early decades of Christianity (Fitzmyer, Romans, 30).

55 Rudolf Brändle and Ehkehard W. Stegemann, “The Formation of the First ‘Christian Congregations’ in Rome in the Context of Jewish Congregations,” in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome (ed. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 127.

57 John Wenham, “Did Peter Go to Rome in AD 42?” TynBul 23 (1972): 95.

59 Ibid., 100. Schnabel, Christian Mission , 26, rightly objects that this is not the best explanation for this verse.

60 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1 (Roberts and Donaldson, ANF ).

62 The opposite difficulty arises if Paul is given primary credit for founding the church, having taken scattered Christians and forming them into a apostolically legitimate church (see Judge and Thomas, “Church at Rome,” 81-82). In that case, it would be difficult to credit Peter with an equal role in the origin of the church.

63 As quoted by Donfried, “A Short Note on Romans 16,” 47.

65 1 Clement 5:3-6 (late first century) and Ignatius, Rom. 4:3, though recognizing the important role of Peter Paul in the life of the Roman church, stop short of identifying them as the founders of the church.

Greg MaGee received a Ph.D. at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and a Th.M. graduate from Dallas Theological Seminary (2005). His ministry experience includes serving as a missionary with Campus Crusade for Christ, teaching as an instructor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and helping with. More

History Revisited – How Rome was founded

Rome is a city of enchanting stories and artworks. It is a city full of palaces, churches, museums and cosy neighbourhoods. And it is a city where the greatest painters and sculptors have lived. It is not a surprise then that its origins are equally fantastical and legendary.

For an exceptional experience of Rome, do sign up for the best Vatican City tours, Vatican museum tour, or best family tours in Rome. As you prepare for your next trip to the Eternal City, get acquainted with the legend of Remus and Romulus, the founders of Rome.

Rome dates back to April 21, 753 BC, established by the twins Remus and Romulus. The day is observed as Rome’s birthday and celebrated with much fanfare and joy even today. The twins, like many other mythical heroes, were cast away at birth and saved by a she-wolf. The place where she sheltered the twins came to be called Rome.

The two brothers, the legend goes, were born to Rhea Silvia who was the daughter of Alba Longa’s King Numitor. Alba Longa, in mythical lore, was a city situated in the Alban Hills, northeast of what modern-day Rome.

Here, King Numitor was dethroned by his brother Amulius. When Rhea became pregnant with the war god Mars’ twin sons Remus and Romulus, Amulius ordered the twins be drowned in the Tiber for he wanted no claimants to the throne.

As destiny would have it, the twins survived and were washed ashore at the base of the Palatine Hills where a she-wolf fed the human brothers her milk. Soon a shepherd chanced upon the twins.

Raised by the shepherd and his wife, Remus and Romulus grew up to be leaders of a group of shepherd fighters. After learning of their origins, Remus andRomulus laid siege to Alba Longa and killed the cruel Amulius. Their grandfather got his throne back.

The End and the Beginning

Remus and Romulus, after their breathtakingly wondrous victory, decided to set up a small town in the lap of the Palatine Hills, near where they were found after their abandonment.

However, destiny played a cruel trick on Remus. He was slain by his brother over a petty fight and Romulus came to found a new city- Rome- named after himself.

There are other legends that stake claim to Rome’s origins. There is the Grecian legend that the mythical Aeneas of Troy was the founder of the dynasty that would birth Romulus and Remus as descendants centuries later. This myth was immortalised in Virgil’s epic poem Aeneid in the first century BC. Augustus and Julius Caesar were said to be descendants of Aeneas.

Whichever legend you might ascribe to the foundation of Rome, greatness and grandeur are an inevitable part of the story. The beauty of ancient Roman culture is such that, to this day, Romans have not forgotten the epic stories of their ancestors. In fact, they celebrate their history and traditions and cultural heritage with aplomb and pride.