Nerva’s reversal of the impiety charge (Hist. Rom.68.1.1), this repeated ref-
erence must be linked to the charge of adopting Judaism. Evidently, Dio
assumes that adopting a Judean life results in impiety with respect to
Roman tradition. That impression fits with the remarks of Tacitus, Epicte-
tus, and Juvenal.
The Legal Situation of Judeans in Rome The question of Nerva’s policy
brings us to the third kind of evidence for significant proselytism in Rome,
namely: throughout the entire period of our interest, a Judean propensity
to seek proselytes is assumed in Roman legislation. In describing the three
occasions on which disciplinary measures were taken against Roman
Judeans, later writers typically allege proselytizing efforts as causes. Thus,
both of the Byzantine epitomizers of Valerius Maximus’s Memorable Words
and Deeds(i.e., Paris and Nepotianus) claim that the Judeans were expelled
from Rome in 139 BCEfor trying to transmit to the Roman people their
sacred rites (described by Paris as “the cult of Jupiter Sabazius”). And
everyone who writes about the expulsion of Judeans from Rome in 19CE
connects it in some way with proselytism. Josephus claims that the affair
resulted from the defrauding of the aristocratic convert Fulvia (A.J.18.81).
Dio says that the Judeans, having flocked to Rome in great numbers, “were
converting many of the natives to their ways” (Hist. Rom.57.18.5a). Sue-
tonius couples Judeans with Egyptians, and claims that Tiberius ordered
all who had “embraced these superstitions” to burn their religious symbols
(Tib.36). Tacitus likewise groups Judeans and Egyptians, and says that
those who had been “infected” with these superstitions had to leave (Ann.
2.85).
Finally, in the 40s CE, Claudius undertook some kind of disciplinary
action, possibly more than one, against the Roman Judeans. Although Sue-
tonius has him expelling those Judeans “who were continually rioting at
the instigation of Chrestus” (Claud.25), Dio claims that Claudius could
not expel the Judeans because of their great numbers, but only forbade
them to hold meetings; they were permitted to preserve their ancestral
way of life (Hist. Rom.60.6.6). Dio does not give an explicit reason for
Claudius’s action, but his opening notice that their numbers had “once
again increased greatly” seems to direct the reader’s attention back to his
earlier remarks about Judean proselytism. In this context, permission to fol-
low their ancestral ways would be an imposed limitation: they should stop
trying to induce others to follow those ways as well.
Later emperors would remain concerned about conversion to Judaism,
apparently seeing it as a significant factor in the perceived weakening of
Roman traditions. Domitian’s reform, according to which conversion to