Reading the Church Fathers discussion
Resources
>
Christianity in Ancient Rome
date
newest »
newest »
I think the relationship of Rome to Christianity is a bit more complex.First, Judaism was allowed as a religion. Other places, when conquered, found their gods incorporated into the Roman pantheon. The Jews were allowed to continue to worship separately. Of course there was oversight and the Jews often revolted. The temple was destroyed in 70 CE and after another revolt (around 135 I think) Jerusalem was renamed and made into a pagan city (unsuccessfully, in the long-term).
Christianity benefited in the early years from being seen as a Jewish sect, it was not until Christianity grew and became more separate that many problems arose. Nero's blaming of the Christians was simply blaming a small and powerless minority to get the focus off himself (speaking of which, read Rene Girard on scapegoating, its great).
The first empire-wide persecution of Christians, where the emperor sanctioned it, was not until 250 CE under Decius. Then under Diocletian, 30 some odd years later, was another. But the idea we learned in youth group of Roman soldiers constantly hunting Christians is not how it worked. There were certainly persecutions, but they were the result of lower-level government guys. Or, more likely, the populace attacked the Christians. Christians were seen as unpatriotic since they did not sacrifice to the Roman gods, so during times of great patriotism, it was easy for a crowd to attack the Christians.
Around 120 CE we have the letter from Pliny to Trajan where he asks the emperor what to do about Christians. That is a fascinating window into the relation of Christian to state. It is interesting that Candida Moss wrote a (really good) book called The Myth of Persecution where she went after some popular ideas of what happened in the early church. Yet most of what she said is what I learned in church history at a pretty conservative seminary. Even if persecution was sporadic, you still lived in fear constantly (kind of like, as my old prof used to say, if your husband only hits you occasionally you would still live in fear all the time).
The other wrong idea I think many people have is how Christianity grew. We read Acts and think a preacher in a city square with thousands of conversions was the norm. But Christianity grew slowly, but steadily, for 3 centuries. Rodney Stark, a sociologist and historian, shows how steady growth gets you to the point where Constantine would want to join (think the whole double a number and how quickly it gets big even if it does not appear to at first; 1-2-4-16-32...).
So while the apostolic fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp) echo the writers of the NT, the apologists are addressing the Greco-roman world as a whole. This still begs the question, when Justin addresses his apology to the emperor, did the emperor actually ever read it? It certainly helps that the apologists wrote during the time of the five good emperors (Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius...and another one) from like 120-180 or something. This was a golden age for Roman peace and the perfect time for philosophers to write flowery treatises to the powers that be. But think of an "Open letter" today, do we ever know if the person to whom it is addressed actually reads it?
I did a lot of study on Tertullian and my conclusion is that Christians abstained from killing and worshipping idols, so no Christians served in the military for the first few centuries. And when Christians did enlist, it was a scandal in the church (because how could a Christian kill and worship idols, which being in the legions required?). Again, this was why Christians were seen as unpatriotic. When pagans did begin responding to what the apologists were saying, this was a major critique - Celsus asked (and Origen responded) what would happen if we all converted to Christianity and then the barbarians invaded? There'd be no one to fight!
If you want to learn about the History of Rome, check out the History of Rome podcast from Mike Duncan. It was great! Anyway, I hope this contributes to the discussion.
You bring up some interesting points.The first empire-wide persecution of Christians, where the emperor sanctioned it, was not until 250 CE under Decius. Then under Diocletian, 30 some odd years later, was another. But the idea we learned in youth group of Roman soldiers constantly hunting Christians is not how it worked. There were certainly persecutions, but they were the result of lower-level government guys. Or, more likely, the populace attacked the Christians. Christians were seen as unpatriotic since they did not sacrifice to the Roman gods, so during times of great patriotism, it was easy for a crowd to attack the Christians.
I read about this when I was reading about Preterism. It is kind of seen as support for P since the kind of persecution described in Revelation is more akin to what happened under Nero rather than Domitian in the 90's.
This still begs the question, when Justin addresses his apology to the emperor, did the emperor actually ever read it? It certainly helps that the apologists wrote during the time of the five good emperors (Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius...and another one) from like 120-180 or something. This was a golden age for Roman peace and the perfect time for philosophers to write flowery treatises to the powers that be. But think of an "Open letter" today, do we ever know if the person to whom it is addressed actually reads it?
The "open letter" is a good analogy. I wondered why Justin seems pretty free with his attacks on the emperor. I suppose it makes sense if he wrote it with the understanding that the emperor would probably not read it.
Genni, I don't know about that. I don't think he would care if it was read, and actually it appears as if he fervently did want people to know it. Those Christians had such strong conviction and fortitude back then and they did not seem to mind if they were killed that very day....From Polycarp, "...chiefly because I am humbled and abashed in comparing what a Christian used to be, with what a Christian is in our times, even at his best estate."
Susan wrote: "Genni, I don't know about that. I don't think he would care if it was read, and actually it appears as if he fervently did want people to know it. Those Christians had such strong conviction and fo..."You're right, Susan. I agree that he fervently wanted people to read it. Because it contains some pretty pointed attacks, I was just wondering if he wrote it with the understanding that the emperor specifically probably wouldn't read it. But I suppose that would imply a "littleness" about his character also.
Thank you for contributing to the discussion, David. There are many interesting points to discuss, but I just want to focus on two of them for now.David wrote: "Christianity benefited in the early years from being seen as a Jewish sect, it was not until Christianity grew and became more separate that many problems arose. "
What made Christianity more problematic to the Romans than Judaism?
David wrote: "Nero's blaming of the Christians was simply blaming a small and powerless minority to get the focus off himself "
If we read the text closely, Tacitus writes that Christians had already been dehumanized, despised and hated by the Romans before Nero scapegoated them. Justin Martyr even argued that they were hated for no other reason than being "Christian".
This seems to me a classic case of discrimination and bigotry, and reminds me of a similar case in history: Hitler would not have succeeded in carrying out the Holocaust, if there hadn't been a general antipathy against the Jews among the populace.
David wrote: "The other wrong idea I think many people have is how Christianity grew. We read Acts and think a preacher in a city square with thousands of conversions was the norm. But Christianity grew slowly, but steadily, for 3 centuries. Rodney Stark, a sociologist and historian, shows how steady growth gets you to the point where Constantine would want to join."I have no preconceived notion how Christianity grew, and didn't give any thought to it until now. But, there are examples of both individual conversion (Philip and the eunuch) and mass conversions in Acts. Christianity could have gone through both types of growth, at different times, and at different places. I don't see why it must be predominantly one way or the other.
Nemo wrote: "Thank you for contributing to the discussion, David. There are many interesting points to discuss, but I just want to focus on two of them for now.David wrote: "Christianity benefited in the earl..."
Was Christianity seen as more problematic as they spoke of a king and and a kingdom (therefore theoretically in competition), whereas Jews were merely still waiting?
I'd agree with Susan - the Jews were not very evangelistic so the Romans tolerated them for the most part. The Christians were more outgoing which led to conflict. I mean, the Jews were mostly a small group of others who I imagine people saw as weird, but in general harmless. But when all of a sudden your sister or cousin or neighbor converts to Christianity, all of a sudden it is less harmless. That leads to conflict.As for the point from Tacitus, I think my point is just to be cautious about how we view the ancient world. We are so used to being connected. We get news from all over the world instantly. We are used to most people being literate so we can have discussions. It is thus hard to get into the mindset of the ancient world. Most people could not read. News, even in the Roman empire, travelled slow.
From that, when you say "the Romans" dehumanized the Christians before Nero, that leaves a lot of holes. Who do you mean by Romans? The Greeks in Corinth who Paul conflicted with? Retired legions in Philippi? Spaniards and North Africans? Everyone was "Roman" as far as the empire but not everyone was citizens.
I'm not sure the Hitler analogy fully works. Of course targeting minority groups has always been easy. The Jews have been targeted for centuries leading up to Hitler. Nero targeted the Christians. But why? I doubt it was theological, as if Nero had an understanding of what Christians believed and who they were. I'd bet it was simply they were a small group that was shaking things up so targeting them was easy. Besides, Nero as emperor choosing to attack Christians in the city of Rome is not an empire-wide persecution. There is no evidence he ordered his governors in Spain or North Africa or Egypt or Asia Minor to attack Christians (further, Pliny's letter to the emperor about 60 years after Nero shows Pliny is clueless on how to deal with Christians shows Christians were an unknown commodity to even most educated Romans in the empire).
Even the quote from Tacitus mentions a "compassion" by the populace. So I'd say Nero scapegoating the Christians in Rome is a far cry from Hitler systematically exterminating Jews in Europe; its a far cry from even Decius ordering persecution of Christians in 250.
So yeah, I agree with you that those who knew Christians had negative feelings toward them. But this wasn't like Christians from Spain to Asia were in hiding for 3 centuries because the Roman legions number one job was to hunt them down.
Susan wrote: "...Was Christianity seen as more problematic as they spoke of a king and and a kingdom (therefore theoretically in competition), whereas Jews were merely still waiting? ..."Jupiter, the supreme god of the Romans, was also a type of king. Apparently they saw no competition between him and Caesar, and worshipped him in temples.
The fact that Rome later adopted Christianity as state religion also suggest that there were no inherent conflict between earthly empires and the kingdom of God. Justin Martyr was prescient in making that argument in his apology,
As far as I know, none of the ancient historians, who include in their writings descriptions of events relating to Christians, provide any explanations why they were hated in the beginning, except to say that they were.
Interesting...Jupiter is their king though....it is the king they wanted and trusted...maybe someone else's king is a different story...
Didn't Jesus say he, thus we, would always be hated?
I guess from the fall of Lucifer on, there was hatred for God/ goodness...
David wrote: "...From that, when you say "the Romans" dehumanized the Christians before Nero, that leaves a lot of holes. Who do you mean by Romans? ..."I mean people in the Roman Empire, not necessarily citizens. There are holes in that designation, yes, but the holes are in the extant historical accounts. We cannot be more precise than the materials allow. :)
I'm not arguing that there was an empire-wide persecution of Christians in the reign of Nero. I agree that there is no evidence for it. However, persecution sanctioned by the state and general antipathy among the populace are two different things, and the latter could pave the way for the former -- that was my point using the Hitler analogy.
Pliny's letter could be an indication of a lack of empire-wide decree against the Christians, but not a lack of general antipathy. If the Christians had been just another harmless minority group, he wouldn't have needed special instructions regarding their treatment. It is likely that he was trying to do the right thing.
One thing I appreciated learning from NT Wright was the difference between religion and philosophy in the ancient world. Religion was what you did (sacrifice) while philosophy was your way of life. He argues that Paul overturned both of these, but what we think of religion (a way of life) is more akin to ancient philosophy then religion. At any rate, Romans were not monotheists so of course they were cool with all sorts of gods. I think discussing "inherent conflict" between kingdom of God and earthly empires would be more theological and personal. For me, simply because Constantine converted and legalized Christianity says nothing as to the conflict between the two kingdoms. In other words, I see a lot of emptying of the kingdom of God of its basic principles to fit with the earthly kingdom. Prior to Constantine, most Christians did not fight in legions, by a century after Constantine only Christians could fight in legions. The conflict was there and one side had to change and in Christendom we see the church capitulating to state (in my opinion).
At any rate, the Christianity of Justin's time (size, depth of theology) was not the same as 150 years later. This might be my biggest thing - not conflating the entire "early church" as if all Christians from 100 CE to 500 CE lived and acted the same.
Tertullian in his Apology does discuss why Christians are hated - seen as atheists (not worshipping Roman gods), cannibals (eating body and blood of Jesus) and a few others.
Holes in the historical accounts are what makes this fun!
David wrote: "....At any rate, Romans were not monotheists so of course they were cool with all sorts of gods..."Except the Judeo-Christian God, for whatever reason.
From a historical, not theological or personal, point of view, it is still unexplained why the Christians were hated. Why were they treated as Atheists when they professed belief in God? Why didn't the Romans accept the Judeo-Christian God into their pantheon?
I'll leave the discussion of church and state to another time,
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "As far as I know, none of the ancient historians, who include in their writings descriptions of events relating to Christians, provide any explanations why they were hated in the beginning, except to say that they were. ..."I can tell many of you are much better versed in history/Church history than I am, but I thought I'd share some of what I've read that may be helpful (or not). Let's see how well I can remember it.
First, there was an annual requirement by the Romans that all Roman citizens claim that Ceasar was god. I believe it required them to go to a temple or public place and publicly proclaim it. The Jews would conform for that day and then simply go back to practicing their religion, however the Christians refused to make the proclamation. This puzzled the Romans, as they could not figure out why they wouldn't behave the same as the Jews.
Also, the letter from governor, Pliny, (David's post above) who was very perplexed as to what to do with the Christians. Not only were they helping their own people, they were also helping people outside of their religion, converting a number of them, and he was looking for guidance as to how to deal with them. He was concerned that their pagan temples would soon be deserted.
Neither example speaks directly as to why Christians were persecuted but perhaps they illustrate the differences in their behaviours based on their faith, enough differences to make the rulers uncomfortable and see them as a threat to the stability of the community/culture (which ties in with what David said above).
David wrote: "As for the point from Tacitus, I think my point is just to be cautious about how we view the ancient world. We are so used to being connected. We get news from all over the world instantly. We are used to most people being literate so we can have discussions. It is thus hard to get into the mindset of the ancient world. Most people could not read. News, even in the Roman empire, travelled slow...."
If I understand you correctly, I agree with you in principle. But I do take exception when authors claim that the ancient world didn't have the literacy or technology that we do, therefore they weren't as knowledgeable. They often cite the fact that history wasn't written down and base their conclusions on their understanding of how our modern minds work today. They forget or overlook that because the cultures were oral that their ability to memorize and remember must have been far more developed than ours are today, to a level that we perhaps have difficulty comprehending. I believe I read somewhere that children were required to memorize The Iliad, or at least large parts of it, and Jews placed great stress on accurate memorization of certain texts. In modern times, most people would have problems memorizing a 10-line poem. In any case, as you said, it's helpful to keep in mind these differences as we consider the ancient world.
Cleo, thanks for the post. I was not meaning to imply ancient people were not knowledgeable. I agree with your last paragraph. I was trying to say that ideas did not circulate as quickly. I'd argue it was not till the invention of the printing press that new ideas could rapidly move through culture.Nemo, as for why the Romans did not accept the Jewish and/or Christian god...I think they would have been more than willing to. I don't think Jews and Christians wanted to because it would be putting Yaweh/Jesus on the equivalent of the Roman gods.
For those of you interested in Pliny's letter discussed above, you can read the full text at the following site. Of the many exchanges between Pliny the Younger and Emperor Trajan, this is the only one that concerns Christians.http://ancienthistory.about.com/libra...
In the beginning of his letter to Trajan, Pliny wrote:
Having never been present at any trials concerning those who profess Christianity, I am unacquainted not only with the nature of their crimes, or the measure of their punishment, but how far it is proper to enter into an examination concerning them
I take this to mean that Christians in Pliny's time were already treated as criminals, though nobody could articulate "the nature of their crime".
Although Pliny had no personal dealings with Christians, he was inclined to punish them if they refused to retract their faith, even though he could extort nothing from them, but "an absurd and extravagant superstition".
The questions Pliny had for Trajan were whether the lapsed Christians should be treated the same as die-hards, and whether extenuating circumstances, such as age, should be taken into account, etc.
Trajan's reply can be summed up as, "Punish the Christians, but don't start a witch hunt".
Cleo wrote: " ..I believe it required them to go to a temple or public place and publicly proclaim it. The Jews would conform for that day and then simply go back to practicing their religion..."Could your provide the reference?
Unless the Biblical story of Daniel and his friends, who refused to bow to the image of the King of Babylon and were thrown into the furnace, was an exception, I would be very surprised if the Jews as a whole worshiped Caesar as God, even for a pretence.
perhaps they illustrate the differences in their behaviours based on their faith, enough differences to make the rulers uncomfortable and see them as a threat to the stability of the community/culture
Speaking of behaviour, the worship ritual of Dionysus was insane even by Greek standard, and the stoic Romans assimilated it into their own culture. What could the Christians have done to threaten them?
David wrote: "Nemo, as for why the Romans did not accept the Jewish and/or Christian god...I think they would have been more than willing to...."You lost me there. If they were willing to accept the Judeo-Christian God, why did they accuse the Christians as "Atheists"?
Sorry. Let's see...The Romans conquered lots of people and were always willing to incorporate the gods of such people into the pantheon. Be a good Roman citizen, pay your taxes, support the legions and worship the gods. Most people were cool with it (maybe "cool with it" is not the best way to say it, if you refused the Romans might kill you). The Jews were not cool with it; they refused to say Yahweh was just another Roman god. Yahweh was the one Creator god. Jews as monotheists could accept no equals. Uniquely, the Romans allowed this, though their patience ran out as the Jews rebelled 66-70 CE and again later.
For Christians it was the same. Jesus was not just another Roman god. Christians refused to diminish their one true God. Further, if Jesus is Lord than Caesar is not. I'm honestly not sure how the Jews related to the Romans as far as sacrifices to the emperor and what not (I know someone spoke on that above). But the Christians refused to take part in the ceremonies and sacrifices. You could probably trace it back to 1 Corinthians 8-9 - if Jesus is the true God then the Roman gods are false. Or as Jesus himself said, you cannot serve two masters.
So the Christians were atheists because they did not worship the Roman gods. They stayed separate. I assume if they had just agreed Jesus was another Roman deity and had gone about their day by worshipping Roman gods, or at least not insisting on the uniqueness of Jesus, the accusation of atheism would had gone away.
I thought I saw somewhere that it was not only at festivals etc. that one had to give homage to the 'gods' but when they had marketplaces also, where multiple people may congregate to sell their wares etc. upon entering, some tribute had to be paid to the gods, and often Christians were thus forced to lose their livelihood also...it was just enlightening to me, that it involved more than just not bowing down a couple times a year, it was much more life altering...
Here is a link to an article on how ancient philosophy/science saw the heavenly bodies. The site looks mildly flaky but the article looks scholarly to me and it doesn't claim anything outlandish.http://journalofcosmology.com/Ancient...
Astronomy and Psyche in the Classical World:
Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, Ptolemy
Nicholas Campion, Ph.D.
School of Archaeology, History and Anthropology Sophia Centre for the Study of Cosmology in Culture University of Wales, Lampeter, UK.
Abstract
The history of classical astronomy tends to emphasise the development of mathematical astronomy and the origin of astronomical instrumentation. Religious and philosophical issues are generally dealt with separately. However, the practice of classical astronomy was conducted within a context in which the cosmos was permeated with soul, or psyche. This paper examines the work of Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno, and applies theory of "psychological astronomy" to the classical world, so as to provide a context and and understanding of the motive for the development of mathematical astronomy, concluding with the work of Claudius Ptolemy.
Keywords: Ancient Greek Cosmology, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, Ptolemy, Psychology, Soul, Stoics,
The Roman historian Tacitus wrote of Christ and Christians in his great work, The Annals, book 15 chapter 44:
(A great fire broke out in Rome in 64 AD and caused much desolation. Some of the people suspected that Nero the Emperor started the fire to burn down other structures so that he could expand his own mansion.)
The writings of ancient historians, such as Plutarch, Tacitus and Josephus, show that Judaism (of which Christianity was considered a part) was treated as an abomination by the Gentiles. The ancient Greeks and Romans were generally speaking very religious. The Roman Republic and later the Roman Empire tolerated and sanctioned many forms of religious practices, but not Judaism.