Leaderboard

Keep in mind that the 'persecutions' have always been a bit embellished by the Church. By no means am I being revisionist and suggesting that Christians led a wonderful life of free religion under Roman dominian, but there is always evidence to take with a 'grain of salt.' Labelling the early church as a victim standing up against opressors for the good of the people certainly did much to spread its awareness and influence. When researching the Christian Persecutions, just be aware of the source material it is coming from. Did some atrocities take place? Of course. But the prevailing notion, among most people, that the Christians were brutalized for centuries under Roman rule is as much a falsehood as saying they were openly welcomed from the beginning. The simple truth of the matter is that Rome was far too pressed by a plethora of issues over the centuries which would weigh far more heavily than the issue of the Christian cult. As an example, Domitian has always been labeled as one of the great persecutors. He was indeed a persecutor of many people and certainly ranks near the top of the list of 'nasty' and at time incompetent emperors. Real evidence shows no involvement on the part of Domitian in massive persecutions of Christians, however. Tacitus, Pliny (who were both Senators during his reign and quite familiar with him), and Seutonius never mention these Christian persecutions. Tacitus, the son-in law of Agricola (a subject of one of Tacitus' many works) had plenty of reason to dislike Domitian, but yet never mentions any religious persecutions against Christians. Agricola, however, was a well documented victim of Domitians paranoia and had a fine career as a governor and legate cut short for this reason. Contrarily, both Seutonius and Tacitus did leave a written record of Nero's actions, but strangely left Domitian alone. Tacitus also quite blatantly faulted Domitian on several fronts, but never this one. Pliny wrote to the emperor Trajan years later, "I have never taken part in trials of Christians; consequently I do not know the precedents regarding the question of punishment or the nature of the inquisition." Seems strange that a Roman senator during the reign of Domitian, who is supposed to have widely tried Christians, had no clue how to proceed on such matters. A century later, the historian Dio Cassius wrote a commonly cited passage regarding Domitian. In it he claims that a particular Consul, his wife, and many others were killed for being Atheist or of Jewish persuasion (which can be translated as Christian since they did not believe in the Roman pantheon). This seems damning evidence against Domitian, but this passage was written a century later and abridged in the 11th century by a monk by name of Xilphinius. The original texts of Dio Cassius do not exist, and only the abridged versions do. Even Eusebius, the esteemed writer of "The Ecclesiastical History", suggests that Domitian was the second to raise persecutions against Christians (meaning Nero as the first), and that there were many christian martyrs. Yet, no where in his work, written 2 centuries after the fact, does he cite any evidence of this, or any names of the martyrs. While, Origen, another christian writer, wrote 50 years earlier, that only a few had been killed and whose number could be easily enumerated. Eusebius didn't even bother to cite the 'easily counted' figures of Origen, suggested only a generation earlier. What does all this mean? Does it clearly define Domitian as innocent? No, but his guilt can be questioned as much as his innocence. There simply is no overwhelming evidence (there is some, I don't deny that.) All I intend with this, is to illustrate my point of embellishment by the early church of crimes against Christians at the hands of Romans. Domitian may have been guilty, but there is equal lack of evidence that he is not. As I said, take all source information on the issue, including this lenghty post =P, with a 'grain of salt.'