Christian Persecution

[Guest amathis]

I am currently working on a research paper for a history class on the motivations for persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire. I am not finding much in the way of conclusive answers to the question, so I am curious to see if anyone knows of any historian who might shed some insight on the subject.

 

Bear in mind, any historian who claims to answer the question needs to be able to demonstrate why the Jew, being similar in several ways, were not persecuted as the Christians were.

[Primus Pilus]

The Jews, in some fashion, were 'persecuted' in the same way, at least at times. It really depends on one's perspective.

 

There is one definitive answer for why the Christians faced some persecution however. They refused to honor the Roman imperial cult and other religious traditions. There are other 'motivations' of course. Nero's first recorded persectution was not a religious attack at all, but an attempt at creating a scapegoat for the fires that scourged Rome. Certainly Christians perished, and were targeted because of their subversive counter-culture behavior, but they were not persecuted simply because of their religion.

[Ursus]

"... Christians were put on trial and punished for political, but not for religious offenses. Rome was very ready to adopt any resonable faith of Oriental origin such as Christianity into the great "family" of empire-religions, and one emperor, Severus Alexander, wishing to venerate Christ, had a statue of Jesus put in the palace chapel upon the Palatine Hill in Rome. It was quite impossible for any sincere Christian to reciprocate with a like polite gesture without committing a sin of a "lapse", and it seems that the sect aroused the hostility of normal citizens by its breaches of accepted Custom and Conduct, and not by the nature of its Values and Virtues. Transferred into modern metaphor, what the others objected to was simply that when the band played God Save the Queen or The Star Spangled Banner a Christian put on his hat and sat down! From this breach of custom martyrdom came to pass... "

 

Seltsman, Charles. The Twelve Olympians. 1960.

[Zeke]

Well many of the Romans at first, distrusted the converts of Christanity because they thought that Christians were atheists since they did not believe in Roman gods. They thought Christanity was a strange mystery cult tampering with Roman Morals and virtues many a Roman Emperor such as Marcus Aurelius thought that Christanity would bring down the empire because he thought it was corrupting Roman soceity.

 

But as said by Ursus, the Romans after their intitial disturst of Christians began to except the new faith because it offered something more then the older Pagan Faiths.

 

Sorry about spelling,

Zeke

[Guest amathis]

First of all, thanks to everyone for replying. I appreciate the intellectual debate as an aid to my own analysis.

 

Now, I wish to add something to the debate.

 

Primuspilus said that Jews, depending on one's paradigm, may have been persecuted. True, the Jews were removed from Palestine in two separate acts, but these were political. The persecution had nothing to do with religion but was merely the Roman response to an uprising. The only religious persecution of Jews I know of during the Empire was under Domitian, and that was extremely limited.

 

Primuspilus also points out that Christians were persecuted for not participating in emperor worship. My question, however, is how did the Jews avoid this? They somehow received an exemption from this requirement. But every legitimite pagan charge against Christianity (disregarding the nonsense about cannibalism and such) could also be said of Jews. Yet Jews, by and large, experience no religious persecutions. If Diocletian was such a pagan religious zealot that he wanted to force the sacrifice issue, why did he not pursue the Jews?

 

By the way Primuspilus, thank you for your comment. I appreciate your input on the matter.

[Primus Pilus]

My own theory is that the Jews were a known and understood entity well before Rome had conquered the east. Because they were a pre-existing difference to the standard Roman cultural equation, they were allowed to remain in some part undisturbed. Some Emperors and/or Prefects understood that it was better to allow religious 'freedom' than deal with wide-spread revolt. Others, however, could not have cared less what the Jews thought. But these seem to be the exception from the norm.

 

The Christians, by contrast were a new and disturbing counter-culture in the Roman view. They had no 'tradition' that the Roman authority could easily identify with and respect as having a cultural history. Therefore, they dismissed it as nonsense, as is perfectly natural. Don't we do the same thing today? A new cult will develop... I can't remember the name off-hand, but a recent example is the people who believed they were going to taken by a space-ship to be saved or something of that nature... and we as a society will generally dismiss it as 'crazyness'.

 

Primuspilus said that Jews, depending on one's paradigm, may have been persecuted. True, the Jews were removed from Palestine in two separate acts, but these were political.

 

 

True enough, but I also believe that most of the Christian persecutions were political in nature and/or embellished. (Refer to the post by Ursus above for a concise view). Domitian for example is often classified as a 'Persecutor'. Domitian killed anyone and everyone without discrimination and certainly didn't target Christians exclusively. To me, his motives were purely political and not religious. Nero's example, as I alluded to in my earlier post, were completely political. The strangeness of the religion provided a convenient excuse, but he didn't target Christians because he hated them, he was trying to save his own skin.

[Ursus]

Roman religious politics compelled Romans to respect faiths that were ancient. Whatever other tensions Jewish religion gave to Romans, the pious Roman had to respect the Jewish faith as being ancient.

 

When Christians first came on the scene, they were mistaken for just another zealous sect of Judaism. But as Hellenized Jews began converting Gentiles, Christianity became a new religion in its own right. The Romans became aware of this, and since their conservative mores were suspicious of upstart cults, particularly ones that made social waves, they were able to treat Christianity differently than Judaism. Since Christianity didn't have the austerity of an ancient Religion like Judaism, the Romans could and often did treat it as just some weird counter-culture cult that sprung up over night.

[Jimbow]

every legitimite pagan charge against Christianity (disregarding the nonsense about cannibalism and such)

 

 

By that, do you mean there was no actual popular belief that early Christians practiced the Eucharist literally, actually eating the flesh and drank the blood, babies supposedly being a popular victim? Or, do you dismiss it because it's just plain silly? If it's the latter, I'd say that if there was popular belief that happened, it would have more to do with the persecutions than anything. Imagine if the national tabloids reported that about, say, Kaballah or Scientology? I think the FBI and Special Branch would have their own task forces by now, even if only to placate popular fears. The collecting of relics must also have been reviled, as this was the despoilation of the dead which was a major no-no traditionally in Roman society?

 

Jim.

[pompeius magnus]

I feel that the reason romans persecuted Christians, and Jews for that matter, was because they failed to recognize the divinity of the emperor, as they are monothestic.

[Marcus Regulus]

I think the notion that the persecution of the Christians was mostly political is nonsense -- it was political and religious. The problem I am having with most of the observations here is that there is the modern western assumption of seperation of religion and state. This was not the Roman mindset, the two were a cohesive whole. It was Christians that seperated the two and that is what the Romans could not understand or I might add tolerate. A Chrsitian could be a good citizen to the Empire (politically) and yet would not be a good citizen because they would not worship (note this is a religious word and charge by the very idea) Caeser. I think what we have here is a pagan society that did not separate the two. Religion and politics were the same thing to them in many ways. Rember Julius Caeser's first public office -- Pontifex Maximus (Head Priest of Rome). This is what launched his career as a public official and it was a political and religious office all in one. While the motives of the various Emperors may have been political thay got them on a religious charge and this indicates the two were more linked than our Westen mindset often likes or can even comprehend. I simply see the same thing as always two groups of people with different worldviews and the one with power tried to take the other out.

[longbow]

Pontifex Maximus (Head Priest of Rome). Doesnt the pope hold the same title now?

[Primus Pilus]

Pontifex Maximus (Head Priest of Rome). Doesnt the pope hold the same title now?

 

 

Yes, indeed Pontifex Maximus List

 

But back to subject...

[Ursus]

Pagan society did not draw much distinction between state and religion, true. But the Romans seemed quite willing to tolerate any faith that didn't upset the social order.

 

In fact, the pious Roman was obliged to respect divinity where he saw it, and to respect other people's gods, lest he incur the wrath of that god. When the Senate ordered a crackdown on the Bacchus cults, it only limited the manner and the numbers in which the cults operated. It made no attemp to dishonor the god Bacchus himself, for the Romans thought to do so would incur the wrath of that deity. And whenever Romans conquered a country, they would usually set up shrines to the local gods to incur their favor (and they often saw other people's gods as local reflections of their own).

 

As has been pointed out, the Romans were quite willing to tolerate Christ on his merits. Some even equated the Jewish god with Jupiter. But when the Christian cult itself started acting in ways contrary to Roman tradition and mores, that's when crackdowns occured. We say it's political because the offense was in not conforming to Roman traditions, not because Roman religion itself had any inherent doctrine which caused it to despise another religion. Indeed, Roman religion was quite tolerant - or at least quite practical - in living aside other faiths. The Romans themselves often practiced several faiths/cults at once.

[Germanicus]

I think reading Pliny the Youngers letters to and from Trajan might offer some insight. I seem to remember a discussion between the two on how Pliny should treat Christians under his Governorship in (was it Syria?).

[Primus Pilus]

Excerpts from Pliny's letters can be read here... Christian Persecution. Along with my own (I hope not too badly biased) account of that subject.

 

Pliny was governor o Bithynia et Pontus at that time, btw.