Christian Persecution

[L. AVRELIVS GARRVLVS]

SALVETE OMNES, S.V.B.E.V.

 

Sorry if I'm late to give assistance, I found this wonderful website an hour ago.

I recently finished two books on the subject which I thought were very helpful: Christianizing the Roman Empire by Ramsay MacMullen and The Christians As The Romans Saw Them by Robert Louis Wilken.

 

BONAM FORTVNAM ET VALE BENE.

[Guest dculpepper]

1. Jews were the ones who instigated the intial outcry that the "Christians" were divisve and in conflict with Rome.

2. Rome had already had a postion on Jews and had dealt with them - not only as a religious question but as a people group.

3. By the time of Marcus Aurileus the Christians were mixed between Gentile and Jew and were persecuted because of religious views, the jews were still considered a people group and were dealt with as such.

 

Hope this helps

 

I did not go into much detail, but I think you get the idea.

 

David Culpepper,

Superintendent

Castle Hills First Baptist School

San Antonio, Texas

[Primus Pilus]

2. Rome had already had a postion on Jews and had dealt with them - not only as a religious question but as a people group.

3. By the time of Marcus Aurileus the Christians were mixed between Gentile and Jew and were persecuted because of religious views, the jews were still considered a people group and were dealt with as such.

 

Exactly my view on the subject, even if my explanations tend not to be clear enough. I will also concur that by the mid 2nd century (Marcus Aurelius) the Christians were certainly beginning to be perceived as a religious threat rather than just a convenient target for various imperial whims. Pliny's letters to Trajan provide all the evidence that is needed.

 

Welcome to the forum btw David!

[leedx7]

I have just watched some documentary trying to prove whether Naumachia ever actually occurred in the Coliseum. In the process of investigating this, this documentary stated that there was no evidence whatsoever of Christians being persecuted in the Coliseum? This was, in fact, a 16th myth instigated by the church? I have no knowledge of this but would be interested in the comments of others.

[Ursus]

Roman bloodshed and persecution are often overstated by Rome's enemies. I'd have to watch the documentary myself and check its sources, but it's possible.

 

Recently it's come to light that gladiatorial games rarely ended in death. A lot of stereotypes are now seen as exaggerations as archaeological evidence comes to light. It makes you wonder just how accurate "history" really is. Everyone has an agenda.

[Primus Pilus]

People often equate Nero's 'persecutions' to Christians being eaten by lions, etc. in the Colloseum, but it wasn't even built until years after his death. Doesn't mean it may not have happened, just that it didn't happen in Rome's greatest arena.

[Germanicus]

PP - where is it that we read of Nero using christians as burning torches to light his garden ?

[Primus Pilus]

I believe that's from Tacitus: The Annals. More specifically book XV

[Northern Neil]

So far as I am aware, the Christian persecutions (i.e. the times when christians were persecuted purely for their religion) lasted for three brief spells of about 18 months each, in particular under Decius and Diocletian. At other times, people arrested and put to death for subversion against the state may have been christian, but were not treated any different from other serious dissenters, and certainly not just because of their religion.

 

I feel that the persecutions have been greatly exaggerated under subsequent Christian emperors (particularly Theodosius) in order, initially, to turn people away from a then shrinking paganism. History is, after all, written by the winners. This view has been compounded by Hollywood movies such as Quo Vadis, The Robe and Barabbas, in which the fanatical persecution of Christians is further exaggerated.

 

On the accession of the emperor Gratian, pagans suffered a persecution that lasted until the empire was entirely christian in nature (and, admittedly stretching a point, up until the final 'witch trials' of the later middle ages), and this involved the burning and dismantling of temples, lynching of female philosophers, confiscation of property if citizens refused to convert, and, yes, on occasion being thrown to wild beasts in amphitheatres. This particular persecution was constant, was related purely to religion, and lasted until well after the reign of Justinian.

 

I have no particular religious leanings myself, but I do believe this subject needs to be treated with objectivity. Rather than (some people) retrospectively condemning the Roman state for being anti Christian, I think we should remember that the empire was eventually the champion of christianity, and through the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon, actually defined it in the way most conservative Christians now observe the religion. It is also worth pondering a thought as to wether or not the Christians actually killed in the persecutions would be defined, in subsequent centuries and now, as non-christians, due to 'heretical' ideas later edited out of the religion?

[Guest Don Isler]

According to "A Concise History of Ancient Rome The Christian Persecutions" by Esmeralda Raber Cruciti

Ignatius Bishop of Antioch was thrown to the beats most

probably in the Colosseum. At this point in time it will

never be known for sure. Archeological evidence suggests

thousands of martyrs in Rome but most manuscripts were destroyed by 4-5th century invasions. Scholars have tried

to estimate total number and one hundred thousand has

been suggested. If not killed in the Colosseum then in other

locations. Tacitus, Livy, Cyprian, Lactantius and Eusebius also mention persecutions.

[Onasander]

Easy anwser, the ghetto. The jews throughout European history have been known for their relative autonomy, but never for their ability of self-sufficiency

(agriculture-military). They were rebellious in Palestine, but in the dispora at the relative mercy of the strongman.

 

Rome was not industrialized to a noticible degree; my knowldege of Roman guilds are a bit shaky before the Byzantine era, but from my scant understanding, by this stage of roman society, Rome's economy was practically feudal with a strong mercant class operating and a national army sucking the product... proto-guild (decrepit capitalism on the way out).

 

The jews, as a dependant society, would have to throw thier lot with the one who was in de facto control of thier community.... they could contibute economically via taxation and civil(/military?) service from a well defined base. They were another strata in the Roman class structure, at worst non-threatening, at best, highly profitable. They got converts, but few envied them as a perpetually bound subject population.

 

The christians didn't have a ghetto.... their neighborhoods where they might of predominated might of been easily been identifiable for being economically disadvantaged, but they were not ghetto in the same sense of the jewish ghetto. They wern't out of thier element, they could, and may of seemingly wanted to be, without the local/imperial political control the jews needed for survival; much like the disadvantage of any other nations people of that time.

 

Religion got tied into politics in Rome, I don't think the real impulse was so much a theological one but political. It was to the emperor a pledge of alligence; it would be very disturbing to any dictator if a portion of his population suddenly refused to say their pledge, easily perceived as a threat to authority.

 

The targeting of Christians, a politically useless segment of society; poor producers of questionable military value, could be seen as a smart choice.... it rallied in times of crises all the imperial populaion against the strange christain scapegoat (instead of the real issue), while reinforcing the emperor's position via religion, and resultingly, political position.

 

They jews were already highly dependent; the perfect subject population. Why would the emperor want to mess with a good thing, creating a potentially volitile situation with little to gain from it? It was pointless, and I think this pointlessness was early recognized in Rome's first days when encountering/ conquering religiously opposed people. What did it profit them to make everyone conform in this respect, so long as they were a team player where it really counted?