What The Romans Thought About the Christians

[Faustus]

The Accusations Against The Christians:

In the passage translated here, Minucius Felix, a Christian, plays devil

Edited June 14, 2008 by Faustus

[caldrail]

Now this is interesting. The christians are accused of recruiting from people who lack the intellect to criticise. Nothing new there then - the christian church has always relied on peoples belief and those who think for themselves are not usually prone to blind faith. Its odd the romans should criticise the sacrificial element of christianity, since sacrifice was nothing unusual and an inherent part of roman society - the entire basis for gladiatorial combat for instance. Disdain for non-christian religion is entirely possible. One of the major selling points pf christianity is that their choice is correct and the only choice. There is only one god, Jesus his son, etc etc. So naturally they feel a little clever and there's bound to be a level of conspiritorial well-being, in that they are members of a select group who have made the 'right' choice.

 

As for the killing of infants in initiation Well, that does bend credibility a little. Killing is against christian law after all. Granted that infants were readily available, having been left to die as unwanted or unacknowledged offspring, but even I have to raise my eyebrows at accusations of blood sacrifices. The 'shocking embraces'? Well, modern christianity has plenty of examples of communal hugs and so forth, designed to give the worshipper that feel-good factor, so I suspect something similar went on back then. But why are they shocking? Is it bending roman social rules of interaction between classes? Is it because of a 'public' display of friednship? I always thought the ancient romans were more used to everyday physical contact than we consider acceptable today, so I'm left wondering what the basis of this criticism can be.

 

As for private meetings, thats to avoid any self-conciousness amongst their followers. An embarrased acolyte might not turn up next week for fear of ridicule from his peers. Christian rites were different to the roman norm, and public ridicule certainly not unknown in roman society.

 

The romans seem to be adding two and two together and making seven. They interpreted the christians in the light of the social rules and mythology they understood, since the average roman hadn't experienced christianity themelves. The christians however are acting in ways that don't quite follow the normal roman pattern then, and so prefer to remain exclusive, which does nothing to improve their image.

[Maty]

Not sure Gladiatorial combat was exactly sacrifice ... though it was originally part of funeral rites. An offering to the dead, certainly, but remember sacrifice has the meaning of 'make sacred' and it is an offering to a God in a 'very' precise ritual.

 

Romans had two issues with Christianity. Generally speaking you could worship whoever or whatever you liked, but you had to subscribe to the state religion as well. Roman Gods, unlike the Christian God did not require belief, but they did require that the people of a city did right by them, or they would go elsewhere. Not unexpectedly, being repudiated by a portion of the population (i.e. the Christians who called them 'demons') was expected to miff the Gods somewhat. The Romans argued not that you have to believe in the Gods, but you had to do your patriotic duty and sacrifice whether you believed or not. They you could go and worship whatever, as long as human sacrifice was not involved. That's why the Romans insisted Christians brought before them performed sacrifice. If they could do that whether they were 'really' Christians did not matter.

 

If the Gods who made Rome great withdrew their protection, then what might happen? Barbarian invasions? Plague? If Rome became completely Christian, perhaps Rome's entire western empire would fall. We of course, know that this was a silly superstition that quite co-incidentally paralleled what happened, but the Romans didn't, which is why they got quite excited about it all.

 

The second issue was that because the exclusivity of the Christians made them - by definition - anti Roman, they tended to worship secretly. This, as pointed out was illegal, and it led to all sorts of dark rumours of that they were up to. See the earlier suppression of the Bacchic cult to show that once this kind of suspicion took hold it was very bad for those suspected.

[Maty]

By the way, does 'Brutus Brittanicus Thrax (The Baby-Eating Barbarian of Britain)' begin his meals with a devout prayer along the lines of 'for what we are about to receive ....'?

[caldrail]

By the way, does 'Brutus Brittanicus Thrax (The Baby-Eating Barbarian of Britain)' begin his meals with a devout prayer along the lines of 'for what we are about to receive ....'?

 

No, he doesn't. Thats a christian ritual and Brutus Brittanicus Thrax does not subscribe to christianity

 

About gladiators - whilst many of the roman people regarded it as thrilling entertainment (or deathly dull, depending on circumstance) - its origins as part of funeral rites were as a blood sacrifice to honour the dead, a common theme in early mediterranean cultures. At the beginning of such contests, it was literally two men commanded to fight to the death in order that blood is spilled. Later, as the entertainment value became more important, so did the value of gladiators specially trained to entertain, and the percentage of deaths decreased accordingly.

[M. Porcius Cato]

About gladiators - whilst many of the roman people regarded it as thrilling entertainment (or deathly dull, depending on circumstance) - its origins as part of funeral rites were as a blood sacrifice to honour the dead, a common theme in early mediterranean cultures.

You sure about that? What other early Mediterranean cultures had human sacrifice as part of a funeral rite?

 

At the beginning of such contests, it was literally two men commanded to fight to the death in order that blood is spilled.

Then strangling was impermissalbe? Don't tell Samson the Sadducee Strangler!

 

Later, as the entertainment value became more important, so did the value of gladiators specially trained to entertain, and the percentage of deaths decreased accordingly.

What is the evidence that the percentage of deaths decreased? What was the % decrease?

Edited June 17, 2008 by M. Porcius Cato

[Ludovicus]

In addition to the early Christians' refusal to worship the gods and the person of the emperor, could it be that the Roman authorities persecuted the Christians because of their behaviour: better treatment for women, blurring of social and class distinctions, and aid to the poor and destitute?

[M. Porcius Cato]

In addition to the early Christians' refusal to worship the gods and the person of the emperor, could it be that the Roman authorities persecuted the Christians because of their behaviour: better treatment for women, blurring of social and class distinctions, and aid to the poor and destitute?

 

I know modern Christians like to believe this of their forebears, but outside the worship service, where is the evidence that Christians were known to Roman for these characteristics?

[caldrail]

About gladiators - whilst many of the roman people regarded it as thrilling entertainment (or deathly dull, depending on circumstance) - its origins as part of funeral rites were as a blood sacrifice to honour the dead, a common theme in early mediterranean cultures.

You sure about that? What other early Mediterranean cultures had human sacrifice as part of a funeral rite?

Not human sacrifice - blood sacrifice. Minoans, greeks, etruscans - they had all sacrificed animals at some point (and the etruscans did so to humans I note, by employing blood sports) but the romans had an eye to being 'civilised'. Also, given their penchant for violence, the act of spilling blood via mortal combat to honour the dead was a relevant method of funeral rites for the romans.

 

Then strangling was impermissalbe? Don't tell Samson the Sadducee Strangler!

We are talking about a period before the first recorded gladiatorial bout in a cattle market in 264BC, a delibrately staged public event rather than the private funeral rite. No, strangling was unacceptable and very un-roman, not a manly way to end a swordfight.

 

Later, as the entertainment value became more important, so did the value of gladiators specially trained to entertain, and the percentage of deaths decreased accordingly.

What is the evidence that the percentage of deaths decreased? What was the % decrease?

Strictly speaking, the earliest rites had a 50% casualty rate (unrecorded) although I suspect some injured men did survive for one reason or another. The statistics I work from are those generated from accounts, tombstones, and so forth. Whereas these early contestants probably weren't trained intensively if at all, the later 'entertainers' were, and some people suggest that up to a third were dropped because of injuries received during training or simply they couldn't cut it. Republican gladiators may have been professional fighters but this was before volunteers were signing up in large numbers. After all, the primary motivatio of Spartacus was to avoid becoming a spectacle, and he was not short of fellow escapees. Compare that to the later genre, during the early empire, where volunteers were being constrained by legal restrictions (Augustus limited the numbers of nobles who were entitled to volunteer) and gladiators - at times - might even be allowed R&R outside the barracks. There is record of Hadrians restrictions on gladiatorial bad behaviour. So then, by the principate we have a somewhat different atmosphere regarding the munera. By the late empire, its believed that volunteer contract fighters made up half the number of available men for the one-on-one professional bouts. The spectacles involving large numbers were not usually composed of professional gladiators, more likely criminals and prisoners of war, although its difficult to tell because roman commentators would describe any fighter in the arena as a gladiator if he wasn't a criminal receiving punishment.

 

Anyway, the stats are a fighter making his first appearance stood a 33% chance of getting killed. He's trained, but inexperienced, and may well be facing a veteran fighter. Although the romans liked a fair fight, the lanista had a vested interest in seeing that his veteran gladiators survived. As the fighter gained experience and reputation, his chances of survival increase to around 89%. Typically a gladiator on average could expect to survive for four years, given the relatively few appearances he made every year.

 

What skews this stats is that the one-on-one fight which ended with an exhausted or defeated man asking mercy isn't necessarily the style employed. Augustus for instance banned fights sine missione, in which the loser was killed whether he asked for mercy or not. We can assume then that many fights prior to that had become bloody affairs, and that a certain 'humanisation' and ritualising tendency was working against that. Also, during the middle empire, gladiatorial fights were once again becoming bloody. The desire to boost rating and to provide a jaded crowd with entertainment meant that weapons designed to wound rather than kill outright were being introduced. Fights were no longer straight swordfights with a possible clean kill, it had beome a slogging match with fighters wearing each other down with injuries. So, although the actual desire for a bloody end had increased, the means to do so was diluted, and given the increasing influence of christianity toward the late empire the number of events was reducing.

[ASCLEPIADES]

The second issue was that because the exclusivity of the Christians made them - by definition - anti Roman, they tended to worship secretly. This, as pointed out was illegal, and it led to all sorts of dark rumours of that they were up to. See the earlier suppression of the Bacchic cult to show that once this kind of suspicion took hold it was very bad for those suspected.

Edited December 3, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Northern Neil]

In addition to the early Christians' refusal to worship the gods and the person of the emperor, could it be that the Roman authorities persecuted the Christians because of their behaviour: better treatment for women, blurring of social and class distinctions, and aid to the poor and destitute?

 

Aiding the poor and destitute I understand, and blurring of social social class may have occurred for a short time until the middle classes dwindled after the third century, but... better treatment of women? It seems to me that the 'Big Three' monotheistic religions have invested an awful lot of energy subjugating them. In the very earliest days of Christianity women were indeed regarded as equal to men, and even officiated as clerics. This was short lived however, and when Christianity began to assume its definitive form it soon disappeared, as the crude third century alteration of second century mosaics illustrates. The lynching of Hypatia by Christian fanatics hardly displays a consideration or respect for resourceful and educated women.

 

On many occasions persecution of Christians took place because the Christian community contained individuals intent on deliberately committing criminal acts against the state. A modern day comparison would be if a Western democracy automatically interned all orthodox muslims because a small percentage of them were terrorists. Muslims would see it as a persecution, whilst pragmatic polititians could view it as a logical way to minimise a dangerous threat. It was not the religion itself that was under fire, but the activities of some of its adherents.

 

I find it unlikely that the Roman state would use up valuable resources persecuting people just on account of loving ones neighbour, helping the poor or being meek. Many other cults around this time expressed exactly the same sentiments and even shared the same mythology - but did not get persecuted for it. I quite like the story of the Governor of Bithynia, who one day found himself confronted by Christians intent on being martyred. They said something along the lines of: 'Governor, we have done something really naughty against the State - now feed us to the lions'. The governor sent them away saying that clifftops and knives were abundant if they wanted to kill themselves, but he wasn't going to do it for them. I suspect that the nature of the persecutions has been exaggerated by Christian Emperors and bishops intent on persuading people how wicked their pagan ancestors were.

Edited June 20, 2008 by Northern Neil

[Ludovicus]

Northern Neil,

Yes, I agree with you that as the centuries wore on, and especially as the Church gained power wtih Constantine and his successors, many Christians began to ape the Empire they had earlier associated with evil incarnate.

 

On the other hand, given that the patron/client relaionship was a key feature of Roman society, it seems that the early Christian belief and practice of equality would have been seen as very counter cultural if not seditious.

Edited June 20, 2008 by Ludovicus

[M. Porcius Cato]

On the other hand, given what we know about the patron/client relaionship, a key feature of Roman society, it seems that the early Christian belief and practice of equality would have been seen as very counter cultural if not seditious.

 

Again, this strikes me as wishful thinking about early Christianity. Paul's injunctions--"wives submit to your husbands" (Eph.5:22) and "slaves obey your masters" (Eph. 6:5-6) --is hardly seditious, let alone counter-cultural, or even mildly egalitarian.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Aiding the poor and destitute I understand

 

I don't understand it at all--except as self-righteous self-aggrandizement on the part of Christians. Where is the evidence that the poor and destitute were given more by Christians than by pagans. Did the Christians provide them with more food than the Imperial dole? More entertainment than the Imperial circuses? Christianity was a religion that celebrated poverty more than it did anything to actually relieve it.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Northern Neil,

Yes, I agree with you that as the centuries wore on, and especially as the Church gained power wtih Constantine and his successors, many Christians began to ape the Empire they had earlier associated with evil incarnate.

 

On the other hand, given what we know about the patron/client relaionship, a key feature of Roman society, it seems that the early Christian belief and practice of equality would have been seen as very counter cultural if not seditious.

Edited December 3, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES