Book Two: CHAPTER IV--Roman Persecutions in The Second Century

CHAPTER IV

 

Roman Persecutions in The Second Century

 

 

96 C.E.                Like the antecedent persecution of Christianity initiated by Nero, Domitian’s pogrom ended with his death, which was helped along by his assassination. The advent of Roman persecution marked a new and dangerous phase for Christianity. Persecution at the hands of Roman authorities would continue throughout the second and third centuries. These later persecutions were often fueled by misconceptions about the Christian faith.

 

                        The persecutions that Christians faced in the first century lacked any sense of a prevailing congruence. The attacks were generally sporadic and spontaneous, rather than systematic and universal. There was no “War on Christianity” in the sense that there was an organized effort to crush the new religion. Attacks on Christianity were local eruptions of hostility, sometimes sanctioned or initiated by Roman authorities, but usually without it. This reality is probably why there is so little information concerning the persecution of Christians during this period. Mob violence and mob rule justice does not commit its motives to paper before it acts. It simply acts. On the other side, those who are the recipients of mob violence rarely have time to commit their defense on paper. The result is that most of the early Roman views of Christianity, as well as the Christian response, have been lost, or never known at all.

 

                        The second century would provide better information. The Roman Empire would develop a “policy” for dealing with Christians that would last into the third century. The Roman policy for dealing with Christian was developed through the correspondence of Pliny the Younger, the governor of Bithynia (located on the northern shore of Turkey) and the Emperor Trajan. Pliny was governor from 111 to 113 and soon discovered that the region of Asia Minor was packed with Christians, and upon arrival, Pliny found his normal administrative duties disrupted by those who were accused of being Christians. Pliny, who apparently possessed a respect for Roman legal procedure, was unsure as to how to proceed. On the one hand, he knew that Christianity had been outlawed; but on the other hand, he knew that a crime must be committed in order for an individual to be put on trial as a criminal. He was unclear as to whether it was for the mere affiliation with Christianity or actions that Christians do that were illegal. 

 

111 C.E.                        Pliny dealt with the matter as best he could, but he was not certain if he was following proper procedure. He decided to write to the Emperor and seek the definitive decison on the matter. In his letter he says:

 

It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished. 

 

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome. 

        

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ. 

 

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition. 

 

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pliny1.html)

 

                        This letter reveals Pliny’s main source of concern: he was unable to discern what crime had been committed. In fact, he admits that the only thing that he finds worthy of capital punishment was the Christian tendency for stubbornness. When he questioned Christians as to their activities, he discovered a group of people who appeared to be conscientious about adhering to the law. They even obeyed a Roman order not to meet. Pliny apparently was unconvinced by this, so he tortured a couple of Christian women, who held some position of leadership in the church, only to have them confirm what he had already been told. Basically, Pliny was faced with a band of “criminals” who were adamant about obeying Roman law, keeping their word once given, paying back debts, refusing to steal, or even to lie to anyone, but who were subject to (in his own assessment) backward, superstitious practices. 

 

                        The response that he received from the Emperor Trajan was:

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pliny1.html)

 

                Trajan’s policy for dealing with Christians was in essence, “don’t ask/don’t tell.” There were to be no witchhunts, no anonymous accusations, and Roman authorities were not to waste state resources in the pursuit of Christians. Nevertheless, if someone was accused of being a Christian through proper procedure and did not prove himself innocent of such charges by publically worshiping the prescribed Roman gods in front of official witnesses, then he was to be punished. 

 

                        This, however, seems to lead back to the original problem that Pliny noticed and about which he inquired: what crime have Christians committed of which they are guilty? Pliny’s initial response of punishing those who were stubborn in their faith suggests that Christians were not guilty of any particular crime, but once accused, they were invariably guilty of contempt of court. 

 

                        So, the official Roman policy toward Christianity was that it was an illegal religion; although, it was acknowledged that Christians were not guilty of committing any particular crime. Therefore, Roman authorities were not going to hunt down Christians as long as they obeyed Roman law. If someone was accused of practicing Christianity, and there were witnesses who were willing to testify against him, then there should be a trial, even though no crime has been committed. During the course of the trial, the Christian would be provided with occasions to renounce his allegiance to the Christian faith. If he did so, he would be released. If the Christian stubbornly persisted in remaining loyal to his faith, then that stubbornness would be grounds for a charge of contempt. 

 

                        So Christianity was faced with being an illegal religion that the authorities were not interested or motivated to search out and destroy. On the surface, this would appear to be beneficial to the Christian church. After all, it would not be too difficult to imagine that burglars would be ecstatic to learn that the police still considered robbery a crime, but wouldn’t expend department resources hunting down those who are guilty of stealing. It would sound like illicit permission to steal. So, if the Roman authorities were not going to track down Christians, even though being Christian was against the law, then, one would believe, Christians were generally safe as long as this imperial policy was in place. Nevertheless, Christians during this period found themselves to be in a rather precarious position. 

 

                        The threat that Christians faced did not come from direct involvement in their affairs by Roman authorities, but rather from their fellow-citizens. The threat that Christians faced was that their neighbors would accuse them of being Christian before the court. So Christians, in addition to being good citizens in the eyes of the Roman authorities, also had to refrain from offending their non-Christian neighbors. This would often proved to be difficult due to offenses both real and rumored.

 

Atheists                        The offense that had a basis in fact that was most often leveled against Christians was that they were atheists. By this charge, Roman society did not mean to intend that Christians did not believe in the divine, but rather they refused to believe in any of the visible gods that Roman society took for granted, and which were viewed as indispensable for continued Roman security and prosperity. The Roman pantheon protected the Empire, and certain gods were responsible for protecting the Emperor himself. By not trying to appease the gods that were responsible for both the health and welfare of Emperor and Empire, Christians were, in the eyes of the average citizen, taking active steps to bring about the demise of both. In contemporary lagnueage, Chyristians were viewed as terrorists or potential terrorists, plotting and acting to destroy the very fabric that held society together.  A Christian who refused to worship the Roman gods were held with the same regard as a suicide bomber or presidential assassin is viewed by contemporary Americans. 

 

Subversives                As far as the average Roman was concerned, this unnecessary, stubborn, and inexplicable atheism would be bad enough, but the fact that it culminated in anti-social behavior made it even worse. Roman gods were intertwined with Roman society. Festivals, games, military service and virtually every other aspect of communal life had divine affiliation. A Roman festival was held in honor of a god or goddess. Christians believed that participating in those festivals would be the same as worshiping the gods that the festivals honored, so they abstained from attending them. Christians would also avoid attending games in the arena, not merely because the games were often dedicated to a particular god, but because Christians genuinely believed that it was wrong to watch people be killed for entertainment, especially when they were the ones often being killed. 

 

                        Roman festivals and the games in the arenas were viewed as fostering a much needed sense of civic unity throughout such a large and diverse empire. Christians were not only viewed as being “stuck up” for being too good to attend such activities, they were seen as being actively attempting to undermine social cohesion. 

 

                        In short, Christians were viewed as being unnecessarily secretive, anti-social atheists who undermined the very social and moral fabric of society, who even threatened the continued existence of the Empire itself. To remain safe in such a society, Christians had to convince their neighbors that this portrait was incorrect, even if the facts that support it were not. 

 

Debauchery                What made the situation stickier for the Christian, was that they not only had to contend with having their real behaviors being misunderstood, but very often, those misunderstandings fueled a variety of baseless calumnies and accusations. These rumors usually resulted from the fact that Christians were secretive about their worship services. Christians did not allow those who were not baptized into the faith to attend worship. The prevailing interpretation of non-Christians was something like, “If they are not doing anything wrong, why do they need to be so secretive?” So, people began to try to deduce the “wrong” that they were committing based on the few facts that they knew.

 

                        What they knew is that Christians gathered together for what they themselves called a “love feast.” This coupled with the fact that Christians referred to each other as “brother” and “sister” helped to generate a rumor that Christian worship was nothing but an orgy of drunkenness and incest. 

 

Cannibals                The average Roman citizen also heard that Christians ate the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Of course, this was a reference to the Eucharistic celebration that was the central act of Christian worship. This celebration commemorated Jesus Christ’s last meal with his disciples before his execution. During that meal, it is reported that Jesus took bread and wine, referring to each as his body that would be broken and his blood that would be shed. Christians retained the metaphor and employed it (and still employ it) in their worship. Non-Christians who heard of this mentioning of “body and blood” assumed that Christians must be practicing cannibalism in their secret worship services. Some rumors even went so far as to say that Christians concealed an infant in a loaf of bread (since Christians often spoke of Christ as a child). A new convert to the faith would cut into the loaf, not knowing that it contained a baby, thus killing the child. Then everyone would eat the baby’s flesh and the new Christian would be bound to silence since he was the one who performed (albeit unwittingly) the murder.

 

                        Christians attempted to counter such accusations as best they could. Those Christians who were educated enough to read and write did their best to explain what really happened and what Christians really thought and believed. They also began producing their own narratives about those who faced direct persecution and death at the hands of Roman authorities. The term that the church gave those who died in the face of persecution was “martyr.” The word martyr simply means “witness” or on who testifies. The contemporary usage of the word is that of someone who dies for a cause or an idea. The original Christian sense of the word, however, was one who testifies about one’s faith, even to the point of execution.

 

 

                        Christianity would remain within this mode of existence throughout the second and into the third centuries. During the third century the situation changed. Emperors, for a variety of reasons, began to initiate an active, full-scale attempt to stamp out Christianity. Ironically, it would be Christian persecution that would give a general fighting for the throne an excuse to wage war against his rival. Constantine, for his own reasons, would declare war on those persecuting the religion and eventually make Christianity the favored religion throughout the Roman Empire�"but this is for a later chapter.