On a somewhat related line of thought, I'd like to start with a letter from dear Pliny to the emperor Trajan:
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...
[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...
[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.
And Trajan's reply:
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.
Now, these words are probably the most frequently quoted in modern times for either Trajan or Pliny. Moreover, they're generally looked on as being a wonderful example of tolerance for Christians by the Roman authorities. Trajan was especially seen by early and medieval Christians as a friend of the faith. Pope Gregory I liked him so much he wanted to resurrect him so he could be baptized and go to heaven. Why? Simply because he didn't go to great effort to seek out Christians to punish?
I suspect that many misunderstand the context of the times, and believe that the Roman norm was Nero, crucifying Christians and using them as people-torches at night. From every source I've read thus far, Trajan's attitude was the norm. The vast majority of the time, Romans were clearly annoyed by Christians, but made little sustained, concerted effort to eradicate them. This kind of "tolerance" was very infrequently punctuated by an effort by authorities to push back against Christian growth in the cities. Such efforts had limited success and didn't last very long (persecution was a difficult, messy and decidedly unprofitable venture). Probably the most successful was Diocletian, who intimidated many into converting back to pagan worship. But Diocletian also quit while he was ahead, and failed to finish what he started.
So if Trajan is our model of tolerance in the context of that time, and Diocletian is the model of intolerance, than what of the later Christian persecution of pagans in the 4th and 5th centuries? Constantine started by heavily taxing pagan temples and giving the money to the church - OK, not so bad so far. He and his sons made efforts to stop the practice of animal sacrifice - still pretty tame. Augustine incited an anti-pagan mob in Carthage with these words:
"...[For] that all superstition of pagans and heathens should be annihilated is what God wants, God commands, God proclaims!"
That mob left sixty non-Christians dead. Getting worse. Martin of Tours starts sacking pagan holy sites in Gaul and destroying pagan alters. After the sack of temples in Egypt and the destruction of the library of Alexandria, the leader of the Egyptian monks responsible for the act replied thusly to the victims who demanded back their sacred icons: "I peacefully removed your gods...there is no such thing as robbery for those who truly possess Christ".
Under the reigns of Gratian, Valentinian II and Theodosius, paganism is now made illegal. Not only were the temples shut, but private practices of lighting incense, hanging wreaths in honor of the gods, or burning candles were strictly forbidden. Bishops brought desert monks into the cities to assist in the destruction of temples. Christian mobs would taunt remaining non-Christians in the hope of causing a riot. A mob of Christians kidnap Hypatia of Alexandria (a well respected pagan philosopher) and brutally murder her, hacking her to little bits. It's strongly suspected that Cyril, the Patriarch of that city was responsible for directing the mob. Pagan practices of divination of any kind are made illegal under pain of death. Not only that but Theodosius made non-enforcement of that law by local authorities a crime in itself. Laws are created by regional authorities as kind of hunting licenses for Christian Bishops and Monks, to pillage and loot known pagans and pagan properties.
These are just the highlights, the bits that I know of that happen to stand out in my memory. I'm really not even doing this topic justice with the brevity. Also, note that all of these events occurred within the span of a century.
Pagan persecution of Christianity was like a man occasionally swatting at flies, while usually trying in vain to ignore them. Trajan and Diocletian form the two extremes (I leave Nero out since it was a kind of bizarre fluke by a bizarre emperor, tied to questions of guilt over the Great Fire of Rome). Christian persecution of pagans, on the other hand, was swift, brutal and effective, with little or no thought expended over the "rights" of individuals. Paganism was gone from view almost everywhere (although it lived on underground in small, rural communities for centuries further before gradually fading away) within a century. Those who would not willingly convert were coerced, those who would not be coerced were killed.
Why then is the general opinion on this matter so deranged? Why are pagan authorities seen as vicious butchers while ancient Christians are seen as the meek, quietly waiting to be delivered and inherit the Earth?
You know that Winston Churchill quote in which he says history will be kind to him because he intends to write it? Well, I'd say the same principle applies here.
ReplyDeleteYeah, some of the abominations sponsored by Christianity managed to make it into the textbooks, but they pretty much just scratch the surface.
You know, I trust most people are probably quite ignorant on the subject of how Christianity spread after Jesus. I watched a documentary called "The God Who Wasn't There" a couple weeks ago. It was mediocre for the most part, but in one of the scenes which peaked my interest, the documentary director was asking average Christians how the faith spread after Jesus was out of the picture. Of course, the documentary probably cut out any respectable responses, but the ones that were shown were all the same type of GUESS. The interviewees were all dumbfounded by the question, and they all pulled the same answer out from their asses: The Holy Spirit compelled them to convert.
I watched that too (thank you netflix instant). It was definately from the Michael Moore school of documentary film-making, which was a real turnoff. Also the overall point, that the historical Jesus may not have existed at all seemed to me a great reach. It's a theory that got some traction in scholarly circles in the late 19th century into the 20th, but seems to be widely rejected nowadays.
ReplyDeleteHowever, a lot of the points it has to make about the lack of historical evidence outside of the gospels (written decades after Jesus) is, I think, valid. It's difficult to separate the man from the mythological ideas necessary for the faith.
"Why then is the general opinion on this matter so deranged? Why are pagan authorities seen as vicious butchers while ancient Christians are seen as the meek, quietly waiting to be delivered and inherit the Earth?"
ReplyDelete- I wish I could give you some good perspective on this but I can't. I never saw it that way. I believe whole heartedly the Holy Spirit had a hand in the spreading of the faith, but I don't deny the abhorrent tactics the Church sometimes employed.
They aren't justifiable, the ends don't justify the means, but it's our history. If anything the role the Holy Spirit may have played in all this was maintaining the faith of believers despite the atrocities.
Also, and this is going to sound bad because it is bad, Christians in different places have faced some heavy persecution throughout history, but we never got wiped the hell out like certain groups of pagans did.
You can guess my explanation for that, I'm curious about both of yours?
Well, my explanation is best described in this particluar post. To sum it up, pagan authorities had neither the zealous desire, nor the stomach to carry out a total extermination of Christianity. Apparently, Christians did. Governmental authorities had little to gain and much to lose through persecutions. On the other hand, Christians had every incentive to tear down the alters, since it was a proven effective way of gaining converts.
ReplyDeleteAfter that, I can't really think of any examples of persecution in history. I don't really think the Crusades count, since it was a war. Islamic authorities of the time were more tolerant of Christians in the holy land in peace time, than Christians were of them.
Maybe I'm missing something.
China has been brutal on Christians for centuries. Things are bad now but better than the 17th century at least.
ReplyDeleteThere was some shit during the French Revolution where atheists got crazy on Christians...
But yeah outside the Roman situation early on, it seems no pagan group tried to eradicate Christianity on a massive scale.
In the smaller instances though where this has occurred (17th Century China, Soviets etc.) they've still been unsuccessful.
Christians though, seem to succeed pretty well when converting opposing populaces though, except against other monotheistic groups.
This likely doesn't mean anything but I thought it was a little interesting.
It seems likely that the factors that make Christianity successful at missionary efforts are the same for Islam. Both offer a quick easy path for certainty of God. Both can be, but aren't necessarily always simplistic in the answers offered to questions of morality, divinity and the purpose of life.
ReplyDelete