Why did the Romans prosecute the Christians?

An introduction to my Eusebius "History of the Church" argues romans persecuting Christians couldn't have been on such a large scale. One reason was a 200A.D. roman emperor Diocletian gave rule to a bunch of Caesars; like hundreds. Most of these Caesars either never heard of a Christian or didn't enforce any official rule to do so.
 
Been reading this book:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Persecution-Christians-Martyrdom/dp/0062104527
It seems like a a pretty good book although she obviously alienates a lot of people with her rather bombastic views and straw man argument that Christians think that their religion is a persecuted religion(or perhaps they all do believe that?).

But her point is that Christians were not persecuted to a great extent only generally disliked. The only active persecution was from 305 to 306 and even that was half hearted. The Romans didn't like them for because they didn't want to recognise Ceasar as a god,and they viewed them as generally intolerant and disruptive like the OP says(although we wouldn't consider that attitude intolerant by our standards today). So the Christians weren't treated exceptionally well, but except for a few instances they were never actually persecuted. There is also good evidence that Christians reached high up in the roman hierarchy long before Constantine. So the Romans treated Christians very much like they treated most other special interest groups.

Quick question. Does the book consider local persecution as well or just the Roman government? And I guess, as a followup, would local governments ever be able to use violence (i.e., would this question I'm asking even be a meaningful distinction)?
 
Christianity proselytized and spread, though, which meant it wasn't contained to a small area of the Empire. I don't know if that would make a difference, but it certainly could make a difference.
 
any reference to the Black Athena or something similar that insists on the Blacks were entirely responsible for the Egyptian Civilization must be an invitation to trouble but a book claims -from an exceedingly cursory glance ı once had- that 10% of population of the Roman Empire were Jewish . Any truth to that ?
 
Persecution varied from place to place and time to time. In the second century and for much of the third, whether Christians were persecuted or not was largely down to local governors. Some were extremely anti-Christian and some were quite tolerant, so there were certainly times and places when Christians were quite safe, but that shouldn't blind us to the fact that there were other times and places when they were anything but. By the late second century, it seems that governors were more likely to persecute Christians, and the empire was becoming generally less safe. Tertullian complains about governors executing people simply for calling themselves "Christian", contrary to the emperor Hadrian's instructions, indicating that some governors were harsher than the law called for.

Also, don't forget that Christians were subject to attacks by mobs, quite apart from legal persecutions. In 222 CE the bishop of Rome was thrown down a well by such a mob, and in 248 CE Alexandrian Christians were dragged into temples by a mob and forced to sacrifice to the gods, and some were killed. Fear of the mob sometimes led governors who would have been merciful to condemn Christians. This happened in Lyons in 177 CE, when there was a riot sparked by anti-Christian sentiment, and the governor basically gave in and large numbers were executed.

And all that is before we even consider the empire-wide, coordinated persecutions; the first of these was in 202-206; there was another in 236; another in 249; and another in 257. This last one, under the emperor Valerian, was prompted by the economic crisis of the time; Valerian ordered that everyone should pray to the gods to help the empire, and the inevitable result was that many Christians refused to do so and got executed. (Many others complied, of course.) And then there was the Great Persecution, under Diocletian, half a century later, which was so extreme that it turned public opinion rather in favour of the Christians.

It's debatable how many Christians were actually killed in all of these persecutions put together; the chances are it wasn't really all that many. But we shouldn't underestimate their importance. They had a huge psychological effect on Christians at the time and for a long time afterwards. Even when they lived safely under sympathetic governors, they were still following an illegal religion and could be subject to arrest and torture at any time; they lived at the pleasure of their rulers. The idea that the Romans weren't really so bad to Christians has its roots in the British private school system of the late nineteenth-century, which was based around classics and the exaltation of the classical world; the Romans, it seemed, were thoroughly good chaps who can't really have been so horrible to the Christians; and so a number of scholars tried to make out that the persecutions were exaggerated and everyone actually got on perfectly well. But it's not true. Being Christian in second and third-century Rome was rather like being Jewish in medieval Europe: you might be all right, and you might even prosper, but only ever on sufferance; and if something went wrong and the people or the authorities turned against you, there could be no escape.

An introduction to my Eusebius "History of the Church" argues romans persecuting Christians couldn't have been on such a large scale. One reason was a 200A.D. roman emperor Diocletian gave rule to a bunch of Caesars; like hundreds. Most of these Caesars either never heard of a Christian or didn't enforce any official rule to do so.

Diocletian was a century later than that. He had one caesar. His co-emperor, Maximian, had one caesar as well. So there were four rulers of the empire: two emperors and two caesars. This is why it was called the "Tetrarchy". And, as I mentioned, Diocletian ordered the biggest persecution of Christians in Roman history; much of this was apparently inspired by his caesar, Galerius, who really hated them and who would continue and extend the persecution after Diocletian retired.
 
Quick question. Does the book consider local persecution as well or just the Roman government? And I guess, as a followup, would local governments ever be able to use violence (i.e., would this question I'm asking even be a meaningful distinction)?

Yes she considers local persecution as well, and like Plotinus says it varied. But her main point is that there was very little empire wide persecution. I think they had much freedom to do what they wanted, but she cites a letter from a governor called Pliny to the emperor, where Pliny asks what to do with the Christians. The wiki-article on this is very nice actually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger_on_Christians

"Neither Pliny nor Trajan mention the crime that Christians had committed, except for being a Christian; and other historical sources do not provide a simple answer to this question, but a likely element may be the stubborn refusal of Christians to worship Roman gods; making them appear as objecting to Roman rule."

As far as I gather she does not think this constitutes persecution because the Romans treated the Christians exactly the same as they treated anyone else(which makes it prosecution not persecution), the problem was that unlike pagans the Christians didn't want to worship Roman gods which made this a political matter for the Romans, which they thought undermined the Empire. The author seems to have more sympathy for the Romans than the Christians in this case.

The difference between Christians and Jews lies entirely in the fact that(as you suggested) they propagated their belief and spread it to Romans. For the Romans this was a political matter and they felt they had good reason to do what they did.

So the question is how much did the Romans hurt the Christians? Well, in short she thinks it was much lighter than what Plotinus implies.

Plotinus said:
Being Christian in second and third-century Rome was rather like being Jewish in medieval Europe: you might be all right, and you might even prosper, but only ever on sufferance; and if something went wrong and the people or the authorities turned against you, there could be no escape.

This I think she really disagrees with on some level. She says(to reiterate form above) the Christians were thrown in prison not because they were Christian but because they didn't worship roman gods. The Romans interpreted their refusal to worship as a threat to their society. Her point is that it can't be persecution if they treated everyone equally.
So she implies it was mostly a 300 year long cultural collision.

I might be putting words in her mouth now, because I don't have the book in front of me, but this is my crude interpretation.
 
She says(to reiterate form above) the Christians were thrown in prison not because they were Christian but because they didn't worship roman gods. The Romans interpreted their refusal to worship as a threat to their society.

Plotinus explanation really sound to me and make sense this is mostly (NOT ALL) the fate of minority religious or ethnic group living in the majority religious or ethnic group, they will tolerate you and nice to you until one event or one agitation that drive them crazy and turn against their own neighbor, it still apply in 21th century.

The things that I can't understand with your/her explanation is, if let just said that it is the truth what you said and that is the case, then the Jews should be persecute first before Christian, unless if one suggest that the Jews was actually giving up and worship the Roman God to please the Roman to be able to adapt and welcome into their society and not seen as a threat.

The relation between Japanese and Korean during Japan occupation were indeed like that, the Japanese force korean to bow to their shrine, but I don't believe the same happen to Roman, if it happen they should persecute the Jews first.
 
The Romans were pragmatists. They knew the Jews were a weird little sect that would never overthrow the Empire. Christianity otoh spread agressively and so perhaps they even became afraid of the Christians.

The idea that this has little to do with ideology is probably what separates today's persecutions of religions with the Roman persecution of certain religions. What the romans didn't understand(but we do) is that you could follow both Jesus AND Caesar.
 
that explain it is not really "the Christian don't worship our God" is the problem or the reason. Your argument that state the growing of the Christian follower worried the Roman might sound because Judaism not really bother the Roman population they were not trying to convert the pagan to the true religion. While Christian emerging inside the Roman empire and their practice and believed can endanger the exist-ency of the Roman culture and religion (as they thought).

The other reason maybe the Jewish priesthood already had their stand and influence within the Roman political power, while the Christian eventhough they are emerging they were only popular among the weak and poor peoples-they are new comer (in their early time) similar with Islam and the very reason why it been persecuted by the early Arabs. It emerging from the side or peripheral of the society to the core or central, and this dangerous-slowly but sure- movement worried the Roman.

Don't know, all of that purely my opinion that have no ground, purely assumption.
 
The Romans were pragmatists. They knew the Jews were a weird little sect that would never overthrow the Empire. Christianity otoh spread agressively and so perhaps they even became afraid of the Christians.
To deal with this "weird little sect", the Romans fought multiple bloody wars, destroyed the center of the Jewish faith and eventually tried to refound it as an explicitly non-Jewish colony, and reignited the diaspora. Roman violence was one of the single most important and transformative elements of the entire history of the Jewish religion. Why would the Romans consider the Jews, who had fought armed rebellions, less of a security problem than the Christians, who had, uh, not?
 
To deal with this "weird little sect", the Romans fought multiple bloody wars, destroyed the center of the Jewish faith and eventually tried to refound it as an explicitly non-Jewish colony, and reignited the diaspora. Roman violence was one of the single most important and transformative elements of the entire history of the Jewish religion. Why would the Romans consider the Jews, who had fought armed rebellions, less of a security problem than the Christians, who had, uh, not?

The Jews were a subjugated external people who didn't represent an existential threat to the established order. A military threat the Romans new well how to handle.

The Christians, on the other hand, were potential fifth columnists, conceivably undermining the socio-political order anywhere in the Empire - even in the Eternal City herself. Whereas the legions could be relied upon to crush, disperse, even exterminate open rebellion, they could provide no effective response to a social or theological movement. Periodic spasms of repression were probably all the Roman establishment could muster in response.
 
Fifth columnists for whom?
 
Yes she considers local persecution as well, and like Plotinus says it varied. But her main point is that there was very little empire wide persecution. I think they had much freedom to do what they wanted, but she cites a letter from a governor called Pliny to the emperor, where Pliny asks what to do with the Christians. The wiki-article on this is very nice actually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger_on_Christians

"Neither Pliny nor Trajan mention the crime that Christians had committed, except for being a Christian; and other historical sources do not provide a simple answer to this question, but a likely element may be the stubborn refusal of Christians to worship Roman gods; making them appear as objecting to Roman rule."

The Pliny/Trajan correspondence on this is famous - indeed it's among our earliest evidence for persecution of Christians. But bear in mind that it is very early. It represents the state of affairs in the early second century, at least the official state of affairs. As I said above, it seems that persecution worsened later in the second century. There was a long period of relative calm in the first half of the third century, but then it got worse again, and much worse than it ever had been before.

As far as I gather she does not think this constitutes persecution because the Romans treated the Christians exactly the same as they treated anyone else(which makes it prosecution not persecution), the problem was that unlike pagans the Christians didn't want to worship Roman gods which made this a political matter for the Romans, which they thought undermined the Empire. The author seems to have more sympathy for the Romans than the Christians in this case.

This is a bit like saying that gay people today are not persecuted in Russia or Uganda, because the same laws outlawing homosexuality apply to everyone. If people are prosecuted under an unjust law then one might indeed quibble words to say that it's not persecution, but the effect is the same.

Moreover, this overlooks two things. The first is that Christians didn't simply fall foul of the law to sacrifice to the gods and to the emperor's genius. It's that they were popularly thought to commit incest and murder on a regular basis, including stealing babies to kill in their perverted rituals. Minucius Felix reports these beliefs:

Minucius Felix said:
And now, as wickeder things advance more fruitfully, and abandoned manners creep on day by day, those abominable shrines of an impious assembly are maturing themselves throughout the whole world. Assuredly this confederacy ought to be rooted out and execrated. They know one another by secret marks and insignia, and they love one another almost before they know one another. Everywhere also there is mingled among them a certain religion of lust, and they call one another promiscuously brothers and sisters, that even a not unusual debauchery may by the intervention of that sacred name become incestuous: it is thus that their vain and senseless superstition glories in crimes. Nor, concerning these things, would intelligent report speak of things so great and various, and requiring to be prefaced by an apology, unless truth were at the bottom of it. I hear that they adore the head of an ass, that basest of creatures, consecrated by I know not what silly persuasion,—a worthy and appropriate religion for such manners. Some say that they worship the virilia of their pontiff and priest, and adore the nature, as it were, of their common parent. I know not whether these things are false; certainly suspicion is applicable to secret and nocturnal rites; and he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men, that they may worship what they deserve. Now the story about the initiation of young novices is as much to be detested as it is well known. An infant covered over with meal, that it may deceive the unwary, is placed before him who is to be stained with their rites: this infant is slain by the young pupil, who has been urged on as if to harmless blows on the surface of the meal, with dark and secret wounds. Thirstily—O horror!—they lick up its blood; eagerly they divide its limbs. By this victim they are pledged together; with this consciousness of wickedness they are covenanted to mutual silence. Such sacred rites as these are more foul than any sacrileges. And of their banqueting it is well known all men speak of it everywhere; even the speech of our Cirtensian testifies to it. On a solemn day they assemble at the feast, with all their children, sisters, mothers, people of every sex and of every age. There, after much feasting, when the fellowship has grown warm, and the fervour of incestuous lust has grown hot with drunkenness, a dog that has been tied to the chandelier is provoked, by throwing a small piece of offal beyond the length of a line by which he is bound, to rush and spring; and thus the conscious light being overturned and extinguished in the shameless darkness, the connections of abominable lust involve them in the uncertainty of fate. Although not all in fact, yet in consciousness all are alike incestuous, since by the desire of all of them everything is sought for which can happen in the act of each individual.

These sorts of rumours were one reason that Christians were subject to mob violence. And they also influenced their legal standing, which is the second point: Christians weren't treated legally the same as other people. Tertullian makes precisely this complaint: their supposed crimes were not investigated, but being called "Christians" was enough to condemn them irrespective of what they'd actually done:

Tertullian said:
If, again, it is certain that we are the most wicked of men, why do you treat us so differently from our fellows, that is, from other criminals, it being only fair that the same crime should get the same treatment? When the charges made against us are made against others, they are permitted to make use both of their own lips and of hired pleaders to show their innocence. They have full opportunity of answer and debate; in fact, it is against the law to condemn anybody undefended and unheard. Christians alone are forbidden to say anything in exculpation of themselves, in defence of the truth, to help the judge to a righteous decision; all that is cared about is having what the public hatred demands—the confession of the name, not examination of the charge: while in your ordinary judicial investigations, on a man’s confession of the crime of murder, or sacrilege, or incest, or treason, to take the points of which we are accused, you are not content to proceed at once to sentence,—you do not take that step till you thoroughly examine the circumstances of the confession—what is the real character of the deed, how often, where, in what way, when he has done it, who were privy to it, and who actually took part with him in it. Nothing like this is done in our case, though the falsehoods disseminated about us ought to have the same sifting, that it might be found how many murdered children each of us had tasted; how many incests each of us had shrouded in darkness; what cooks, what dogs had been witness of our deeds.

Christianity otoh spread agressively and so perhaps they even became afraid of the Christians.

There's actually very little evidence that Christianity was spreading aggressively in the second and third centuries. Its heartlands - Asia Minor and Africa - were established at a very early stage, and while it did exist throughout the empire later on, its presence in many places seems to have been pretty minor. The real expansion of Christianity throughout the empire took place only after Constantine's conversion, and even then it was something like a century before even a majority of Romans were Christians. Of course, that doesn't mean that people didn't fear that Christians were spreading aggressively at an earlier stage. People tend to have stupid and irrational fears of religions and cultures they don't understand.

In all of this, by the way, you shouldn't contrast "Christians" with "Romans". Most Christians - at least most of the ones we're talking about - were Romans.
 
To deal with this "weird little sect", the Romans fought multiple bloody wars, destroyed the center of the Jewish faith and eventually tried to refound it as an explicitly non-Jewish colony, and reignited the diaspora. Roman violence was one of the single most important and transformative elements of the entire history of the Jewish religion. Why would the Romans consider the Jews, who had fought armed rebellions, less of a security problem than the Christians, who had, uh, not?

Although Judea was landlocked from the other provinces of the empire, and having it rebel would make the map ugly (which we all know is a prime reason to get yourself invaded ;) ), it seems the region was insignificant by all means, even next to the surrounding provinces which pretty much were borderlands.

I do not think the jews of that time presented a serious threat to Rome. Previously they were parts of the Hellenistic empires and iirc some authors claim that most of them could only read their own holy texts in the translated Greek version (the old testament), so they appear to have been mostly integrated at the time. Maybe the Roman authority substituting the Hellenistic one was less willing to bother with regional particularities, or more willing to uproot them in regions not regarded as important or metropolitan anyway.
 
Fifth columnists for whom?

While I'm not sure fifth column is entirely the right word, I believe MilesGregarius seems to be talking about supporting/fermenting internal dissent.

Let's not forget what was probably the bigger concern. As I understand it, the biggest concern wasn't them literally betraying anyone, it was feeling the wrath of the gods. There were writers who talked about the declining morality of Rome and how that included failing to perform traditional sacrifices. It's easy to forget, but Romans were always a superstitious people. Undermining the traditional social order could risk disaster at the hands of the gods. Certainly, Judea could risk this too (and, certainly, Roman treatment of Jews could be quite brutal as well, although it tends to be more in lines with traditional suppression of uprisings), but Judaism could at least be seen as contained. Christianity had a much wider range, so it could be seen as something that the gods would look less favorably towards.
 
Had not Jesus himself allegedly pointed out that one was to render unto Caesar what was Caesar's, and unto God what was God's? Sounds to me that they not only premiered the first communistic society, but perhaps the first rumblings of anarchism?
 
It was basically a clash of civilisations. In Acts we see a case where a convert of Paul was accused of "turning the world upside down" because it often meant those in the business of commerce that surrounded the worship of the various gods, meant that this new message was bad for business. Anyway most of the persecution we see in the Bible is of the local kind and not empire wide.
 
Top Bottom