Doug Shaver

My knowledge of that period is still pretty meager, but from what I've read so far, the surviving documentary evidence would lead one to think that not much else was going on.

What I think was really happening, though, is that there was much debate about which Christian sect represented True Christianity. One of those sects emerged triumphant during the fourth century, and then had the good fortune to acquire a monopoly on the preservation of all historical material, which monopoly they managed to hold on to for about the next thousand years.

Julian

Malachi's original terms were 'killed and persecuted' and while we may be hard pressed to find any evidence that christians killed christians it is not hard to find much evidence of persecutions albeit not of the killing kind. A host of monumental conflicts appear, such as the temporary dominance of the Marcion and his docetists and their eventual diminishing, the conflicting missions of Paul and the Jewish christians presented to us in brief one-sided accounts, the uncoordinated efforts of the gnostic sects which eventually evaporated, the numerous minor and major 'heresies' to which some of the church fathers adhered to some extent or other, and many other controversies and their resultant polemics clearly show us that the centuries between Josephus and Constantine were hardly quiet but, rather, a very turbulent time of philosophical meanderings during which christians of various persuasions struggled to define the identity of their organization which finally emerged in the form of orthodoxy and catholicism. Far and away the most interesting and action-packed slice of the history of the church, in my opinion.

Julian

Ben C Smith

Some of this seems to entail a pretty broad definition of the term persecution. I myself would not call namecalling or writing against a person and his beliefs persecution. A case could probably be made for excommunication as a form of persecution, but a pretty mild form.

Ben.

Julian

Yes, I am using the term persecution rather broadly. I specifically use it here to describe Paul's seemingly (probably, IMHO) exaggerated references to various harrassments, to use a potentially more palatable term. One could argue that harrassment is merely a mild form of persecution. Specifically from 1 Thessalonians we find stuff like

1:6 in spite of severe suffering

2:2 We had previously suffered and been insulted in Philippi, as you know, but with the help of our God we dared to tell you his gospel in spite of strong opposition.

2:14 You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, 15who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. [I do not believe this is an authentic Paul speaking here but a later addition]

2:15 and are hostile to all men 16in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles

3:1 So when we could stand it no longer

3:4 In fact, when we were with you, we kept telling you that we would be persecuted. And it turned out that way, as you well know. 5For this reason, when I could stand it no longer, [Emphasis mine]

The word persecuted here is from this:
ὅτι μέλλομεν θλίβεσθαι
that we are about to be squeezed (or pinched or crowded)

I am not how 'persecution' is normally rendered in Greek during that period and the NIV translation I copied from may be taking some liberties. KJV has 'tribulations,' as does YLT. I also see 'affliction.' Either way, it does seem like Paul thought that they were being, if not persecuted, at least severely harrassed. Of course, Paul was always given to hyperbole, exaggerations and a markedly unhumble humility.

Julian

Ben C Smith

Ah, yes, I can agree in calling what Paul claims to have suffered at the hands of his fellow Jews (and perhaps even some Jewish Christians) persecution. But how much did Jews persecute Christians after 70? Did Christians persecute (in the narrower sense of the word) the Jews after 70?

Ben.

Roger Pearse

Well, in a sense no. But if you wanted some key events, there is the little matter that ca. 200 it spread into the literature of the Latin-speaking world (Tertullian) and into the Syriac-speaking world (Bardesanes &c). Both these events had long term historical consequences.

The other key event in this period is that around the same time Christianity goes from being a very minor and marginal group to one that is attracting people of a much higher social and intellectual standing. The apostles and their immediate followers were nobodies, which is true into the second century also, although some philosophers become interested. But ca. 200 the church starts to contain people of the standing of Q. Septimius Florens Tertullianus, who can write a letter to the proconsul Scapula Tertullus, and reshape the Latin language in a way that none since Tacitus had been able to do; and a few years later Minucius Felix and his friends are all clearly optimates. Likewise in the East we have the scholarly master, Origen. From here on Christianity has reached all sectors of Roman society, and is seen by the Romans as significant (and *was* significant).

It may or may not be coincidental that this is the same period at which Roman society begins to lose its structure; the last jurists are all murdered (Papinian, Ulpian) and the quintessential Rome idea of law starts to become meaningless in a society dominated by brute force, and ruled by usurpers. This is the same period at which the dying emperor Severus gasps to his sons, "Enrich the soldiers. Nothing else matters!" When law was a pointless enterprise, was theology perhaps its replacement?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Julian

To follow up on what Roger was saying, according to Peter Lampe in his book From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (or via: amazon.co.uk) there seems to have been some fairly wealthy followers pretty early on, judging by some of the tombs found there.

Julian

No Robots

I heartily recommend for this topic Marta Sordi's The Christians and the Roman Empire (or via: amazon.co.uk). it gives a good account of the ups and downs in Christian-Imperial relations during this period.

Roger Pearse

Interesting. Wealthy is slightly different to what I had in mind. That some were well-off is apparent from Paul's letters, and would be compatible with the idea that Christianity spread among the business community (not unreasonable given its Jewish origin) who made use of the low-status but practical codex-form book for notes, on which at least some of the gospels may originally have been written. Likewise Marcion's father was a ship-owner from Pontus.

We can infer the existence of a few upper-class converts from the idea that Flavius Clemens was probably a Christian. But the general move to people of power and influence occurs ca. 200, I believe.

All the best,

Roger Pearse