countjulian

I have been doing a little bit of research into the matter. I posted this on another list I frequent, and would be interested on some responses:

The problem with this is that the sources related to the
study of these martyrdoms are clearly legendary. Roman legal procedure
is virtually ignored, and they are so often full of miracles and
unbelievable explanations as to be utterly unbelievable. They all also
suffer from one of the main afflictions of this type of Christian
literature: lack of justification for persecution. Although modern
scholars and apologists have tried to rationalize the Roman's reasons
for killing Christians indiscriminately, the texts themselves provide
no such justification. As with the Acts of the Apostles, the
persecution of Christians is irrational; Christians are persecuted
merely for being Christians. If you read this link http://www.users.drew.edu/ddoughty/C...ons/index.html ,I think you'llsee that the "martyrdoms" of the saints are in very many cases clearly legendary.

This is especially true for the martyr acts set in the time of Marcus.
The greatest, shining example of this is the Acts of Justin and his
Friends, which can be found here
http://www.users.drew.edu/ddoughty/C.../justmart.html.
It's a short read. Professor Doughty speaks concisely and well on the
subject:

"There are three Greek recensions of the text: a short version, a
middle version, and a long, more literary version (Musurillo, xviii).
The middle recension is the oldest (Cambridge, Cant. Add. 4489) from
the eighth century. The short version (Paris graec. 1470) is from 890.
The longer recension (S. Sepulchri 17) comes from the twelfth century.
There is really no good reason to regard any version of this writing
as authentic. Everything related is clearly artificial.

In fact, the "Acts" itself is somewhat confusing about why Justin (and
the others) are condemned. On the surface, in the framework of the
story, the reference to the "days of the wicked decrees of idolatry"
at the beginning and the judgment at the end ("Those who have refused
to sacrifice to the gods are to be scourged and executed in accordance
with the laws") seem to make the issue clear. In the body of the
story, however, as is characteristic for other martyr legends, it
seems like the issue is simply whether one is a Christian. Justin is
asked, for example, "You do admit, then, that you are a Christian?"
And all the others are asked the same question, except for Peon who
voluntarily confesses: "I am a Christian too." But such questions and
such confessions have nothing to do with the question of whether they
sacrifice to the gods. In this regard, Keresztes rightly observes that
"the general edict... taken by itself, was obviously not aimed at
Christians at all" (301). One might expect the prefect to ask, "Do you
refuse to sacrifice to our gods?" And perhaps even "Why not?" If this
is an actual report of the proceedings, it is, at the very least,
confusing and incomplete.

One wonders how guilt is supposedly determined here? No accusers seem
to be present. Keresztes explains that "popular violence and, very
probably, the arbitrary conduct of local government were the major and
decisive force in these persecutions" (301). But we are supposedly
talking here about an Imperial decree, and the prefect at their trial
is not some country bumpkin, but none other than Q. Iunius Rusticus,
the Stoic teacher of Marcus Aurelius' and urban prefect of Rome from
163-168. All this strains the imagination too far.

Eusebius knew Justin's two Apologies, his Dialogue with Trypho, and
other writings (EH 4.18), but does not seem to have known the Acts.
His own account of a plot instigated against Justin by the philosopher
Crescens is a quite different story, although even here Eusebius does
not say what charge Crescens brought against Justin or why Justin was
executed."

Many of the same problems with the Acts of Justin face us again in
other of the legendary martyr acts. The lack of accusers present at
the trials is unbelievable. If one is to believe the letters of Pliny
and Trajan (which are themselves suspect), Christians were not "to be
sought out" for "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." Yet when no witnesses or
accusers were present at the supposed trial of Justin, how can
accusations be anything but "anonymously posted?" The excuse that the
loathsome, disgusting pagans were driven made by the error of their
impious "idolatry" simply falls flat when we are expected to believe
the Q. Rusticus, in Doughty's words "not some country bumpkin", was
carrying out the "persecution." Their legendary character is further
confirmed by the fact that the acts portray Rusticus as attacking the
Christians merely on account for their being Christian. It portrays
the pagans as offended by the impiety towards the gods displayed by
the Christians, but in the end it is merely the name of Christian that
incites the pagans to persecute them. This is utter nonsense. The fact
that these acts do not mention any edict by Marcus seems to prove to
me that there was no specific edict issued against them, since surely
the hagiographer would have mentioned it.

The excuse that the Christians refused to worship the gods falls short
when we consider how the Empire treated the Jews at the time. If
popular hatred was incited at them because of the calamities that
befell the empire were blamed on them, why did the Jews get off
scott-free? Indeed, some of the martyr acts actually blame the Jews
for inciting the pagans. Surely, there use have been some pagans who
did not observe greta piety in their dealings with the gods, why were
they not forced to greater piety?

Other sources of the time ignorant of these goings on. Ireneaus never
mentions the supposed persecution in his hometown of Lyons, even
though is is supposed to have happen just prior to the writing of his
books. The 4th century chronicler of "The Lives of the Caesars" seems
ignorant of it. The 4th century epitomizer of Cassius Dio who ascribes
the "Thundering Legion" incident to Christian prayers makes no mention
of any persecutions. Many of the supposed persecutions, apologies, and
letters from martyrs come to us only through that pillar of historical
accuracy, Eusebius. The plea of Athenagoras is not even mentioned by
Eusebius.

I believe there may have been persecutions (though their evidence
under Marcus is lacking) before Decius and Diocletian. Certainly they
instituted measures that resulted in the persecution. But what was the
catalyst?

Many who have investigated this matter have thus far ignored evidence
for what I see as the rather violent streak in early Christianity. If
one reads descriptions of paganism written by pre (and
post)-Constantine Christians, you get the idea of the unimaginable
hatred and contempt in which they held the pagan Romans: the smoke
that lifted up from the sacrifices were actually swarms of little
demons, demons lived in the altars and images the pagans worshiped.
The emperors and priests and pagan lay persons were all possessed by
demons. The temples were the bodes of evil powers, and the demons
lived amongst the pagans everywhere. Tertulian finds comfort in the
idea of all the members of pagans society, poets, philosophers,
scientists, artisans, not just priests, emperors, and those who
persecute Christianity, dying and being tortured forever in hell.
Ideas translate into actions. The council of Elvira was convened in
305, and one of the issues it had to deal with was what to do with
"martyrs" who attacked idols and temples and got killed at it. We know
of at least one pre-Constantine saint who was "martyred" in this
fashion. Some time before Constantine, Eusebius records that the
Christians started a riot in Alexandria that claimed 60 lives. When
Diocletian put out his edicts against the Christians, the imperial
palace in Nicomedia was firebombed twice. When Constantine declared
himself a Christian, the cultists of Christs immediately went to work,
destroying 6 pagan temples and torturing 2 pagan priests to death. In
the end, fears about the Christians breaking the "pax deorum" were
correct.

Chris Weimer

Pliny's correspondance with Trajan would imply a persecution of Christians for merely being Christian.

GakuseiDon

Quite a few Christian apologists complained about being persecuted for "the sake of a name". Some actually demand that Christians be investigated for crimes to see if they were actually guilty, rather than being punished for no other reason than being called a Christian:

Justin "First Apology":

… we demand that the charges against the Christians be investigated, and that, if these be substantiated, they be punished as they deserve; [or rather, indeed, we ourselves will punish them.] But if no one can convict us of anything, true reason forbids you, for the sake of a wicked rumour, to wrong blameless men... By the mere application of a name, nothing is decided, either good or evil, apart from the actions implied in the name; and indeed, so far at least as one may judge from the name we are accused of, we are most excellent people... if any one acknowledge that he is a Christian, you punish him on account of this acknowledgment.

Tertullian "Ad nationes":

... and failing to make a full inquiry, which should be gone into by such as sue for a condemnation, it becomes evident that the crime laid to our charge consists not of any sinful conduct, but lies wholly in our name... What crime, what offence, what fault is there in a name?

Tatian "Address to the Greeks":

Is it not unreasonable that, while the robber is not to be punished for the name he bears, but only when the truth about him has been clearly ascertained, yet we are to be assailed with abuse on a judgment formed without examination?

Athenagoras "A Plea for the Christians":

If, indeed, any one can convict us of a crime, be it small or great, we do not ask to be excused from punishment, but are prepared to undergo the sharpest and most merciless inflictions. But if the accusation relates merely to our name--and it is undeniable, that up to the present time the stories told about us rest on nothing better than the common undiscriminating popular talk, nor has any Christian been convicted of crime...

What, therefore, is conceded as the common right of all, we claim for ourselves, that we shall not be hated and punished because we are called Christians (for what has the name to do with our being bad men?)

Johann_Kaspar

Well, the "first one" was executed together with 2 others for rebellion, murder, refusing to pay taxes, riotting, proclaming himself king...
In Rome they were executed for setting fire...

Roger Pearse

Tertullian states the same (Apologeticum). "Non licet esse vos" is the jeer at the Christians -- "you are not allowed to exist." In the Ad Nationes he refers to the illegal status of Christianity as an Institutum Neronianum.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Julian

I think a reasonable argument could be made that the fact that they were christians was incidental and that they were, in fact, being punished for belonging to an illegal club, regardless of what that club was about.

Julian

Roger Pearse

Based on what?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Julian

You had to ask, didn't ya?

Well, I am at work and not near my books. I shall find the references for this when I reach my abode, unless someone else can come to my rescue here. It has to do with most associations being illegal as they fermented sedition and unrest but my memory is really hazy on this.

Julian

Julian

Okay, I managed to find some stuff. This site here discusses a lot of different options, including the issue of illegal hetaeria:
http://courses.drew.edu/FA2001/bibst.../plinynot.html

I didn't read to whole thing so I am not sure about its conclusions, although the first part didn't seem to agree with me but, then again, I am no expert. I did happen to see that it did include some references so further study is facilitated.

Julian

andrewcriddle

Marcus Aurelius' comment in the Meditations implies that he had faced the problem of Christians 'obstinately' choosing death rather than cooperation with Imperial demands.

IE in effect it is an acknowledgment by Marcus Aurelius of having been involved in persecuting Christians.

Andrew Criddle