Christianity tolerated earlier but not established

[Derek Jackson]

WI, perhaps as a reaction to Nero, Rome stopped persecuting Christians much earlier but never made it the state faith.

(Just to let folk know where I am coming from, I would describe myself as a respectful agnostic but everything I find attractive about Christianity is jars with it being an instrument of state power)

[NapoleonXIV]

It's quite possible that Christianity would not grow with anything like the intensity it did were it not persecuted at all. Martyrdom and the mystique of such was probably the most important impetus to conversion and faith that early Christianity had.

Though just why this was the case is unclear. The Empire only persecuted off and on and often was surprisingly mild in the persecutions it did do. Further, even the most severe persecutions usually gave the Christians the option of professing the Roman faith as a stopgap, and strangely it seems Early Christianity had no real prohibition against that. Martyrs, it seemed, often went to their deaths purely out of their own volition.

[Chengar Qordath]

Going off my own memory, the main reason Christianity faced such persecution was that the Christians stated that all other religions were in fact worshipping Demons and False Gods, which naturally offended a lot of people. Due to the common Roman veneration of great leaders like Julius and Augustus Ceaser, the Christian refusal to offer any veneration and statemetns that the venerated leaders were in fact demons was seen by the Roman State as being treasonous and subversive.

Christianity could easily have been tolerated if they had simply been willing to be a bit less intolerant themselves.

[sunsurf]

Alexander Severus, who died ca. 235, was pretty tolerant...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Severus

In religious matters Alexander preserved an open mind. In his private chapel he had busts of Orpheus, Abraham, Apollonius of Tyana, and Jesus. It is said that he was desirous of erecting a temple to the founder of Christianity, but was dissuaded by the pagan priests.

That's a POD I'd like to incorporate in one of my timelines...

[Bulgaroktonos]

Actually, Rome was incredibly tolerant of the Christians.

If we look at Trajan's criteria for dealing with people brought before the court accused as Christians, as written by Trajan to a governor asking about it, they are as follows.

1. Ask the person if they are Christian. If they say "no," let them go. If they say "Yes," proceed to step Two.

2. Tell them the penalty for being a Christian. Ask them again. If they say N"o," let them go. If they say "Yes," proceed to step Three.

3. Remind them of the penalty. Ask a them a Third time. If they say "No," let them go. If they say "Yes" a third time, execute them.

This is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it shows that Rome is not actively pursuing Christians but instead that the Christians must be brought before the prelates or other officials by their accuser. Secondly, they need no proof of not being a Christian, they simply have to say they aren't and they are free to go. And they have 3 chances to say no...

Also, if we look at the "martyrdom of Felicitas and Perpitua" int he 4th Century AD, it is incredibly clear that the people who are running the games in Carthage have no idea how to go about killing Christians in the arena. They send two Christian men out unarmed to fight beasts and get a very lukewarm response. Then they send two women out, and the outcry is so huge that the producers are forced to take them out of the arena and dress them as men and cut their hair, and then throw them back into the arena. Thus it would seem that if the producers of the arena in Carthage have no idea how to run a Christian killing, then it is likely to be a rare occurence rather than symptomatic of persecutions.

Even under the largest persecution of Diocletian, during which the above mentioned martyrdom occured, it was primarily directed towards the Churches which had collected a great deal of money, and could not be directly accessed by the state. Thus, reading even Christian sources or those of Ammianus show that for the most part the "persecutions" were hardly persecutions and that the big ones were more aimed at increasing the Roman state's income than actually killing Christians.

[MerryPrankster]

Well, an integral part of the Christian religion is NOT renouncing one's faith under pressure. Jesus Himself said, "If anyone denies Me before men, I will deny him before My Father" or something to that effect.

Forcing them to renounce their faith under penalty of death is not being tolerant.

However, Bulgar's point is still partially standing--most persecutions of Christians were regional in nature and largely the result of local officials or puppet rulers. In one of the epistles, Paul (I think) wrote, "pray for kings, so we might live in peace" or something like that. Not "pray for the emperor" but pray for the local equivalent of Herod.

[MrP]

Actually, Rome was incredibly tolerant of the Christians.

That's what you call incredibly tolerant? :eek:

If I asked Straha if he were an atheist a few times, and killed him if he repeatedly said he was, I wouldn't see that as tolerant. Failed blackmail, maybe, but not tolerant! :rolleyes:

Derek, I quite agree. Once Christianity becomes a state religion it becomes the very Caesar the NT Jesus asks us to render his coinage to. Once Christianity is the official and compulory state religion it loses a great deal of what made it Christian.

I think this is a deuced interesting idea, and I look forward to more.

[Tom_B]

I have doubts that a merely torlerated Christianity would be that stable a situation in the long haul. On the one hand there is a good chance that an Emperor will come along that either personally dislikes CHristians and/or sees them as convenient scpegoats. On the other there would be many Christian bishops who would be hankering for establishment--in part for selfish reasons but also out of the "Errror has no rights" mentality.

Furthermore if there is an Emperor who persecutes followed by one who is more sympathetic they would pressure him for establisment from a Never Again mentality.

Tom

[MerryPrankster]

Tom_B,

I think Hal Lindsey had an aside in Late Great Planet Earth about how when power is on the side of religion, it corrupts, and when it is against religion, it persecutes it.

Persecution often drives religion to seek power out of self-protection.

[Bulgaroktonos]

That's what you call incredibly tolerant? :eek:

If I asked Straha if he were an atheist a few times, and killed him if he repeatedly said he was, I wouldn't see that as tolerant. Failed blackmail, maybe, but not tolerant! :rolleyes:

Derek, I quite agree. Once Christianity becomes a state religion it becomes the very Caesar the NT Jesus asks us to render his coinage to. Once Christianity is the official and compulory state religion it loses a great deal of what made it Christian.

I think this is a deuced interesting idea, and I look forward to more.

Well, it only becomes state religion under Justinian. Constantine only made it legal to be Christian. :p

As to the tolerance, the point is that Rome has no desire to persecute Christians, and that the ban on Christianity is really just a formality. They are not seeking Christians out, but instead, individual citizens (or at least residents as the Constitutio Antoniniana had not be passed), had to bring Christians forward for prosecution. Thus, the pattern of questioning implies that this was initially used to eliminate people you didn't like, and thus you had three chances to deny being a Christian. Therefore, it seems that people really didn't care about Christianity to any large extent.

In all, it seems that Christianity was not persecuted on any large scale at any time. The major persecution of Diocletian, the true persecution of Christians oft cited by those claiming persecution, wasn't so much a persecution of the adherents as it was a seizure of the Church's gold....

[MarkA]

Well, it only becomes state religion under Justinian. Constantine only made it legal to be Christian. :p

As to the tolerance, the point is that Rome has no desire to persecute Christians, and that the ban on Christianity is really just a formality. They are not seeking Christians out, but instead, individual citizens (or at least residents as the Constitutio Antoniniana had not be passed), had to bring Christians forward for prosecution. Thus, the pattern of questioning implies that this was initially used to eliminate people you didn't like, and thus you had three chances to deny being a Christian. Therefore, it seems that people really didn't care about Christianity to any large extent.

In all, it seems that Christianity was not persecuted on any large scale at any time. The major persecution of Diocletian, the true persecution of Christians oft cited by those claiming persecution, wasn't so much a persecution of the adherents as it was a seizure of the Church's gold....

Actually it was under Theodosius that christianity became the state religion. He was an extremely bigoted man and closed the academies etc. The large emigration of intellectuals to the Persian empire as a result led to a renaissance there.

As for the notion that Rome did not persue persecutions as vigourously as the christian apologists claimed, this has some validity. But I think more in the nature of ad hoc persecutions based entirely on the personality of the emperor at the time rather than a systematic state policy. In other words, Trajan was less severe than Decius but all emperors persecuted. Even under Marcus Aurelius there were executions in the arena at Lyons (which incidently led to Ireneaus being elected bishop).

[MerryPrankster]

In all, it seems that Christianity was not persecuted on any large scale at any time. The major persecution of Diocletian, the true persecution of Christians oft cited by those claiming persecution, wasn't so much a persecution of the adherents as it was a seizure of the Church's gold....

Didn't Diocletion make owning any Christian literature illegal (on pain of death)? I'd read that this was what narrowed down the canon--each church had its own library of literature, and they suddenly had to decide what was worth dying for if Caesar's men came calling?

[Bulgaroktonos]

I know he ordered the burning of the scriptures and the destruction of the Churches and the seizure of their valuables, but the penalties mentioned by Eusebius and Lactantius (sp) our biggest contemporary sources, don't mention death, only imprisonment and humiliation.

Eventually the edicts mention torture, but that is as severe as it gets from what I could find. I couldn't find the Edict itself, which I recall having read somewhere.

Mostly, the Romans are looking to get the Christians to offer sacrifices and take their gold rather than kill them.

Nor is the burning of the scriptures particularly strenuous. More or less, you bring out the books they ask you to, and if you bring at least some out, they'll more or less just go on their way. Several people got out of burning their whole collection just by repeatedly saying that they don't have anymore books to burn.....