Ok, so we've reached the point in the year where we have introduced the final major belief system to emerge during season 1--Christianity. Only one more major belief system to emerge (Islam), and that will be in season 2. At any rate, now that we have brought Christianity into the mix, let's take a closer look into how it was generally received in its birthplace, the Roman Empire. In reality, Roman authorities were generally tolerant of the diverse deities and religious practices of the empire's subjects and tried to foster loyalty to the empire by merging these gods and goddesses into the Roman pantheon. Normally, all that Romans required was that the various cults and their devotees not threaten public order or morality and that each religion help guarantee the gods' continued favor toward the state. However, as far as many Romans were concerned, Christianity WAS a threat to the state and civil order because of its uncompromising monotheism and its followers' extreme sense of exclusivity. Although Jews shared those characteristics, Judaism enjoyed the status of being the legally recognized religion of one of Rome's subject people. Once Christianity separated itself from the Jewish synagogues, it lost whatever protection it had enjoyed by reason of its Judaic heritage.Although we possess no official state pronouncement concerning Christianity before the second century CE, it appears that the first imperial persecution of Christians took place in Rome under Emperor Nero around the year 64. Under Nero, following a massive fire that devastated the city, Christians became targets of attack, because they were "hated for their abominations." Because of these "abominations," Christianity became a prohibited cult, and adherence to it was technically a capital offense. Along with the occasional flare-ups of persecution came writings in defense of the Christian belief system. One such writing I would like you to read is by Tertullian. He was the first great Christian writer to use Latin, rather than Greek, as his chosen means of communication. His passionate, quotable, and sarcastic writings in defense of his own rigorous vision of Christianity played a major role in forming a Western, or Latin, Christian culture. Born the pagan son of an army centurion, Tertullian initially enjoyed a brilliant career as a legal advocate and jurist. Around the year 195, he converted to Christianity and soon thereafter embarked on a new career as one of Christianity's strongest advocates. Only around two years after his conversion (197 CE), he composed one of his most famous works, the Apologia. The word means "defense," and in this work Tertullian, the lawyer turned Christian apologist, defended Christian practices and beliefs before the court of public opinion. Addressed to the empire's governors, the Apologia develops the argument that persecution of Christians is inconsistent with the principles of Roman law, morality, and reason. It is a stunning document, and I would like you to read excerpts from it by clicking on the following link (Apologia).
After you have read the document, I'd like for you to think about and discuss a few things: What were some of the heinous crimes Christians were accused of? Why do you think these particular charges were leveled against them? What does Tertullian think of the legality, internal inconsistency, and justice of Emperor Trajan's policy regarding Christians? What specific points does he make in his analysis of the policy? According to Tertullian, why are Christians hated, and how rationally based is that hatred? In your opinion, who would a reasonable, moderate pagan (non-Christian Roman) answer Tertullian's points? Your thoughts...
51 comments:
um...it sounded like the christians were being accused of eating babies. i think the government would accuse them of that kind of crime to set them apart from others, since i'm pretty sure people are going to be more disgusted by eating babies than a normal murder. they wanted to make the christians seem like monsters in order to keep from the christians getting sympathy or support. if the christians got sympathy from non-christians, then the number of christians would go up or the christians would be helped, which the romans didn't for fear of being taken over. i think teratulus, or whatever his name was, really just wanted christians to be treated just like everyone else.
I want to know who believed that Christians actually ate babies. Also if i where an emperor i wouldn't want people to offer a sacrifice to me. Its a waste and it would be creepy for someone to kill something for me.
"Apologia" was interesting because it pointed out so many faults of the Roman system of law. It sounded great when we talked about it in class today, but it's definitely not perfect. Tertullian does an awesome job of making a fool out of the Roman "government" and he points out that the crimes that they are accused of don't make sense. They pay taxes and respect roman authority, so what's the problem? And sacrificing babies? What was that about? Most of the things they were prosecuted for were probably even made up to turn Roman citizens against christians. It doesn't surprise me at all that it was Nero who started prosecuting christians, that guy was a power-hungry nutcase. I reaally want to know what eventually happened to this guy, he was really smart. Was he killed because of these documents? Or did they actaully help the christian cause?
good question miss persyn... however, sadly, his later life is unknown, and we do not know if he was martyred or died of old age as Jerome later wrote.
its like the romans wanted to prosecute the christians for even the slightest things they did wrong.
and if one were to say he was a christian, they wanted to torture him until he denied it. but like the man said in there, a fact is a fact. so did they want the christians to practise their faith in secret?
First of all, what's up with the whole baby eating thing. he thought that what Trajan wrote in law about how they shouldnt be hunted down but when met they shoould be punished, was contradicting itself, so in the the end the christians are being punished for being found or walking down the streets. Something I learned in Latin, was that when the christians were being persecuted, to find other christians, the christians would wave their legs in front of the person slowly in a half fish, and if the other person is a christian, they would finish the fish. so they had a secret code..isn't that cool?!
The bayb eating is kinda weird. If I was in charge, it would become illegal. That's just a really really weird thing to do.
Roman government accused the Christians sacrificing the babies, but they weren't treated like other criminals. Other criminals had right to defend themselves against the charges and cross-examinate, but the christians couldn't defend themselves and were proven guilty. I think that the Roman government was afraid that christian's monotheistic faith would result in rebellion and disunification.
okay, let me get this straight. there could be a murderer of babies and get a trial and not put to death, but there could be a humble Christian and get exicuted? what's up with that? and where did the whole baby eating thing come from? i don't reemember there being anything in the bible about eating babys!!! this whole law code against the christians just seems like a little kid convinced that someone is bad, but has no proof, so he tells everybody the "evil" kid picks his nose so others will hate that kid... really mature! w/e.
"We are said to be the worst of criminals because of our sacramental baby-killing and the baby-eating that accompanies it and the sexual license that follows the banquet, where dogs are our pimps in darkness when they overturn candles and procure a certain modesty of our impious lusts."
Wow. The most brutal statment ever enscribed in the defense of Christianity. The opposite of the holiness that the religion was entended to harness.
This writing is talking about how if you were a Christan you did not get the same punishments as other people if they were to commit the same crime. Even if the accusation was false they could not have a fair tial and were not allowed to do anything in order to prove themselves innocent. That the people thought their religion was wrong just for the fact that they did not believe that the gods or emporers that they worshiped and gave sacrafices or whatever to were not the same gods. That they refused to give these things to people just because others thought they were their gods. i dont really get the baby eating though?
The only case the Romans could have possibly had against the Christians was sacrilegious charges qhich the Christians did not deny. They openly said that they did not respect the Roman gods. The Christians would have considered this to be blaspheomy. But I want to know how a Roman government that has the idea of freedom of religion in its constitution can persecute somebody for being sacrilegious.
Wow who would actually believe that someone would be capable of eating babies. I mean I'm sure there might be people out there who are seriously messed up and do, but other then that no one would. If people really took time to read documents like this and understand rather then following the masses things would have been so much different. Nero was just a good manipulator looking for power and was afraid of Christians turning people against him.
seems like many of you guys seem to be disturbed by the baby eating charge. there is no documentation that proves that christians ever participated in such a practice. these are trumped up charges with no basis that are thrown out there due to a general feeling of hatred and prejudice against christians because they were seen as a threat to national security. and people believed such things. SOUND FAMILIAR? DOES THIS ALSO HIT CLOSE TO HOME?
mr. nash... you'd be surprised how many governements in 2008 guarantee freedom of religion in their constitutions, yet repress religious minorities. russia is a prime example of this currently.
Wow! Cool. Well, It wasn't cool, really. It's just that the Christians are having lies told of their religion and blames against them.--from the pagans. Have the tables turned or what?! The Christians began doing all the same things to many of the pagan religions...
eating babies?? where do you come up with that?? wow. I guess there's a logical connection... like flying on a broomstick? (which would b awesome by the way)
hmm, well, to me it seems (and is also stated in the text) that the rulers/emperors of rome wanted to beat everyone into submission(not literally but figuratively. They felt the need to do this because of the emergence of Christianity. I think they were worried that the popularity of christianity would rise, and provoke other 'non-christians' to aid them against the rulers who were trying to prosecute them.
and, mr.prill, did they really eat babies, or was that just an exaggeration?
again, christians didn't eat babies. these are trumped up charges based on unwarranted fears that christians were a threat to the empire, and people believed it.
I really don't see the real reason why christianity was such a threat to the Roman World. It wasnt like they were causing internal rebellion or any attacks or invasions of the government. They did their part and society and did not bother anybody, so why they targeted by the government. Tertullian did a great job of coming to the defense of christians with Apologia. but what happens after this is published or presented to the government?
Nero and other emperors most likely saw Christians as a threat to the government, I think the baby killing was made up so that others would also go against Christians. This was done most likely to save himself
hey mr. prill! the document wont load !!! it says done but theres nothing there!!!!
wow they were very creative back then. haha i mean really baby eating?? come on who acutally believed that mr pril?? how gullable were people??
i know how u said in class that the romans were "low" but seriously.....baby eatting. its kinda like a lose-lose situation. You can't be an accepted Christian if u pretend to worship the emperors and if you are full fledged to the religion it is likely to be prosecuted. its kind of hard to see how the religion is still around today with all of what was going on.
miss white... i don't know, first time i've heard that. i'd be happy to print something up for you tomorrow if you need it.
miss jorgensen... remember, good publicity or bad publicity is still publicity... in fact, when people's beliefs are so strong that they are willing to die for them, that's pretty powerful, that's going to turn some heads and generate interest.
It seems as though the Roman empire was trying to supress the Christian belief as much as possible, and by whatever means necessary. I think that by using false accusations and harsh prosecutions, many that were still deciding were swayed by such extreme movements as these and either decided to follow Christianity becuase they believed it must be a good religion if people were willing to die for it. The others, however, might decide that converting to Christianity isn't worth all the harm that could be brought against them. This is all merely speculation of course, and I have no solid proof of this.
Hmm this reading was very interesting. It really showed the injustice in the Roman law and the Roman court...hmmm kinda reminds me of another civilization: America maybe?? hmm.. interesting
Oh and also..okay so in class we learned that Jesus was executed on account of being a political threat to the Roman Empire. But when I looked over it in Luke chapter 23 it was a little different. Jesus went through 2 major governors in the Roman empire. Ponchias Pilot and Herod Antipas. Both of them excused him and wanted to release him seeing no faulty. Of course the whole threat to their kingdom probably crossed their mind ,but it seemed to me that the Pharasies (and JEWS) were the ones who pressured Pilot into executing Jesus Christ.
Okay, well whoever thought Christians ate babies, had serious problems. That emperor Nero had to have been full of himself. He thought "if they won't worship me, they'll die." Also, the Tertullian guy sounds like he was the most normal. Christians shouldn't have been punished for their beliefs and I think he thought that as well.
well, in the end it was the romans that pulled the trigger though clearly. as the story goes, pilate "washed his hands" of the sitution (that's where we get the expression from) and then had him executed. his very epitaph, as the documents show, certainly points to the romans as the source of the execution. was the government under pressure by higher ups (pharasies) in the jewish community? sure, but the higher ups (1) did not speak for the entire community necessarily [even if some did not want to be followers, certainly most did not want him executed], and (2) since when did the roman government cave into inside pressures from the province of judea? never! but in pointing the finger a bit, it takes some blame off the roman government, even though it was their call to make. the problem here is that when blame starts getting launched at the jewish community as a whole for this action, we have problems. anti-semetism erupts. how very sad that an entire race of people have been blamed for the execution of another belief system's messiah. hence the root of many waves of anti-semetism in europe throughout the centuries well into the 20th. how sad indeed.
To me it sounds like the rulers were trying to do what was best for the empire as they saw the Christians as a threat they tried to eliminate them by using false accusations and treating them different then your average criminal.
Mr Prill,
Today in class you were talking about how they were supposed to love their neighbor, if they were known for practicing this and the baby-eating was not proven, wouldn't it be doubtful that they ate babies/their neighbor.
This was just weird for me. I'm not sure if I actually understood it because it was just... odd.
I think the amount of praise the emperors expected for people was very off and unreasonable. They knew they weren't gods and surely they believed in some of these religions but they went against what they believed to get praise. ughhh.
sapp
It's really interesting how Pagan's have all these hyped up charges against Christians, but within a few hundred years things will be completely different. Aren't the Pagans going to be prosecuted with hyped up charges...Anyways, interesting how Roman law's had exceptions for different people ex: Christians while many westerners consider Rome to be such a noble empire and previously a noble republic.
WOW they really thought that Christians ate babies. I think that they just made that up so that they could have a reason to eliminate them which is wrong!!
In my opinion, i think im finally beiginning really understand why the Romans were so against the Christian religion. I think it was mainly becuase they were afraid that if the religion changed in the roman empire,so would the government. The Christians tried so hard, to find seek people to convert and wel the Roman empire was afraid of this becuase if the christians could convert religion...they could certainly convert the government...maybe? However, i dont think its right for the Roamns to be killing everyone. I think that maybe offering the christians some kind of agreement, might have been more successful and smarter of the Roman empire, rather than just killing everyone who was Christian.
the christians were accused of eating babies! ok, personally i think that is a little out there because just because someone is a certain religion doesnt make them crazy and want to eat babies or do something totally out there like that. the government probably said this about them though because being of the type of religion that they believed did not follow what the people's moral codes were in the society (mainly viewing the emperor as a god) they didnt want more people to follow that religion and go against the government so they made up stories like that to make the christians seem barbarian.
i also think its weird that they accused christians of eating babies but they then go and make their official religion. thats so messed up! if i was one of those christians i would have been mad cause the romans just like turned on them!
I think that the Romans feel threatened by the Christians. As we know, they thought that the Christians were creating a kingdom to challenge the Romans. The Christians were also rebelling, not paying their taxes, and refusing to worship the emperor as a god, so in essence they were completly deffying the essence of the Roman Empire.
So, the Romans began to persecute them, and they had to turn public opinion against them, which is not all that hard in Classical civilizions since the public was not well educated. So, this guy is saying that Christians are not as bad as the Romans said, and that they deserved fair trial like all other citizans.
The Roman Empire viewed Christianity as a threat. Of course, if there is some kind of threat to one's territory, you would instantly feel the need to protect it for your own sake, not really for anyone else's. They executed Jesus, the one believed to have started this religion, as well as making false accusations in attempt to put down that threat. Christians eating babies for one example. This could even be compared to public school. Typically, if you hear of someone who doesn't like you, is talking about you behind your back, or something of that nature, what is one of the first things you're going to feel the need to do, even without knowing it? Most likely, you would start doing the same to them in attempt to get rid of this so called "threat." This is some what like what the Roman Empire did in order to eliminate the threat brought in by the Christians.
the Romans were so against the Christian religion becuase they were afraid that if the religion changed in the roman empire,so would the government. they saw the chriatians as a threat to the empire
The christians refused taxes, did not obey the ruler as a
This conflict caused way too many other problems in my openion. I could have been reesolved peacefully maybe some resolution or sultuion among the Romans? Its really interesting to see how that the relion that people who worshiped it were killed became of official later on. Its using the relion to unify people like the rulers in China used the mandate of heaven to take the throne.
one thing need clarifying here... christians were not the ones that refused to pay taxes or were involved in rebellion. this was happening in the jewish community as whole, yes, but those that began following christianity were actually very apolitical (not involved in political issues, struggles, rellions in any way) and actually generally followed the words of jesus to "pay caesar's things to caesar, but God's things to God." however, the problem here is that, being jewish, this certainly upped the threat level as far as the roman government was concerned, and this idea of refusing to revere the roman emperor sealed the deal.
miss gordon... LOVED THE ANALOGY!
the christians were accused of killing and eating babies and christianity became a "prohibited cult". and the romans didnt like christianity beacuse they were a threat to the roman empire. because judism was also monothisticso there would be a greater amout of people for outside invasion.
The Romans were against Christians because of the fact that that is what they were. It says that they did not get the same punishment that others got when crimes were committed. Why? Because they were Christians. The Romans looked down upon Christianity because they were afraid that they would be taken over. I do not think that that is what the Christians had in mind but the Romans were scared. Naturally, when people are scared, they are going to want to get rid of the threat. The Christians did not eat babies. They were punished for things that regular people were not punished for. Or, when it was the same crime, the punishment was different. It was not fair. When he talks about the baby killing and eating, I think he is referring to the crimes that Christians have been accused of but then he goes on to say that these accusations need to be investigated before it becomes a legit accusation for which they should be punished.
mmm...babies...
now even though this publicity wasn't exactly "appetizing", it still helped the spread of christianity because people wanted to learn more.
even though it wasnt the most positive of publicity, it was still a good thing.
To the Romans, Christianity was a treat. The Romans believed the kingdom of heaven would take over their own kingdom. So, they did everything the could to make Christians the bad people. They even made lies about eating babies!
I agree, a good comment by Marissa. I wish more people could offer well-educated, and well-round opinions like that.
I'd like to comment that I honestly think the "baby eating" comment was not a form of propaganda by the Roman government to make Christians seem evil, but rather making fun of the Roman empire for making such untenable and obscure accusations against the Christians, such as mistaking the "Kingdom of God", being Heaven, for an actual regional power that threatens the lives of the Roman empire. The Roman empire didn't bother to gather inside information through infiltration of the religion, but instead began accusing Christians as conspirors against the Roman empire. This eminent threat, monotheistic malevolence, and augmenting alteration to the original format of Judaism, known for its rebellions, tax payment refusals, and disrecognition of a divine emporer, gave Christianity its worst reputation.
Also, the government did not approve of hunting down Christians, but they also refused to give them a fair trial. If Christians were caught inside societies, they could be prosecuted, convicted, and punished as a judge(government puppet) sees fit. This may have seemed contradictory and nothing less than idiotic, but think...
Romans were not gonna let Christians off with a slap of the hand and tell them to quit with conspiracy and treachery, and because if the Romans even lightened up a little bit on the strict hatred towards Christians, it would be quickly recognized and taken advantage of by the Christian community...
But at the same time, they can't go out of their way to hunt down Christians and individually slaughter them, or punish them, that would only cause more rebellion and upset among Christians. And because Christians know the Roman empire hates them anyway and wants to punish them, it seems fit to keep in place a system of punishment. So, as not to further disturb the growing population of Christians, but also not to let them off free of harm, they established that they would constitute a system where, in a court of law that lacks proper trial and justification, Christians will be punished for false accusations of crimes, but will not be hunted down like animals and slowly destroyed.
This may seem somewhat problematic, and condescending, but it provides better stability without letting go of [what is presumed of as]the issue at hand.
I think that the roman emperors used the "baby issue" just as a way yo convince the people that Christianity was bad. They were scared by this religion because it could become a threat to them. If the Romans could find one thing wrong with them they would exploit it and make them seem terrible.
Becase the Romans felt threatened by the Christians, they tried to get rid of them by using false statements to get them punished. But eatting babies?
The government was really trash talking the Christians..They never talked about them as equals, but worse. And saying how Christians are forbidden to say anything in defence of the truth that would clear their case and assists the judge in avoiding an injustive, does not sound fair at all. I can see how mentioning that Cristians ate babies could cause fear in the people, making it seem like they were a hazard to the empire.. The Roman's sure did everything they could to lessen Christian's importance, for they surely saw them as being a threat.
wow so christians eat babies? thats pretty cool haha.... i think that is stupid that they government would make up something like that. they just want the society to worship the emperor as a god, so they are just jealous!
Hi, I'm not in your class, Mr. Prill, so I hope this is okay, but I just wanted to point out the fact that the Romans had a good reason to be terrified of Christianity. I'm not saying that they were right to persecute the Christians, but it's easy to see why they did it.
As a religion, Christianity appealed strongly to the lower classes, the part of society already unhappy and is usually the one to revolt. The reason Hinduism was so easily accepted in Indian culture and government, was because it lowered the risk of rebellion by reinforcing the caste system with religious values [dharma]. But the followers of Christianity already refused to recognize the Roman gods, and even though they paid taxes and weren't rebellious, the fact they didn't already didn't cooperate with the authority in one thing made the Romans very nervous.
They actively sought out to convert, and being so appealing to the lower classes, Christianity was spreading like wildfire. The Roman emperors had to do whatever they could to suppress it before their empire fell just like the Greek empire did, the Persian empire did, and the Macedonian empire did. They were afraid to fall like their predecessors did, more afraid because they had seen them fall. So feeling vulnerable, terrified of losing their powers, the Romans took extreme measures.
I think that, yes, the government was being very contradictory in that Christians couldn't be hunted down, but were denied a trial, but it just proves that the Romans had not even the slightest clue what they should in regard to the Christians. It's like they were confused, wanting to suppress the Christians and make them comply to their demands, but they it really doesn't seem like the wanted to be tyrants.
Which is where the rumors of the sacrilegious slaughter of children comes from. The Romans did anything they could to reduce the threat of rebellion, and creating a rumor was a perfect idea. They created the illusion that the government was right versus the Christians, who were the innocent ones. The Romans wanted to seem like good people still, like they were just trying to protect their own in the persecution of the Christians.
well the lies that the government came up with was a good idea in theory...(making people believe lies, so that they will hate the Christians.) hahaha but....EATING BABIES????? anyway...i found this interesting even thought it sorta strange.
feel free to chime in any time miss justiano...
They are being accused of treason(because they aren't worshiping the emperor as a god), sexual debauchery, murder, and sacrilege. These charges were laid upon them because they don't have the same rights that others have making them great targets. unlike non-Christians, the Christians cant have a fair trial since the govt hates them and is afraid they will take over.If non-Christians ran away they would be let go as if they were guilty. Christians were already assumed guilty therefore the govt will hunt them down. Non-Christians might not have liked the Christians because of different beliefs which segregated the empire. and hatred is around every corner.
Post a Comment