3 ms·

Between Nero's persecution in AD 64 and the Decian persecutions in 250, there's very little evidence for state-led persecutions of Christians. The timeline is

by IsaacL 11y ago

Between Nero's persecution in AD 64 and the Decian persecutions in 250, there's very little evidence for state-led persecutions of Christians. The timeline is roughly (apologies if dates are inexact, but this is roughly correct from memory): AD64: Nero perseuctes the Christians in Rome, who at that time were a tiny community AD 65-249: Christianity is largely ignored and left to grow in peace. During this time, Rome enjoys a golden age under five virtuous emperors, then begins to disintegrate under the reign of various tyrants and opportunists. AD 250-260: Rome is falling apart under various civil wars and there's two major state-led persecutions (by Decian and Valerian) of Christians. (The motivation being "rid the Empire of this impious cult which is weakening our social fabric"). AD 260-300: The "long peace of the Church", where Christianity is officially tolerated. AD 300-310: Diocletian comes to power and starts a brutal series of persecutions to wipe out Christianity for good. It's from the Diocletian persecution that most of the images of brutal Roman suppression come from. AD 310-325: Various civil wars, leading Constantine to come to power. AD 325: Constantine establishes Christianity as the state religion. So though there's one small persecution in 64, then two medium-sized persecutions in the 250s, then a massive persecution in the 300s, between these Christianity is either ignored or tolerated by the Roman state. There's evidence of mobs of Roman citizens attacking Christians independently of any state backing, but aside from that, Christians were largely left alone for a 200 year period. This is the age of the 5 "enlightened" emperors - Trajan's attitude is informative. The Romans saw Christians as impious atheists (for not worshipping the Roman gods) and superstitious cultists (for following a novel religion), and they were troubled by the growth of this sect; Trajan took it for granted that Christians who refused to worship the Roman gods should be punished. But, he also states that actively seeking out Christians would be "out of keeping with the spirit of our age"- a weird Roman kind of tolerance, but there you go. "You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But 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." (Trajan's letter to Pliny here: http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html)

jorangreef 11y ago
"Between Nero's persecution in AD 64 and the Decian persecutions in 250, there's very little evidence for state-led persecutions of Christians." "So though there's one small persecution in 64, then two medium-sized persecutions in the 250s, then a massive persecution in the 300s, between these Christianity is either ignored or tolerated by the Roman state. There's evidence of mobs of Roman citizens attacking Christians independently of any state backing, but aside from that, Christians were largely left alone for a 200 year period." That's reductionist and misleading. Sure, the state did not always actively mandate pogroms, as you quote Trajan ("they are not to be sought out"), except at least for the dates you describe (and not only those) when it actively did. But for the rest of the time, neither did the state uphold the rights of Christians. The rights of Christians were at times essentially nil. The state tolerated the persecution of Christians and often partook when requested. Governors were free to execute Christians merely on the basis of being denounced. If anything else, the Trajan letter you quote should make that clear. To say therefore that this lack of active mandate by the state implies a lack of persecution is careless, and against the grain of evidence.

by IsaacL 11y ago

jorangreef 11y ago

"Between Nero's persecution in AD 64 and the Decian persecutions in 250, there's very little evidence for state-led persecutions of Christians." "So though there's one small persecution in 64, then two medium-sized persecutions in the 250s, then a massive persecution in the 300s, between these Christianity is either ignored or tolerated by the Roman state. There's evidence of mobs of Roman citizens attacking Christians independently of any state backing, but aside from that, Christians were largely left alone for a 200 year period." That's reductionist and misleading. Sure, the state did not always actively mandate pogroms, as you quote Trajan ("they are not to be sought out"), except at least for the dates you describe (and not only those) when it actively did. But for the rest of the time, neither did the state uphold the rights of Christians. The rights of Christians were at times essentially nil. The state tolerated the persecution of Christians and often partook when requested. Governors were free to execute Christians merely on the basis of being denounced. If anything else, the Trajan letter you quote should make that clear. To say therefore that this lack of active mandate by the state implies a lack of persecution is careless, and against the grain of evidence.