Roman conservatism - Christianity - Persecution

[Timotheus]

The Roman people were very conservative. This is hardly a startling statement by me. We all know this and understand how it affected the lives of Romans. To them honoring the Gods, their traditions, their families were the keys to keeping Rome and her territory safe. In fact when the going got tough they fell back on these traditions and did their best to reinforce them.

One example would be the burying alive a Greek and a Gaul in Rome when things looked bleak fighting Hannibal.

So in this light one can understand the persecution of Christians from the Roman point of view. The Christians did their own thing and refused to follow tradition. This flagrant breach of tradition was tatamount to suicide in the eyes of a Roman looking out at the dangerous world and knowing what the gods might do in response.


So here is my question.

What did the Christians think? There were Christians who were Roman and must have been raised in the idea that only by venerating the gods and tradition could Rome stand up to the challenges around her and avoid the wrath of the gods.

Did Christians move past this thought process and decide it was all bunk? Or as an even more scary thought were there ancient Christian who did follow this belief but combined it with the idea of Armageddon and the End of Days and saw that this could bring about judgement and their ascension to Heaven via salvation?

Which I guess begs another question. When did Ancient Christians start to believe in Judgement Day? If the idea did come about til decades or more after the Roman Empire converted to Christianity then at least that part of my idea would be quickly debunked.

[Jona Lendering]

I think the opposition between conservatism and Christianity is somewhat overstated.

I think that not all Romans were conservative; it was the elite. Others quite willing to accept religious innovations - think of the rise of Mithraism and the introduction of various new cults (Elagabal, Isis, Cybele...). At the same time, the Christians could be pretty conservative. After all, they did not offer a really new religion, but merely the correct interpretation of an already ancient Judaism.

[Epictetus]

Yes, I think the Romans were actually quite open to foreign and new cults and religions. Think of the 'evocation,' where they invited the gods of an enemy city to abandon it and come to Rome. One of the best known is in Livy 5.22.3+ where Juno Regina was persuaded to abandon Veii.

This inclusiveness and openness is really quite remarkable when one thinks about it.

I think what bothered some Romans about the early Christians was the Christian exclusivness.

[Timotheus]

I think the opposition between conservatism and Christianity is somewhat overstated.

I think that not all Romans were conservative; it was the elite. Others quite willing to accept religious innovations - think of the rise of Mithraism and the introduction of various new cults (Elagabal, Isis, Cybele...). At the same time, the Christians could be pretty conservative. After all, they did not offer a really new religion, but merely the correct interpretation of an already ancient Judaism.

If you want to talk about the subject that is fine. But you should watch how you say things. Not only does your comment add nothing to the conversation but it also would greatly offend anyone here in the forum who happens to be Jewish.

Now if you are merely quoting what you think the ancient Christians would be telling people then that is different and I apologize for attacking you. What you wrote is a bit vague.

Now if you are talkign about selling lines from ancient Christians wouldnt they ring false to lots of Romans. The Christian selling his religion says its merely a proper interpretation of Judaism but the mere fact that he is sellign it goes rather strongly contrary to the very exclusive nature of Judaism that is not all that interested in new converts. Many of its followers in fact feel you have to be born Jewish toreally be Jewish.

[Timotheus]

Yes, I think the Romans were actually quite open to foreign and new cults and religions. Think of the 'evocation,' where they invited the gods of an enemy city to abandon it and come to Rome. One of the best known is in Livy 5.22.3+ where Juno Regina was persuaded to abandon Veii.

This inclusiveness and openness is really quite remarkable when one thinks about it.

I think what bothered some Romans about the early Christians was the Christian exclusivness.

Bringing in new gods or new cults wasnt the same thing as Christianity though. A new god could merely be looked upon as a variation of an existing god. This was quite common. Your Germanic war god was explained to be nothing more than the Roman god Mars operating under a different name.

On the other hand Christianity could be worked into the system by saying their god was just another name for Zeus because part and parcel to the Christian system was the demand that their god was the only god and all others didnt exist.

When you look at this you can easily see how a Roman, who felt that only by honoring the gods could Rome survive, would feel threatened by this new religion.

[Urselius]

There was another strand to Greco-Roman religion, separate from the public state cults, that of the "mysteries." The most respectable of these cults was that of Eleusis near Athens. The initiate was offered the prospect of mystical revelation and a very personal entry into a happy afterlife.

In many ways Christianity fit in very well with this established form of worship. However, it was the denial by Christians to participate in public sacrifice and to acknowledge the semi-divine nature of the emperor which offended Roman ideas of civic solidarity and decency.

The tipping point came when the numbers of Christians and their formidable level of organisation (they were effectively a state within a state), and therefore their collective power, within the Empire become so great that they had to be acommodated by the state. Constantine very neatly made this leap, a Christian emperor could call on the "natural support" of his Christian population and the pagans in the population were, in general, less religiously zealous and were far more poorly organised so their opposition could be to some extent discounted.

Constantine also retaineed the semi-divine nature of the imperial position by claiming to be "God's vicegerent on earth" and, indeed, the 13th Apostle.

[Jona Lendering]

I think the opposition between conservatism and Christianity is somewhat overstated.

I think that not all Romans were conservative; it was the elite. Others quite willing to accept religious innovations - think of the rise of Mithraism and the introduction of various new cults (Elagabal, Isis, Cybele...). At the same time, the Christians could be pretty conservative. After all, they did not offer a really new religion, but merely the correct interpretation of an already ancient Judaism.

If you want to talk about the subject that is fine. But you should watch how you say things. Not only does your comment add nothing to the conversation but it also would greatly offend anyone here in the forum who happens to be Jewish.

You are right. I should have said that Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism both claimed to offer the most correct interpretation of Judaism; or, perhaps, I should have said that Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism offered new interpretations of an ancient religion that had to adapt itself to the loss of its Temple, in 70.

[jpvdgiessen]

In many ways Christianity fit in very well with this established form of worship. However, it was the denial by Christians to participate in public sacrifice and to acknowledge the semi-divine nature of the emperor which offended Roman ideas of civic solidarity and decency.

And that's one of the reasons Christians where persecuted. They didn't participate in other religions and therefore they where a "weird" group in the Roman society, ie. became the underdogs of society. The same reason as today's persecution of Christians (~200.000 p/year!!)

About the question when they started to believe in "Judgment day/End of Time", read in the Bible Luke 21, so from the beginning.

[Salvianus]

However, it was the denial by Christians to participate in public sacrifice and to acknowledge the semi-divine nature of the emperor which offended Roman ideas of civic solidarity and decency...

As far as I know this was a key point in Diocletian's policy in the later period. I have the idea that the wave of soldier-martyr stories was founded on their disobedience, not their belief per se. I've never really unpacked the famous Nero episode, but which I can see may have been based on the claims of exclusivity or moral condemnation, hence the odd counterclaims of orgies and even cannabalism.

Constantine also retaineed the semi-divine nature of the imperial position by claiming to be "God's vicegerent on earth" and, indeed, the 13th Apostle.

I call Constantine's vision 'Imperial Christianity' as it strongly echoed the traditional world view of an ordered creation with Rome and its Emperor at the top due to divine providence. By Theodosius, adherance to it seems quite similar in import to that for the imperial cult of earlier times.

I find a real sense in Constantine's early words that he was searching to identify his divine sponsor just as Diocletian had promoted the traditional Jupiter and Hercules and only became drawn into 'orthodox' Christianity rather than the cult of Sol Invictus gradually: I don't think monotheism came naturally to him or to many.

The emphasis on urgency in bringing about the Kingdom of God is strong across the New Testament. I'm not sure how much Apocalyptic thinking motivated conversion at this time, but unique or unusual aspects such as living simply, forgiveness of sins, release from worldlyness, openess to women etc may have proven attractive and provided a theistic avenue for current philosphy: certainly by Clement and Augustine of Hippo they were discussing the value and impact of Platonic thought quite consciously.