ATTITUDES TOWARD CHRISTIANS#

The relations of the church with the Roman Empire constitute one of the major themes in early Christian history; and, indeed, the relations of Christianity with civil government continued in later centuries to be a key issue. The situation in the first centuries was complex, moving from a period of uneasy contacts to a time of local persecutions and then empire-wide persecution.

A. Attitudes of Early Emperors#

In the book of Acts the government did not distinguish Christians from Jews, whose religion was legally recognized. A representative episode occurred in Corinth, when Paul was brought by the Jews before Gallio, the governor of Achaia, who responded, “Since it involves questions about words and names and your own law—settle the matter yourselves. I will not be a judge of such things” (Acts 18:15).

Yet in Acts we do get the background for later unfavorable treatment:

• the Jews sometimes stirred up trouble

• Christian preaching often created wider disturbances (something those in authority always disliked)

• Christian teaching threatened pagan society

For instance, the presence of Christians had been the occasion of a disturbance in Rome (c. 49) during the reign of Claudius, who expelled Jews from the city (Acts 18:2) because of agitation over “Chrestus” (Suetonius, Claudius 25.4). Popular turmoil was also a chief cause of persecution later. Everything depended on the attitude of the local officials, who at first were indifferent or at any rate not antagonistic until provoked.

The situation changed under Nero. In response to rumors that he was responsible for the great fire that destroyed much of Rome (AD 64), Nero (or his magistrate) charged and punished Christians for the fire.

Christians were now recognized by the authorities in Rome as distinct from Jews. The persecution under Nero was confined to Rome, but this action set a precedent that could be followed elsewhere.

Domitian (81–96) was remembered in Christian writings as the next persecuting emperor, but there is little external confirmation. He acted, probably for political reasons, against certain high-ranking individuals in Rome who were said to observe “Jewish customs” (Dio Cassius, Epitome 67.14). This action was distinct from the troubles that Christians in the province of Asia had during his reign, reflected in the book of Revelation.

The reign of Trajan (98–117) provides important evidence concerning the legal status of Christianity, and for that purpose must be returned to below. Trajan continued the policy that made Christians punishable “for the name,” and in this he followed a precedent found in the treatment of Druids, participants in the Bacchanalia, and occasionally worshippers of Isis and Jews.

Hadrian (117–38), in response to popular tumults that forced magistrates to follow mob demands, sought to regularize proceedings to the law courts, in effect reaffirming the policies of Trajan.

The reign of Marcus Aurelius (161–80) was a bad time for Christians, due to disasters and misfortunes at different places in the Roman world. Although Christian Apologists joined the general praise for Marcus Aurelius as a person, his rule saw a worsening of persecution against Christians. There was a wave of persecution in 166–68, a time when the Parthian war, pressure from Germans on the Danube frontier, and an outbreak of the plague came close together. Presumably a general edict called for sacrifice to the gods, which was not specifically anti-Christian in intent, but made Christians conspicuous by their absence.

A new wave of anti-Christian sentiment around 177 produced busy apologetic activity. After a revolt led by Avidius Cassius in 175 was put down, Marcus Aurelius made a tour of the east in 176. New suspicions were aroused against groups not showing the customary forms of allegiance by sacrificing on behalf of the emperor.

B. Attitudes of Pagans toward Christians#

Christians aroused considerable popular animosity. People tend to believe the worst about a group that seems aloof, secretive, even foreign. In good times people will tolerate others with strange customs or beliefs, but in bad times they take a more negative attitude. Christians were held responsible for various calamities since they did not worship the traditional gods. Some Jews fanned the flames of hostility, especially on the question of loyalty, by making the authorities aware of the differences between Jews and Christians.

Moreover, early Christians appeared to be obstinate. The Roman governor Pliny the Younger complained of this: It seemed such a simple thing (from a Roman point of view) to burn a pinch of incense on an altar or swear by the emperor, but this was something that committed Christians would not do. Such obstinacy a totalitarian government cannot endure. Under such a regime, the supreme virtue is obedience to the duly constituted authorities.

The ordinary person in the Roman world had no normal obligation to sacrifice—any more than a policeman’s order today to “move on” implies a duty of perpetual motion—but the command of a duly constituted magistrate to perform an act of sacrifice required obedience. When Christians, on being commanded to burn incense or acknowledge Caesar as lord, refused to perform these acts of loyalty, the authorities and others took unfavorable notice.

The Christian Apologists repeatedly responded to three other charges: atheism, cannibalism, and incest. These charges seem absolutely incredible to Christians now, so some explanation is required.

Atheism#

Atheism in the ancient world was practical, not theoretical. An atheist was someone who did not observe the traditional religious practices, regardless of what faith he professed.

For example, Epicurus believed in the Greek gods, but since he did not think they interfered in human life—the traditional rites were only for their honor and one should not expect any answer to prayer—his followers often dispensed with the observance of these rituals and so were considered atheists.

The Christian Apologists insisted that Christians believed in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit (Justin Martyr seems to throw in the holy angels as well for good measure), but this did not satisfy the basis of the objection, for Christians still did not perform the customary ceremonies.

Cannibalism#

The charge of cannibalism may derive from Christian language about the eucharist of eating the body and drinking the blood.

Incest#

Incest may have been suggested by Christians’ referring to one another as “brother” and “sister” with men and women sharing the common table at the “love feast.”

Other charges of immorality apparently stemmed from a failure of the Romans to distinguish between libertine Gnostics (who claimed to be Christians) and Christians. The early Christians who wrote against heresies made it clear, however, that it was the members of the Gnostic sects who were guilty of sexual immorality.

These and other charges were more readily believed about Christians because they kept themselves removed from the normal activities of society. They remained aloof, however, because almost all aspects—athletics, entertainment, political affairs, and many commercial transactions—were permeated with idolatry.

Another kind of popular contempt of Christians is represented by the graffito found in Rome that shows a person with an ass’s head on a cross, while a second raises his hand in tribute, alongside the inscription, “Alexamenos worships his god.” The ass’s head may have been suggested by the slander known from pagan sources that explained the Jewish prohibition against entering the holiest place in the Jerusalem temple (unlike pagan temples, which were open to the public) as a matter of shame because their cult image (pagan temples always housed an image of the deity) was an ass.

Philosophers like Celsus, who wrote the first major surviving attack on Christians, The True Word (the contents of which can be largely restored from the response by Origen, Against Celsus), manifested an intellectual scorn and despising of Christians, who were viewed as unprofitable members of society, a miserable bunch of weaklings—women, children, and slaves. Christians, moreover, called on people simply to “believe,” and did not engage in rational demonstration.

Celsus raised the philosophical questions that Porphyry and Julian later would elaborate:

1. If Christianity were true, why had it come so late in human history?

2. Were not the miracles of Jesus worked by magic?

3. How can the incarnation be possible, since it involves change in the deity?

4. Is not the immortality of the soul a more desirable goal than resurrection of the body?

Origen responded to these attacks by stating that

1. God prepared the way for Christianity and that fulfilled prophecy demonstrated its truth

2. The miracles of Jesus were not worked by magic, as is shown by the moral improvement Jesus brought to human life and by the miracles never being used for personal gain

3. The incarnation brought a change in circumstances but not in nature to the Logos (Word)

4. The resurrection involves a change into a higher form of body

The rapid expansion of Christianity would not have been possible without divine assistance.

Galen shared Celsus’s dismay at Christians’ substitution of faith for reason, but he did praise their manner of life as exemplifying what philosophers sought to inculcate on the basis of reason. The philosophers Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius (the latter also served as the Roman emperor, 161–80) disapproved of the Christians’ readiness for martyrdom. Although their own Stoic philosophy permitted suicide in certain situations, they found Christians motivated by blind fanaticism.

The satirist Lucian of Samosata was the mocking rationalist who scoffed at the gullibility of the Christians taken in by the charlatan Peregrinus. Peregrinus was a Cynic philosopher who associated with Christians in Palestine and attained a leadership position among them. When he was imprisoned by the authorities, Christians went to great lengths to provide for his needs, and on his release he acquired a great deal of money from them.

The Christian reader today may recognize behind Lucian’s scornful account the putting into practice of the teachings of Jesus Christ about caring for those in prison.

THE LEGAL BASIS OF THE PERSECUTIONS#

The fact of persecution is not in doubt. Although it was not as constant or as extensive as is often assumed, it was always present as a possibility. Not so clear, in spite of confident assertions, is the reason for the persecutions and their legal basis.

Many explanations have been offered, but they are mostly based on conjecture

• Was there a general law forbidding Christianity, going back to Nero?

• Did governors enforce public order by direct police action without reference to specific legislation?

• Were Christians persecuted under known criminal laws against treason, illegal assembly, or an alien cult?

• Was the persecution because of religious reasons—that is, because of opposition to the Roman gods and the perceived threat to the Roman state?

Various factors must be kept in mind in understanding the causes of persecution.

• Christians, of course, got off on the wrong foot as far as the Roman authorities were concerned. They worshipped a man who had been crucified by the judicial decision of a Roman governor on a charge of being a messianic (kingly) pretender. That circumstance would always be prejudicial against Christians.

• Christians, for religious reasons, could not engage in the accepted expressions of political loyalty, so they appeared as a threat to the Roman state. Moreover, the popular animosity aroused by the aloofness and secretiveness of Christians, and the civil disturbances their presence often caused, were part of the background to persecution.

The correspondence in 112 between Pliny the Younger (Epistles 10.96), governor of Bithynia, and the emperor, Trajan, provides a window into the legal situation. From this correspondence it is clear that the standard charge was already “the name”: “I asked whether they were Christians.” This basis of accusation was not new, and the only time we know when it could have become operative was under Nero. Pliny himself had never been present at investigations of Christians, so he did not know what their crime was.

Pliny found three distinct classes among those against whom accusations had been brought:

1. Those who confessed they were Christians and remained steadfast in the confession—these he ordered for execution, or if they were Roman citizens, ordered them to be sent to Rome.

2. Those who denied they had ever been Christians—these he released, since they recited a prayer to the gods and offered incense and wine to a statue of the emperor, “things which those who are really Christians cannot be made to do,” and so a reasonable test to determine who was a Christian and who would prove loyal to Rome.

3. Those who apostatized, those who had been Christians but had ceased to be such (a few of these apostatized twenty years ago—that is, under Domitian) and proved it by worshipping the emperor’s statue and the gods and cursing Christ—from them Pliny learned what he knew of Christianity, nothing really dangerous, only “a perverse and extravagant superstition.”

Pliny asked Trajan three questions:

1. Are any distinctions to be made for age or weakness?

2. Are apostates to be pardoned?

3. Does punishment attach to the name itself or to crimes connected with the name?

Trajan gave Pliny the answer he wanted, approving of his procedures. He ignored Pliny’s first question, which concerned matters within the discretion of a governor.

Otherwise, Trajan gave three responses:

1. Christians were not to be sought out, but if accused and convicted they were to be punished. This may sound contradictory but was according to normal Roman legal procedure. Rome did not have a public prosecutor, and the legal system was set in motion by an individual making a formal charge before a magistrate.

2. No anonymous accusations were to be received. An accuser had to act in the proper judicial manner by coming forward in his own person.

3. The deniers were to be pardoned; punishment was, therefore, on the basis of the “name.” Christian Apologists argued strongly against this procedure, but the course of Roman legal action had been set.

Before Marcus Aurelius, action against Christians was limited, because their numbers seemed few. Since only the governor could pronounce the death sentence, most of the known cases of martyrdom were in the great provincial cities. Governors were allowed a wide latitude by Roman law. The threat of persecution was ever present, but it was not a constant experience.

Before the mid-third century the persecutions were local and occasional. Although they became somewhat more frequent under Marcus Aurelius, the legal situation did not change.

Two responses by Christians to the persecutions resulted in significant literary productions: apologetics and martyrdom. The apologies get their name from the Greek word apologia, meaning “a defense.” Martyrdom derives from the Greek word martys, “a witness.” Christians put in writing the statement of their case and their plea for tolerance. They also told the story of their faithful members who died in testimony to their faith.

CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS OF THE SECOND CENTURY#

A. Writings#

APOLOGISTS

Possibly the earliest apology to survive in whole comes from Aristides of Athens. Although written in Greek, the better text is the Syriac translation, for the surviving Greek text is a rewriting of the apology by a Byzantine author.

The Epistle to Diognetus presents an attractive picture of the Christian life. The anonymous author argues for the divine origin of Christianity as superior to the idolatry of pagans and the ritualistic worship of Jews. The date is uncertain, but the work seems to breathe an atmosphere of an early date. On the other hand, known persons by the name of Diognetus who might be candidates for the recipient of the apology belong to the late second century. The present text seems to contain a portion of a homily attached at the end.

Tatian was born a pagan in east Syria and was converted during a journey to Rome, where he became a student of Justin. He composed a harmony of the four Gospels, the Diatessaron, which became for two centuries the standard form of the Gospels in Syriac-speaking areas, where he became in his later years a leader of Encratite thought. His approach to apologetics was the negative one of tearing down the pagan alternative. The Oration against the Greeks (177–78) is principally a blast against Greek culture, perhaps prepared with Athens in mind. The work has been classified rhetorically either as a “farewell” to Greek culture or as an “exhortation” (protrepticus) to accept the “barbarian philosophy” of Christianity.

Athenagoras (176–77) of Athens was the most philosophically accomplished of the second-century Apologists. His Plea or Embassy (Supplicatio or Legatio) adapts the model of Middle Platonist philosophical works. In answering pagan charges against Christians, Athenagoras argues the superiority of Christian morality and Christian views of God over pagan descriptions of their gods. He gives an early formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. His authorship is disputed regarding On the Resurrection, a work that argues from nature and reason, and not from Scripture, for the resurrection.

Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, wrote a work, To Autolycus, composed of three books, about 180. His view of Christianity has many similarities to Hellenistic Judaism. As an Apologist, he speaks of the Logos but avoids mention of Jesus Christ. He produces a chronological argument for the antiquity of the Jewish Scriptures on which Christianity was based and offers an allegorical reading of the Genesis account of creation.

One Latin Apologist may belong in the late second century—Minucius Felix. There is clearly some relationship in content between Minucius Felix’s Octavius and Tertullian’s Apology, dated about 200. Most give priority to Tertullian, but there is enough debate to leave open the possibility that Minucius Felix is earlier. The apology is written as a dialogue between the pagan Caecilius and the Christian Octavius, so there is a statement of the pagan case along with the Christian response, which results in the conversion of Caecilius.

B. Justin Martyr as a Representative Apologist#

Arguably the most important and most influential of the second-century Christian Apologists was Justin Martyr, who embodied in his life and death the two Christian responses to persecution that produced literary works: apologetics and martyrdom. There survive from Justin two Apologies and a Dialogue with Trypho and about him an account of his trial, the Acts of Justin.

What is known of Justin’s life comes mainly from the opening chapters of the Dialogue. He was born in Samaria at the Roman colony of Neapolis (modern Nablus), neither a Samaritan nor a Jew. Justin relates his quest for philosophy, studying under a Stoic, an Aristotelian, a Pythagorean, and a Platonist, until he met an old man (at Neapolis or at Ephesus?), who in Socratic method raised questions that only the “Christian philosophy” could answer.

Although Justin’s thought fits exactly into the Middle Platonism of the second century, he came to regard Christianity as the philosophy, the goal of human searching. In the words of Eusebius, “Justin in philosopher’s garb served as an ambassador of the word of God” (Church History 4.11).

Justin came to Rome, where, using rented quarters, he taught Christian doctrine in a private school, of which there is some description in the Acts of Justin. A Cynic philosopher, Crescens, brought charges against Justin, and he was executed about 167.

Justin fought his apologetic battles on four fronts: against pagan intellectuals, the state, the Jews, and heretics. Eusebius says Justin wrote two apologies. The so-called 2 Apology precedes the 1 Apology in the manuscript, but scholars now think it is really an appendix to the latter. The 1Apology is an address to the emperor, perhaps occasioned by the martyrdom of Polycarp (c. 156), for it is written against the popular tumults against Christians in Asia. Justin here appeals to a rescript of the emperor Hadrian requiring regular trials and specific charges by individuals against the Christians and argues against the practice of condemning Christians solely for “the name.” The 2Apology, whether appended to the 1 Apology or a fragment of another apology, is a petition to the Senate occasioned by another case of martyrdom.

Justin, as the other Apologists, responds to charges of incest, cannibalism, atheism, and being a subversive group. Instead of being immoral, Christianity, he argues, is very moral. Justin further argues from the antiquity of the Jewish Scriptures and the fulfillment of their prophecies in Christianity. He shows considerable self-confidence over against both the state and the synagogue; indeed he aims at the conversion of the empire.

Quite notable is the attention Justin gives to demons, with whom he identifies the pagan gods. Justin finds analogues to Christian beliefs in Greek mythology in order to make Christian teaching understandable and acceptable to pagan readers. Similarities to Christian practices in the mysteries he explains as demonic imitations.

In order to banish the secrecy about Christian meetings, Justin explains what was involved in baptism and in the Sunday worship. In explaining the relationship of Christ to God, Justin gives expression to the doctrine of the Logos, of which more is said below.

The Dialogue with Trypho is useful for showing the questions at issue between Jews and Christians. The dialogue was a common literary form, and we should not suppose it was the actual transcript of a discussion. Justin’s knowledge of Judaism, however, indicates that he had been in real discussions with Jews, and the contents probably reflect such discussions.

Trypho, the Jew, raised two questions around which the debate centers:

• First, why do Christians not live different from Gentiles (in regard to Jewish religious customs) as the Scriptures enjoin the covenant people to do?

• Second, why do Christians put their hope in a crucified man?

Stated otherwise, the main issues are three: (1) Christology—is Jesus the Messiah announced by Scripture? (2) The Law—what is the true meaning and purpose of the Old Testament Law? (3) The true Israel—is the church the new people of God?

The central issue of the Messiah is debated mainly in terms of Old Testament prophecy. Related to this issue are such things as the virgin birth, the interpretation of Scripture, and the two comings of the Messiah (the first in humiliation and the second in glory). Justin argues that the Old Testament law was imposed on Israel as a punishment and was temporary in preparation for the coming of the covenant found in Jesus Christ. Christians now are the true people of God. Recurring throughout his writings are other basic differences over practical matters such as the cessation of physical circumcision and the Sabbath.

Christianity had a built-in dialectic in its relations with Judaism. On the one hand, its claims to legitimacy and the authority of ancient Scriptures depended on accepting the Old Testament and the Jewish testimony to these Scriptures. On the other hand, its claims to be the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies and the new people of God involved a repudiation of the Jews for their failure to accept Jesus as the Messiah.

In spite of worsening relations, the teachings and traditions of Jews and Christians were mutually influencing each other until the fourth century.

C. The Logos doctrine#

The Apostolic Fathers, like the New Testament, did not give a precise interpretation of the relation of Jesus Christ to God, but they did have formulas involving God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

The early Christians, because of their Jewish background and opposition to paganism, stressed the oneness of God, but they knew the Messiah and the experience of the Holy Spirit as the working of God. The Apologists more explicitly state a pre-existent Trinity of God, the Logos (Word), and the Holy Spirit, but it is specifically in regard to Christ as the Logos of God that they made their most significant contribution.

From the Jewish background came ideas of the Law as pre-existent (rabbinic speculation), pre-existent Wisdom (Jewish wisdom literature), and the pre-existent Messiah and pre-existent Spirit (taken over by Paul). The extent to which any of these in Jewish thought was really hypostatized as distinct entities, in spite of occasional language suggesting a separate existence, is debated.

For the term Logos there was a possible background in the Old Testament “word of the Lord” and in the use in the Jewish Targums (paraphrases of Scripture) of the memra (“Word”) of the Lord as an intermediary between God and his world. On the Greek side there were the multiple meanings of the word logos. Two are important here:

• logos as the reason in the mind, the rational word

• logos as the word on the tongue, the spoken word

The Greeks developed the idea that speech is a rational activity: there is a continuity between the thought in the mind and the word on the tongue. In philosophy there was Stoic speculation about the rational principle (sometimes expressed by logos) that gave order to the universe.

Where the prologue to the Gospel of John fits in this development is not clear. Does the “Word” of John 1 reflect primarily the Greek, especially philosophical, usage of logos, or does it represent primarily the Hebrew/Aramaic background, or is it already a fusion of these two lines of thought?

In Philo the logos has a variety of functions as an expression of God and is seemingly hypostatized, but John makes an affirmation not found in either the Greek or Jewish backgrounds, declaring that the Logos became incarnate as a specific historical person. With Justin and the Apologists these two tributaries are certainly combined in a systematic linking of the Messiah with both Greek preexistent logos and Jewish pre-existent Word, Wisdom, or Spirit.

We may schematize their thought as reflecting five stages in the career of the Logos:

1. The Logos as the reason or wisdom resident in the mind of God—God always has his reason immanent in himself.

2. The Logos as the spoken or articulated word—God spoke forth his word, especially in creating the world, giving a separate existence to his word but not emptying himself of his reason.

3. The Logos as immanent in the world—God planted his reason in the universe, giving rational order to creation, and in the minds of human beings, thereby inspiring philosophy, art, literature, etc. (both the word or wisdom of God as the agent of creation, and the seminal word in each person, are an image of the divine, so more than human reason is intended).

4. The Logos as the revealed word of God in the prophets.

5. The Logos as incarnate in Jesus—the divine word became flesh as a personal human being.

The apologetic value of this scheme was great. It connected Jesus, the object of Christian faith, with Greek philosophy and concepts familiar to the Greeks, and it offered a clear illustration of how Jesus Christ could be one with God and yet distinct from him.

As the word in the mind becomes the word on the tongue, so Christ as the eternal reason of God, while remaining one within him, came also to have a separate existence in God’s work of creation and revelation. Moreover, he was identical with the rational order of the universe (recognized by philosophy) implanted in it at creation.

Later orthodox thought about Christ in his relation to the one God, although going beyond and thereby correcting the Logos Christology, followed the lines marked out by it.

D. Summary of the Apologists#

The Christian Apologists exhibit considerable indebtedness to earlier Jewish apologetics. Among the points on which Jewish thinkers pioneered the way for Christian thinkers were their arguments

1. for the greater antiquity of Moses and the Scriptures than Greek literature and philosophy

2. for the borrowing by the Greeks of their good ideas from the Hebrews

3. for the superiority of monotheism to pagan polytheism (drawing also on Greek philosophical thought)

4. for the interpretation of biblical thought in terms of Greek culture.

As defenders of the faith, the Apologists answered the popular charges against Christians and made a plea for tolerance. Christians, they said, are really good citizens and pray for the empire. On a deeper level, they wrestled with three fundamental questions that, although rephrased, still express the “scandal” of the Christian faith.

1. How can the universality of salvation in one religion that reached back scarcely 150 years be maintained?

Their answer connected Christianity with the Jewish Scriptures and the original purposes of God.

2. How can one accept the scandal of the cross, a suffering Messiah who at the same time is God?

The answer connected Jesus with the eternal Word of God and blamed the influence of demons for his death.

3. How can the power of demons in paganism and in the persecution of Christians be reconciled with the providence of a good God?

The answer could only appeal to faith in the victory of Jesus Christ over the demons and the eventual vindication of God’s purposes in the second coming of Christ.

Moreover, the Apologists sought to prove Christianity. Especially important here was the argument from fulfilled prophecy. A major difference between the modern world and the world in which Christianity arose is that people today consider the latest the best, the most recent the truest. The opposite was the case in the Greco-Roman world: the oldest was the truest.

In a world that valued antiquity, the Apologists argued that Christianity was really not a new religion, but reached back to the original religion of humanity and represented the culmination of God’s plans forecast in the prophets of the Old Testament. The argument from prophecy served both to answer the charge of novelty against Christianity and to prove its truth. The Apologists, furthermore, expounded Christian faith. Doctrinally, they stressed monotheism and the Creator. Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit were placed in relation to God. They thereby pioneered in the development of Christian theology.

The Apologists mark an important development in the Christian intellectual effort at cultural accommodation and appropriation. They used the philosophy of the day for Christian purposes. As Apologists, they ostensibly addressed outsiders. We do not know to what extent outsiders actually read their works; as has usually been the case since then, their works were probably more read by Christians than by those to whom they were addressed.

Nonetheless, the Apologists represent a new stage in Christian intellectual activity. The New Testament, the Apostolic Fathers, and the New Testament Apocrypha were addressed to those within the Christian movement. The Apologists, regardless of who the actual readers were, wrote with their minds on non-Christians. The New Testament authors, to some extent, had used the rhetoric and moral philosophy of the time to express themselves; the Apologists explicitly used a larger corpus of pagan philosophy and literature to defend and clarify Christian thought.

Educated Christians could either react against their pagan past and reject it, or present Christianity in some sense as in continuity with it and its fulfillment. Converts typically either exaggerate the contrast between the old and the new, or explain the new as what their past logically led them to embrace.

MARTYRS OF THE SECOND CENTURY#

A. The Literature of Martyrdom#

The authentic accounts of martyrdom from the second century come in three literary forms:

1. “letters” by churches that describe the accompanying events and the martyrdoms of those in their number

2. “passions” that narrate the last days and death of the martyrs

3. “acts” that recount their trials before the authorities

The acts have sometimes been thought to be the transcripts of court records of the trials but, although perhaps in some cases based on such records, the surviving accounts clearly reflect Christian editing and adaptation.

By early in the third century leading Christian authors (Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian) also wrote “exhortations” to martyrdom. From the fourth century and after, preachers delivered panegyrics on the occasion of the annual commemoration of the death of a martyr. The concern for edification of the hearers was more important than historical accuracy, and in the later “lives” of the saints legend filled a larger place than fact.

One of the most influential documents of martyrdom, and perhaps the earliest to record one in some detail, was the Martyrdom of Polycarp. This letter was written by his church at Smyrna to the church at Philomelium in Phrygia. The date of Polycarp’s death is disputed between 156, 167–68, and 177, but preference is given to the early date.

As described by Justin Martyr, a woman in Rome was converted by the Christian teacher Ptolemy. He was prosecuted on the sole point of being a Christian by the woman’s husband when she divorced him for his immoral life. At the trial Lucius spoke in Ptolemy’s defense and, when ascertained to be a Christian himself, was condemned to punishment along with Ptolemy.

ACCOUNTS OF MARTYRDOM

The Acts of Justin and his Companions is one of the oldest surviving acta (or gesta) of a trial of Christians. The three recensions show the progressive elaboration of the Christian viewpoint that occurred in the transmission of the document. The companions had received instruction in Christianity from Justin (although two expressly stated they received their Christianity from their parents) and they were condemned to be beheaded with him.

The Acts of Saints Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonice (the Pergamene saints) is dated by Eusebius to around 165, probably correctly, although the Latin version shows reworking that reflects language more characteristic of the third century. Women were prominent among the early martyrs, achieving an equality in death not often attained in life in the ancient world. Agathonice was a woman, as was one of Justin’s fellow martyrs, Charito.

The Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons ranks with the Martyrdom of Polycarp as the most important documents of the second-century martyr literature. Many of the Christians in the Rhone valley of Gaul (France) came from Asia Minor, and this letter was sent to the churches in the Roman provinces of Asia and Phrygia. Eusebius has preserved this letter, which contains a rich theology of martyrdom, in book 5 of his Church History.

The persecution at Lyons is notable (1) for this firsthand account of the rage of the populace that resulted in exceedingly brutal experiences for the Christians and (2) for the large number of martyrs, the Roman citizens being beheaded and the rest condemned to the wild beast contests in the arena.

The letter gives vivid personal impressions of some of the martyrs, especially of the young heroine of the faith Blandina, who endured particularly unbelievable and excruciating tortures. The martyrs were forgiving of their fellow believers who denied the faith, and they were modest about their own confession, preferring to be called “confessors” and reserving the name “martyrs” for those who had already died.

The Acts of the Martyrs of Scilli is notable as the earliest surviving Christian work in Latin. It recounts the examination of twelve Christians from a town in North Africa before the governor in the provincial capital of Carthage. They brought with them a case containing the letters of Paul.

The Acts of Apollonius represents another instance of apologetics and martyrdom coming together. It contains two speeches by the philosopher Apollonius, who turned his defense into an apology for Christianity. It seems unlikely that such an apology could have been given in the setting of a trial, but the early part of the account may be accurate.

The Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas with its account of martyrdoms in Carthage in 203 is unique in several respects. This Latin narrative incorporates two writings from the martyrs themselves, and one of these is the diary of one of the few women authors known from the ancient church, Perpetua. The contents of the work are the diary of Perpetua, a vision of Saturus from his own hand, as well as an introduction, account of the martyrdoms, and brief epilogue added by the editor (whom some have identified with Tertullian).

Perpetua was a woman of twenty-two, nursing an infant son, of some social standing in Carthage, whose father tried to dissuade her from her Christian confession. She, like the others, was still a catechumen at the time of her arrest, but she was soon baptized. Her diary is notable for her dreams that give insight into popular piety. Felicitas was her slave, who gave birth to a child while in prison.

B. Motifs of Martyrdom#

The idea of martyrdom had Jewish precedents but was particularly developed by Christians in the period of persecution. The word “martyr” is the Greek word for “witness.”

In Luke’s writings the “witness” was one who had seen the resurrected Jesus Christ and could literally bear witness or attest to this event.

John uses the word in the sense of testimony for Christ as the Son of God (comparable to the idea in Matthew 10:32). In Revelation the word is used in reference to a blood-witness, one who gave his life for his confession, but the word apparently was not yet the technical term it became during the second century. Those who gave their lives in persecution, and they alone, came to be called “martyrs” (“witnesses”); those who gave their confession but for some reason were not killed were called “confessors.” The martyrs were not only witnesses in the sense of confessing their faith, but were also in a sense eyewitnesses, for they often received a vision of Christ.

A theology of martyrdom was early elaborated. There is a beginning in Ignatius; it is rather fully developed already in the Martyrdom of Polycarp. Since Jesus Christ was the original and true “martyr,” a parallelism with Christ was often worked out in the accounts of martyrdom. Moreover, he was thought to be present with the martyrs (as in the Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons), sustaining them in their sufferings. The salient points in the theology of martyrdom may be expressed by some basic motifs:

1. Witness#

The meaning of the word “martyr” calls attention to the basic motif of witness. The martyrs, by confessing the faith, gave testimony to the authorities and others who heard. The death was a blood witness to Jesus Christ and faith in him. There recurs in the acts of the martyrs the confession, “I am a Christian.”

2. Athletes and Heroes#

Athletic metaphors are often employed in describing the contest of the martyrs with the forces of evil embodied in their pagan opponents. As victors in the contest they were regarded as the heroes of the church, the outstanding exemplars of the Christian faith. Martyrs thus had a very privileged position in the esteem of the Christian community.

3. Grace#

Martyrdom was the supreme form of sanctity, but it was a grace not given to all Christians. Martyrdom was a bit capricious in regard to whom it came, thus there was a sense that one was chosen by God for this experience. God granted the privileges of martyrdom to some but not to all. For this reason, persons were not to force themselves into martyrdom. That would be presumptuous (besides, the church had unfortunate experiences with those who rushed forward to claim the prize). The decision concerning who was to be a martyr rested with God, who gives his grace to whom he chooses.

4. Sharing the sufferings and victory of Jesus Christ#

Martyrdom was a grace because the martyrs’ victory was not a human achievement. The martyr was privileged to share the sufferings of Christ and thereby to share in his victory over the devil. Christian existence was a struggle with Satan. As the death of Christ might appear to be a defeat, but was actually a victory over the Evil One, so each martyr’s death was a defeat of the devil. Dying without denying the faith was a confirmation of the passion of Christ.

5. Eucharist#

As the bread and wine were related to the death of Jesus Christ, so eucharistic language was used for the death of martyrs. Jesus had spoken of his death as “to drink the cup” (Mark 10:38) of suffering and had prayed to “let this cup pass from me” (Mark 14:36). The martyrs too drank the cup of Jesus with trust in God.

6. Holy Spirit#

The martyrs endured their sufferings because Jesus Christ was with them, extending his sufferings to be in and with them. This presence of Christ was mediated by the Spirit. The Spirit gave supernatural endurance, and in some cases granted visions to strengthen and console the Lord’s witnesses.

7. Eschatology#

The martyr was the perfect Christian who brought the eschaton to fulfillment in himself. The martyr was believed to enter directly into the presence of Jesus Christ in heaven and to enjoy special privileges there.

One of these was to share in Christ’s role as judge and so to be able to grant forgiveness to weaker brothers and sisters on earth. This became the basis later for the practice of praying for the intercession of the saints.

Martyrdom was viewed as a kind of “radically realized eschatology.” The martyrs realized now the blessings intended for all Christians, for in the events surrounding their death they entered into the end-time blessings of the presence of God, the gift of the Spirit, and forgiveness of sins.

8. Baptism#

Their death brought forgiveness of sins to the martyrs. Theirs was a “baptism of blood.” As Jesus Christ had spoken of his sufferings as a bitter “cup” to be drunk, so he had spoken of them as a “baptism” (Mark 10:38), for he was overwhelmed in suffering. The martyr shared this baptism of suffering, and the same benefits attributed to baptism were ascribed to martyrdom. This was one exception the ancient church made in its normally strong teaching on the necessity of baptism (chapter 8). Often catechumens who had not yet received baptism were caught up in the accusations made against Christians; not all had the opportunity to be baptized, as did Perpetua.

It certainly made no sense for these persons to deny Jesus Christ so as to gain time to be baptized, hence the church assured them that their death for Christ was equivalent to the baptismal confession of faith.

In spite of some defections, the persecutions—instead of crushing the church—strengthened the resolve of devoted believers. Their steadfastness under pressure, even to martyrdom, called attention to Christian faith and attracted inquirers.

Opponents on the outside, however, did not provide the only problems faced by the second-century church.