The Myth of Persecution

[Solon]

The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/24/the_myth_of_persecution_early_christians_werent_pe rsecuted/

This book is coming out next week and I look forward to reading it.

Without having read it (yet), I can only weigh in generally.

Generally speaking, Roman sensibilities were respectful of other religious beliefs, as long as they didn't pose a threat to the established political and social order. Things done in secret, religions that required loyalty to a god/sect over loyalty to the state, prophets who predicted the fall of the government - things like these were seen as seditious and treasonous. But, generally speaking, the Romans didn't want to execute anybody for religious beliefs. On the other hand, Christians really wanted to be persecuted because that was a guaranteed ticket to heaven.

There's a surviving letter from Pliny, serving as a provincial governor, to the emperor Trajan, asking what to do with these people called Christians, who are being denounced as treasonous and insurrectionist Romans. Pliny finds no evidence of treason, so writes to the Emperor for advice.

The Emperor tells him to pretty much leave them alone unless they are proven to be enemies to the state. A very tolerant statement from the Emperor that stipulates that Christians are not to be sought out, and not to be tried with information from anonymous tips. I love Trajan's line about anonymous accusations going against "the spirit of our age". http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/pliny.html

[Edit: there's a really interesting line in Pliny's letter about slave-women serving in leadership roles as deaconesses.]

All of which makes me pause to reflect on modern hagiographies and martyrdoms from (both sides of) the LDS tradition, whether Haun's Mill, Carthage Jail, Wiillie & Martin Handcarters, or Mountain Meadows. Not to denigrate those who find (or lose) faith from the tragedies involved, but rather a thought about how modern religious identities derive from the stories of these deaths. At the time perhaps deemed "senseless," modern constructions and interpretations have imparted "sense" to them, perhaps unfairly or in a distorted manner, but given them "sense" nonetheless.

[Mormon Red Death]

Not sure I am following you here. So the aforementioned from (haun's mill etc...) weren't martyrs? They were just people killed?

[Solon]

Of course they're martyrs. But martyrdom is a result of the way later people treat those who have died.

[Mormon Red Death]

I see.

[LA Ute]

Of course they're martyrs. But martyrdom is a result of the way later people treat those who have died.

Isn't the reason they were killed a big part of that equation?

[Solon]

Isn't the reason they were killed a big part of that equation?

Sure. But in the case of the Christians-being-thrown-to-the-lions, the narrative behind those reasons has been shaped by the descendants to emphasize the faith aspect. A non-Christian Roman would have considered the execution of Christians as fitting punishment for those inciting sedition and treason.

In the end, martyrization (can I write that?) is bestowed by the survivors and the descendants. Plus, the importance of their deaths magnifies over time (or diminishes, depending on point-of-view). Martyrdom is really about memory, and memories are selective. Putting aside the extent to which Moss's book points this out, the survival (indeed triumph) of Christianity in the Roman Empire has resulted in an overemphasis on a relatively rare and uncharacteristic prosecution/persecution of Christians.

I really intended the post as a comment about the Christian martyrs. As to the LDS angle, I was just thinking in passing about the prevalence of martyrs and martyrdoms in LDS culture, and wondering to what extent moderns might or might not be guilty of the same exaggerations. After all, it's not like Joseph Morris is remembered as a martyr. To my knowledge, the LDS faith is the only "established" American religion with this same type of relationship to martyrdom.

[SeattleUte]

The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/24/the_myth_of_persecution_early_christians_werent_pe rsecuted/

This book is coming out next week and I look forward to reading it.

Without having read it (yet), I can only weigh in generally.

Generally speaking, Roman sensibilities were respectful of other religious beliefs, as long as they didn't pose a threat to the established political and social order. Things done in secret, religions that required loyalty to a god/sect over loyalty to the state, prophets who predicted the fall of the government - things like these were seen as seditious and treasonous. But, generally speaking, the Romans didn't want to execute anybody for religious beliefs. On the other hand, Christians really wanted to be persecuted because that was a guaranteed ticket to heaven.

There's a surviving letter from Pliny, serving as a provincial governor, to the emperor Trajan, asking what to do with these people called Christians, who are being denounced as treasonous and insurrectionist Romans. Pliny finds no evidence of treason, so writes to the Emperor for advice.

The Emperor tells him to pretty much leave them alone unless they are proven to be enemies to the state. A very tolerant statement from the Emperor that stipulates that Christians are not to be sought out, and not to be tried with information from anonymous tips. I love Trajan's line about anonymous accusations going against "the spirit of our age". http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/pliny.html

[Edit: there's a really interesting line in Pliny's letter about slave-women serving in leadership roles as deaconesses.]

All of which makes me pause to reflect on modern hagiographies and martyrdoms from (both sides of) the LDS tradition, whether Haun's Mill, Carthage Jail, Wiillie & Martin Handcarters, or Mountain Meadows. Not to denigrate those who find (or lose) faith from the tragedies involved, but rather a thought about how modern religious identities derive from the stories of these deaths. At the time perhaps deemed "senseless," modern constructions and interpretations have imparted "sense" to them, perhaps unfairly or in a distorted manner, but given them "sense" nonetheless.

The Roman empire was vast and multicultural. It in many ways it resembled our country, indeed in many ways has provided a model for it. While Rome was not free, and was a kind of theocracy, religious tolerance was a practical necessity as well as actually a value to a large extent. The instances of religious persecution were exceptions. The most spectacular religious oppression was the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, and the Kingdom of Israel in AD 70. However, Rome was pitted against religious extremists who had overthrown the royalty who were Rome's client rulers (and in doing so massacred the local Roman Cohort), and were disapproved of by many Jews including most of the educated ones, and Titus and his generals actually tried hard to negotiate a surrender and peace before obliterating Israel. The outcome was Rabinical Judaism, which I bet most of today's Jews would consider progress from the Kindom of Israel.

[wuapinmon]

Sure. But in the case of the Christians-being-thrown-to-the-lions, the narrative behind those reasons has been shaped by the descendants to emphasize the faith aspect. A non-Christian Roman would have considered the execution of Christians as fitting punishment for those inciting sedition and treason.

In the end, martyrization (can I write that?) is bestowed by the survivors and the descendants. Plus, the importance of their deaths magnifies over time (or diminishes, depending on point-of-view). Martyrdom is really about memory, and memories are selective. Putting aside the extent to which Moss's book points this out, the survival (indeed triumph) of Christianity in the Roman Empire has resulted in an overemphasis on a relatively rare and uncharacteristic prosecution/persecution of Christians.

I really intended the post as a comment about the Christian martyrs. As to the LDS angle, I was just thinking in passing about the prevalence of martyrs and martyrdoms in LDS culture, and wondering to what extent moderns might or might not be guilty of the same exaggerations. After all, it's not like Joseph Morris is remembered as a martyr. To my knowledge, the LDS faith is the only "established" American religion with this same type of relationship to martyrdom.

We all want the violent death of someone for whom we care to be imbued with meaning. If life cannot be meaningful, then perhaps a 'noble' death can fill that void, so we venerate those who died for the particular cause in which we believe. However, what of those who die for no cause? I think we can see an echo of this ancient Christian goal in the insane Dasein hellbent on martyrdom who shoots up a public place and then kills himself. We later find evidence that they wanted to be remembered, despite the ignominious way they went about it. Martyrs abound in the mass-gunman files. The only ones who venerate their deeds are future martyrs themselves. A wicked cult in deed.

[woot]

We all want the violent death of someone for whom we care to be imbued with meaning. If life cannot be meaningful, then perhaps a 'noble' death can fill that void, so we venerate those who died for the particular cause in which we believe. However, what of those who die for no cause? I think we can see an echo of this ancient Christian goal in the insane Dasein hellbent on martyrdom who shoots up a public place and then kills himself. We later find evidence that they wanted to be remembered, despite the ignominious way they went about it. Martyrs abound in the mass-gunman files. The only ones who venerate their deeds are future martyrs themselves. A wicked cult in deed.

Well said. I'm reminded of the chants of "never forget" regarding 9/11. This is motivated by wanting those deaths to be meaningful, but they really weren't. "Never forget" is a rallying cry to stir up fervor for vengeance, and nothing more. The best thing we could have done after 9/11 would have been to forget about it. It's human nature to want to construct meaning, though. so we couldn't.