You are here: UK Essays » Essays » Religion » Christians

Free Essays - Religion Essays

Why were the early Christians so unpopular?

When Christianity appeared during the reign of Tiberius, it was, for all intents and purposes, merely a cult. Over about the next 300 years, until Emperor Constantine released an edict commanding that all religions should be tolerated, Christians suffered continual persecutions of varying degrees of severity. Though such persecutions were ongoing and indictments were brought forward by individuals on a regular basis, there were times when systematic persecutions occurred, and these are the ones most known about. After the Fire of Rome in 64CE, for example, Christians were made scapegoats by Nero for the incident. Similarly, other emperors such as Diocletian carried out their own persecutions. The reasons for the unpopularity of the early Christians, exemplified by the persecutions, I believe to have been fairly consistent over the 300 years. Minor fluctuations probably occurred, while old reasons diminished as Christians became more accepted in society, but the basic reasons for their unpopularity remained the same. A common theme was what Pliny described as their '...stubbornness and unyielding obstinacy...' which '...certainly ought to be punished.' This attitude appears to have been a root cause of the Roman state's desire to persecute Christians, although it is a reason that requires some refinement.

It would be helpful to begin with the first major persecution of Christians in the aftermath of the Fire of Rome, in order to ascertain a reason for their unpopularity. The immediate reason for these persecutions, a civic disaster, is not unique according to Tertullian, the Christian apologist, who claimed that the Christians got the blame whenever any calamity hit the empire. However, the Fire is useful as an example of how general suspicion and dislike of the Christians made them a convenient scapegoat. Tacitus described them as 'notoriously depraved' and claimed that 'they hated the human race.' Rumours of flagitia (abominations) were also abound amongst the general populace. In 177CE, at around the time of a persecution in Lyons, Athenagoras gave details of some of the crimes that Christians were accused of – atheism, cannibalism (Thyestean feasts), and incest. Such accusations appear rather ridiculous, but the belief of sections of a population in apparently improbable accusations is not an phenomenon confined to the ancient world. To take an example, there were some people in Britain who believed that German soldiers put infants to the bayonet during the First World War. Such hysteria is not unlikely, especially in an era where the general education of the populace was probably not as advanced as it was in in 1914, and one in which superstition played a key part in life. Pliny, writing to Trajan between 111 and 113, remarked that he had found no evidence of abominations and instead found simply 'depraved and extravagant superstition.' Whether or not the accusations of flagitia were true, it does seem that the general population believed them at the time of Tacitus, Pliny and Athenagoras' writing. This was one reason for the early Christians being unpopular, but it raises the curious question of why Christians were executed when provincial governors like Pliny found there was no evidence for their having committed crimes.

Referring again to Pliny's correspondence with Trajan, it is possible to see that Pliny sent the letter concerning Christians precisely because he was unsure of how he should proceed if charges were brought against them by an accuser. In particular, he asked whether the Christians should be charged with having committed flagitia (of which he could find no evidence), or simply for admitting to being Christians.Trajan's reply settled the matter: Christians should not be actively sought out in a kind of state-sanctioned witch-hunt, but if someone was prosecuted by a named accuser and the defendant both confessed to being Christian and refused to show allegiance to the Roman gods (by means of a sacrifice that Pliny mentions), then they should be punished. These letters were published by 117, according to de Ste Croix, resulting in a precedent for the treatment of Christians being set once these letters had circulated to the provincial governors. This, of course, means that the official policy was to execute Christians for their name alone. This does not, however, adequately explain why Pliny or Trajan saw fit to execute them for being Christian, so some further investigation into what the title 'Christian' meant to the officials of the Roman state is necessary to procure an answer.

If one looks at the complaints of Athenagoras about the persecution of Christians for the hatred of their name, then it is apparent that he has no idea why their name is hated, for they have committed no crimes. Part of the answer my lie, once again, in Pliny. As mentioned above, Pliny remarks upon the 'unyielding obstinacy' of the Christians (in refusing to renounce their faith or make sacrifice to the pagan deities which constituted the Roman state religion) and seems to think that this is reason enough to have them punished. It is possible, according to Sherwin-White, that the Roman government saw Christians as undermining its authority through their disobedience and thus must be made an example of. De Ste Croix pursued a different but not altogether incompatible argument on the issue of the unpopularity of the Christians with the state. He claimed that the Christian refusal to acknowledge the Roman gods was seen as dangerous and seditious behaviour. After all, the Olympian gods were the established religion of Rome and the refusal to worship them by any section of the populace could, in superstitious tradition, invoke their wrath by breaking the pax deorum. This appears to be a logical explanation for Tertullian's assertions that Christians were blamed for every disaster that befell the empire. Though the ruling classes of Rome were educated men, de Ste Croix also claimed that we should not deny them religious feeling, living as they did in a superstitious age. Both Sherwin-White and de Ste Croix make logical arguments as to why Christians were unpopular with the state. Whether either one is more accurate appears to be a matter of interpretation of the sources. As Tacitus and Pliny appear to regard Christianity with disgust for its 'superstition,' as opposed to anything to do with disobedience, I am inclined to side with de Ste Croix. However, Pliny does appear to support Sherwin-White when he mentions the obstinacy of the Christians. From Pliny's tone it appears that the stubborn nature of some Christians were a source of irritation to him. There were, no doubt, governors of far more an excitable temper than Pliny in the empire, and although it is always wise to guard against assumptions, I do not think that this is an unreasonable one. Obstinate behaviour could be seen as arrogant by a governor and Pliny himself thought that this was reason enough for execution, as we have seen. The potentially seditious dedication to monotheism of the Christians, which was supposed to bring down the wrath of the gods, along with their obstinacy and defiance of authority, were most likely causes for their unpopularity with government officials and may explain the willingness of these men to persecute them.

The pressure of public opinion has only been mentioned briefly in the context of flagitia, but it is important to examine the effects of Christian activities on those who were not connected to the Roman government. Christianity was seen as a rogue branch of Judaism by the Jews, so naturally they had a unique reason for their particular antipathy. De Ste Croix suggested that Christian preaching might have started riots in Jewish areas, and I would suggest that evangelism would have provoked similar ill-feeling with pagans, by virtue of the fact that Christianity was challenging every aspect of their spiritual lives and denouncing it as wrong. Though the apologist Justin professes the principles of 'patience and gentleness' in attempts to convert people, he also denounces the pagan gods as 'wicked and impious demons.' Not only does Justin show inconsistency, but to a pagan his words would doubtless have been insulting. In the same passage Justin observes that both philosophers and Christians call the pagan religions into doubt, yet the Christians are persecuted for it while the former are not. However, de Ste Croix points out that though the philosophers showed scepticism about religions, they would participate in sacrifices to the gods and so not arouse the same kind of hostility that the Christians did. I would also add that Roman and Hellenic culture had a long tradition of philosophy – it was an accepted part of culture and society. Christians, however, had no such privileged background and were probably regarded as a threat, like many emergent groups with radical ideas throughout history. Their refusal to take part in communal religious services would have caused self-inflicted social isolation. In fact, the concept of isolation was very important in the unpopularity of the Christians, as they were a secretive groups, especially to begin with. This secrecy engendered mistrust in those who did not share in their exclusive rituals, and it may be just this secrecy that caused the rumours of cannibalism and incest to arise.

Finally, it would be prudent to explore the relationship between the people of the empire and the officials of the empire, and how the former influenced the latter with regard to the unpopularity of the Christians. It is telling that few persecutions were carried out on the initiative of the Roman state. Trajan cautioned Pliny against it - prosecutions had to be brought forward by a named individual. From this we can deduce that Christians were probably more unpopular with the people than the state, and that, if public pressure was strong enough, a provincial governor might be compelled to convict Christians in order to keep the peace, even if he was not particularly keen to. Rashes of persecutions were probably provoked by any event which triggered anti-Christian sentiments amongst the general populace. In fact, another reason for the unpopularity of early Christians can be introduced here – they provoked unrest in the empire and so would be unpopular with the state for this reason.

Early Christians were certainly very unpopular. They were unpopular with the people for their evangelising and challenging of established tradition but also for their secretive behaviour which fostered feelings of suspicion and the rumours that brought further reduced their standing in the eyes of the public. They were unpopular with both governmental officials and the general populace for their refusal to make sacrifices to the pagan gods and the subsequent wrathful response that this might elicit from the Olympians. It is possible that the state also found them tiresome because of their general obstinacy, but they were more likely to view them as a threat because they agitated and inflamed local populations. In an empire which had to maintain the integrity of its borders, such behaviour could not be tolerated. In short, both the people and the state saw the Christians as a threat to their traditional cultural practices and the internal harmony of the empire.

All of the essays in this section were written by students and then submitted to us to publish and help others. Thanks to all of the students who have submitted their essays to us. You should not hand in our essays as your own. We do not condone plagiarism! If you need custom essays on your exact essay questions, then have a look at our essay writing service.

Sign up and be the first to receive our latest offers: