Christian Intimidation

There was a valid reason for the Romans to fear the spread of Christianity throughout the empire. During a time period of a society mainly dominated by Polytheism, Christianity seemed to be a very eccentric religion. The various traditions and beliefs of Christianity were many times misinterpreted to be crazy and offensive. The Romans believed that the Christians had immoral practices, as their religion was seemed as a threat to the well being of the empire.

Religion was one of the core aspects of the foundation of Ancient Rome. The Roman religion was based on Polytheism, where they worshiped a vast collection of gods together. With the presence of Greek colonies in the Lower Peninsula, the Romans accepted some of the Greek gods into their religion. The capital consisted of many temples used for rituals, sacrifices, and even festivals to honor the deities that they wished to praise. They believed that worshiping distinct deities would bring them good fortune and protection in various aspects. One of these deities was named Sarpis, who was considered the healing god, so “the sick would travel to her temple to be cured” (Wasson, Donald). There were cults created to worship these gods, as the government would collect taxes in order to fund the cults and the festivals that they had. They believed that their relationship with distinct deities was directly correlated to the events on Earth. Roman religion had a stable position in society, until the rise of Christianity.

Christianity was spreading across Europe and throughout the Roman Empire. As a monotheistic religion, Christian followers only believed in God, as they refused to worship and offer sacrifices to the Roman gods. This drew a lot of attention because it “was an insult to the gods and potentially endangered the empire which they designed to protect” (Lunn-Rockliffe, Sophie). When the Christians did not make sacrifices to the emperor, who was regarded to be semi-divine, the Romans considered this to be treason. The practices of Christianity were many times questioned to be immoral. At the “Last Supper,” Jesus’s followers consumed the body and the blood of  Christ. Many of the Romans were surprised, and thought that Christians supported cannibalism, while in reality, they were merely consuming bread and wine that symbolized Jesus’s body. Christianity also appealed to a wide audience, including women, slaves, intellectuals, and the illiterate. Many feared that Jesus’s influence among such a broad group, including the large population of the lower class would cause a revolt against the Roman government. This would stop the persecution of Christians, as they could worship their religion freely.

In a society that had an established religion and lifestyle, the introduction of a completely different religion was seen as a threat to the stability of the empire. Christianity was viewed to be disrespectful to the Roman religion, and having the potential for a revolt. The religion was also misinterpreted to having strange practices. This is why the Romans had the right to fear the spread of Christianity.

Word Count: 499

References

Wasson, Donald L. “Roman Religion.” Ancient History Encyclopedia. Last modified November 13, 2013. https://www.ancient.eu/Roman_Religion/.

Lunn-Rockliffe, Sophie, Dr. “History – Ancient History in Depth: Christianity and the Roman Empire.” BBC. February 17, 2011. Accessed October 14, 2018. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/christianityromanempire_article_01.shtml.

Every Political Assassination Needs its Octavian.

On October 20, 2011, Moammar Gadhafi was killed by a resistance fighter in Libya. Gadhafi had held power since 1969, and during his 40+ year reign, countless atrocities were committed against the Libyan people. However, the celebration was short lived, because the death of Gadhafi led to a massive struggle for power which is still devastating Libya today. The assassination of Gadhafi can be compared to the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BCE: a powerful dictator is deposed with no heir, creating a power vacuum. However, the results of these similar circumstances are drastically different.

The conspiracy to stab Julius Caesar to death is often associated only with Marcus Junius Brutus, but in fact many Roman Senators agreed to help murder Caesar. One would think that following the death of Caesar, these Senators/other Roman Generals would fight to claim the power Caesar left behind. After all, Caesar had no direct heir. But Caesar’s nephew, Octavian, had other plans for the Empire. Octavian used the power of Caesar’s supporters to establish himself as the “Princeps” of the Roman Empire, and used his knowledge of Caesar’s mistakes to avoid a similar outcome. The era following Caesar’s death is called the Pax Romana, because Octavian’s actions created stability in the Empire.

Comparing this to the aftermath of the assassination of Gadhafi: “Libya is in a mess. Three governments vie for power, multiple tribes compete for influence and a slice of the country’s dwindling oil wealth, and ISIS managed to take a foothold in the city of Sirte — Gadhafi’s home town.” ‘Pax’, the Latin word for peace, certainly does not describe the situation in Libya. The difference between the smooth transition after the death of Caesar and the debacle in Libya is that Libyans didn’t find ‘their Octavian.’ There was not one powerful man/woman/organization which was able to defeat all contestants for control over the power vacuum like Octavian did in Rome.

What these situations teach us is that following the assassination of a military dictator, the power vacuum left behind is dangerous and must be handled quickly. Contrary to what seems logical, a nation-state which kills their dictator essentially needs another dictator to stabilize the country before it descends into a chaotic power struggle. If this dictator takes care not to repeat the mistakes of the previous regime, the instability caused by a political assassination can actually lead to incredible stability in a nation-state.
Words: 405

Citation:

Robertson, Nic. “Libya: Five Years after Gadhafi’s Death.” CNN, Cable News Network, 20 Oct. 2016, http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/africa/libya-five-years-after-gadhafi-robertson/index.html.

Christianity in Ancient Rome

Ever since the birth of civilization there has been an undeniable interest and belief in a higher power. Although it’s true that different societies had shown their faith in different ways, there was a common norm before the 3rd century CE to practice a religion in which there were multiple gods, and faith was pledged to one of them. When a new group came along that went against the grain and practiced monotheism or, the belief of a single God, it was inevitable that they would be scrutinized and questioned for their beliefs. Christianity arose in the ancient world, and it was met with a great deal of backlash from the Romans. This backlash eventually led to a fear that the Roman Empire would be in danger should Christianity take over.

Christianity as we see it today is a normal everyday practice. Now, seeing it from the eyes of a Roman, Christianity can seem fairly odd to say the least. They would hear of stories of Christians eating the body of Christ, and drinking his blood. They believed in a man who died and rose from the dead to walk amongst the living. Did they pledge faith in ghost? Was this some kind of sadistic cult? Were these people just plain crazy? It is only natural that many people would be fearful of who Christians truly were and how their ever growing religion would have an impact on Roman society.

Whether they knew it or not, Christians were shaping the world around them. For so long, society had believed in multiple gods, going against that notion and only believing in one God sparked an interest and opened the minds of the Roman people to a different religion and a different way of life. As religion was a huge part of someone’s life in ancient Rome, having a new faith could have a direct impact on their functionality as a citizen. For example, Christians believe in having Sunday as a day of rest and devotion to God in which even work would be set aside for worship. As a Roman leader, seeing a large number of the populous taking Sunday off from work can be worrying. Society still needs to function and how could this be done if Christians took a whole day off from collecting crops, catching fish, or crafting valuable tools? Of course, today’s society has adapted to this day of rest and found a way to function despite it, but in 3rd century CE, this was a whole new problem that Roman society was tasked with solving.

The emergence of Christianity in Roman society was yet another obstacle that threatened to tear apart the Empire. The fear and resentment that had initially taken over, would eventually have to be overcome in order for the Roman Empire to continue to thrive into what we know it as today.

Jacob Ramos

Category=Christianity Through the Lens of Polytheism

Word Count: 479

The Romans Fear for Christianity

When the Romans were first introduced to Christianity, they were scared and a little bit freaked out by it. When you really look at it without your religious background, you can see why they may have thought that. I say you have to look at this situation without your current religious background because depending on what religion you are, you could think it’s crazy that anyone could fear Christianity, but back before the 3rd CE, Christianity was not as prevalent as it is today. So we have to try and look at Christianity like the Romans did in order to truly understand them.

When I look at Christianity through the eyes of the Romans, I can understand why they feared it. One example of this would be a verse from the Bible that states “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day” (John 6:54). The Romans knew how important the bible was and when they heard about it and especially that verse, they were scared. They heard about these Christians “drinking the blood” and “eating the flesh” of their God and thought these people were insane and were cannibals. Why would anyone want cannibals in their city? What was actually happening was the Christians were eating bread and drinking wine that symbolized the body and blood of Jesus Christ, but the Romans did not understand that.

The Romans feared that Christians could potentially bring the downfall of the Roman Empire due to some of the Christian beliefs upsetting the Roman Gods. Christianity is a monotheistic religion, meaning they only believe in a single god, unlike the Romans who believe in multiple different gods. The Romans would hold sacrifices to honor their gods, but the Christians would not participate because they believed in their one and only God. The Romans were afraid that since the Christians were not honoring their gods, the gods would be displeased and rain down destruction on Rome, ending the empire for good. This is just one more reason why the Romans fear of Christianity was a valid thought at the time.

Due to Christians having a disregard for the Roman Gods, and practicing unorthodox rituals, the Romans had an understandable fear of Christianity. The Romans had a valid fear when it came to Christians because based on what they believed with their religion, what Christians were doing could bring an end to life as they knew it. The Romans were afraid and they had reasons to be so.

426 Words

The New Roman Religion

When Christianity began to spread throughout Ancient Rome, the Romans became very nervous, and for good reason. A change to Christianity as a prominent religion would threaten the polytheistic Roman religion that had been in place for many years. The Christian religion would undoubtedly change the entire culture of Ancient Rome. This would become a major issue in Rome as they would take extreme measures including mass executions of Christians.

Being a monotheistic government was far from anything that had taken place in Rome prior to the 3rd c. CE. The Roman religion was largely based on the worship of many Greek gods whom sacrifices were made to. The Romans sacrifices were supposed to inevitably get them to bless the Roman Empire. Looking at it from their point of view, if Christianity were to “infiltrate” the Empire, then the gods would not look at them in the same light and it would affect their security that the gods gave them. Their unwillingness to participate could be viewed as disgracing the gods.

Another factor that would cause the Romans to be intimidated by the up and coming religion was the way that their empire was set up. In Ancient Rome, government and religion were greatly tied together. With the Romans refusing to simply adapt to the culture that was already in place, it could be viewed as a major threat to the entire empire. The more people that decided to choose Christianity, the more people that would be less likely to participate in the Roman government. If the people were not willing to participate, then the empire would take a major hit and possibly fall. While Christianity wouldn’t cause it to fall, they ended up not being completely wrong about it taking over and becoming a large part of their government moving forward. Christianity would eventually prevail in the Roman Empire and take the polytheistic religion’s place as the prominent religion. Becoming a major part of their government, Christianity began to change the culture of Ancient Rome over time.

After looking at all of these facts, I believe that the Romans’ fear of Christianity was very legitimate. Although the Romans took very extreme actions towards suppressing the new religion, they had their reasons. It can be extremely intimidating when a new idea comes along and challenged an entire way of life that has been established for such a long period of time. There have been numerous examples since then where the same thing took place.

Word Count = 414

The Christian Fear

The Romans were right to fear the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. The Christian religion not only threatened to undermine the polytheistic Roman religion, but also incurred many political and societal changes throughout the empire. To the Romans, Christian practices were considered to be both immoral and a political threat. Christian refusal to participate in religious sacrifice and ceremonies to the gods insulted the basis of Roman culture and was seen as an act of disobedience and a potential threat.

The Roman religion, unlike Christianity, focused on the worship of many powerful deities (many of whom were originally known to be Greek). Sacrifices to certain deities were made in exchange for protection and good fortune. The Romans praised and worshiped the gods in the hopes that their devotion would convince the gods to look favorably upon the Roman Empire. Even taxes were collected and spent on public cults and events to honor the Roman gods. Those in political power also held positions as cult and spiritual leaders. Overall, Roman culture was completely immersed in the Roman religion, with tolerance of only the Jewish faith.

As more people were allowed to move freely throughout the Mediterranean, Christianity and its teachings began to spread across the Roman Empire. Suddenly, Roman citizens and Jews alike began to reject the polytheistic ideals of the Romans and, instead, accepted the teachings of Christianity. Christianity is a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of a man named Jesus. During his life, Jesus challenged the abuses he saw and provoked many prominent Jewish community leaders with his push for reform. In Christianity, Jesus preached the idea that salvation is meant for all, including the lower classes. The Jewish community, who  were already tolerated and accepted by the Romans, feared that with this argument, Jesus would lead the people of Palestine in an uprising against Roman rule.

Jesus, in the end, was crucified because of the potential political threat he would bring to the Roman Empire. With his crucification, however, came more reason and opportunity for believers to refuse to conform to Roman religion and culture. After the death of Christ, Christians continued to be persecuted by the Romans. As what is already common to mankind, the Roman Empire ultimately feared what it did not know, with much of its suspicions based upon its overall lack of understanding of the Christian faith. Had the Romans known more about Christianity from the beginning, it is likely that the Romans would have been much more tolerant and welcoming to the Christians, as they had to the Jews.

 

References

Hansen, Valerie. “Chapter 7: The Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity.” Voyages in World History, Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, 2016, pp. 144-148.

Word Count : 432

Ancient Roman Christians: Cult Members or Religious Pioneers?

Christianity came about in an era when polytheism was nearly the only form of religious belief. This seemingly “taboo” faith was certainly a culture shock to the Roman Republic, and as a result, was initially rejected. In Dr. Sophie Lunn-Rockliffe’s article, Christianity and the Roman Empire, Dr. Lunn-Rockliffe states one of the greatest reasons for rejection of Christians: “…the Christian refusal to sacrifice to the Roman gods…was an insult to the gods and potentially endangered the empire which they deigned to protect. Furthermore, the Christian refusal to offer sacrifices to the emperor, a semi-divine monarch, had the whiff of both sacrilege and treason about it”. In the face of the Roman Republic, Christians appeared as arrogant, disobedient and threatening. Additionally, misconceptions regarding Christianity were abundant in the Roman Empire. The Christian sacrament of receiving Holy Communion was particularly repulsive to the Romans. When taking the Holy Communion, Christians believe that they are consuming the body and blood of Christ, or bread and wine. In the eyes of the Romans, the Christians were perceived as a despicable, uncivilized, and cannibalistic people.

There was a certainly a great stigma around Christians, but to Emperor Nero, the Roman Christian population was too great of a threat to ignore, and around 64 AD, Nero began persecuting Christians. Most sources point to a great fire in Rome as the main cause for emperor sanctioned persecutions. Sources claim that Emperor Nero started this fire in order to construct a grand palace for himself on top of the site where the city of Rome had previously stood. In order to direct attention away from himself, he targeted a group that was already despised within the empire: Roman Christians (Lunn-Rockliffe). Christian persecution in Rome was incredibly violent. In Shushma Malik’s article, Myth Busting Ancient Rome, Malik describes Christian persecution:

Christians who were Roman citizens, including the apostle Paul, were executed by beheading, which was a quick and merciful end.

Later in the second century, beheading was a privilege to which only the highest-ranking citizens were automatically entitled. The “lesser sort”, as they were known, were subject to more violent punishments. These included being crucified, burned to death, and attacked by beasts.

The Romans didn’t mess around when it came to murdering Christians, and committed atrocious acts—naturally, Christians went underground: only practicing in secret out of fear of persecution.

Was the Roman fear of this new faith legitimate? In my opinion, the Romans were scared of the unknowns associated with Christianity at the time. In combination with the rumors surrounding Christianity and the apparent disrespect that the Christians showed to the traditional Roman gods and emperors, it is certainly logical that the Roman population would reject this new faith. It is possible to draw parallels between Christian persecution in Rome and modern Islamophobia—in both cases, there is an aspect of not knowing the faith and misconstruing information about beliefs and practices of each religion. The Roman fear of Christianity was justified, though drastic measures were taken to suppress this new faith.

  1. Lunn-Rockliffe, Dr Sophie. “History – Ancient History in Depth: Christianity and the Roman Empire.” BBC, BBC, 17 Feb. 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/christianityromanempire_article_01.shtml.
  2. Malik, Shushma, and Caillan Davenport. “Mythbusting Ancient Rome – Throwing Christians to the Lions.” The Conversation, 19 Sept. 2018, theconversation.com/mythbusting-ancient-rome-throwing-christians-to-the-lions-67365.

A Rival Religion

Romans had a valid fear of Christianity and of  the societal changes it would incur. Although Christian and Roman beliefs diverged in many aspects, Christianity’s idea of offering salvation was not foreign to the Romans. The Romans had similar cults that worshipped the gods Isis and Mithra to attain immortality. Although not necessarily shocked about the existence of a god and belief in the afterlife, the Romans feared Christians due to their disturbance of society. The Christian faith ultimately undermined Roman relationships with the gods, the emperor, and each other. The Romans believed that they had a pact with the gods in which they would offer sacrifices in exchange for protection. They even utilized tax money to support different cults and their sacrifices to specific deities for immortality, peace, and bountiful harvests. However, because of their monotheism, the Christians refused to participate in these sacrifices and validate the existence of pagan gods. The Romans feared this lack of participation would subject them to the wrath of the gods and cause many misfortunes. Further, Christian beliefs undermined the authority of the princeps and the class system. The princeps had diminished religious ethos because the Christians refused to validate him as a deity; they believed in only one true God. Moreover, because Christianity was inclusive, the patricians were level with the plebeians. The Romans also feared the Christians to be cannibals who ate flesh and drank blood. In reality, the Christians were meeting for mass and ate transformed bread and wine, referred to as transubstantiation.

Because the Christians refused to conform to Roman culture, they caused a deep Roman suspicion. Roman religion and government were intertwined, so the Christian’s lack of participation was construed as disloyalty to the Roman empire. Political leaders were often also cult leaders, and if there was social unrest, they would allow the mobs to lynch Christians. The Christians were also convenient scapegoats due to their outsider status and threat to the emperor’s rule. For example, Nero blamed Christians for the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64, which initiated persecution against the Christians.

However, the Christians were persistent, firm believers and remained in the Roman empire. Christianity did not become a dominant religion until the rule of Constantinople, who issued the Edict of Milan decriminalizing the Christian faith. Subsequently, and confirming all previous fears, the Christians gained spots in government and began to change Roman culture and religion. Christianity eventually became the official religion of the Roman empire.

 

Word count: 411

Athenian and American Democracy One in the Same?

Democracy has been an ideal chased through eras, but captured by very few. It all started the same way, across generations, across eras, across history. In someone’s heart, at some time, they fulfilled an innate yearning for a better way to represent the country through democracy. While the rules of the system deviate, the ideas behind the system remain constant. When people look for shining examples of democracy, they look at two places; America and Athens, but the two political systems may not be as familial as we think. The most striking contrast manifests itself in the interactive exclusivity of Athenian Democracy compared to the American system.
The most exclusive club in the world might elicit the Forbes Billionaire list in modern times, but in the ancient Greek world, it was the honor of being a full-fledged Athenian citizen. Women, slaves, children, aliens, medics, warfighters, and for a period of time only those with both parental figures having the coveted Athenian citizenship, could not even be considered for citizenship. Once the exclusive status was achieved, not being engaged would characterize you as an, “Idiot.” As Thucydides famously said, “We do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he has no business here at all.” Once entrance is gained, there are membership requirements that extend beyond the normal facets of American democracy.
This was contrasted from the very beginnings of the American democracy rooted in “all men are created equal, … , unalienable rights.” The American system replaced that exclusivity with opportunity. According to the Migration Policy Institute, 37 million people today were not United States Citizens at birth. The United States is not an exclusivity club, but is more of a welcoming club than that of ancient Greece. That is coupled with the rights of the American Citizen being granted to women, slaves, and every legal citizen. Even enemy combatants and foreign nationals are treated according to that code. American democracy does not discriminate, so even as we wage wars on the other side of the globe, the rules of engagement ground American Force in the principles they are fighting for. In contrast to Athenian Democracy, American’s, while encouraged, are not forced to participate in the political process. In fact, only 61.4% of Americans eligible to vote, actually vote in national elections according to the U.S. Census Bureau. A figure that would have resulted in mass political uprisings in the ancient world.
As the great experiment of democracy continues to journey forward, the exclusivity of Athenian Democracy is not in place in American democracy. As democracy continues to rage across generations, across eras, across the rest of history, the memory of the mistake of the Athenians will forever be etched in our memories.

Representative vs. Direct: Which do you choose?

When matching a representative democracy against a direct democracy, the collective goal must be a stable government. The overall the purpose of any government is to maintain order doing so by establishing laws and enforcing laws. With these parameters let us apply a representative democracy to Athens 500 B.C.

Based on the times, only wealthy male citizens of Athens would be able to vote for a representative to voice their city state’s opinion within the assembly. For those who lived out in the farmlands, in order for their troubles to be addressed without a representative would be forced to travel several days away to get to the center of Athens. A representative would be able to actively support their constituents while they maintained their jobs. This would be the perfect situation where a representative from each subdivision of Athens would actually represent the common ideas of their people. However, the risk that comes with a representative democracy, of course, is being represented. In 500 B.C. there were not many checks and balances to keep a usurper from taking total control. Suppose a representative lies to their constituents and then passes legislation that keeps their constituents from voting them out of the assembly. The risk of voting away one’s actual representation is a valid problem with a representative democracy.

Within a direct democracy, the people would be gaining much more representation in the assembly as a whole. Though how efficient can a government be where everyone is able to vote and voice their opinion? When we look at the effects of Athens’ direct democracy, we can see how many decisions seemed rash and emotional. At times with a direct democracy, the government can fall into a mob mentality and act abruptly to situations that need more thought. During the Mytilenean Revolt, a city-state of Athens, the direct democracy had gone through several votes on how to handle the Mytileneans’ surrender. The assembly went back and forth on the decision until it chose to kill most of the rebels. Generally in a direct democracy representing everyone is not efficient.

Side by side I believe a representative democracy would be much more efficient for the times. Saving the general people the time of traveling to an assembly would allow them to maintain their work without risk of losing all of their livelihood. Of course, both sides are subject to being overtaken by factions or single rulers without any means to check a single person’s power. Given this imminent risk for both, I still believe that a representative democracy would fare better for the Athenians.