God
Faith
During a recent lecture for the "History of Christianity I" course I'm taking, our professor postulated that "Rome existed to tax, and to tax efficiently; The strategy? Kill independents, find a local leader, and keep local religion alone so they pay their taxes." As Judaism was already "grandfathered in" by the Roman authorities, to members of the early Christian Church, the question of whether Christianity was a new religion or simply an extension of Judaism was quite literally a matter of life and death!
What was their view?
A few of the texts we've been assigned so far-- "The Martyrdom of Polycarp" [MP], "The Passion of the Holy Martyrs Perpetua and Felicity" [PF], and Justin Martyr's "The First Apology" [FA]-- seem to supply a ready answer: even allowing for some degree of selection bias-- these are, after all, recitations about and from martyrs-- early Church adherents seemed to view their religion as something new. And in fact, they appeared to believe this so strongly that they took grave risks in an era where perceived disobedience to the emperor and the Roman gods demonstrably resulted in a one-way ticket to the amphitheater, for a date with a lion!
In Chapter 4 of "The First Apology", Justin pointed out that the Roman disposition towards Christians involved not investigations into the virtue or vice of the individual accused, but rather a blanket "conviction" based on the "Christian" title alone. Because the verdict was not based on evidence, he pointed out in Chapter 8 that "it is in our power, when we are examined, to deny that we are Christians..." In other words, if Christians weren't serious about their beliefs, the loophole to avoid conviction was so large as to be preposterous; recant and be spared.
Even right up to the moment of execution, the proconsul gave Polycarp repeated opportunities to simply step right through this simple escape hatch! This can be read in full detail in Chapters 9 through 11 of "The Martyrdom of Polycarp". Polycarp had every chance to say, "Apologies for the misunderstanding", and be sent on his way.
The same pattern repeated with regards to Perpetua and Felicity.
Over and over again, Perpetua's father asked her to deny her Christian beliefs, appealing to the difficulties it would cause him, her baby, the family, and so forth. Although he was grief-stricken, he evidently believed in the efficacy of "offer[ing] sacrifice for the well-being of the emperors" (PF, Chapter 2) and other similar about-faces by his daughter, to the authorities.
Perpetua even gave her father the analogy of a pitcher: "Can it be called by any other name?", to which he responded "No." Her reply: "Neither can I call myself anything else than what I am, a Christian." [PF, Chapter 1] She did not say "a Jew", or "a Roman"-- she specifically emphasized that she was Christian; something new, and different.
These are just a few examples from the readings, there are many more besides such as the lengthy discourses Justin provided to the authorities, carefully laying out distinctively non-Jewish precepts such as the Trinity (FA, Chapter 6), albeit he does often frame these ideas within a Jewish framework to cooperate with his audience's existing understanding; or the wild appeals to the crowd which Saturus made, and the manner in which he implored the guard Pudens to be "confirmed", as the former handed the latter his blood-soaked ring [MP, Chapter 6].
While not exhaustive by any measure, this should suffice for now as at least the beginnings of an argument. God bless!
What was their view?
A few of the texts we've been assigned so far-- "The Martyrdom of Polycarp" [MP], "The Passion of the Holy Martyrs Perpetua and Felicity" [PF], and Justin Martyr's "The First Apology" [FA]-- seem to supply a ready answer: even allowing for some degree of selection bias-- these are, after all, recitations about and from martyrs-- early Church adherents seemed to view their religion as something new. And in fact, they appeared to believe this so strongly that they took grave risks in an era where perceived disobedience to the emperor and the Roman gods demonstrably resulted in a one-way ticket to the amphitheater, for a date with a lion!
In Chapter 4 of "The First Apology", Justin pointed out that the Roman disposition towards Christians involved not investigations into the virtue or vice of the individual accused, but rather a blanket "conviction" based on the "Christian" title alone. Because the verdict was not based on evidence, he pointed out in Chapter 8 that "it is in our power, when we are examined, to deny that we are Christians..." In other words, if Christians weren't serious about their beliefs, the loophole to avoid conviction was so large as to be preposterous; recant and be spared.
Even right up to the moment of execution, the proconsul gave Polycarp repeated opportunities to simply step right through this simple escape hatch! This can be read in full detail in Chapters 9 through 11 of "The Martyrdom of Polycarp". Polycarp had every chance to say, "Apologies for the misunderstanding", and be sent on his way.
The same pattern repeated with regards to Perpetua and Felicity.
Over and over again, Perpetua's father asked her to deny her Christian beliefs, appealing to the difficulties it would cause him, her baby, the family, and so forth. Although he was grief-stricken, he evidently believed in the efficacy of "offer[ing] sacrifice for the well-being of the emperors" (PF, Chapter 2) and other similar about-faces by his daughter, to the authorities.
Perpetua even gave her father the analogy of a pitcher: "Can it be called by any other name?", to which he responded "No." Her reply: "Neither can I call myself anything else than what I am, a Christian." [PF, Chapter 1] She did not say "a Jew", or "a Roman"-- she specifically emphasized that she was Christian; something new, and different.
These are just a few examples from the readings, there are many more besides such as the lengthy discourses Justin provided to the authorities, carefully laying out distinctively non-Jewish precepts such as the Trinity (FA, Chapter 6), albeit he does often frame these ideas within a Jewish framework to cooperate with his audience's existing understanding; or the wild appeals to the crowd which Saturus made, and the manner in which he implored the guard Pudens to be "confirmed", as the former handed the latter his blood-soaked ring [MP, Chapter 6].
While not exhaustive by any measure, this should suffice for now as at least the beginnings of an argument. God bless!