Worst Christian Persecution

Under which emperor do you think that the persecution of Christians was the worst? I personally think that Diocletian's was the most widespread and organized, though Nero's was probably the most sadistic.

Diocletion's is perhaps the most well recorded because of the timing in the later empire when Christian writers were very prevalent and because of christian growth by that period. Sure, these same writers may have embellished but its pretty clear from various edicts that Diocletion wasn't exactly a friend of the Christians.

I have a hard time labelling Nero's as the worst, simply because I've never had the impression that he really cared who he was killing at that instance, just so long as it helped redirect the political heat he was taking for the fires of Rome. If we can believe the sources verbatim, it certainly classifies as among the most brutal though.

I've discussed Domitian several times on this forum, and find the evidence for his persecution to be completely unfounded. He may have killed Christians, but he didn't seem to target them in particular over any other group or faction. The man had a penchant for killing and Christians were just some of many.

You probably should have included all 10 reported persecutions...

Nero (64 AD)

Domitian (90-96)

Trajan (98-117)

Hadrian (117-138)

Marcus Aurelius (161-181)

Septimus Severus (202-211)

Maximus the Thracian (235-251)

Decius (249-251)

Valerian (257-260)

Diocletion & Galerius (303-311)

...but I'll stick with Diocletion for his last ditch efforts to stem the tide of Christianity.

I would say Nero was horrible, but he only strengthened Christian resolve. But Diocletian's persecution was pointless massacre.

Diocletian was the last... imperial persecution of the true christian.

Rome 16:16 Bible , "greet each other of a holy kiss, all Church of Christ greet you."

until the 313 Edict of Tolerance of Emperor Constantine.

the first century chruch was secret just because they are persecuted, no more no less .

christian was a very minor religion only and even subjected to extreme extermination,

by way of social and official state persecution, until Constantine's Edict of Tolerance.

the christinity was slowly romanized from 325 AD , little by little the Rome pagan custom and tradition

were added as thought they were original or true christian doctrinal tenets, by virtue of council.

After the christian leadership was controled by the Roman emperor, through political coup d etat,

the persecuted church suddenly became the persecutor church then on, they put to death all who

will objected to their rule, simply by declaring them heresy with the arm and sword of the state.

Roman Catholic was the romanized and paganized christianity.

if you will look at the Bible, original christian was very simple and straight religion.

I find myself in rare agreement with something RW said, namely that no list of Christian persecutions is complete without adding the violence against Christians by rival Christian authorities.

In any case, from everything I've read, whether Pagan or Christian, the establishment only wanted the masses to pay lip service to whatever the state religion happened to be at the time. Much of the worse violence was instigated by locals and fanatical footsoldiers, not by those at the top who simply wanted a token conformity to the imperial ideal.

At various times some christians made nuisances of themselves to the extent that they committed crimes against the state and deliberately set themselves against the law. In this instance, the state had to act, and some christians got the 'martyrdom' they wanted and deserved. I believe that some of the persecutions were not such at all, and that they were an attempt to control or eradicate what was believed to be a fanatical, criminal element. In any case, they lasted for relatively short periods, as compared to the persecution of pagans which ran from 495 up until the last witch trials of the eighteenth century.

I heard anecdotally that the persecution of Nero did not in fact happen, and the writings which mention it have largely been discredited. Is this true?

The 313 Edict of Tolerance of Emperor Constantine.

made it a illegal to arrest and punished a man for being a christian, by virtue of edict.

if you will study the story of the Council of Nicea, it take them almost 5 years of debate,

until Emperor Constantine tired of waiting for long time decide for himself,

what should be in the first place, a religious debate on the state of being of Jesus.

"if the emperor claims deity, how come the saviour of the christian is only a man in being."

and the emperor lean in favor of the deity of Jesus, and an imprimatur was affix to Nicene Creed.

after Arius return to Africa he suddenly found himself a persecuted church leader.

the new emerging western Romanized controled christianity eclipse those in the eastern church,

and a newer form of persecution emerge, if you are not a christian, you will be persecuted.

if you will not accept Jesus as god, you will be persecuted under the Nicene Creed edict.

and if you are heresy, you will be persecuted. are this things not true, it is recorded by history.

do not forget it is the Jewish high priest who wanted the Jewish "Christ" to be persecuted to death.

jealousy can kill.

politics can kill.

"there is no permanent friends or enemy, only permanent interest."

rivalry can kill, in whatever field of conflict, political, military, social status and religious arena.

I voted other.

My impression is that Galerius was worse than Diocletion and according to Gibbon he was the main instigator in the persecutions.

Under which emperor do you think that the persecution of Christians was the worst? I personally think that Diocletian's was the most widespread and organized, though Nero's was probably the most sadistic.

First of all, there is no real evidence that Nero ever persecuted Christians. Indeed, aside from Diocletian, I doubt they were "persecuted" at all to any real degree. Punished for political subversion, yes. Religion, no.

People who have studied the history of Christianity in detail would be aware that the many stories and biographies of the martyrs, were fictional accounts written as late as the 9th century. We must always remember the dictum of the Bishop Eusebius. "It is perfectly fine to lie on behalf of Christianity, as long as that lie helps Christianity." Quoted loosely.

The idea that Nero persecuted Christians is based in a history that, a; may have been doctored, b; was wrtitten by a member of a family opposed to Nero's. There is no physical proof regarding this persecution at all. In fact at this date there were more than likely virtually no Christians in Rome. If there were, Christianity being an apocalyptic cult, they may have been responsible. History shows us that Christians destroyed and slaughtered millions of non Christians once they had gained power. It may not be too bigger leap to believe that Christians did set fire to Pagan temples Rome. They did so during Julian's reign and then into the following centuries. Even unto this present day. It's happening in India as I write. See this site for details.

I have, for many years now, thought that the persecution was actually carried out by Christianity upon Paganism. It is nothing but very clever propaganda on the part of the church that has resulted in the popular idea that Christians were persecuted. My histories tell me that Christians began their long running persecution of non Christians in the late 4th century.

Julian, I am in general agreement that the persecutions have been exaggerated but what advantage would a Tacitus (among others) have in describing the persecutions under Nero? If Christians were still generally disliked in the time of Tacitus (which I doubt anyone would readily disagree with) how would it benefit the propaganda theory. We have little choice to take some of the events at face value since there really isn't anything to tell us otherwise.

I agree that the descriptions of the persecutions are likely enhanced, and Nero's agenda was probably not so much to punish Christians as it was to redirect public disapproval, but to say it didn't happen at all is just as speculative. Tacitus may not have liked Nero, but Rome in his era was still not fond of Christianity either. Would there have been enough of a sympathetic reaction in the late first and early second centuries towards persecuted Christians to actually damage Nero's reputation any more than it already had been?

I haven't voted, because I know nothing about the later periods.

But I would question whether the legends attached to Nero could have been true in reality.

I am not questioning that some sort of pogrom may have been carried out and that Peter and Paul may have been killed at the time. Ancient authors, either misunderstanding, or catching episodes we have lost, seem to have seen the followers of "Chrestus" as trouble-makers.

But could there have been physically enough Christians in Rome by c64AD to have been killed in the numbers sometimes suggested (not least by Hollywood movies!!). It was only around 30 years since the crucifixion; the temple had not yet been destroyed, so there was no new Jewish diaspora; Paul had not long arrived in Rome (and may have spent ome of his time in Spain) - where would such sizeable numbers of conversions have come from?

Perhaps later Christian matyrologists and hagiographers retrospectively attributed persecutions under Domitian or later emperors to those early days, to to dramatise and glorify the deaths of the two great apostles?

Just a suggestion. I have seen this discussed in a book somewhere, with much more evidence, but cannot recall where.

Phil

I think as Primus Pilus said, persecution under Nero is probably exaggerated, and also agree with you phil that there probably weren't a lot of Christians in Rome in 64ad. However the fact that they are mentioned in historical sources as being killed and scapegoated by Nero makes me think that they were, if in lesser numbers. Persecution is probably the wrong word. I think they were targeted not because they were Christians, but because they were a new appearance, not understood and with their zealous need not to deny their faith and to evangelise, were easily identified and preyed upon.

Julian, I am in general agreement that the persecutions have been exaggerated but what advantage would a Tacitus (among others) have in describing the persecutions under Nero? If Christians were still generally disliked in the time of Tacitus (which I doubt anyone would readily disagree with) how would it benefit the propaganda theory. We have little choice to take some of the events at face value since there really isn't anything to tell us otherwise.

 

I agree that the descriptions of the persecutions are likely enhanced, and Nero's agenda was probably not so much to punish Christians as it was to redirect public disapproval, but to say it didn't happen at all is just as speculative. Tacitus may not have liked Nero, but Rome in his era was still not fond of Christianity either. Would there have been enough of a sympathetic reaction in the late first and early second centuries towards persecuted Christians to actually damage Nero's reputation any more than it already had been?

Hello Primus.

Thanks for responding.

I understand your position. Sadly today we have no solid proof either way as to whether Nero persecuted Christians or not. This is why I have not stated anything as factual and have left my position open ended. That is the reason I said there is no 'real' evidence. Perhaps I should have said 'physical' evidence. All we have is hearsay, written some time after the event. Hardly solid proof of anything. As I am sure you would agree.

I do not think Tacitus wrote so as to punish Christians. Christianity at that time being a very small and unimportant cult in Rome, would hardly warrant an attack from Tacitus. I do however think it possible that a long running family feud (If memory serves, the Julio Claudians were no friends of Tacitus's forebears) may have led to Tacitus placing undue blame upon Nero. Nero was more likely to have had information as to how the fire began then we do. Nero was not in Rome at the time, as we know, and he did respond well to the crisis once he learned of it. His 'fiddling' while Rome burned is no more true than any other hearsay we possess. I believe we need to always consider the attitude of those who survived the Julio Claudians, and their willingness to portray its members as dissolute, simply as a means of ruining the family's reputation, and to assuage any ill feeling on the part of the general population after the familiy's downfall and slaughter.

Our problem today is that we have no real way of confirming or denying the unknown or known facts. Whatever they may be. We can however use later history as a guide as to how Tacitus' books may have been used by the Christian apologist ghost writers. We do know that many books were later doctored and changed, many destroyed completely. So as far as I can tell, both possibilities are worth mentioning, i.e. that Nero persecuted Christians, and that he did not. Current discoveries in archeaology being on the latter side.

I personally lean toward Christian propagandists writing fictional biographies and doctoring texts. But I make no claim that this was so. Just a possibility. And as such, is only based on this individual's opinion.

I do not think Tacitus wrote so as to punish Christians. Christianity at that time being a very small and unimportant cult in Rome, would hardly warrant an attack from Tacitus. I do however think it possible that a long running family feud (If memory serves, the Julio Claudians were no friends of Tacitus's forebears) may have led to Tacitus placing undue blame upon Nero. Nero was more likely to have had information as to how the fire began then we do. Nero was not in Rome at the time, as we know, and he did respond well to the crisis once he learned of it. His 'fiddling' while Rome burned is no more true than any other hearsay we possess. I believe we need to always consider the attitude of those who survived the Julio Claudians, and their willingness to portray its members as dissolute, simply as a means of ruining the family's reputation, and to assuage any ill feeling on the part of the general population after the familiy's downfall and slaughter.

This is indeed true, Tacitus was actually writing during a time of Christian tolerance. It was around this time that Pliny, as governor of Bithanya, wrote a letter to Trajan asking whether or not to punish Christians in his province, to which Trajan replied something along the lines of 'Only punish if they have committed a crime' (this is paraphrased, but you get the idea).

Anyway, I voted for other as wanted Marcus Aurelius the list. According to a book I read on Christianity within the Empire (I cannot recall the title) Marcus Aurelius' Christian persecutions, though not as cruel as those of Diocletian, were more numerous than any other emperor.