Lindstrom, Essay #4, Question #1, Page #1 Nathan W.

Lindstrom Professor Gatlin History 4A 2012-02-24

Jesus, born circa 4 B.C.E., was a man whose popularity and public stature lead many around him to assume that he aspired to lead the Jewish state. Afraid that he would ignite open warfare between Rome and the Jews, the Romans arrested and executed him in 30 C.E. (MW, pp. 196-197). By 90 C.E., the

memories of Jesus teaching had grown into a new religion, called Christianity, which had its roots in Zoroastrianism, a monotheistic religion dating from the sixth century B.C.E. in Persia (OWE, p. 50). Due to the

cannibalistic and sexual overtones of the religions secret rites, the fanatical intolerance of other religions on the part of its adherents, and believers dramatic lack of cooperation within Roman society, Christianity came into sharp conflict with Roman law and tradition (MW, pp. 198-200). The Romans had great respect for their laws and traditions, and those who upheld the conventions of the past were esteemed. Speaking of himself in circa 2 B.C.E., Caesar Augustus says that the Roman senate and people unitedly agreed that [Augustus] should be elected sole guardian of the laws and morals with supreme authority, but owing to his desire to maintain the appearance of respecting Roman law and tradition, Augustus refused to accept any office offered [him] which was contrary to the traditions of our

Lindstrom, Essay #4, Question #1, Page #2 ancestors (Sources, p. 85). In this environment then, there is little surprise that a religion which chose to worship a criminal executed by order of Roman law would be seen at best as troublesome, and at worse as outright subversive. Early in the second century C.E., the reputation of Christians as dangerous to the Roman state was so pronounced that Pliny the Younger, while serving as the governor of the Roman provence of Bithynia, asked the Emperor Trajan:
...whether it is the mere name of Christian which is punishable, even if innocent of crime, or rather the crimes associated with the name.

If they persist [in claiming to be a Christian], I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished.

(Sources, p. 102). Trajan approved of Plinys tactics, replying that Pliny has followed the right course of procedure...in [Plinys] examination of the cases of persons charged with being Christians (Sources, p. 103). It is clear from both

Plinys actions and Trajans approval that Christians were viewed by Rome in much the same way that any other subversive influence was seen: as a clear and present threat to Roman law and Roman respect for tradition. The danger of Christianity to the Roman peace, and indeed the peace and safety of anyone who wishes to avail himself of the benefits of freedom, is best summed up in the words of Bishop Ambrose. Replying to the wholly

Lindstrom, Essay #4, Question #1, Page #3 reasonable suggestion of religious tolerance made by a preeminent Roman politician in 384 C.E., Ambrose states that salvation is not sure unless everyone worships in truth the true god, that is the god of the Christians...for the gods of the heathen, as scripture says, are devils (italics mine) (Sources, p. 109). The Romans were right to fear the fanaticism of the

Christians, as the intervening centuries of human suffering wrought in the name of Jesus so clearly attest.