- This topic has 2 voices and 2 replies.
-
Posts
-
I found this in an article by Michael Chapman of American Heritage Research and had to share. It was so ridiculous I had to laugh, though unfortunately it looks like these kinds of ideas are really promoted. Mr. Chapman explains that that in a history textbook/teacher's supplement for junior high students there are some blatant distortions and unfair jabs at – what else? – Christianity. Read on:
...in one textbook lesson on the Roman Coliseum, ?persecution? is simply defined as ?the act of being harassed for differing beliefs?12 The lesson plan instructs the teacher to ?Tell the students that persecution of Christians in the early days was occasional and local?? but makes no mention that Christians were martyred for their faith. Instead, students are to ?discuss why minorities? face persecution in times of trouble.? In the teacher?s margin, ?background information? helps make the discussion question ?relevant? by identifying Christians as the true persecutors: ?[In early times] Christians made fun of [rural people and their old beliefs in gods and goddesses] by calling them pagani, meaning ?country people? or ?hicks.? This is the origin of the word pagan.
Doesn't that make you mad when you see such a blatant agenda being introduced to impressionable school kids?
Yes I definitely see a skewed agenda, but the history isn't completely revisionist. Christian Persecutions were not widespread and frequent like we assume they were. Diocletian and Nero were obviously the two worst persecutors, but their persecutions were localized primarily in Rome itself. (Yes there were other smaller periods of persecution in Asia Minor and elsewhere too). Anyway, once Christianity “subdued” the Empire, it was rather exclusionary and snobbish. Remember how the Greeks called other nations and tribes who were unhellenized as “barbarians?” Well Roman high society adopted the Greek ethnocentrism, and once Christianity became mainstrean and part of the upper echelons of Roman society, the highbrow attitude went with it and the “barbarians” became “pagani.” Of course this was a cultural norm in the ancient world, and should not necessarily be applied to our modern societal ethos. So, yes I agree with you that the agenda is wrong, but it is based in some historical truth albeit in a distorted fashion. 😉
But I think if calling persecution “localized” in ancient Rome is like calling the entertainment industry “localized” in California. At a city of a million people, Rome would perhaps have been even greater (relatively speaking) than modern New York, and certainly so in regard to power and prestige. And I think there were other offenders aside from Diocletian and Nero. For example, during the tenure of Decius:
The Decian persecution was the severest trial to which the Church up to that time had been subjected and the loss suffered by the Church in consequence of apostasy was almost as damaging as the losses by martyrdom.
Also, it would be anachronism to assume that pagans merely responded to Christians because Christians "maltreated" pagans. Even if this did happen between the time of Constantine (~311) and the end of Rome (~456) after Christianity became "acceptable", this would have occurred after the time of persecution of Christians.What I do not know is if the use of "pagani" was really an "insult" toward pagans or not. I saw that the word "is derived from the Latin pagus, whence pagani (i.e. those who live in the country), a name given to the country folk who remained heathen after the cities had become Christian." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11388a.htm There's also a Wikpedia entry on PaganismPaganism [/wiki]which explores the meaning of the word, and based on that it seems that Christianity was at first spread in urban areas. However, the "insulting" use of the term "pagan" may not have come until some centuries after Christianity's beginning:
It was only after the Late Imperial introduction of serfdom, in which agricultural workers were legally bound to the land (see Serf), that it began to have negative connotations, and imply the simple ancient religion of country people, which Virgil had mentioned respectfully in Georgics. Like its approximate synonym heathen (see below), it was adopted by Middle English-speaking Christians as a slur to refer to those too rustic to embrace Christianity.
But getting back to the original teacher's manual, calling someone a name hardly justifies throwing them to lions or other murder and systematic oppression. This is what the teacher's manual was effectively doing.
Yes Decius was probably the worst of the persecutors. Demographically, your point on Rome is well taken. Geographically though, it remains localized. Rome's ability to persecute other religions willy nilly has been greatly over exagerated. They depended too much on local officials to keep the peace and tolerating their local religions was part of the trade off for secured fealty. But when Caesars needed a scapegoat, all bets were off as Nero did when he blamed Christians for the great fire of Rome.Still I have to concede that Christianity turned its nose up on those who would not convert during the latter Empire. It was a sort of condescending superiority almost, and modern historians have held that against Christianity for years now. Still, they have to contend with the fact that Christianity spread as it did, and they cannot deny its universal appeal back then. 😉
