Persecution of heretics?

[rgprice]

I haven't done any research on this, but just making a few inferences from things said by Justin and Irenaeus and others. What do we know about the role of persecution in the elimination of "heretics"?

There is a passage in First Apology where Justin says basically that the Marcionites call themselves Christians and they aren't being persecuted. In other writings Irenaeus and others make allegations of horrible practices against "heretical" Christians, like Marcionites and Valentinians, etc.

Were orthodox Christians convincing authorities to go after these other so-called heretical sects? It seems like they were saying, "We are good Christians, don't persecute us, but instead go after these other guys who are false Christians and eliminate them."

Is there evidence to support this?

[Giuseppe]

Probably the allegations against Christians, such as cannibalistic and orgiastic meals that are reported by Tertullian, were directed principally against the Gnostics, since the marcionite ascetism is only the other side of the coin of antinomian libertinism.

[Secret Alias]

There are hints of "dangers" which await the heretics (Irenaeus AH 3.16) but nothing specific. But then again it would appear "un-Christian" = not nice to cheer on these torments.

[Peter Kirby]

IMO, the point Justin is making there is to argue for consistency in not persecuting people for the name of being Christian, as that is (explicitly) his point.

I haven't found evidence of this before the fourth century.

[Leucius Charinus]

Persecution of heretics commenced when Nicene orthodoxy arose during the rule of Constantine. Some historians (e.g Robin Lane Fox) claim that the earliest precedents for torture of the philosophers and magistrates on account of their admitting religious fraud was at the earlier Council of Antioch. (See p.666 of Robin Lane Fox's book, "Pagans and Christians, in the Mediterranean World from the second century AD to the conversion of Constantine")

See also: Who Was the First Church Father to Use the Term "Orthodox"?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11307

• "No wild beasts are so deadly to humans as most Christians are to each other."
  ~ Ammianus Marcellinus (C4)

[andrewcriddle]

I haven't done any research on this, but just making a few inferences from things said by Justin and Irenaeus and others. What do we know about the role of persecution in the elimination of "heretics"?

There is a passage in First Apology where Justin says basically that the Marcionites call themselves Christians and they aren't being persecuted. In other writings Irenaeus and others make allegations of horrible practices against "heretical" Christians, like Marcionites and Valentinians, etc.

Were orthodox Christians convincing authorities to go after these other so-called heretical sects? It seems like they were saying, "We are good Christians, don't persecute us, but instead go after these other guys who are false Christians and eliminate them."

Is there evidence to support this?

Justin's argument

And, thirdly, because after Christ's ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Cæsar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome: — Simoni Deo Sancto, To Simon the holy God. And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him. And a man, Menander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetæa, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die, and even now there are some living who hold this opinion of his. And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds — the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh — we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you.

is about 'heretics' in general not Marcionites in particular.

I think the underlying issue was that orthodox Christians accused to the authorities would not clear themselves by an act of emperor worship. other Christian groups were often more flexible on this issue and were less likely to face official sanctions. See Studies in Ancient Society edited by Finley

Andrew Criddle

[rgprice]

It begs the question of how the orthodox won out. If the heretics were more acceptable to the existing authorities at first, and not persecuted while proto-orthodox were persecuted, how did orthodoxy grow and heresy shrink?

One would think that, if nothing else, someone would rather adopt a religion that didn't make them a target opposed to one that did.

From what I can see, there may not have really been much actual persecution of any Christians until the Decian persecution of 250, which really was just about paying honor to the emperor. In other words, that wasn't a persecution "of Christians" per se, it was simply a persecution of people who didn't take the loyalty oath to the emperor. Ironically it seems that Jews may have had a pass and weren't required to take the oath.

What I was thinking was that maybe orthodox Christians convinced Roman authorities to persecute heretics. Justin states, "I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you."

So did orthodox Christians work with Roman authorities to turn them against their opponents? Maybe that never happened until Constantine, but I was wondering it if happened before then. Obviously after the Council of Nicea the faith was defined and those who didn't adhere to the defined faith were persecuted, but I'm curious how it got to that point.

[andrewcriddle]

It begs the question of how the orthodox won out. If the heretics were more acceptable to the existing authorities at first, and not persecuted while proto-orthodox were persecuted, how did orthodoxy grow and heresy shrink?

One would think that, if nothing else, someone would rather adopt a religion that didn't make them a target opposed to one that did.

From what I can see, there may not have really been much actual persecution of any Christians until the Decian persecution of 250, which really was just about paying honor to the emperor. In other words, that wasn't a persecution "of Christians" per se, it was simply a persecution of people who didn't take the loyalty oath to the emperor. Ironically it seems that Jews may have had a pass and weren't required to take the oath.

What I was thinking was that maybe orthodox Christians convinced Roman authorities to persecute heretics. Justin states, "I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you."

So did orthodox Christians work with Roman authorities to turn them against their opponents? Maybe that never happened until Constantine, but I was wondering it if happened before then. Obviously after the Council of Nicea the faith was defined and those who didn't adhere to the defined faith were persecuted, but I'm curious how it got to that point.

Although persecution happened it was most times most places not sufficient to hinder the growth of Christianity. Orthodox Christians out grew heresy for various reasons some structural. Orthodox Christians had large families Marcionites and some Gnostics disapproved of child-bearing.

Orthodox Christians may have been attempting to divert the attention of the authorities to marginal groups but I am not aware that this actually happened. non-Orthodox were persecuted sometimes but as part of a persecution of Christians in general not instead of the orthodox.

Your apologia for Decius could be used to classify a lot of ill-treatment of minorities as not-really persecution or discrimination.

Andrew Criddle

[rgprice]

I think simplicity and believability was on the side of orthodoxy as well. At least as far as we can tell, many of the Gnostic systems were fairly convoluted, and claims that Jesus was a literal Spirit were less believable than that he was a person.