Ancient Roman Christians

Christian beliefs and practices in the 2nd and 3rd centuries

Icon of Mary, Rome (6th century or earlier)
Image source: Asia

Given that I have a good understanding of the religious landscape in ancient Rome it seems fitting to look at Christianity during this era. Many contemporary analyses of this kind focuses heavily on the New Testament, with a particular focus on 1st century Christians. As there is nothing I can add to the discussion on 1st century Christians I am instead starting in the 2nd century, with a focus on this nascent religion as it was before it became a major political force in the 4th century CE.

“Within a short time after Christ’s death [certainly by the 2nd century], Christianity became identified as a cult quite separate and distinct from Judaism. Non-Jewish converts often brought to the new cult ideas and rhetoric from their former religions or philosophies [especially Stoicism and Neo-Platonism] … Christianity … was a cult that attracted large numbers of lower-class people and encouraged them to participate in … emotionalism ... [and] private assembly ... [Shelton at 407-409]”

In the early 2nd century a Roman governor wrote to Trajan (ruled 98-117 CE) about the measures he was taking in relation to adherents of the new religion:

Pre-Christian Morality

"Lucretia" by Bassano (16th/17th century)

One sometimes encounters the notion that Christian values are foundational aspects of contemporary Western culture, but if this is so what happens when Westerners stop being Christians in large numbers? What might ethics in a post-Christian world look like? Looking to European notions of virtue before Christianity prevailed may give us an idea ...

Roman Virtue

Ancient Roman polytheism was primarily concerned with the proper conduct of ritual rather than personal morality, but meritorious conduct was not entirely divorced from the realm of the religious, as Cicero lets us know in On the Laws. In that work people living in an ideal society are described in the following way:

The Greco-Roman Cosmos

Illustration from La Sphere du Monde by Oronce Fine (1549)
(the sublunary elements are fire, air, water and earth; above the moon is aether)

In most ancient Greek and Roman minds the distant stars were not thought to be suns capable of supporting a family of orbiting planets, and our own sun was not thought to be the central hearth-fire of our familial solar system. Their view of the cosmos was fundamentally different to our own.

“The Greeks, by about 500 BC, were trying to explain the movements of the planets by first assuming the earth to be the centre of the universe. ( … practically everyone before modern times assumed that it was.) A philosopher named Anaximenes about 550 BC suggested that the stars were fixed in a huge hollow sphere that enclosed the earth, the sun, the moon and the planets … This sphere might be motionless while the earth turned, or vice versa. Later Greeks argued both ways. 

The sun, moon and planets could not be fixed to this sphere of the stars, because they did not move along with the stars at the same speed. They must therefore exist in space between the sphere of the stars and the central earth … each must be fixed in a special sphere of its own [Asimov at 25-27].”

Epicurean Polytheism

Fresco from the Villa di Livia. Source: Lo Dolce Lume

Oftentimes the philosophy of Epicurus and his followers (most notably the Roman Lucretius), is cited as an important founding stone in the story of atheism.* This is despite the fact that Epicureanism does not deny the existence of the Gods, and in fact repeatedly affirms their existence. In his Letter to Menoeceus, Epicurus wrote that the first principle of his philosophy is that:

“the Gods exist … but they are not as the majority think them to be … For the assertions of the many [in 4th/3rd century BCE Athens] concerning the Gods are conceptions grounded … in false assumptions [O’Connor (trans), The Essential Epicurus, Prometheus Books at 62-63].”

In the same letter Epicurus goes on to argue that the best kind of man “keeps a reverent opinion about the Gods, and is altogether fearless of death and has reasoned out the end of nature” (ibid at 67). What is radical, and must have been profoundly radical in the ancient world, is the affirmation in the Principle Doctrines of Epicurus that a God is “free from trouble nor does it cause trouble for anyone else; therefore it is not constrained either by anger or by favour” (ibid at 69). However this is not to say that worship of the Gods is therefore useless, for it is known that Epicurus and his followers in fact did worship the Gods, but not in a greedy, grasping way, but rather as an act of reverence for beings who exhibit “the ultimate beatitude” (Urmson & Ree (Ed), The Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy and Philosophers, Routledge at 93). The hope and belief was that by doing so we can become Gods ourselves, for to live according to Epicureanism is to “live as a God among men” (Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus).

Roman Beliefs Regarding the Afterlife

"Nymphs Finding the Head of Orpheus"
by Waterhouse (1900)

February is the month when ancient Romans traditionally honoured their dead, during the festival of the Parentalia, and this got me thinking about Roman attitudes to the afterlife. Roman polytheism does not provide clear-cut answers about the much pondered question of whether or not there is life after death:

“Traditional Pagan culture offered all kinds of views of death and the after-life: ranging from a terrifying series of punishment for those who had sinned in this life, through a more or less pleasant state of being that followed but was secondary to this life, to uncertainty or denial that that any form of after-life was possible (or knowable) … the official state cult did not particularly emphasise the fate of the individual after death, or urge a particular view of the after-life [Beard et al, Religions of Rome 1 at 289-290].”

After Reading Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations

Fragment of a bronze head of Marcus Aurelius,
2nd century CE

I recently read Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations – a book I had long been curious about. The Meditations are essentially the spiritual diary of a Roman emperor and that in itself is interesting, better still, every now and again he writes with great wisdom, though reading the Meditations from cover to cover is not always very engaging. However, despite my respect for the Meditations, I will admit that the view expressed therein that the world is somehow fundamentally ordered and that the universe is ruled by some kind of divine and ultimately benevolent plan (see, eg, Books 8.5, and12.5) strikes me as deeply flawed. Try telling all the children who are periodically raped by their fathers in their own bedrooms that the universe is ruled by principals of justice and benevolent order. And how easy to live “according to nature” – this is another recurrent theme throughout the Meditations – when your nature is to be the emperor of Rome! When it comes to the power of (a pantheist or ultimate) God, as identified with the Stoic concept of the benevolent and ordered universe, I share the following concerns as expressed by Cicero:

3D Paganism – Philosophy Matters

"The Temptation of Saint Anthony" by van Craesbeeck (1650)

It all started when I had an argument with my partner. Something about it (perhaps being accused of living in an escapist's dream-world) dragged me into an intensely vicious depression. Like the Romans who overturned their altars and attacked the Lares when their beloved Germanicus died, I turned my back on the household Gods, who I felt had failed to protect me and my familia, despite years of almost daily offerings at my household shrine. I did not resort to violence, but I let my shrine fall into dusty disuse.

Julian the Apostate – Pagan Hero?

Bust of Julian (4th century): St Petersburg

When I first heard about Julian the apostate (also known as Julian the philosopher) – the last polytheistic emperor of Rome, who attempted to reinvigorate the old ways throughout the Roman Empire after decades of Christian rule – I was naturally pretty interested. My initial impression was that he must of been amongst the last of the old school Romans bravely trying to push back the tide of Christianity. As I have learned more about him, and his times, I have come to realise that this was a naïve and self-serving perspective. I know now that Julian the apostate was an infinitely more complex character than I could have ever imagined and perhaps, ultimately, an unknowable one at that.

The first thing to know about Julian the apostate is that he was indeed a Christian apostate – he was not brought up as a Pagan. He was raised as a Christian. From the age of seven he was under the guardianship of the Bishop of Nicomedia (having been orphaned by his murderous cousin, the emperor Constantius II) and he later became a lector of the Christian church. It is known that he had a detailed knowledge of Christian teachings and it is thus an inevitable conclusion that Julian’s world views were profoundly influenced by his Christian education. The monotheism that earmarks Christian teachings appeared to have stayed with him, to some extent, as he drew ever more interest in classical philosophy and Hellenic polytheism.