Rev. Dr. Sunni E. Mathew
Mar Thoma Syrian Theological Seminary,
Kottayam.
Mar Thoma Syrian Theological Seminary,
Kottayam.
Introduction
Ever since its advent, the course of Christianity was marked by
persecutions and martyrdoms.[1] The first persecutions were from Jews for
they suspected Christianity of threatening the public order and the peace of
the Sadducean priesthood.[2] But the next set of persecution originated
from the imperial authorities considering Christianity as an illicit
religion. As an illicit religion,
Christianity was categorized as a religion of atheists[3]. In the long experience of aggressive
hostility, conventionally ten major persecutions in Roman Empire are spelt out.[4] The decisive turning point in the relations
of the Church and the empire happened with Constantine. Constantine stands as the breakpoint of
imperial attitude towards Christianity and the transformation point of
Christianity from religia illicita to
the most favored and then to official-imperial religion of the Roman
Empire. He was buried in the Church of
twelve apostles at Constantinople and was even acknowledged as the thirteenth
apostle and a saint.[5] What motivated Constantine is matter of
debate. Much of the post-Nicene
historians and Christian writers admired his actions and his intentions. They tried to interpret him and his actions
in terms of divine providence and retributive justice. Even though judgments of his intentions vary
most of the modern scholars remain compassionate to his objectives and
accomplishments. Sometimes it is assumed
that political considerations played the most influential part in the
turnaround of the official attitude to Christianity.
Background
In the Roman region emperors tried to wipe out the Christians from all
over the empire through systematized persecutions. Since the reign of Emperor Nero, Roman courts
viewed Christianity with suspicion and that was catalyzed by the refusal of the
Christians to swear allegiance to the gods of the state and acknowledge divinity
to the emperor[6]. Ten major persecutions are projected
beginning with Nero and concluding in the one that was launched by Diocletian.[7] Until 250 AD, persecution was sporadic,
localized and unofficial, but in that year in order to check the general
decline, Emperor Decius started state sponsored persecution of atheistic
Christians.[8] Even though the late third century saw a
period free of persecution, intense persecution was revived during the time of
Diocletian.[9] Galerius, a fervent pagan who is said to have been ambitious to succeed Diocletian is commonly
viewed as the instigator. He is accused
of eying to secure the support of the army which was predominantly pagan.[10] Hence the political consideration behind the
religious persecution of Christians cannot be undermined.
In 305 AD, Diocletian resigned along with Maximian, his co-Augustus in
the West. Constantius Chlorus who became the new
Augustus of the West, requested Galerius to send him his son Constantine.[11] Even though Galerius agreed at first, later
he tried to halt Constantine’s journey.
But Constantine escaped and joined his father. After his father’s death in 306 AD, he was
applauded Augustus by the multitude. But
in defiance the praetorian soldiers raised Maxentius, the son of Maximian
Herculius as the emperor at Rome.[12] Constantine entered into an assault with
Maxentius who became a tyrant. Maxentius
was relying on pagan magic and pagan men in his army. Constantine felt the need for a supernatural
alternative[13]
and the need for committed army that was willing to sacrifice themselves for
their master. In Christians he saw a
committed group who were willing to sacrifice themselves for the one in whom
they had faith.
Galerius Maximian who exercised chief authority also died, but before his
death he appointed his friend Licinius as his successor.[14] After defeating Maxentius, Constantine
entered into a treaty with Licinius. Constantine gave his half-sister
Constantia in marriage to Licinius making a political understanding between the
two emperors.[15] It is in this context of relationship, Edict
of toleration was activated in 313 AD. After
being in friendship, Constantine and Licinius became enemies and several
conflicts both by sea and land took place.
Licinius was utterly defeated near Chrysopolis in Bithynia and he
surrendered himself to Constantine.[16] Though Licinius was accorded permission to
live in tranquility at Thessalonica he tried to gather arms for another revolt,
which resulted in his assassination. Thus,
Constantine became possessed of the sole dominion and he became the sovereign
authority.[17] He understood the signs of the times and
acted accordingly[18]
and that became evident in his religious policy towards Christianity.
Reasons for Constantine’s Shift in
Religious Policy
During the beginning of the 4th century,
Constantine began showing goodwill to Christianity and soon it became the
religion of the political authority.
With that, organized connection between Church and political authority
was established[19]. Reasons that prompted this change have become
a matter of controversy. Socrates states
that Constantine realized that Diocletian’s propitiation of pagan gods did not
provide any profit for him where as Constantius’ renouncing of various pagan
gods did not hamper him from experiencing far better prosperity.[20] Socrates vouches that even when it is not
possible to assert with full certainty the positive realization by Constantine
regarding the power of the Christian God, Constantine was certain about the
unworthiness of pagan gods. Therefore,
Socrates gives weight on the genuine religious conviction as the motif behind
Constantine’s conversion. Consequently,
he presents the ‘preternatural vision’ that preceded the Mulvian war against
Maxentius as a turning point in his religious conviction. Further, this assumption prompts Socrates to
present the final elimination of Licinius also from a religious point of view.[21] Eusebius gives a minute account of this
vision in his Vita Constantine[22]
but he is conspicuously silent about the vision in his Ecclesiastical history
written before 326 AD. Lactantius
provides the first reference of the vision of Constantine. His report says that Constantine was directed
in a dream to place the sign of Chi-Rho on the shield of his soldiers. According to Vita Constantine, the vision occurred in broad daylight. This contradiction is very hard to reconcile. Pohlsander has raised a valid argument in
pointing out that if the entire army observed the vision, then it should have
been widely known.[23] This shift in Eusabius might be to present
Constantine in a glorified manner. The fact
that the work Vita Constantine is
more of a panegyric work rather than historical one, points to this
observation. Because of this Eusebius
had been criticized as a dishonest historian, publicist of the first Christian
emperor, a political theologian, first in the long succession of ecclesiastical
politicians etc.[24] But people like Michael J. Hollerich have
argued that such an approach fails to do justice to him as a churchman and
scholar.[25]
Some have seen in Constantine a subtle attempt to attach the
Church to the state and thus taking care of any probable opposition from it and
at the same time taming her as a submissive instrument for state policy.[26] It also is suggested that Constantine was
intending to conciliate the East where Christians were extremely
influential. However, he wanted to do
that without alienating the pagan majority in the west. This is evident in his action for not going
over fully to Christianity and when the sign of the Cross appears on his coins
for the first time in 314 AD, the figures of Sol Invictus and Mars
Conservator accompanied it. [27] This question of intention is hard to
reconcile, but the swing towards the identification of Empire and its political
interest are solid to go unnoticed. Whatever
may be the reason behind this change in policy, this created tremendous
influence on the life of the Christian Church not only inside the Roman Empire
but also outside it; especially in the Persian Empire.
Effect of Constantinian conversion on the
Roman (Byzantine) Church
Constantine joined the Church with imperial dignity and with all the
authority of the ruler and the emperor as the ruler of the state became the
ruler of the Church[28]. It propagated the development of a new notion
of “Christian political theology”. Eusebius
gave this a shape through his Ecclesiastical
History. In the background of
Porphyry’s attack on Christianity, he formulated a comprehensive and systematic
defense of Christianity and presenting the triumph of Christianity as the
process of the fulfillment of the divine prophesies.[29] This approach squeezed the empire and the
emperor inside the divine Oikonomia.
The framework of the promise and fulfillment theory became handy in
doing so. It projected Constantine as
the elected one by God to implement His providence. With him emerged an imposing idea of a
Christian theocracy that envisages a system of monolithic population[30]
that enjoins church and state as the two sides of the one and same divine government
on earth.[31]
During the pre-Constantine persecution period, Christians were
categorized and convicted as atheists. In the Greco-Roman world, politics and
religion went hand in hand and consequently patriotism and official religion maintained
a close link making the charge of political subversiveness as a logical
extension of the charge of atheism.[32] Atheism
was not defined in terms of the faith in God, but in terms of the faith in one
of the Senate acknowledged and authenticated god. In the process of transition from the
Republic to the Empire, Romans elevated the figure of the emperor as the
divinely sanctioned mediator between the public and their gods. Here
authenticity of god depended and was subjected to the political administrative
system of Roman imperialism. The Roman
government considered the oversight and regulation of religious affairs as one
of the legitimate functions to maintain the pax
deorum the harmonious relationship between the Roman people and the gods.[33] Acknowledgement of the Roman imperial ruler
as the son of god developed within this understanding of politically depending
pantheon and the imperial overseeing. Emperor
became the integrative center of the newly built Empire. [34] They accredited the emperor as the
represented Divinity on earth. They
associated the title of savior to the
propaganda of imperial soteriology.[35]
Christian God in Christ stood outside this political cataloging. Emphasis on Jesus as the son of God and savior presented a resistance to the imperialist’s
political tagging of God. In the context
of the political theology of Roman imperialism, Christ as Son of God
represented a counter to the imperial claim of represented Divinity. This
political resistance of the religious identity was shattered and under Constantine
as well as further afterwards under the so-called Christian emperors, both taming
and domestication of Jesus and Church became a culture. They utilized and perverted Church and its
theological theoretization for establishing their position. Convening of the Synods like Nicea, and
installing and removing bishops by the emperors attest this attitude. Constanitnian peace with the Church was
bought at the high price of lowered morale and constant state interference in
the daily matters of the Church.[36] Overall,
Constantine was well within the Roman tradition of controlling religion when he
sided with Christianity.
Another significant impact created by Constantinian favor was on Church’s
approach to violence and war. After the
violent death of Christ on the cross, Cross became the symbol of Christ and
Christ like resistance to the nexus of imperially sanctioned religion and
politically oppressive authority. When Constantine employed the monogram CR (Chai-Rho) on the shields of the soldiers
and propagated the vision of getting advised to conquer using the very sign and
when the sign was acknowledged representing the first two letters of Christ, a
paradigm shift became inevitable. Christ
and Christianity no longer represent the resistance to oppressive
political-religious hegemony. Such an
approach transmuted the principle of the Kingdom of God envisaged and visioned
as a counter culture to imperial Empire to an entity realized through the
intervention of imperial might and resources.
This prompted the sanctification of war and violence. It interpreted the extension of imperial dominance
through the utilization of war and violence as a means to extend the Kingdom of
God. With the development of the
Christian political theology that squeezed the Emperor and Empire into the
divine Oikonomia, Christianity easily
accommodated the above view. Consequently,
outside world started considering Christianity not as a resistance movement
against the oppressive imperialistic hegemony, but as corroborators of them. Largely writers before him tended to be
pacifist[37]
in outlook whereas, many who came after him argued for the legitimacy of war[38]
under certain conditions.[39] Hence, Constantine represents typological
shift of an undiscriminating and damaging conjunction of Christianity with
politics, of the holy symbol of peace with terror of war and the spiritual
interests of the kingdom of heaven with the material interests of the state.[40]
Effect of Constantinian Conversion on the
Persian Church
Constantine’s espousal of Christianity was the gateway towards the fusion
of religion, state and culture in the Roman world.[41] Sassanians had already done that in the
Persian Empire. They acknowledged Zoroastrianism
as the state religion and the ultimate factor of imperial unifying
interests. Hence, acceptance of official
faith was accredited as the norm for political fidelity. Under such a religio-political speculation,
religious minorities were under the scanner of suspicion. Any religion that has a common background and
similarity with the preferential religion of the politically antagonist empire
is bound to suffer official retribution.
In the background of this religio-political ideology, Persians
considered Christians as a political threat and religious opponent. With differences in acknowledged preferred
religion and unity in understanding of the role of the inter-connection of
religion and political loyalty, Constantinian turnaround created a volatile
situation in the Persian Empire.
Roman recognition of Christianity as the most favored religion caused complexity
as Rome and Persia continued their struggle for primacy over the buffer
states. Persians assumed that the
religious identity of Christians make them political corroborators with the
Roman imperial interests. The unwanted action of Constantine projecting an
unsolicited interest shown through sending a letter to Shapur II regarding the
well-being of the Christians in the Persian territory finely tuned up this
suspicion. [42] Shapur read the letter of Constantine with an
entirely different interpretation and the letter did not improve Shapur’s confidence
on local Christians, instead it catalyzed his reservations more. Shapur began to warn of aggression, but he was
not in a hurry to enforce it. Reason for
his holding back is that he recognized Constantine as a formidable power with
undisputed command of the resources of the Roman Empire.[43] However, the death of Constantine in 337 AD
dramatically changed the political equation.
Roman power was divided among the sons of Constantine and Asia Minor,
Syria and Mesopotamia were placed under Constantius II who was devoid of the
powerful Roman armies of Europe.[44] This gave Shapur the much-awaited opportunity
to try for control over the buffer states.
In 313 AD, Tiridates III of Armenia died and the pagan elements in
Armenia rebelled against Tiranus (327-337).
Shapur supported them and Tiranus was overturned and handed over to
Shapur. Shapur started making incursions
into the Roman territory and tried to push the Romans back to the
Euphrates. He attempted to recapture
Nisibis.
Christianity started making inroads into various parts of the Persian
Empire and it organized bishoprics in different parts even in the royal twin
cities, Seleucia and Ctesiphon. The Magi
who acted as the guardians of Persian religion became incensed against this
growing popularity of Christianity. They
instigated emperor Shapur II against the Christians. The Jewish community there sided with the
Magi in accusing the Christians as the corroborators of the Roman Caesar. [45] In the milieu of the reciprocated
co-dependency of religio-political ideology, Shapur became indignant and
unleashed severe persecution on the Christians.
In the context of the redundant letter of Constantine to Shapur, this
suspicion was well accepted. Sozomen
places this letter in the context of Shapurian persecution. However, this is a misplacing. Persecution started in 343 AD, only after the
death of Constantine. Constantine wrote
this letter way before that in 324 AD. In
that case, Sozomen was mistaken or he was deliberately trying to give a better
face for Constantine as the champion of Christian community all over the world. This becomes significant in the context of
the development of hagiographic historiography as exemplified in the writings
like of Eusabius, Lactatinus etc and in the development of fulfillment theory
of the political theology that tried to squeeze Constantine and his empire into
the divine Oikonomia.
Persecution started with the first step of levying double taxes on the
Christian community.[46] He year-marked this amount to raise fund for
future campaign. Then he ordered the
slaying of bishops, priests and conductors of worship. Churches were demolished and their belongings
were deposited in the treasury. They arrested
many, tried and decapitated them as traitors to the kingdom.[47] They asked those who were arrested to recant their
Christian faith and affirm faith in the Zoroastrian gods as a sign of their
political allegiance. The bullying was
so harsh that the capital city Seleucia-Ctesiphon remained without a senior
bishop for several decades, because each appointment resulted in instant
execution. [48]
Middle of the fourth century
witnessed a new wave of conflict between the Romans and the Persians. Shapur made three distinct sieges on Nisibis. Shapur devised the novel idea of subduing
Nisibis by intercepting river Mygdonius by constructing a dam and then letting
loose the whole volume of water to create a destructive rush against the city
wall. Bishop Jacob and St. Ephrem with
their prayers and exhortation equipped the garrison and the people of the city
to rapidly complete an inside wall, thereby foiling Shapur’s plan of
recapturing Nisibis.
Christians in the Persian regions, especially in the buffer states were
also not sympathetic to the Sassanians.
We could see this sentiment well represented in the Fifth Demonstration of
Aphrahat. He visualized the ultimate
perish of the Persian Emperor and presented him as the self-exalting ram.[49] Resisting stand taken by St. Ephrem and his
bishop during the Shapurian attack on Nisibis in 337 is another instance of
this attitude. In the context of
Shapur’s inability to capture Nisibis, he recalled the role of the bishop of
Nisibis and the Christian community. He
interpreted that the Christians of his own country longed for the defeat of the
Persian Emperor. Consequence was
rigorous persecution from the Persian side.
This created further fear syndrome among the Christians resulting in a
positive urge for the defeat of the Persians.
In 363 AD the Roman Emperor Julian the apostate, carried out a
catastrophic campaign to the outskirts of Selucia-Ctesiphon that resulted in
his death. Jovian who succeeded him
entered into a treaty with Persians. In the
settlement, Nisibis and the surrounding provinces of Mesopotamia were
surrendered to Shapur II. During the
time of this cession to the Persians, Nisibis was a Christian centre. The first theological school of Nisibis was
closed when the city was ceded. In the
context of suspecting Christians as political traitors of the Persians and
corroborators with Rome, the Persians viewed the Christian populace of Nisibis
as a liability. Therefore, the treaty
upheld the territorial ownership of the Persians over Nisibis but negated the
existence of Christians in Nisibis. Thus,
the condition demanded the Christian population to move out to somewhere else.[50] Hence, the closure of the theological school
at Nisibis and the forced creation of Christian refugees from Nisibis are the
after effects of the conversion scenario of Constantine and its retaliatory
effect on the Syriac Christianity by the Persian Emperor. This political reasoning is further evident
in the action of Shapur who took captive from Nisibis about 100,000 Christians
and settled them in eastern Persia, a place distant from Roman territory.[51]
Conclusion
Constantine
stands as the turning point in the official Roman approach towards
Christianity. With him Christianity
moved from the state of illicit religion to the official religion of the Roman
Empire. The real reason behind the
turnaround of Constantine in his attitude towards Christianity still remains a
matter of controversy very hard to reconcile with. Was it out of real religious conviction or
was it a shrewd political opportunism?
Scholars are divided on their evaluation. What ever may be the reason, the political
impact was tremendous, not only in the Roman Empire but in the Persian
also. Even though Constantine exhibited
a paradigm shift in the Roman attitude towards Christianity, there was no
change in his official religious policy.
Even when he favored Christianity he did not forsook the imperialistic
policy of controlling the religion and he tamed Christianity in line with the
imperial policy. He was able to maintain
the imperial policy of projecting emperor as the symbol of represented Divinity
on earth. This squeezing of emperor and
empire into the divine Oikonomia formulated
a Christian political theology that sanctified war and violence by the
so-called Christian imperialism. In such
a context, Christianity came to be identified as the corroborators of Roman
imperialism. Because of this severe
political taint and the denigration of Christianity to the political
controlling of imperial designs, though categorizing Constantine as political
manipulator would become too severe a judgment, eulogizing of Constantine
becomes an out of proportion evaluation.
Sassanian
Persian Empire also maintained a similar ideology acknowledging Zoroastrianism
as the official religion. In the context
of severe political animosity between Persian and Roman imperial powers,
religious identity became a matter of serious consideration. Persian emperor Shapur II true to his
political theology interpreted adherence to official religion Zoroastrianism as
the sign of political loyalty to the Persian Empire. In the background of the Christian political
theology of the Roman imperialism, Christianity was adjudged corroborator to
Roman imperialism. In such a situation,
intolerance to Christianity becomes a natural reaction from the political
antagonists of Roman Empire. In other words,
political theology emanated form the religio-political background forced Shapur
II to such a heinous reaction. Probably
any other with the same political ideology could have made such a move at that
particular point of time. Hence, Shapurian
intolerance to Christianity was a political reaction to Constantine’s action in
the Roman Empire.
Bibliography
"Sassanid dynasty." http://www.bigpedia.com/encyclopedia/Sassanid_dynasty
(January 24, 2009).
Aphrahat. "Select Demonstrations." In A Select Library of the Christian Church, Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers (Second Series). Vol. 13. Edited by Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace.
Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999.
Bauer, Walter. Orthodoxy and
Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.
Bolle, Kees W. and Frederick W. Norris. "Zoroastrianism and
Christianity." In Encyclopedia of
Early Christianity. Edited by Ferguson, Everett. New York & London:
Garland Publishing, Inc., 1998.
Bowman, Alan K., Peter Garnsey and Averil Cameron. "The Cambridge
Ancient History." http://books.google.com/books?id=MNSyT_PuYVMC&pg=PA473&lpg=PA473&dq=Shapur+and+Christianity&source=web&ots=uJw7f1LiaZ&sig=ZGIJjVFa-X68gVv8ieROy5qlJfQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result
(January 23, 2009).
Brock, Sebastian P. Spirituality
in the Syriac Tradition. Kottayam: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute
(SEERI), 1989.
Davis, Leo Donald. The First
Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787). Collegeville, Minnesota: The
Liturgical Press, 1990.
Farrugia, Edward G. ""Better Nero than Constantine?"
Christianity's Re-evaluation of War and Peace in its Rise as World
Religion." Ephrem's Theological
Journal 5 / 1 (October 2001):
115-136.
Fortescue, Adrian. The Lesser
Eastern Churches. London: Catholic Truth Society, 1913.
Frend, W.H.C. The Rise of
Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.
Grant, Robert M. "Constantine the Great." In Encyclopedia of Early Christianity.
Edited by Ferguson, Everett. New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc.,
1998.
Hage, Wolfgang. Syriac
Christianity in the East. Kottayam: St. Ephraem Ecumenical Research
Institute, 1988.
Hastings, Adrian, ed. A World
History of Christianity. London: Cassell, 1999.
Hollerich, Michael J. "Religion and Politics in the Writings of
Eusebius: Reassessing the First "Court Theologian"." In Recent Studies in Early Christianity:
Christianity in Relation to Jews, Greeks, and Romans. Edited by Ferguson,
Everett. New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999.
Irvin, Dale T. and Scott W. Sunquist. History of the World Christian Movement. Vol. 1. Bangalore:
Theological Publications in India, 2004.
Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A
History of the Expansion of Christianity Vol. 1: The First Five Centuries.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970.
Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A
History of Christianity. Vol. I. Peabody, MA: Prince Press, an imprint of
Hendrickson Publishers, 2003.
Moffett, Samuel Hugh. A History
of Christianity in Asia. Vol. 1. Bangalore: Theological Publications in
India, 2006.
Pamphilus, Eusebius. The
Ecclesiastical History. Translated by Cruse, Christian Frederick. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book Houe, 1995.
Philip, T. V. East of the
Euphrates, Early Christianity in Asia. Thiruvalla & Delhi: CSS &
ISPCK, 1998.
Pohlsander, Hans A. The Emperor
Constantine. London & New York: Routledge, 2004.
Rhee, Helen. Early Christian
Literature. London & New York: Routledge, 2005.
Schaff, Philip. History of the
Christian Church. Vol. 3. Peabody, Massachussetts: Hendrickson Publishers,
2002.
Sicker, Martin. "The Pre-Islamic Middle East." http://books.google.com/books?id=5MYFOWRZ8Z4C&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=Shapur+and+Christianity&source=bl&ots=FAHhVsDy2w&sig=gGEWqfSZJrbuXjrWi7zxWLa6rbc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA183,M1
(January 22, 2009).
Socrates. "The Ecclesiastical History." In A Select Library of Nicene and Post Nicene
Fathers of the Christian Church (Second Series). Vol. III. Edited by
Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1957.
Sozomen. "History of the Church From AD 323 to AD 425." In A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers of the Christian Church (Second Series). Vol. II. Edited by Schaff,
Philip and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1957.
Swift, Louis J. The Early Fathers
on War and Military Service. Vol. 19. Wilmington, Delaware: Michael
Glazier, Inc., 1983.
(Seminar Paper Submitted by Rev. Sunni E. Mathew at the FFRRC Seminar
on February 10, 2009 at Mar Thoma Theological Seminary Kottayam)
[1]
Kenneth Scott Latourette,
A History of the Expansion of Christianity Vol. 1: The First Five Centuries
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), 135
[2]
Latourette, A History of
the Expansion of Christianity Vol. 1: The First Five Centuries 137
[3]
They were categorized as atheists for not having faith in God, but for the
reason that their worship centered round God in Jesus Christ and they did not
acknowledge any one of he gods accredited by the Roman authorities. Hence
categorizing Christians as atheists had a political agenda.
[4]
They are under Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Hardian, Marcus Aurelius, Septimus
Severus, Maximinus, Decius, Valerian and Diocletian.
[5]
Robert M. Grant,
"Constantine the Great," in Encyclopedia
of Early Christianity, edited by Ferguson. (New York & London: Garland
Publishing, Inc., 1998),
280
[6]
Leo Donald Davis, The
First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) (Collegeville, Minnesota: The
Liturgical Press, 1990),
24
Nero accused the Christians of the infamous burning of
Rome that instigated the persecution during that time.
[7]
Kenneth Scott
Latourette, A History of Christianity, vol. I, (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, an
imprint of Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 85
[8]
Davis, The First Seven
Ecumenical Councils (325-787) 24 , Latourette, A History of
Christianity 87
Roman populace viewed Christians as atheists for the
reason that they did not worship the traditional gods. Christian love feasts were misinterpreted as
sexual license. Ecuahristic
participation of the Christians was misunderstood as cannibalism. Hence the popular understanding supported the
official suspicion. Action against Christians was well accepted by the pagan
public.
[9]
About 298 Diocletian along with Galerius performed a sacrifice to obtain the
omens. But the soothsayers were not able
to find the usual marking and the presence of Christian officials was accused
as responsible for the failure. In his
outrage, Emperor Diocletian ordered every official to offer sacrifice. Severe
persecution followed this instance.
[10]
Latourette, A History of
Christianity 90
[11]
Davis, The First Seven
Ecumenical Councils (325-787) 26
Constantine was the son of Chlorus in Helena whom he
had divorced in 293. Though Constantine
was living at Diocletian’s court pursuing his education from 293, he was
actually kept there as a hostage for his father’s good conduct.
[12]
Socrates, "The
Ecclesiastical History," in A Select
Library of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (Second
Series), vol. III, edited by Schaff and Wace. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1957), 1
[13]
Latourette, A History of
Christianity 91
[14]
Socrates, "The
Ecclesiastical History,"), 1
[15]
Hans A. Pohlsander, The
Emperor Constantine (London & New York: Routledge, 2004), 25
[16]
Socrates, "The
Ecclesiastical History,"), 2
[17]
Socrates, "The
Ecclesiastical History,"), 3
[18]
Philip Schaff, History
of the Christian Church, vol. 3, (Peabody, Massachussetts: Hendrickson
Publishers, 2002),
12
[19]
Wolfgang Hage, Syriac
Christianity in the East (Kottayam: St. Ephraem Ecumenical Research Institute,
1988),
4
[20]
Socrates, "The
Ecclesiastical History,"), 2
[21]
Socrates, "The
Ecclesiastical History,"), 2
[22]
1. 27-30. This work was done in 338 AD
i.e. one year after the death of Constantine.
[23]
Pohlsander, The Emperor
Constantine 24
[24]
Michael J. Hollerich,
"Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius: Reassessing the First
"Court Theologian"," in Recent
Studies in Early Christianity: Christianity in Relation to Jews, Greeks, and
Romans, edited by Ferguson. (New York & London: Garland Publishing,
Inc., 1999),
323
[25]
Hollerich,
"Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius: Reassessing the First
"Court Theologian","), 324
[26]
Edward G. Farrugia,
""Better Nero than Constantine?" Christianity's Re-evaluation of
War and Peace in its Rise as World Religion," Ephrem's Theological Journal 5 /1 (October 2001): 119
[27]
Latourette, A History of
the Expansion of Christianity Vol. 1: The First Five Centuries 159
[28]
Hage, Syriac
Christianity in the East 5
[29]
W.H.C. Frend, The Rise
of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 478-479
[30]
Such a system assumes that all subjects represent the same order of faith. In this case it is Christianity.
[31]
Schaff, History of the
Christian Church 12
[32]
Helen Rhee, Early
Christian Literature (London & New York: Routledge, 2005), 159
[33]
Pohlsander, The Emperor
Constantine 31
[34]
Rhee, Early Christian
Literature 160
The cultic development of emperor worship was
initiated by Julius Caesar. But Augustus
institutionalized and established its pattern for subsequent emperors. He directed the loyalty of his subjects from
himself to the worship of the personified divine virtues. This shift in turn provided safe ground to
emphasize devotion making it as the sign of political loyalty.
[35]
Through out the imperial period the title swthr
tou kosmou was conferred on the emperors. By doing so the imperialists were projecting
the emperor as the essential component of salvation. Hence adherence to the political designs of
the empire and loyalty to the emperor were made mandatory for salvation. As a resistence to this imperial
soteriological understanding Christianity designated the same attribute Jesus. This is seen in the Johannine corpus.
[36]
Farrugia,
""Better Nero than Constantine?" Christianity's Re-evaluation of
War and Peace in its Rise as World Religion," 115
[37]Tertullian
and Origen represent this strong pacifist approach.
[38]
Augustine represents the advocates of bellum
justm (Just War). People like
Ambrose of Milan also take the similar view.
[39]
Louis J. Swift, The
Early Fathers on War and Military Service, vol. 19, (Wilmington, Delaware:
Michael Glazier, Inc., 1983), 27
[40]
Schaff, History of the
Christian Church 12
[41]
Irvin and Sunquist,
History of the World Christian Movement 155
[42]
This letter is supposed to have been written around 324 AD.
[43]
Sicker, "The
Pre-Islamic Middle East," 184
[44]
Sicker, "The
Pre-Islamic Middle East,"184
[45]
Sozomen, "History
of the Church From AD 323 to AD 425," in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian
Church (Second Series), vol. II, edited by Schaff and Wace. (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1957), 264
Symeon, the then archbishop of Selucia and Ctesiphon
was accused of as a friend of the Roman Caesar and of communicating the affairs
of the Persians to him.
[46]
Irvin and Sunquist, History
of the World Christian Movement 196
[47]
Sozomen, "History
of the Church From AD 323 to AD 425,"), 265-267
They include Bishop Symeon, Usthazanes the eunuch,
Pusices the superintendent of the artisans of Shapor and Bishop Acepsimas.
[48]
Irvin and Sunquist,
History of the World Christian Movement 196
[49]
Aphrahat, "Select
Demonstrations," in A Select Library
of the Christian Church, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series),
vol. 13, edited by Schaff and Wace. (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers,
1999),
352-362
[50]
Sebastian P. Brock,
Spirituality in the Syriac Tradition (Kottayam: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research
Institute (SEERI), 1989),
20
[51]
Kees W. Bolle and
Frederick W. Norris, "Zoroastrianism and Christianity," in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity,
edited by Ferguson. (New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1998), 1189