Scan barcode
cancermoononhigh's review
challenging
informative
medium-paced
3.0
Bullet point review
*It is certainly true that Christians should be credited for coining the term martyr as we now use it. It doesnt seem to have been the case for ancient Jews, Greeks or Romans had their own technical terms for people who died for their religious beliefs. They were heros who died good deaths. In creating terminology to describe people who died for Jesus, Christians were doing something new. It is tied to the fact that Christians acted as legal witnesses and were subsequently sentenced in actual courtrooms.
*Socrates has been called by some as the "world's first recorded martyr" and his manor of embracing death for principle provided a model for subsequent generations of well educated Greeks and Romans.
*Greeks and Romans wrote extensively about glory of dying for a cause. This can also be found in Hebrew scriptures' and in ancient Jew literature. Hints of this idea can be found earlier, the idealization of dying for a God or the law really began to take shape in the second century CE, when Jews lived under foreign rule.
*From the very beginning Christian authors used the death of others, non Christian heroes, to tell their own stories. To this day millions of Christians appeal to the example set by Jesus as a guideline for their ethical conduct. Protestants ask themselves "What would Jesus do?" but the problem with that is what Christians received in the Gospel of Luke, the model embodied by Jesus was itself partly based on non Christian examples.
*The distinctiveness and simplicity of the writing style has led many scholars to argue that these Christian martyrdom accounts were based on actual court documents. They are transcripts of what actually happened in the court room. This scholarly position is incompatible with the view that Christians created their own new genre. It cannot be the case that an early Christian style martyrdom account is both a copy of a historically accurate authentic court transcript and a completely new Christian genre. Either they are copies of court documents or they are a whole new genre. The earliest Christina accounts of martyrdom are concerned exclusively with what took place in the courtroom.
*Even a brief story of Christian martyrdom were influenced by the Romans and Greeks and even the Jewish traditions about death. The heroes of the classical world were reshaped into soldiers for Christ. Christians are thought to be unique because they die for Christ but the stories on which they communicated their uniqueness are borrowed from other cultures.
*The legend would have us believe that the Romans were constantly and continually persecuting's Christians. The martyrdom myth would have us believe that Christians were constantly persecuted and died in huge numbers. Instead of Romans persecuting Christians, Christians were actually volunteering to die.
*If the Roman emperors had a problem with Christians and Christianity, it was because they threatened the stability of the empire and appeared to make divisive political claims. Roman emperors had problems with those aspects of Christianity that sounded like treason or revolution.
*Roman judges weren't entirely sure why Christians wouldn't participate in the imperial cult. Christians rejected the imperial cult and military service as well. Roman pacifism did not exist as a concept. It was a pattern of Christian behavior that resisted, seemingly for no good reason, that was confusing and strange.
*The Romans rarely persecuted Christians and when they did they had logical reasons that made sense to ancient Romans. Christians posed a threat to the security of the empire.
*It is certainly true that Christians should be credited for coining the term martyr as we now use it. It doesnt seem to have been the case for ancient Jews, Greeks or Romans had their own technical terms for people who died for their religious beliefs. They were heros who died good deaths. In creating terminology to describe people who died for Jesus, Christians were doing something new. It is tied to the fact that Christians acted as legal witnesses and were subsequently sentenced in actual courtrooms.
*Socrates has been called by some as the "world's first recorded martyr" and his manor of embracing death for principle provided a model for subsequent generations of well educated Greeks and Romans.
*Greeks and Romans wrote extensively about glory of dying for a cause. This can also be found in Hebrew scriptures' and in ancient Jew literature. Hints of this idea can be found earlier, the idealization of dying for a God or the law really began to take shape in the second century CE, when Jews lived under foreign rule.
*From the very beginning Christian authors used the death of others, non Christian heroes, to tell their own stories. To this day millions of Christians appeal to the example set by Jesus as a guideline for their ethical conduct. Protestants ask themselves "What would Jesus do?" but the problem with that is what Christians received in the Gospel of Luke, the model embodied by Jesus was itself partly based on non Christian examples.
*The distinctiveness and simplicity of the writing style has led many scholars to argue that these Christian martyrdom accounts were based on actual court documents. They are transcripts of what actually happened in the court room. This scholarly position is incompatible with the view that Christians created their own new genre. It cannot be the case that an early Christian style martyrdom account is both a copy of a historically accurate authentic court transcript and a completely new Christian genre. Either they are copies of court documents or they are a whole new genre. The earliest Christina accounts of martyrdom are concerned exclusively with what took place in the courtroom.
*Even a brief story of Christian martyrdom were influenced by the Romans and Greeks and even the Jewish traditions about death. The heroes of the classical world were reshaped into soldiers for Christ. Christians are thought to be unique because they die for Christ but the stories on which they communicated their uniqueness are borrowed from other cultures.
*The legend would have us believe that the Romans were constantly and continually persecuting's Christians. The martyrdom myth would have us believe that Christians were constantly persecuted and died in huge numbers. Instead of Romans persecuting Christians, Christians were actually volunteering to die.
*If the Roman emperors had a problem with Christians and Christianity, it was because they threatened the stability of the empire and appeared to make divisive political claims. Roman emperors had problems with those aspects of Christianity that sounded like treason or revolution.
*Roman judges weren't entirely sure why Christians wouldn't participate in the imperial cult. Christians rejected the imperial cult and military service as well. Roman pacifism did not exist as a concept. It was a pattern of Christian behavior that resisted, seemingly for no good reason, that was confusing and strange.
*The Romans rarely persecuted Christians and when they did they had logical reasons that made sense to ancient Romans. Christians posed a threat to the security of the empire.
socraticgadfly's review against another edition
4.0
This is a solid look at how martyrdom has been oversold as a "root" of Christian growth.
Moss first notes that Christianity isn't unique in martyrdom stories. She points out the Jews in 2 Maccabees (many Christians might claim them as incipient xns, though many a Jew today would surely object), and the classical exemplar of Socrates. From there, on the "pagan" side, she notes that martyrdom stories were told about other philosophers. (She could have added the semi-martyrdom story of neo-Pythagoream leader Apollonius of Tyana, but overlooked him).
From there, she notes problems with historicity of early Christian martyrdom accounts. Eve when we move beyond the ones readily rejectable for their sensationalism, more solid ones, including one many Xns have long insisted was true, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, are found wanting. Moss says such stories, even the more historic-sounding ones, show signs of having been written for didactic purposes to audiences generations, if not a full century or more, removed from the time of the actual events.
She then moves on to distinguishing judicial trials vs. martyrdom, per se. Some Xns might claim she's splitting hairs, but I think not. She puts this in context of an important rhetorical questoin, "Why did Romans hate Christians so much?"
I learned one new thing here. Many Xns scholars have long claimed that Jews were exempt from observation of the cult of emperor veneration/worship. Not so, Moss says. They were allowed to modify their participation in some degree, but they weren't exempt. To me, this knocks another prop out from conservative Xn apologists.
Finally, she notes there was nothing close to an empire-wide persecution, let alone one lasting any length of time, until Diocletian, just 30 years before Constantine legalized Christianity.
That said, Moss is weak on a couple of points.
First, we know why conservative Xns today play up the myths of martyrdom; it fits their image of a "war on Christianity." But Moss doesn't delve into a lot of research, or even speculation, as to why Constantine's pseudo-historian flunky, Eusebius, did the same.
Second, she doesn't look at demographics. How big was Xianity in 180, when martyrs in today's Marseilles were claimed to have influenced the crowd. Sure, she points out the non-historicity of the story on other grounds, but borrowing demographic research from the likes of a Rodney Stark might show Xns in Marseilles were too few in numbers for Xianity to even be familiar to pagans, or to have produced that number of martyrs.
Moss first notes that Christianity isn't unique in martyrdom stories. She points out the Jews in 2 Maccabees (many Christians might claim them as incipient xns, though many a Jew today would surely object), and the classical exemplar of Socrates. From there, on the "pagan" side, she notes that martyrdom stories were told about other philosophers. (She could have added the semi-martyrdom story of neo-Pythagoream leader Apollonius of Tyana, but overlooked him).
From there, she notes problems with historicity of early Christian martyrdom accounts. Eve when we move beyond the ones readily rejectable for their sensationalism, more solid ones, including one many Xns have long insisted was true, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, are found wanting. Moss says such stories, even the more historic-sounding ones, show signs of having been written for didactic purposes to audiences generations, if not a full century or more, removed from the time of the actual events.
She then moves on to distinguishing judicial trials vs. martyrdom, per se. Some Xns might claim she's splitting hairs, but I think not. She puts this in context of an important rhetorical questoin, "Why did Romans hate Christians so much?"
I learned one new thing here. Many Xns scholars have long claimed that Jews were exempt from observation of the cult of emperor veneration/worship. Not so, Moss says. They were allowed to modify their participation in some degree, but they weren't exempt. To me, this knocks another prop out from conservative Xn apologists.
Finally, she notes there was nothing close to an empire-wide persecution, let alone one lasting any length of time, until Diocletian, just 30 years before Constantine legalized Christianity.
That said, Moss is weak on a couple of points.
First, we know why conservative Xns today play up the myths of martyrdom; it fits their image of a "war on Christianity." But Moss doesn't delve into a lot of research, or even speculation, as to why Constantine's pseudo-historian flunky, Eusebius, did the same.
Second, she doesn't look at demographics. How big was Xianity in 180, when martyrs in today's Marseilles were claimed to have influenced the crowd. Sure, she points out the non-historicity of the story on other grounds, but borrowing demographic research from the likes of a Rodney Stark might show Xns in Marseilles were too few in numbers for Xianity to even be familiar to pagans, or to have produced that number of martyrs.
dean_issov's review
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
Growing up in a non-denominational Christian family and church, this books hits close to home. The mentality that "we"—Christians—are persecuted, silenced, and mocked and that "they"—the world (which is just about anyone who disagrees with our beliefs)—are under Satan's sway, that "they" are influenced by sin and immorality, are all very much what I was taught in my church. Especially when the COVID-19 pandemic hit and when we were all in lockdowns; that was when the idea that we were persecuted by the world—and that it's inevitable and a good thing because it means the second coming of Christ is nearer than ever—began to really spread in my church, that was also the time when I became a closeted atheist.
My father, a pastor, is one of the Christians who preaches with that mentality every Sunday, and I am saddened by it everytime. I hate what Christianity has done to the minds of all the kind and well-intentioned people I know and care about in my family and church. A belief that encourages tribalism, and rejects compassionate and open minded conversations with people who has opposing beliefs, is a parasite.
This book is a must-read for all Christians who have this type of mentality, all I ask is for you to have an open mind and heart when you read through this book. This book doesn't want you to change your religion or beliefs. It does, however, want you to change the way you compare yourselves to all the people who are different from you.
My father, a pastor, is one of the Christians who preaches with that mentality every Sunday, and I am saddened by it everytime. I hate what Christianity has done to the minds of all the kind and well-intentioned people I know and care about in my family and church. A belief that encourages tribalism, and rejects compassionate and open minded conversations with people who has opposing beliefs, is a parasite.
This book is a must-read for all Christians who have this type of mentality, all I ask is for you to have an open mind and heart when you read through this book. This book doesn't want you to change your religion or beliefs. It does, however, want you to change the way you compare yourselves to all the people who are different from you.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Religious bigotry
blackoxford's review against another edition
4.0
Error Has No Rights
In 1832 Pope Gregory published an encyclical, Mirari vos, in which a traditional view of not just the Catholic Church but also most other Christian sects was made an explicit part of their teaching: Error has no rights. In fact this encyclical was part of a series of directives by various popes over the next century that denied almost every human right we take for granted - from freedom of conscience to the importance of democratic institutions. These are all still ‘on the books’ and are promoted as authentic doctrine by many to the present day.
The connection between this Christian denial of human rights and Christian martyrdom, Moss’s topic of investigation, is straightforward: self-induced Christian paranoia. From the writers of the New Testament, to the earliest apologists, through the crusades and pogroms of medieval heretics, and into today’s evangelical warriors, the persistent trope of Christian culture is one of actual or impending persecution. According to Christian ideology (consistent but distinct from its theology*) the world is out to get its adherents; and always has been.
What Moss shows very clearly is that this narrative of persecution is fictional from its earliest versions. It persists because it is functional. As she says, “The rhetoric of persecution legitimates and condones retributive violence. Violence committed by the persecuted is an act of divinely approved self-defense. In attacking others they are not only defending themselves; they are defending all Christians.” This ideology is the rationale behind every political (and, historically, military) move by all Christian churches. It justifies the most inhumane actions - from widespread persecution of others to the denial of the right to even object to such persecution. This is institutional paranoia on a massive scale.
Christian paranoia is most acute when it is least justified. Just as the tales of primitive martyrs mainly emerge only after Christianity is legitimised by the Emperor Constantine, so modern evangelicals claim oppression by the democratic state as they wield their considerable political muscle on issues as diverse as abortion, voting rights, and gun control. Its martyrs include foetuses, disgraced preachers, and politicians who have lost their seats because they have espoused ‘Christian causes.’ Always on the lookout for opposition, real or imagined, Christianity is an inherently divisive ideology. According to Moss: “The recognition that the idea of the Christian martyr is based in legend and rhetoric, rather than history and truth, reveals that many Christians have been and remain committed to conflict and opposition in their interactions with others.”
And as Moss notes in passing, “some Christians argued that the crucifixion was an elaborate magic trick and that Christ never really died.” Is it any surprise therefore that so many American Christians believe that Trump actually won the recent election and is governing the country from Florida?
*The ideological evolution of Christian thought moves from suggestions of forbearance to directives of terrorism in approximately the following steps:
1. Jesus died.
2. Jesus died for your salvation.
3. Others have died to prove that Jesus died for your salvation.
4. All the faithful, too, must be prepared to die for Jesus in order to promote his message of universal salvation.
5. Jesus’s message of universal salvation must be defended, if necessary by oppressing or even killing those who reject it.
In 1832 Pope Gregory published an encyclical, Mirari vos, in which a traditional view of not just the Catholic Church but also most other Christian sects was made an explicit part of their teaching: Error has no rights. In fact this encyclical was part of a series of directives by various popes over the next century that denied almost every human right we take for granted - from freedom of conscience to the importance of democratic institutions. These are all still ‘on the books’ and are promoted as authentic doctrine by many to the present day.
The connection between this Christian denial of human rights and Christian martyrdom, Moss’s topic of investigation, is straightforward: self-induced Christian paranoia. From the writers of the New Testament, to the earliest apologists, through the crusades and pogroms of medieval heretics, and into today’s evangelical warriors, the persistent trope of Christian culture is one of actual or impending persecution. According to Christian ideology (consistent but distinct from its theology*) the world is out to get its adherents; and always has been.
What Moss shows very clearly is that this narrative of persecution is fictional from its earliest versions. It persists because it is functional. As she says, “The rhetoric of persecution legitimates and condones retributive violence. Violence committed by the persecuted is an act of divinely approved self-defense. In attacking others they are not only defending themselves; they are defending all Christians.” This ideology is the rationale behind every political (and, historically, military) move by all Christian churches. It justifies the most inhumane actions - from widespread persecution of others to the denial of the right to even object to such persecution. This is institutional paranoia on a massive scale.
Christian paranoia is most acute when it is least justified. Just as the tales of primitive martyrs mainly emerge only after Christianity is legitimised by the Emperor Constantine, so modern evangelicals claim oppression by the democratic state as they wield their considerable political muscle on issues as diverse as abortion, voting rights, and gun control. Its martyrs include foetuses, disgraced preachers, and politicians who have lost their seats because they have espoused ‘Christian causes.’ Always on the lookout for opposition, real or imagined, Christianity is an inherently divisive ideology. According to Moss: “The recognition that the idea of the Christian martyr is based in legend and rhetoric, rather than history and truth, reveals that many Christians have been and remain committed to conflict and opposition in their interactions with others.”
And as Moss notes in passing, “some Christians argued that the crucifixion was an elaborate magic trick and that Christ never really died.” Is it any surprise therefore that so many American Christians believe that Trump actually won the recent election and is governing the country from Florida?
*The ideological evolution of Christian thought moves from suggestions of forbearance to directives of terrorism in approximately the following steps:
1. Jesus died.
2. Jesus died for your salvation.
3. Others have died to prove that Jesus died for your salvation.
4. All the faithful, too, must be prepared to die for Jesus in order to promote his message of universal salvation.
5. Jesus’s message of universal salvation must be defended, if necessary by oppressing or even killing those who reject it.
marmarta's review against another edition
3.0
I wanted to like this book, I really did. I will not hide my bias: I'm no fan of religion, and Christianity - chiefly in its Catholic form - especially. I'd love to be convinced that Christians invented the whole prosecution thing out of the blue, being from the very start a conniving and dangerous bunch. Even if it was so, Moss' book fails to convince the reader. It contains a lot of fascinating analysis of early martyrdom texts, an interesting discussion of martyrdom in Greek antiquity, and a thought-provoking overview of Roman attitudes towards religion and civic duty - and makes a very convincing argument that martyrdom was from the very start used for political purposes by Christians. And yet, Moss seems often to use the argument that if narratives around martyrs were shaped and adjusted according to the needs of the one telling the story, not according to whatever facts known, then the stories are as good as invented. But this is hardly so - turning stories of actual events into tools of persuasion and politics is as old as story-telling itself, and knowing that early Christians cared much more for persuasion and their theological disputes than for mere facts doesn't mean they didn't base their stories on true events. It doesn't, of course, mean they did - but I'm very much unconvinced that they just went and invented martyrdom without at least some basis in reality.
The other problem with the book is that the author holds a clear conviction that the martyrdom myth is a cause of many of society's problems, especially the desire to separate people into 'us' vs 'them' and to view oneself as at war with the dangerous others. I find this causal effect to be a little too simplistic, too reductive and extremely western-centric; whenever the thesis appeared on the pages, it distracted me from otherwise well-written and engaging book.
I don't regret reading "The Myth of Persecution" - it contains a wealth of information on early Christianity's narratives and Greek and Roman attitudes on religion and martyrdom. It's clear, readable, entertaining and interesting; but tragically, it's not convincing and often far too simplistic.
The other problem with the book is that the author holds a clear conviction that the martyrdom myth is a cause of many of society's problems, especially the desire to separate people into 'us' vs 'them' and to view oneself as at war with the dangerous others. I find this causal effect to be a little too simplistic, too reductive and extremely western-centric; whenever the thesis appeared on the pages, it distracted me from otherwise well-written and engaging book.
I don't regret reading "The Myth of Persecution" - it contains a wealth of information on early Christianity's narratives and Greek and Roman attitudes on religion and martyrdom. It's clear, readable, entertaining and interesting; but tragically, it's not convincing and often far too simplistic.
woowottreads's review against another edition
3.0
I've read about the myth of Christian persecution in books by my current NT interest Bart D. Ehrman, so I was pumped when this came out. First person at our library to snag it. Ahem, pardon me. I was excited.
And this was an interesting little read, although not nearly as academic as I'd hoped. I feel like Ms Moss simplified things a bit too much for the public. There isn't enough defining of the various branches of ancient Christianity, and there's not many in depth discussions of beliefs or even the topic itself. There is some interesting history and what I would call high school levels of discussion of the topic. But I wanted more to chew on than what I got. And even though I sympathize with her more liberal worldview, I wasn't interested in hearing her talk about it through the entire book. One final chapter sufficed. Essentially what I wanted was some hardcore historical discussion, but I got a brief overview.
Still, the book was informative, and maybe now I can check out her bib and hunt down some other things on the same topic.
And this was an interesting little read, although not nearly as academic as I'd hoped. I feel like Ms Moss simplified things a bit too much for the public. There isn't enough defining of the various branches of ancient Christianity, and there's not many in depth discussions of beliefs or even the topic itself. There is some interesting history and what I would call high school levels of discussion of the topic. But I wanted more to chew on than what I got. And even though I sympathize with her more liberal worldview, I wasn't interested in hearing her talk about it through the entire book. One final chapter sufficed. Essentially what I wanted was some hardcore historical discussion, but I got a brief overview.
Still, the book was informative, and maybe now I can check out her bib and hunt down some other things on the same topic.
kukushka's review
4.0
The central argument of the book is that, while there were some periods of actual persecution of Christians in the early centuries, they were very few. Most of the martyrdom accounts we have are unsubstantiated, or refer to prosecution (where Christians were breaking laws that were not drawn or enforced with Christians specifically in mind).
And this matters because it is the narrative of martyrdom that excuses horrifically callous behaviour. Specifically, the fudging between disagreement and persecution. If Christians are always and have always been under attack from worldly forces, and people wanting to get gay-married is an attack on Christianity, then the Christian fight against gay marriage becomes a fight of self-defence.
I would also add, though Moss doesn't, that there is also a fudging between chosen martyrdom and imposed martyrdom. Part of the veneration of martyrs also promises greater heavenly reward for greater earthly suffering, which is the logic used by people like Mother Teresa in denying palliative care to terminal patients. By increasing their suffering in their last days - without their consent (informed or otherwise) - Mother Teresa sought to purify their souls.
The book does have some weaker moments, such as when Moss hitches much of her argument against the reality of persecution in the earliest period on the fact that the group in question was not yet called Christians (largely around p.130-134). Which is just an argument from semantics, and not particularly useful.
But for the most part, Moss constructs her arguments well, She also strikes a good balance between being readable and being informative.
I think that much of this book will appeal to the "New Atheist" types, who will make much of the occasional 'gotcha' sound bites. I also think it's a valuable (though perhaps uncomfortable) read for Christians who currently believe that early Christians were persecuted, especially if they believe that this persecution has been ongoing. This book won't hold any hands, though, so I suspect that most readers from this group will simply dismiss it.
And this matters because it is the narrative of martyrdom that excuses horrifically callous behaviour. Specifically, the fudging between disagreement and persecution. If Christians are always and have always been under attack from worldly forces, and people wanting to get gay-married is an attack on Christianity, then the Christian fight against gay marriage becomes a fight of self-defence.
I would also add, though Moss doesn't, that there is also a fudging between chosen martyrdom and imposed martyrdom. Part of the veneration of martyrs also promises greater heavenly reward for greater earthly suffering, which is the logic used by people like Mother Teresa in denying palliative care to terminal patients. By increasing their suffering in their last days - without their consent (informed or otherwise) - Mother Teresa sought to purify their souls.
The book does have some weaker moments, such as when Moss hitches much of her argument against the reality of persecution in the earliest period on the fact that the group in question was not yet called Christians (largely around p.130-134). Which is just an argument from semantics, and not particularly useful.
But for the most part, Moss constructs her arguments well, She also strikes a good balance between being readable and being informative.
I think that much of this book will appeal to the "New Atheist" types, who will make much of the occasional 'gotcha' sound bites. I also think it's a valuable (though perhaps uncomfortable) read for Christians who currently believe that early Christians were persecuted, especially if they believe that this persecution has been ongoing. This book won't hold any hands, though, so I suspect that most readers from this group will simply dismiss it.