Scan barcode
A review by socraticgadfly
The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom by Candida R. Moss
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.