Frend argues (probably correctly) that even at this time few educated people had little interest in Christianity, and Christianity had little attractiveness for them. (480f). And then he tells us: "Thus... the educated pagan could still be counted on to rally to a defense of his religion against Christianity, if given a lead." (481) But why would it have been necessary to "defend" their religion against Christianity? What threat did Christianity represent?

Frend then calls attention the intellectual attacks on Christianity (481-485) - by Plotinus (in the 260s) and Porphrry's Against Christians, in ten volumes (ca. 270). Frend's description of Porphyry makes it clear that he was a brilliant scholar and powerful adversary. (483-485). But all this is (apologetically?) set aside: "In the last resort, however, Porphyry was not interested in the refutation of Christianity as an academic pursuit. Like Celsus, his real charge against Christians was their lack of civic sense, their unscrupulous wooing of the underprivileged, especially the women, and their hostility towards the state... Pophyry had become the prophet of the Great Persecution." (485)

Porphyry's writings have been preserved only in fragments in works of Christian writers, so we cannot be certain that all the teachings ascribed to him were really his own, or only what Christians later presumed that "the commander-and-chief of the anti-Christian forces" (Frend, 483) would have said.

But then we are told: "When it came, however, the persecution was more the outcome of the needs of military discipline than the result of intellectual conflict... Diocletian's court at Nicomedia was no centre for anti-Christian agitation." (485)

Discussion of the "so-called massacre of the Thebian legend" (486) - very interesting.

Discussion of a Christian being executed because he refused to serve in the Roman army (487) - from which Frend concludes: "It is quite clear that the fact of Christianity was now accepted, so long as it did not involve refusal of the legitimate demands of the State... [?]

But there was no "major war" at this time, nor did the Christian church represent a "vast organization which countenanced conscientious objectors" -- and on the preceding page (486) we were told that "there were plenty of Christian civil servants both at court and in the provinces and plenty of Christians serving in the armies." According to Frend (487), the renewal of the Persian war in 296 "marked the beginning of this development" - but this war hardly threatened the life of the Roman Empire - by the end of 297 the Persians had been totally defeated (Frend, 488) - and there is no evidence of mass desertions from the army by Christians at this time, or any other.

Frend discusses the edict of 297 against the Manichaeans, which seems to have condemned them as "innovators," for which reason their books were burnt. According to Frend (488), this edict "demonstrated the religious beliefs by which the Tetarchy was guided and the Emperor's determination to crush a proselytizing creed which he regarded as enemy propaganda hostile to the interests of the State." Frend admits that this "was not a blueprint for the first edict of persecution, as the objective was to defeat the enemy (the Persians) under the colour of religion." Nevertheless, "It leaves no doubt that the restoration of the Roman people was to be restoration under the Roman gods. There would be a restricted place for Judaism, but none for assertive Christianity." (488)

Frend does not provide enough evidence to support his generalizations -i.e., that the Emperor perceived Manichaeism as "a proselytizing creed" and thus as "enemy propaganda hostile to the interests of the State." Nor is it obvious that it makes sense to speak of "assertive Christianity" at this time. At the very least, these interpretations require more detailed support.

So at least from Frend's account, what follows is strange. We are told (488f) that right after "Rome had scored her greatest triumph for a century of more [i.e., Rome's victory over the Persians] and her eastern frontier was secured for forty years... Gradually, the situation began to worsen for the Christians." This may have been the case, but it certainly requires some explanation. If as Eusebius says, the persecution began among soldiers in the Roman army in the East, did this take before or after victory had been achieved.

Eusebius' own account (EH 8.4) is very vague. He tells us that to begin with "the authority" (= Galerius? or Satan?) "made an attempt only on those in the (army) camps," but he doesn't say why, or what the authority attempted to do. According to Eusebius, "great numbers of those in the army most gladly embraced civil life, so that might not prove renegades in their piety..." (EH 8.4.2), which seems to say that they simply left the army, which wouldn't be very good if a war was at hand. Then we are told that if the soldiers continued to "disobey the commandment" they would "be deprived of the rank they held" - where it isn't clear what "commandment" is in view. In any case, they don't seem to be kicked out of the army, and certainly not exterminated. -- So when Eusebius then qualifies what he just said by telling us that "in rare cases one or two were receiving not only loss of honour but even death in exchange for their godly steadfastness" (8.8.4), this seems like a theatrical elaboration.

Timothy Barnes observes that Eusebius' treatment of the Great Persecution went through several versions, which at least in part accounts for some of the vagueness and inconsistencies.

When Eusebius tells us, for example, that "very many rulers of the churches contended with a stout heart" (8.2.4), that there were "countless numbers" of holy martyrs (8.4.1), and "great numbers of those in the army who gladly embraced civil life" (8.4.3), "a great many soldiers in Christ's kingdom" (8.4.3), and that "it is quite impossible to recount the number or the splendour of God's martyrs" (8.4.4), all this is, at the very least, Eusebian exaggeration.

Eusebius relates that "at Nicomedia a fire broke out in those very days, and through a false suspicion the rumor went around that it was the work of our people: and by the imperial command the God-fearing persons there, whole families and in heaps [!], were in some cases butchered by the sword; while others were perfected by fire," and that "the executioners bound a multitude [!] of others... and threw them into the depths of the sea" (8.6.6). To Frend, this sounds like the "'Reichstag Fire' six-teen centuries before the time" (p. 491); but it really sounds much more like Tacitus' spurious report of Christians being blamed by Nero for the burning of Rome.

No one disputes that Diocletian issued an edict against Christians on February 3, 303. The only question is why he did so and what was the content of the edict. From Eusebius we learn very little about the actual content of the edict. He relates stories of Christians in Nicomedia being put to death (8.5.1-8.6.5), even "large numbers of martyrs," "heaps" and "multitudes." (8.6.6). In Armenia and Syria, however, we are told that "an imperial command went forth that the presidents of the churches everywhere [!] should be thrown into prison and bonds," so many that the prisons overflowed (8.6.8-9) - but there is no mention here of anyone being put to death.

Then we learn, however, that "the first letter was followed by others wherein the order had been given that those in prison should be allowed to go in liberty if they sacrificed, but if they refused, should be mutilated by countless tortures" and that "one could here number a multitude of martyrs in each province" (8.7.9) - and one suspects that Eusebius again exaggerates. Even Frend observes (496) that "it is not possible to date all the various outrages against the Christians which Eusebius describes province by province in H.E. viii.7-13 to specific phases in the persecution," and that in this regard "much obscurity remains." (497).

The problem is that we are largely dependent here on what Eusebius tells us and what Lactantius relates, who may have been a confidant of Diocletian (Frend, 489), but whose report of these events some scholars regard as fictional (see Frend, n. 99), but which Frend himself finds credible (p. 490) (also T. Barnes) - although the evidence he appeals to - the dedication at Didyma and the inscription (found where?) - provides no direct support for the claim that Diocletian in fact consulted with the oracle at Didyma about what to do with Christians (every oracle in the ancient world had monuments and inscriptions dedicated to the Emperor, whether or not they had ever been there).

Lactantius seems to have converted to Christianity shortly before the outbreak of the Great Persecution in 303. After the persecution he became a member of Constantine's court in Gaul, where he participated in the education of Constantine's son, Crispus, which was for naught since Constantine had Crispus executed in 326. Jerome called Lactantius the most learned man of his time. His most important work was his Divine Institutions, "a comprehensive refutation of heathenism and defense of Christianity." (see Schaff, History, III, 955-958). More famous, however, was his work De morte, which describes the persecutions of Christians from Nero to Dioclesian. This latter writing, however, is missing in several early editions of Lactantius's works, and has been regarded as spurious by some scholars. Defense of authenticity: T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, chs, 1-2.

At this point it becomes necessary to distinguish between what was taking place in the West and what was going on in the East, where Eusebius held forth - somehow, without suffering in any way! Was he already a lackey of the Emperor?.

Thus, Frend observes (492) that "apart from Rome itself, North Africa, perhaps Baetica and some of the larger towns in the prefecture of the Gauls, Christianity was not an urgent problem in the western world. Maximian who controlled Italy and Africa enforced the First Edict, but not apparently the supplementary provisions contained in the Second and Third." And from this perspective, one should wonder about North Africa and Rome. With regard to Palestine, Frend cites Lactantius and Eusebius as direct witnesses (495).

In his characteristic way, Frend tells us that "the extent to which the multifarious Acta Martyrum of the period can be used must remain largely a matter of subjective judgment" (495) - and then proceeds to list those which "seem to contain authentic contemporary material" and "perhaps provide the historian with something more than pious legend" (495) - although it is unclear how one makes such judgments. Frend later makes use of several such sources.

But even in the east, "apart from rare instances such as Gaza in Palestine, there was no great popular enthusiasm for the persecutions." (Frend, 498)

From this point on everything becomes obscure and confusing.

"In Palestine the 'first year' of the persecution... only three Christians lost their lives... Even in Galerius' Danubian and Thracian provinces, the period before the Fourth Edict produced relatively few victims." (Frend, 499)... "Altogether in the west. the persecution hardly deserves the title of 'Great.' Outside the province of Numidia there were relatively few victims. Church life was disrupted, and ecclesiastics discredited, but the laity as a whole were little affected." (Frend, 505)

Regarding the continuation of persecution in the east, from 306-313, "there were to be six more years of misery" (Frend, 505). But even here persecution was hardly massive or rabid:

This having been said, Frend nevertheless finds enough material to fill fourteen more pages (507-521). He includes two incidents in 306 related by Eusebius (clearly legendary), and then observes that "Eusebius records no further victims in Palestine following these measures." (507). But somehow he comes up with still a few more executions in Gaza in Palestine in 308 (p. 508), evidently related by Eusebius (n. 219). And eventually we are told that "Eusebius records Eubulus, as the last of the Palestinian martyrdoms, 7 March, 310." (p. 509)

Timothy Barnes
"The Constantine Settlement," in H. Attridge and G. Hata, eds., Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism (Leiden/New York: Brill, 1992), 635-667.

Barnes observes (p. 639, n. 16) that "the precise contents of the first edict are nowhere reported fully, but must be deduced primarily from the following items of evidence: Lactantius... Eusebius... Optatus... Acta Felicis."

Maybe. But this is admittedly Barn's own reconstruction from various sources, the integrity of which have to be critically examined in each case. For example, Barns strongly defends the, not uncontested, reliability of Lactantius: We are told that "Nothing in the ancient evidence--only modern scholarly tradition--prevents the history of the period from being reconstructed convincingly on the assumption that Lactantius and Eusebius are basically honest and trustworthy witnesses." (p. 639). This argument would apply, however, to every historical evaluation of ancient sources made by critical scholars. The question is how the "ancient evidence" is evaluated---apologetically or critically. Actually, even Frend's discussion, while somewhat confusing, is more nuanced than Barnes'.

This, of course, is what Eusebius basically relates (HE 8.6.8-10). But "those who sacrificed" without being "constrained to do so" would not have been in prison at all.

"Early in 304 came a second general edict or imperial letter which ordered the population of every city to sacrifice and make libations to the gods collectively. Some show, at least, of enforcement was made throughout the eastern provinces." (640)

Barns provides no reference here, nor any elaboration. Does this mean that every single citizen (children and adults) had to "sacrifice and make libations to the gods"? And what were the consequences if they did not?

Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy
The Jesus Mysteries (London: Thorsons, 1999), 228-229.

How do "secular" historians perceive the matter?

"The traditional history of the persecution of Christianity paints the Roman Empire as having a particular hatred of this new religion, but this was not so. Rome was constantly purging itself of mystics, philosophers and religious cults, which it saw as a threat to its stability. The Romans had a love/hate relationship with the Mysteries, of which the Christian cult was just another example... Like Christian martyrs after them, many philosophers were sent to their death for refusal to compromise with the tyrannical Roman authorities."

"According to the traditional history of Christianity, from the earliest of times large numbers of Christians were horribly persecuted by the Romans. In fact, until the middle of the third century there was no legalized persecution of Christians. Previous persecutions had been against individuals only or limited to a particular city. Christians were not seen as a particular threat and therefore were not particularly oppressed..."

"In 250 CE, however, plague swept the ancient world... The Empire was on the verge of collapse and the Christian cult found itself being scapegoated by for Roman misfortunes. The Emperor Decius ordered Christians to offer animal sacrifices to the gods for the health and well-being of the Empire and instigated the first general persecution against those who refused. It lasted only a year, but was repeated under Valerian in 257-9 and again under Diocletian in 303-5. In the whole of its history, therefore, Christianity was officially persecuted for a total of five years."

"The scale of these persecutions, even the so-called 'Great Persecution' under Diocletian, is now known to have been widely exaggerated by Christian propagandists" (citation, Gibbon, Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire).

Return to Home Page