Introduction

Christians were not subject to empire-wide persecution until Rome officially distinguished Christianity from Judaism. Rome respected the antiquity of Judaism and therefore allowed Jews to practice their religion without requiring them to conform to religious syncretism with Greco-Roman paganism.¹ religious syncretism refers to blending the teachings or practices of multiple religions together. Christians also received this exemption until they were no longer viewed by Rome as under the umbrella of Judaism.

As Christianity spread and was understood to be its own religion, Romans began hearing rumors about their beliefs and practices. We know what the Romans believed about Christians from the writings of the early apologists Justin Marty and Tertullian.

Christian Practices that were misunderstood by Romans

Tertullian and Justin Martyr were Christian apologists who wrote intellectual defenses of Christianity to Rome’s intellectual and cultural elites. The general theme to their apologies was that Rome’s policy against Christians implemented by emperor Trajan was unjust and unwarranted. In presenting their arguments, they addressed the underlying (and incorrect) assumptions Romans held against Christians that justified Trajan’s policy.² For Justin’s apology, see Justin Martyr. “The First Apology of Justin.” In The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, Vol. 1. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885. For Tertullian’s apology, see Tertullian. “The Apology.” In Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, translated by S. Thelwall, Vol. 3. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

The Roman caricature of Christians was that they were atheists who gathered once a week to practice infant cannibalism and incestuous orgies. Additionally, the cultured elites accused Christians of being part of the rabble of the lower classes and teaching contradictions.³ One of the most notable Roman elites was Celsus, whom Origen refuted in his lengthy work, Against Celcus. Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity, vol. 1, The Early Church To The Dawn Of The Reformation, rev. ed.  (New York: Harper One, 2010), 59–62.

How did this caricature develop in the minds of the Romans?

First, Christians gathered once a week for what they called a “love feast.”⁴ Also known as the “agape feast.” The love feast was for baptized Christians to gather, sing praises to Jesus, commune with one another, and celebrate the Eucharist. Contrary to pagan practice, these gatherings were private, so those who were not baptized were not privy to what happened.

Second, Christians referred to one another as “brother” or “sister.” This was true even for spouses referring to one another. This practice coupled with the private love feasts led Romans to accuse Christians of incest.

Third, the charge of cannibalism resulted from the celebration of the Eucharist. The real presence of Christ’s body and blood within the bread and wine was a Christian teaching from the beginning. The Romans couldn’t envision this being anything other than cannibalism. Furthermore, it was well known that Christians picked up abandoned babies. Therefore, the Romans assumed Christians feasted on the babies they had collected.

Monsters of wickedness, we are accused of observing a holy rite in which we kill a little child and then eat it; in which, after the feast, we practise incest, the dogs—our pimps, forsooth, overturning the lights and getting us the shamelessness of darkness for our impious lusts.

Tertullian, “The Apology,” VII

Fourth, Christians were accused of atheism because they did not worship the Greco-Roman pantheon of gods – including recognizing and worshipping Caesar as a god. Christian teaching on God was incompatible with the concept of divinity within the Roman mind. A single God with no image to worship didn’t make sense. The way Christians refused to participate in Rome’s public religion could only make sense if they denied deity altogether.⁵González, The Story of Christianity, 59–62.

Christian faith and practice was so different from the Roman milieu that Romans delighted to ridicule them and assume the worst about them.

Christians Proved to be better Romans than Romans Were

Despite the cultural caricature of Christians, Romans found Christianity compelling once they experienced its true faith and practice.

The Christian apologists systematically refuted all the accusations and caricatures against Christians. At the heart of their argument was the fact that the so-called sophisticated philosophy and religion of Greece and Rome was actually newer than the Old Testament foundation of Christianity. Christian beliefs were anchored in the writings of the Old Testament, which predated the Greek philosophers by centuries. Antiquity was a measure of sophistication in the ancient world. Roman philosophers traced their tradition back to Pythagoras (700 B.C.), a line of succession that was seen as respectable.⁶Timothy A. Brookins, Rediscovering the Wisdom of the Corinthians: Paul, Stoicism, and Spiritual Hierarchy (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2024), 275. However, the apologists pointed out that Christianity is more sophisticated if measuring by antiquity because the tradition of Moses predates Pythagoras by 500–750 years. The most ancient of Rome’s philosophers were actually quite recent when compared to Christian writings.

Additionally, the Romans weren’t as morally and intellectually virtuous as they claimed to be. The apologists illustrated the immorality and intellectual dishonesty of Rome’s philosophers and mythological figures which ironically made the Romans look as immoral as they accused Christians of being.

Finally, the apologists argued that Christian prayers for the emperor and the empire were more effective for preserving the safety and prosperity of the empire than pagan sacrifices to the Roman pantheon and Caesar. The Christian God is sovereign over the nations, whereas the pagan gods had a poor track record of protecting their subjects.

There is also another and a greater necessity for our offering prayer in behalf of the emperors, nay, for the complete stability of the empire, and for Roman interests in general. For we know that a mighty shock impending  over the whole earth—in fact, the very end of all things threatening dreadful woes—is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman empire. We have no desire, then, to be overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome’s duration.

Tertullian, “The Apology,” XXXII

These arguments coupled with experiencing Christian faith and practice made Romans realize Christians were better at embodying the virtues of Rome than they were. The apologists knew Christians had the truth. They knew the Roman world was deceived by demons and sin. They knew Christianity was compelling once people understood it, and they had abundant testimony from converted Romans to prove it. In the opening statements of his apology, Tertullian argued that Rome’s accusations against Christians were rooted in ignorance and misunderstanding:

The proof of their ignorance, at once condemning and excusing their injustice, is this, that those who once hated Christianity because they knew nothing about it, no sooner come to know it than they all lay down at once their enmity. From being its haters they become its disciples. By simply getting acquainted with it, they begin now to hate what they had formerly been, and to profess what they had formerly hated; and their numbers are as great as are laid to our charge.

Tertullian, “The Apology,” I

Romans found Christianity compelling when they realized it embodied the best version of Rome’s cultural ideals and so much more.