Return to Home Page

HADRIAN (117-138 CE)

Schaff (History, 49f) generates little or no evidence of any persecution of Christians under Hadrian.

As evidence for continuing persecution of Christians during the time of Hadrian, Keresztes appeals first of all to the Hadrian’s Rescript concerning Christians, which Eusebius supposedly found attached to Justin’s First Apology (68.6-10), and which in fact is only known to us only in the Greek translation made by Eusebius (HE 4.9), which is also now found in all versions of Justin’s work. The Rescript simply says that any accusations made against Christians must be proven by the accusers.

However, the authenticity of this Rescript has often been challenged (see Keresztes, n 241). It obviously could be a later addition to Justin’s Apology—especially since there are several other letters also appended to the Apology, none of which is regarded as authentic.

In any case, Keresztes maintains that “during most of the second century, the treatment of Christians in Asia Minor, and in particular in the province of Asia, was by reputation the worst in the whole of the Roman Empire.” (289) As evidence, he appeals to the Pliny correspondence, and the defense of Christians presented to Hadrian by Quadratus (Eusebius, EH 4.3.1-2), the letters of Antoninus Pius to the Council of Asia and Greek cities (Eusebius HE 4.13.1-7) (this letter seems to refer to the Rescript of Hadrian), Melito, Bishop of Sardis (HE 4.13.8; 26.1, 5- 11), the martyrdoms of Polycarp (289), and Justin Martyr (290-292). The reliability of none of these sources can simply be taken for granted.


Antoninus Pius (137-161 CE)

According to Schaff (51), “Antoninus Pius protected the Christians from the tumultuous violence which broke out against them on account of the frequent public calamities.” But “he could not have controlled the conduct of the provincial governors and the fury of the people against an illegal religion.” The persecution of the church at Smyrna and the martyrdom of Polycarp probably took place in 155.

Keresztes observes: “The simple fact is that, after a lull of about fifteen years under Hadrian, Antoninus Pius’ rule suddently became known for its persecutions in the provinces, as is testified especially by Justin’s two ‘Apologies,’ by Eusebius, and perhaps even by Aristides. Furthermore, the very first year of Antonius Pius appears to start with the martyrdom of Telesphorus Bishop of Rome.” (293) “These persecutions in the East were, unquestionably, the direct result of popular hatred. The character of Antoninus Pius was not the direct cause of these persecutions in the East. Nobody, not even Christian writers, blamed him for anti-Christian movements.” (293) So the primary evidence is Justin’s (suspect) Apologies.

Keresztes also regards the rescript of Antoninus Pius to Asia as basically reliable -- after two dubious passages are extricated. The witness here is to persecutions of Christians in Asia on charges of “atheism” –- which Antoninous rejects as an adequate charge for taking people to court. (295f). Keresztes observes that “none of the modern writers has accepted it as genuine in its entirety, while others reject it as a complete forgery” (294) In any case, we do not learn from this any details about how Christians in Asia were being treated, or even where such persecutions took place.

Typical of Keresztes’ reasoning is his claim (295) that after the two dubious passages are removed what remains “can be regarded as an entirely historical document and may well indicate the contents of the now lost letters of Antoninus Pius to some Greek cities” (and then again may not).

In defense of the authenticity of the rescript, Keresztes observes that “several passages which express the Imperial and legal view concerning the worship of the gods and Christianity are so derogatory and insulting to the Christians that the original rescript must have been written by a pagan...” (296). Contrary to Keresztes, however, the text actually praises Christians and chatises pagans.


Marcus Aurelius (161-180 CE)

As evidence for persecutions during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, Schaff appeals to the apologies of Melito, Miltiades, and Athenagoras “in behalf of the persecuted Christians.” (53) Schaff also cites Marcus Aurelius’ own reference to the Christians’ enthusiasm for martyrdom (Meditations 11.3). (54) But this is the only reference to Christians in his Meditations. Schaff observes (54): “At all events his reign was a stormy time for the church, although the persecu- tions cannot be directly traced to him.” According to Schaff, the many calamites visited on the empire during this time – conflagrations, floods, earthquakes, insurrections – “gave rise to bloody persecutions, in which government and people united against the enemies of the gods and the supposed authors of these misfortunes…. But at the same time these persecutions, and the simultaneous literary assaults on Christianity by Celsus and Lucian, show that the new religion was constantly gaining importance in the empire.” (55) He cites persecution of churches in southern France, Lyons and Vienne… martyrdom of bishop Pothinus… the virgin Blandina… the boy Ponticus (55f) … Martyrdom of Justin in Rome in 166.

According to Eusebius, the succession of Marcus Aurelius introduced great persecutions, at least in Asia: (EH 4.15.1), illustrated by the martyrdom of Polycarp (4.15.3-46), the martyrdom of Pionius (4.15.46), “others who were martyred at Pergamon” (4,15.48), and then Justin (4.16.1). Later on, in the seventeenth year of Marcus Aurelius, Eusebius tells us that “the persecution of us in some parts of the world was rekindled more violently by popular violence in the cities, and, to judge from the events in one nation, myriads were distinguished by martyrdom” (EH 5 Introduction), which is illustrated by the story of the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne (5.1). But even if all these traditions are reliable, there is still not enough evidence here to justify Eusebius’ speaking of “great persecutions” and “myriads distinguished by martyrdom” -- particularly when all we have is only speculation based on “events in one nation.”

According to Kereztes (298), apart from the testimony of Eusebius, “we also have some of the so-called ‘Acts of Martyrs’ as source information about some of the events told by the historian. These ‘Acts’, not contained in the H.E., concern Justin and his companions, the martyrs of Pergamam, and perhaps Pionius, cases only briefly reported by Eusebius.” And Kereztes further observes (n. 276) that “the ‘Acts’ of Felicitas and her seven sons is fairly generally regarded as authentic.” What does ”fairly generally regarded” mean?

Keresztes explains (299f): “One is probably justified in ascribing the great majority of persecutions in this period to the hatred and violence of the non-Christian population, and especially in Asia and Lugdunum.” But “there were, of course, some special causes for these persecutions,” which according to Kereztes can be discerned from sources such as the ‘Vita’ of Saint Abercius, the ‘Adversum paganos’ of Orosius, and some ‘Acts of Martyrs. “If interpreted within the context of Eusebius’ reports and Roman History and religion,” this testimony “confirms that there was more than normal anti-Christian feeling behind the persecutions...”

How seriously should we take such arguments? Typical of Keresztes (and other Christian apologists) is his observation that the ‘Vita’ is “admittedly legendary” and “contains much legend.” Then he tells us, “but it is also true that it contains much genuine history and may be used, with proper caution, as historical evidence” which, of course, is merely special pleading. How does one distinguish what is “legend” from what is “genuine history”?

By “genuine history” Keresztes seems to mean the references in these sources to an edict by Marcus Aurelius “prescribing sacrifices to the gods throughout the Empire” (in ‘Vita’ and Justin) and another reference (Orosius) associating this edict with “a plague” that threatened to destroy the Empire. Putting this together with what we (supposedly) know from Eusebius, Keresztes concludes “that there, indeed, was at this time an Imperial edict ordering worship throughout the Empire.” (300). “On the basis of our evidence in the ‘Vita of Abercius,’ Orosius, the ‘Acts’ of Justin, and others, we must assume the existence of a general edict by the joint Emperors sometime during 161-168 A.D.” (301). But the fact is that the only references we have to such an edict are in these admittedly legendary sources.

Keresztes also appeals to the apologies of Melito and Apollinarius (EH 4.26.1), Miltiades (5.17.5), and Bardesanes (EH 4.30).

The apology of Meito seems to have been part of his book On the Passover, which Eusebius claims was cited by Clement of Alexandria in his own book on the Passover (4.26.4) –- which has since been lost. It’s not entirely clear whether Eusebius himself cites from Melito or from Clement, since he only claims that this work and many others “have come to our knowledge” (4.26.2). And there is no way of knowing why such an apology would have been part of a treatise on the Passover. (Actually, the reference to Clement is intrusive and may be a later insertion attesting the authenticity of Melito’s apology.)

Eusebius tells us nothing about the content or character of the Apology of Apollinarius (EH 4.27.1). Nor does he tell us anything specific about the content of the apology of Miltiades, except that “he wrote an Apology to the secular rulers on behalf of the philosophy he held.” (It is interesting, however, that elsewhere “the sect called after Miltiades” seems be regarded as heretical by Apolinarius (EH 5.16.3).

Bardesanes of Edessa was a distinguished scholar, who according to Eusebius (EH 4.30) was once associated with Valentinians but then turned against them. In addition to Bardedanes’ dialog Concerning Fate, Eusebius tells us that he also “wrote many other works in consequence of the persecution at that time” -- but he doesn’t name any of these works. This has the appearance of Eusebius’ own construction. Moreover, Eusebius’ assumption (also Jerome’s) that Bardesanes wrote during the reign of Marcus Aurelius may not be correct. According to Schaff (History, vol 2, 481, n 3), Eusebius confused the earlier and later Antonines, and according to the Chronicle of Edessa and other sources, Bardesanes was born in 155 and died in 223.

Keresztes also appeals to Athenagoras a Christian philosopher of Athens during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (Schaff, 730ff.), who is supposed to have written an Apology on behalf of the Christians to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, many copies of which were made in the fifteenth century (Schaff, 731). Athenagoras, however seems to have been otherwise unknown and is not mentioned by either Eusebius or Jerome (Schaff, 730). Schaff assures us that “the objections against the genuineness are weak and have been refuted.” More crucial, however, is that there is no real evidence attesting its authenticity.

Return to Home Page

Darrell J. Doughty
Professor of New Testament
Drew University, Madison, NJ, 07940
ddoughty@drew.edu