General reactions to Christianity (jan 1, 80 – dec 31, 249)

Description:

Early criticisms of Christianity become visible in the works of several authors who are keen to refute them:
> Jews claim that in the wake of Jesus’ death, his followers simply made off with his body and claimed he had risen from the dead. This provokes the story of the Roman guard on Jesus’ tomb.
> Mockery over the now perennial belief that the end of the world is imminent
> Disagreement from those who respect the Jewish scriptures as the source of truth, but refuse to follow Christians in retrojecting Jesus into them (“that remains to be proved”); Christian faith disparaged for its novelty?
> Sexual slander aimed at Christians from pagans (and vice versa)
> Pagans mock Christians for failing to live up to the best of their ethical teachings

Later pagan criticisms are often more specific and more pointed, perhaps in line with Christianity's increasing presence and popularity in the Greco-Roman world.
> A cluster of typified polemical charges emerge against early Christians, perhaps most memorably put as “incestuous banqueting”. This involves a scandalous story of the intentional overturning of the lamps after a gluttonous communal dinner, leading to promiscuous intercourse in the dark. This was further seen as incestuous due to the Christians’ use of the terms “brother” and “sister” to refer to each other. Said meal was also claimed to involve the eating of human flesh (a baby child sacrificed as a meal), perhaps a warped understanding of the Eucharist. These charges are broadly attested in the writings of this era. They are typically rebutted by way of the Pee-Wee defense (“I know you are but what am I?!?”), by which the author claims that it’s actually the pagans who practice all such things. Interestingly, some of the suspicion of incestuous behavior may well have been amplified by lascivious use of the “holy kiss” amongst Christians.
> Christians generally seen as “ridiculous and contemptible”; “triflers and babblers” who intentionally appeal to the less enfranchised members of society (boys, women, etc.). They are mocked for accepting as truth doctrines which have no proof.
> Christianity as appealing only to the poor, the stupid, the unskilled, and a religion that causes its adherents to reject, ridicule, and withdraw from public life and the gods of state (and perhaps from military service), and to focus on the affairs of the afterlife while neglecting their fate in the real world.
> The (ironic) charge of “atheism” is leveled against Christians.
> Ongoing scandal surrounding Jesus’ sketchy parentage, which provokes ever-stronger narratives defending both his own virgin birth and Mary’s lifelong freedom from sin.
> Thought detestable madness to be worshipping a crucified man as second to God.
> Rumors of worshipping an ass
> Accusation of motivating adherents to live good lives via fear of eternal punishment; disdain for the idea of a judgmental God and the fear of judgment as motivation for conversion.
> Sedition; treason, by way of failing to worship and celebrate the gods of state and Caesar.
> New converts caused social division and/or were socially ostracized, but there may have been efforts on the part of the local populace to attempt forced conversions back to paganism, or, failing that, to provoke conflict with civil authorities. The Letters from Vienna and Lyons contain what might be a realistic depiction of the occasional/local violence that could occur against Christians. It also implies that policy at the imperial level was for Christians to be punished only if they would not recant, in line with the letters exchanged between Pliny and Trajan in an earlier era.
> Lucian of Samostata provides an assessment of Christians from the standpoint of an educated, secular satirist. He confirms their continued activity in Palestine, their care for imprisoned adherents, notions of communal property, a willingness to hand themselves over to authorities, and food restrictions (likely meaning meat sacrificed to idols). Claims that Christians are frequently the victims of grift and taken in by men of intellectual ability (like his protagonist, the vain Peregrinus, who may have had some status among them in Palestine). In another work, Lucian implies that Christians were among a few classes of citizen resistant to other contemporary cults of personality, and that the cult of Glycon took similar steps as early Christianity in seeking to promulgate itself.
> In his Meditations, Marcus Aurelius briefly mentions Christians, comparing their obstinate zeal for martyrdom unfavorably with other people who display a stoic nature in the face of death. Obstinacy would continue to be charged against Christians.
> In his writings, the Roman physician Galen briefly refers to Christians (along with Jews) as people known to embrace their ideas from faith and unproven argument, rather than proof or reason. He implies an awareness of Christian apologists, zeal for martyrdom, and ascetic practices.
> Celsus writes extensively against Christianity, perhaps incorporating an earlier Jewish polemic as one of his sources. His critique is both withering and incisive, and he suggests several alternative rationalist takes for Christian mythos and beliefs. He criticizes Christians for standing aloof from the world and forming illicit secret societies, shirking their civic duties, and most of all for the sedition of rejecting the gods of state, on such childish grounds that the statues themselves cannot be gods (which Celsus implies all but the most ignorant are well aware of). He rejects the Christian idea that demons are to be opposed, viewing demons as under God’s control and entities which must be propitiated in order to win favor for society at large. He claims that pagan priests are able to produce actual miracles (as opposed to those of the Christians). Ala Pseudo-Hippolytus, Celsus accuses Christians of purloining major parts of their doctrines and beliefs from other sources (e.g. getting their pacifism from Plato). Puts the Christians’ claimed visions of Jesus on par with other common visions of people from that era, including those of the god Asclepius.
> Christianity as violating and rejecting long-held customs
> Christianity as too factious and disunited in its dogmatic claims to be trusted as the truth
> The very name of Christianity itself an object of scorn and judgment; perilous to even associate with a Christian due to the possibility of judgment
> Ridiculous that God would allow the Christian to suffer any special persecutions, if they’re meant to be his people
> The Didascalia recommends Christians completely separate from the wider Greco-Roman world, including familial relations, popular literature of all kinds, and the secular legal system.
> Christian gatherings are so secretive and large that they are prone to awaken non-Christian anxieties
> The hope of the endlessly-delayed Parousia mocked and a caused for disbelief; questions of logic related to Jesus’ death and resurrection; distaste for a bodily resurrection in general
> Christians blamed for natural disasters
> Rumors of Christians worshipping the sun – connection to the henotheistic worship of Sol Invictus?
> Christians caught up in the outlawing of “political associations”
> Christian avoidance of the public shows as austere and nonsensical even on their own doctrines
> Christians denied burial-grounds
> Total disregard for Christian writings
> Rejection of tales of the divine that involve human passions and stories
> Christian-chasers among pagan men?

Interestingly, a constellation of Christian apologists of the mid- to late-second century (Justin, Melito of Sardis, Athenagoras of Athens, Tertullian) seem to concur that imperial policy under the Emperors Hadrian through Marcus Aurelius (117-180 CE) was that of a soft touch, defending Christians from unjust accusations, whereas the earlier Nero and Domitian may have "impugned" their doctrines. Tertullian is the first to attest the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan on the subject of trying Christians. He also attests to the fact that numerous Roman functionaries do whatever they can to get a Christian to deny their faith so as to acquit them.

Jewish reactions against Christians during the mid-second century of the religion are said to have consisted of:
> A rejection of Christianity’s core messianic claims. The Jews as still waiting for a kingly, Davidic messiah (who some identify as Elijah) who will reconstitute Jerusalem prior to the end-times conflagration.
> Scorn for the Christians’ rejection of God’s law, for quote-mining ambiguous prophecies rather than obeying the passages that clearly expect obedience to the law
> Pushback against the mistranslation behind the virgin birth “prophecy”, and evidence that Christians were not above altering Jewish scriptures for their own purposes. Beyond the matter of translation, a strong distaste for the virgin birth narrative in general (believing it to be derived from “monstrous” Greek legends); Jews as more open to Jesus having been elected messiah due to his pious life and observance of Mosaic customs.
> Jewish leaders as “anathematizing” Christ in the synagogues, and discouraging their people from even having dialogue with Christians.
> “Proselytes” (Gentile converts to Judaism) being more vigorous in their condemnation of Christians (hinted at by Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian).
> Jews would punish Christians whenever empowered to do so (during the Bar Kochba revolt?)
> If it was God’s plan for Jesus to suffer and die, then why should the Jews be tarred with any guilt over it?
> General “Plots and persecutions” against the church
> The early content of the Talmud may contain disparaging references to Jesus. One is more or less explicit, describing a sorcerer named Yeshua who was executed on the eve of Passover, but only after a very above-board trial, during which witnesses had ample time to come forward and defend him (none did). There are potentially a few other veiled references to Jesus, though the subject and the dating of each is debated.
> Pushback on other assorted references in the Jewish scriptures that Christians would appropriate for Jesus
> Denial of legitimacy of Christian writings, as if being on the same par as the Jewish scriptures
> Jews still referring to Christians as “Nazarenes”

Added to timeline:

Date: