Christians and the Roman Army A.D. 173-337 Author(S): John Helgeland Source: Church History, Vol
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Christians and the Roman Army A.D. 173-337 Author(s): John Helgeland Source: Church History, Vol. 43, No. 2, (Jun., 1974), pp. 149-200 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Society of Church History Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3163949 Accessed: 18/08/2008 00:48 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org Christiansand the RomanArmy A.D. 173-337 JOHN HELGELAND The question of the church's stand during the first three and a half cen- turies on Christians enlisting in the Roman army has received much attention since 1900. With slight overlapping, modern historians of the encounter of Chris- tians with the Roman military fall into three basic groups: Roman Catholic, Protestant pacifist and "establishment" Protestant, primarily Lutheran. Roman Catholic historians wanted to show that the conflict between Chris- tians and the military revolved around the problem of the idolatrous army re- ligion.1 They avoided data which tended to picture Christians as either disloyal subjects of the Roman empire or people who wanted nothing at all to do with the political side of life. Bearing scars from the Kulturkampf, Andreas Bigelmair argued that Christians were willing to fight but were not willing to subject their spiritual life to the dangers of military religious observances. Like the other Roman Catholic historians, he created the impression that, aside from the problem of mil- itary religion, there was an unbroken tradition of Christian loyalty to the Roman government from the early church to that of the Middle Ages. In so doing, Biegel- mair, and also Leclercq, claimed the support of Tertullian and Origen. Just as the Medieval era seems to be normative for the Catholic scholars, so the New Testament, primarily the Sermon on the Mount, is normative for the Protestant pacifists.2 Although it is impossible for these historians to ignore the references to idolatry, they nevertheless cite the Gospel narratives and their echoes in the church Fathers as the determining factor in the conflict between Chris- tians and the military. C. J. Cadoux depended on the "decline theory" and assumed that, after the close of the great persecution in 311, the subsequent Christian cen- turies have not been able to match the spiritual and moral integrity of the first three. He believed that his study had a particular relevance for his day which was still smoldering from the carnage of the First World War.3 The European Lutherans have more diverse concerns.4 Adolf Harnack argued that the military analogies of the New Testament epistles (see Eph. 6:10-17) fos- tered the progression from the early church's metaphorical spiritual armies to the Middle Ages' crusades. Hans von Campenhausen thought that the early church was pacifist but that, after Constantine, the church had a responsibility to defend the empire, a responsibility the church did not avoid. James Moffatt, a Scottish Presbyterian, took issue with Harnack's hypothesis on military analogies. A mil- itary analogy does not necessarily disclose what the user of it thinks about war. 1. Andreas Bigelmair, Die Beteiligung der Christen am offentlichen Leben in vorcon- stantinischer Zeit (Munich, 1902). Henri Leclercq, " Militarisme," Dictionnaire d'archeologie chretienne et de liturgie 11: 1108-1182 (hereafter cited as DACL). Ed- ward Ryan, "The Rejection of Military Service by the Early Christians," Theological Studies 12 (1952):1-32. 2. C. J. Cadoux, The Early Christian Attitude to War (London, 1919). Roland Bainton, Christian Attitudes to War and Peace (Nashville, 1960). Jean-Michel Hornus, Evangile et Labarum (Geneva, 1960). 3. Cadoux, pp. 1-3. 4. Adolf Harnack, Militia Christi (Tiibingen, 1905). Heinrich Karpp, "Die Stellung der Alten Kirche zu Kriegsdienst und Krieg," Evangelische Theologie 23 (1957):496-515. Einar Molland, "De Kristne og Militaertjenesten i den Gamle Kirche," Norsk Theologisle Tidslcrift 51 (1959):87-104. Hans von Campenhausen, "Christians and Military Service in the Early Church," Tradition and Life in the Church, trans. A. V. Littledale (Phila- delphia, 1968). Mr. Helgeland is Luther College exchange professor in St. John's University, Collegeville, Minnesota. 149 150 CHUHCH HISTORY However, Moffatt thought that pacifists in his own time were Marcionites and he stopped just short of calling them traitors." Generally, the contemporary discussion of the early Christians' relationship to the Roman army has been bound to one confessional viewpoint or another. To a large extent all the authors display a position predictable once their background is known, and all have a tendency to find their doctrinal point of view reflected in the documents of the early church. Dependent on a theological approach is the assumption that the question can be answered adequately on the basis of a study of only the theological writings of the first three centuries. Hence, the rela- tive neglect of military martyr acts and Christian soldiers' tombstones becomes apparent as well as the almost total unfamiliarity with the Roman army itself. Before turning to these subjects, however, it is necessary to assess the evidence from the church Fathers. THE CHURCH FATHERS The first striking fact about the Fathers' writing on Christians participating in the Roman army is how infrequently the subject appears. Obviously there was no controversy calling forth angry exchanges of letters on the problem; in most cases only random comments appear regarding war in general. Only Tertullian, Origen and Hippolytus mention the problem explicitly, and Hippolytus devotes one sentence to it. Pacifist historians have tried to argue that, since the early church said so little about enlisting, it was a tacit understanding among the Chris- tians that one did not even consider such an occupation. However, the lack of references to enlistment proves that there is a lack of references to enlistment- nothing more. Tertullian. During his career Tertullian displayed a progressive hostility to- ward the Roman government. It is difficult to believe that the man who wrote the Apoloqy is the same man who wrote the De corona militis (Concerning the Military Crown) about fourteen years later, though the later document is a pro- duct of his Montanist point of ciew. Early in his career he recognized the necessity of war and claimed that Christians prayed for brave armies, a faithful senate, the peace of the world and the security of the empire.6 The success of Rome in ex- panding its borders and defending them was the gift of God.7 Like any Roman citizen Tertullian feared what might happen were the barbarians able to conquer the empire.8 Yet Tertullian said that Christians were peaceful. But in this case the con- text has changed; he is no longer speaking about defending the borders. One of the tupermost concerns in the mind of any emperor was that some group within the empire would revolt and destroy the empire. Slave owners took care not to have many slaves from one national group, and used the language barrier to pre- vent slaves from uniting. Accordingly, the emperor Trajan told Pliny the Young- er to prohibit fire brigades from forming because they could become centers of un- derground political activity. Trajan feared that instead of fighting fires they might start some of their own.9 One theory about the persecution of the Christians argues that the Roman government viewed the church as a clandestine political 5. James Moffatt, "The War and the Religious Life in Great Britain," American Journal of Theology 20 (1916): 489. See his study of the problem, "War," Dictionary of the Apostolic Church 2:646-673. 6. Apology 30. 4. 7. Apology 26. 2. De anima 30. 8. Apology 32. 1, and On the Besurrection of the Flesh 24. 18. 9. Pliny, Epistles 10:39. CHRISTIANS AND THE ROMAN ARMY 151 organization. Addressing himself to this fear on the part of the government, Tertullian said that Christians were everywhere and that, if they were of a mind to do so, they could burn down the empire in a night.10 But since Christians sub- mit to persecution the possibility of a guerilla war on their part is not a real one; they would rather be killed than kill.1 Christians are loyal to the empire, argued Tertullian. In addition to the loyalty Christians held toward the empire, Tertullian said they were congenial participants in it despite the accusation that they were weird people. Not like Brahmins or Gymnosophists leading an ascetic existence, Chris- tians go to the baths, butcher shops and inns like ordinary Romans. Moreover, Christians sail and fight along side the Romans; they enjoy the benefits of the empire and shoulder its responsibilities including military service.l2 Therefore, with the exception of the Roman temples, Christians were everywhere in the empire, in its fortresses and military camps.