Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:53:53.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Christians and the Roman Army A.D. 173–337

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

John Helgeland
John Helgeland
Affiliation:
Luther College exchange professor inSt. John's University, Coliegeville, Minnesota.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The question of the church's stand during the first three and a half centuries on Christians enlisting in the Roman army has received much attention since 1900. With slight overlapping, modern historians of the encounter of Christians with the Roman military fall into three basic groups: Roman Catholic, Protestant pacifist and “establishment” Protestant, primarily Lutheran.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , June 1974 , pp. 149 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Bigelmair, Andreas, Die Beteiligung der Christen am offentlichen Leben in vorcon. stantinischer Zeit (Munich, 1902)Google Scholar. Leclercq, Henri, “Militarisime,” Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie 11: 1108–1182 (hereafter cited as DACL).Google ScholarRyan, Edward, “The Rejection of Military Service by the Early Christians,” Theologicai Studies 12 (1952): 1–32.Google Scholar

2. Cadoux, C. J., The Early Christian Attitude to War (London, 1919).Google ScholarBainton, Roland, Christian Attitudes to War and Peace (Nashville, 1960).Google ScholarHornus, Jean-Michel, Evangile et Labarum (Geneva, 1960).Google Scholar

3. Cadoux, pp. 1–3.

4. Harnack, Adolf, Militia Christi (Tübingen, 1905).Google ScholarKarpp, Heinrich, “Die Stellung der Alten Kirche zu Kriegsdienst und Krieg,” Evangelische Theologie 23 (1957): 496–515.Google ScholarMolland, Einar, “De Kristne og Militacrtjenesten i den Gamile Kirche,” Norsk Theologislc Tidskrift 51 (1959): 87–104.Google ScholarCampenhausen, Hans von, “Christians and Military Service in the Early Church,” Tradition and Life in the Church, trans. Littledale, A. V. (Philadelphia, 1968).Google Scholar

5. Moffatt, James, “The War and the Religious Life in Great Britain,” American Journal of Thenlogy 20 (1916): 489.Google Scholar See his study of the problem, “War,” Dictionary of the Apostolic Church 2:646–673.Google Scholar

6. Apology 30. 4.

7. Apology 26. 2. De anima 30.

8. Apology 32. 1, and On the Resurrection of the Flesh 24. 18.

9. Pliny, , Epistles 10:39.Google Scholar

10. Apology 37. 3.

11. Apology 37. 5.

12. Apology 42. 3.

13. Apology 13. 3.

14. Klingmuller, , “Sacramentum,” Paulys Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Zweite Reihe 1A2, pp. 1667–1674Google Scholar (hereafter cited as RE).

15. Fink, Robert O., Roman Military Records on Papyrus (Cleveland: The American Philological Association, 1971), pp. 179–180.Google Scholar See also “excubare,” p. 541 and Gero, Stephen, “Miles Gloriosus: The Christians and the Military Service,” Church History 29 (1970): 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Gero's assertion (p. 295) that “— in this period the Christian in the army was not really exposed to a greater danger of idolatry than in civilian life” is simply not true. The recitation of the oath, not to mention other prescribed religious observances, was a regular and unavoidable feature of military life. For the Roman army's religious calendar, see , Fink, pp. 422–429,Google Scholar and his lengthy study of the Dura Calendar, “The Feriale Duranum,” Yale Classical Studies 7 (1940) :1–222Google Scholar

16. De idolatria 19. 2

17. von Domaszewski, Alfred, “Die Religion des Romischen Heeres,”Westdeutschen Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Kunst 14 (1895) :40–45Google Scholar

18. De idolatria 19. 2.

19. De corona 1. 6. The crown was an award given to soldiers by virtue of meritorious combat, usually given to centurions. See Watson, G. R., The Roman Sodier (Ithaca, 1969), pp. 114–217.Google Scholar

20. Fontaine, J., Tertuflian: Dc corona (Paris, 1966)Google Scholar

21. Tertullian considered idolatry the chief sin against God, evan more objectionable than murder. De spectaculis 2. 8. Gero, , p. 294, only begs the question when he says that “much of the De corona is of no interest to us here, taken up as it is with a rather artificial antiquarian discussiari on the use of wreaths and crowns.”Google Scholar

22. The opening paragraphs of Contra Celsum are devoted to the theme of the Christian's loyalty to the empire, the same theme which closes the treatise.

23. Contra Celsum 8. 73.

24. De principiis 4: 1. 24. Homily on Numbers 7. 6; 13. 2; 19. 4; and 25. 4. Commentary on John 6: 3.

25 Contra Celsum 7. 22.

26. De principiis 4. 18. Origen said that the command that the right cheek should be smitten was incredible since everyone who strikes hits the left cheek with the right hand, therefore this command cannot be taken literally.

27. Contra Celsum 8. 65.Google Scholar

28. Ibid., 8. 67.

29. Ibid., 8. 68.

30. Ibid., 8. 69.

31. Ibid., 8. 70.

32. Ibid., 8. 72.

33. Ibid., 8. 73.

34. Ibid..

35. Ibid..

36. Karpp, , p. 500.Google Scholar

37. Apostolic Tradition 16. 17.

38. Ibid., 16. 17.

39. Ibid., 16. 18.

40. Ibid., 16. 19.

41. Ibid., 16. 10–22.

42. Ibid., 16. 17.

43. Protrepticus 10. 100.

44. Another example of his neutral feelings about the military is his discussion of shoes; it was permissible for a man to go barefoot “except when he is on military service.” Paedagogus 2. 118, 2.Google Scholar

45. Epistles 8; 24. 2; 36. 2; 53. 1, 4–5; 55. 3; 72. 22.

46. On the Mortality 8 and 12.

47. On the Dress of Virgins 11.

48. On the Advantage of Patience 14.

49. Octavius 29, see also 6, 25 and 26.

50. Against the Pagans 3. 26.

51. Ibid., 4. 7.

52. Divine Institutes 6. 20. Epitome 63.

53. Divine Institutes 5. 18.

54. Ecclesiastical History 5, 5, –7 (hereafter cited as HE).

55. I owe this observation to Robert M. Grant.

56. Life of Constantine 1. 1.

57. Gospel of Thomas 4.

58. Ibid., 3.

59. Ibid., 11.

60. Watson, , pp. 136, 147–154.Google Scholar

61. HE 5, 5. 1–7. Eusebius got this story from Apollinaris of Hierapolis, a contemporary of the event. Hierapolis is approximately 400 miles west of Melitene, the camp of the legion. The literature and problems connected with this incident are too complex to present here. See my ““Christians and Military Service, A.D. 173–337” (Ph. D. diss., University of Chicago, 1973). pp. 88–97.Google Scholar

62. Dio 72. 8. 1–10. 5. Giovanni, Becatti, Colonna di Marco Aurelio (Milan, 1957), plates 9, 10, 11, and 12.Google Scholar

63. Most likely this is the reason that Roman sources do not tell us what legions were imvolved, though Christian ones do. For a history of the legion see Ritterling, , “Legio,” RE 12: 1705–1710. A vexillation of legio III Augusta, normally stationed in North Africa, was in the eampaign. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum 8, 619 (hereafter cited as CIL).Google Scholar

64. Apology, 5.

65. Ritterling, , p. 1706. CIL 3: 504, 507, 509, 6097.Google Scholar

66. Renan, E., Marc-Aurele et la Fin du Monde Antique (6th ed., Paris, 1891), p. 275.Google Scholar

67. As we have said above, the acta of the Christian military martyrs are problematic. For a brief introduction to the history of its criticism see Musurillo, Herbert, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford, 1972), pp. i–vii. Our method of study agrees with Musurillo's suggestion that each account be studied independently and be evaluated on the basis of historical data found in each of them. In general, the longer acts have appeared to be less reliable and have fewer identifiable details relating to the military than do the shorter ones. From time to time, however, the longer acts have been built around a short protocol (perhaps bribed or stolen from the court recorder) which appears to be authentic, as in the case of Tipasius. Of the twenty-four acta dealing with military martyrs, we have included the ones which appear to be beyond question, that is, where the protocol form is identifiable within the text.Google Scholar

68. HE 7. 15. Musurillo, , pp. 240–243Google Scholar

69. Musurillo, , pp. 244–249Google Scholar

70. Jones, A. H. M., The Later Roman Empire (Norman, Ok., 1964), p. 52.Google Scholar

71. , Musurillo, pp. 250–259Google Scholar.

72. This is not the joint birthday of these emperors as in Musurillo, (p. 251 n. 2)Google Scholar, see, Galletier, E., Panégyriques latines (Paris, 1949), 1: 9–11Google Scholar. Nor is Anastasius Fortunatus the praefectus of legio II Trajana, but the praeses of Gallaecia. , Harnack, p. 85, also makes the mistake of saying that Marcellus was from the legion II Trajana usually stationed in Egypt; his evidence is only one of the fifteen surviving manuscripts of the Acts of Marcellus, outside of which there is no other evidence for the presence of that legion in Spain.Google Scholar

73. Though it appears strange, Marcellus was first tried in the province of Gallaecia (north-west Spain), then sent across the Strait of Gibraltar to Tingis, the capital of the diocese of Hispania containing five other provinces, all on the Iberian peninsula. Part of the problem in determining exactly what happened is that there are two manuscript recensions “M” and “N”; the “M” group has both trials happen in Spain while the “N” group correctly has him bound over to a higher court outside Spain. It makes no sense to have two trials in the same province; the “M” group may be the result of a local martyr cult trying to doctor the evidence to make it appear as though Marcellus died at home.

74. On the Deaths of Persecutors 10.

75. , Watson, pp. 122–123.Google Scholar

76. HE 8, 4, 2–. The word Eusebius used was “stratopedarchās”, meaning the camp commandant; but it is unlikely that such a person would have been able to conduct a persecution on as large a scale as Eusebius said he did.

77. Musurillo, , pp. 272–279Google Scholar. Bassus is not the legatus of legio XI Claudia as Musurillo, states (p. 273 n. 1)Google Scholar since there had not been any legatus in charge of a legion since the emperor Gallienus over a generation earlier; see Parker, H. M. D., A History of the Roman World from A.D. 138-387 (London, 1958), p. 179.Google Scholar This is the only recorded instance of the Saturn festival lasting thirty days. See Musurillo. ibid.

78. Smedt, Carolus, ed., “Passiones tres Martyrum Africanorum, SS. Maximae, Donatillae et Secundae, S. Typasii Veterani, et S. Fabii Vexiliferi,” Analecta Bollandiana 9 (1890): 107–134 (hereafter cited as AB).Google Scholar

79. , Musurillo, pp. 260–265Google Scholar. This martyrdom did not occur in Durostorum as in the Roman Martyrology (27 May). Since Bassus was not legatus legionis (n. 77 above) he must have been one of the last legates of the imperial province of Moesia Inferior. But we see that Julius was tried the same year under a praeses. Since no province was governed by both a legatus and a praeses, the martyrdom was not in that province.

80. Others include The Theban Legion, Passio Acaunensium Martyrum in Denis Van Berchem, Le Martyre de La Légion Thebaine (Basel, 1956), pp. 55–59.Google Scholar See also Dupraz, Louis, Le passions de S. Maurice d'Agaune (Fribourge, 1961).Google ScholarAndrew the Tribune, Acta Sanctorum 38 (08 3): 720–723 (hereafter cited as ASS).Google Scholar Cailistratus and His Forty-Nine Companions, Coeiybeare, P. C., The Apology and Acts of Apollonius and Other Monuments of Early Christianity (New York, 1894), pp. 389–436.Google Scholar, Fabius, Smedt, Carolus, ed., “Passio S. Fabii Vexilliferi,” AB 9 (1890): 123–134.Google ScholarLongius the Centurion, ASS 7 (05 2): 380-384.Google ScholarLonginus the Soldier, ASS 7 (05 2) :379–380.Google ScholarLuxorius, ASS 38 (08 4) :416–418.Google Scholar, Nereus and , Achilleus, Achelis, Hans, “Aeta SS. Nerei et Achiilei,” Texte und Untersuchungen 11 (1893) :1–13.Google Scholar, Polyeuetes, , Conybeare, pp. 123–146.Google ScholarDelehaye, Procopius H., Les lègendes grecques des saints militaires (Paris, 1909), pp. 214–233.Google Scholar, Proculus, ASS 11 (06 1) :48–50.Google ScholarThe Quattour Coronati, ASS 56 (11 3) :748–284.Google Scholar, Sebastian, ASS 2 (01 2) :629–243.Google Scholar, Sergius and , Baechus, AB 14 (1895) :375–395.Google Scholar, Tarachus, , Probus and , Andronicus, ASS 52 (10 5) :566–584.Google Scholar, Theodore the Recruit, Delehaye, pp. 127–150.Google Scholar See also , Migne, Patrologia Grasca 46: 736–748.Google Scholar, Theodore the Commander, Delehaye, pp. 151–201.Google Scholar

81. Calder, W. M. “A Fourth Century Lycaonian Bishop,” Expositor, 7th Series 6 (1908): 385–408. Eugenius was in the army of Maximin Daia during the revival of persecution in 311. Although he later became a bishop, he kept off his tombstone the fact that he was an officer.Google Scholar

82. Leclercq, H., “Militarisme,” DACL, pp. 1155–1179.Google ScholarDiehl, Ernest, Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres (Berlin, 1925–1931), no. 483–569.Google ScholarL'annèe epigraphique (hereafter cited as AE), 1936, no. 49; 1937, no. 4; 1938, no. 138; 1939, no. 171; 1946, no. 43 and 246; 1950, no. 257.Google Scholar In this collection of inscriptions Leclercq and Diehl have the same ones listed for the time before Constantine, though Diehl is more extensive afterwards. Those from AE represent those inscriptions found since their work concluded. Borrowing Leclercq's numbering, no. 29 is second century, nos. 12, 21, 22, 24, 46 and 47 are third as is AE 1939, no. 171. Ranks represented are one centurion (12), three evocati (21, 22, AE 1939, no. 171), one beneficiarius (24), two veterans (29, 46), and one listed as militavit (served as a soldier—47).Google Scholar

83. Watson, G. R., “Christianity in the Roman Army in Britain,” in Barley, M. W. and Hanson, R. P. C., eds., Christianity in Britain, 500-700 (Leicester, 1968), pp. 51–54.Google Scholar

84. , Cacloux, pp. 15–16.Google Scholar, Bainton, pp. 79–81.Google Scholar

85. De fuga 13.

86. MacMullen, Ramsay, Soldier and Civilivan in the Later Roman Empire (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), p. 51.Google Scholar

87. , Parker, p. 188. CIL 12: 2228.Google Scholar

88. CIL 3: 9908 gives the successive ranks of one soldier; miles iegionis XI, tesserarius, beneficiarius, cornicularius legati Augusti pro praetore, centurio. CIL 8: 17626 shows a soldier going from the office of beneficiarius of the legion III Augustae to centurion of the legion III Italieae. Other examples are to be found in von Domaszewski, A., Die Rangordnung des römischen Heeres, 2nd ed., rev by Dobson, Brian (Köln, 1967), pp. 32–35.Google Scholar

89. , Parker, p. 180.Google ScholarGrosse, B., Römische Mititärgeschicthe (Berlin, 1920), pp. 13–15.Google Scholar

90. In a footnote, , Bainton, p. 69 n. 10, has listed all the pre-Constantinian soldiers in Leclercq (nos. 12, 21, 22, 24, 29, 47).Google Scholar However when developing his police work theory he discussed only the beneficiarius (no. 24); see , Bainton, p. 79 n. 83. For the other military ranks see n. 82 above.Google Scholar

91. MacMullen, Ramsay, Enemies of the Roman Order (Cambridge, Mass., 1966), pp. 255-268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

92. Davies, R. W., “Police Work in Roman Times,” History Today 18 (1968) :700–207.Google Scholar

93. , Bainton, pp. 80–81.Google Scholar

94. Digest 49: 16, 13, “A soldier who in time of war loses or disposes of his arms shall suffer death; through indulgence he may be transferred to another branch of the service.” Translation from Brand, C. B., Roman Military Law (Austin, Tex., 1968), pp. 174–175.Google Scholar