Condemnation of Violence
If accusations of persecution and of the infliction of martyrdom refer back to originally pagan sacred violence, Christianity self-identified with peace and a rejection of violence.
For example, shortly after the council of Ephesus (431 ce), Eutherius of Tyana, a follower of Nestorius, opened his apology by complaining that while the church should stand for peace, his opponents had had recourse to violence to settle the dispute.[1038] One could dismiss this as a mere rhetorical opposition, for Nestorius was no stranger to heavy-handed tactics. Yet, such an interpretation misses the point: the strength of such an opening statement lies in the fact that Eutherius claims to be on the side of what the church should be and pretended to be. Violence, especially when perpetrated by churchmen, was therefore morally problematic. Such a discourse generates a high visibility for violence: the high-handed tactics by bishops in the many conflicts of the period are often criticised - usually by other bishops in order to discredit their opponents. Even the famous letter of Severus on the conversion of the Jews of Minorca, usually read as advertising violence against the Jews, reflects this constellation.Between 2 and 10 February 418 ce all the Jews of the small Mediterranean island of Minorca converted to Christianity. We are informed about the event through the letter its bishop Severus composed a year later and sent to all bishops of the Mediterranean. Because the letter narrates how the synagogue burned down, it has been judged very severely as the propaganda of Christian hardliners showing how one should deal with Jews.[1039] In fact, the letter is better understood as apologetic in nature, seeking to disculpate Severus for a series of events that contravened fundamental Christian prescriptions, in particular the voluntary nature of conversion and general peacefulness, as well as imperial law.
The text is probably best understood as an attempt to shore up support in the face of a formal complaint lodged with the authorities by a Jew or the Jewish community.The letter has a clear structure. It opens with a geographical presentation, drawing on traditional stereotypes, whereby the western city of Jamona, dominated by Christians, is depicted favourably and eastern Magona, inha- bitated by Jews, is described as unfertile and full of dangerous animals. A hostile equilibrium exists between both communities, which is interrupted when the relics of St Stephen arrive on the island. Suddenly, without further explanation, the Christians abandon their usual slackness and start to seek to convert the Jews. To this purpose, they organise a debate between Severus and the leader of the Jews. The Jews try to avoid the debate and when the Christians travel to Jamona, they are attacked by the Jews. Both groups come to blows and the synagogue burns down. We are now halfway through the letter and the rest is taken up by describing how various debates lead to the conversion of all the Jews. Five hundred and forty souls are added to the
church. The narrative is clearly influenced by hagiographical topoi and we should avoid reading it as an exact representation of the events.
Throughout the narrative, Severus seeks to show how he has lived up to the moral demands of the church. First of all, he has sought to convert the Jews by debate. As I have shown elsewhere, persuasion and debate were, for late antique Christians, the appropriate means to deal with religious conflict, and it was considered improper to coerce someone before having tried persuasion. Persuasion would lead one to freely and rationally accept his error and assent to the truth of orthodoxy. Indeed, Severus takes care to prove to the reader that his intention was only debate: he states that he has appended to the letter the document he prepared, containing answers to possible issues the Jews would raise.[1040] The appendix is lost, but its mention serves the rhetorical function of demonstrating the honesty of Severus' intentions.
Indeed, the rest of the letter records no less than four discussions.The clash at the synagogue is, however, the moot point in the whole narrative. The destruction of synagogues was illegal in this period and Severus clearly seeks to shift blame away from himself. First, the cause of the violence was the Jews: instead of accepting the debate, they gathered arms and Jewish women started throwing stones at the Christians. Second, the violence that ensued is rendered remarkably harmless. Severus admits that he was unable to restrain his flock and that both sides came to blows. Remarkably, however, nobody was hurt. Severus underlines this by claiming that no Jew has claimed to have been hurt and by narrating the single exception: a Christian slave was hit by a lost stone when stealing from the synagogue. This, then, allows Severus to underline that the Christians did not steal anything of value from the synagogue, although they did confiscate the Jewish holy books. Third, the crucial event, the burning of the synagogue, is dispensed with in a single sentence: ‘A fire consumed all the ornaments of the building, except for the books and the silverware, together with the building itself.'[1041] Nothing is said of how this came about and, in a striking act of linguistic deviation, the burning of the building is syntactically represented as accessory to the destruction of the decoration. For a text that supposedly glorifies anti-Jewish violence, the letter of Severus remains remarkably coy about the violence: indeed, it is all but made to disappear.
The letter of Severus is doubly apologetic. On the one hand, it seeks to demonstrate to his fellow Christians that nothing immoral had happened. Persuasion was the aim and the riot at the synagogue was a lamentable yet harmless exception, ultimately caused by the Jews themselves. On the other hand, it rejects all legal responsibility for the burning of the synagogue. Given the fact that the letter circulated a year after the actual event, it seems likely that he was seeking support when faced with a court case. At about the same time, an associate of Severus contacted Augustine, probably to seek support in relation to this event.[1042] Rather than a glorification of violence, then, the letter seeks to dispel the moral opprobrium and legal challenge with which Severus was faced in the wake of the events of February 418. By denying all wrong-doing, the text reaffirms the prevalent expectations of non-violent conversion, the primacy of debate, and the legal status quo.
More on the topic Condemnation of Violence:
- Violence against the Self, State Violence and Interpersonal Violence
- Within the world history of violence the Bible is relevant for our reconstructions of the lived experience of violence among ancient Israelites and Judeans;
- The theme ‘religion and violence' or ‘religious violence' gained worldwide attention after the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon in 2001.1
- The Interwar Moment: Violence versus Non-Violence
- Violence and representations of violence abound in the literature of ancient and late antique Judaism and Christianity.
- The advent of the Early Historic period in northern India in the sixth and fifth centuries bce saw the emergence of monarchical and oligarchic states and the beginnings of a sustained discussion of the relationship of kingship with violence and non-violence.
- Chapter IV Growing Up with Violence in Northern Ireland: Making Meaning of Institutionalized Violence
- The archaeological evidence for violence and for the symbolic representation of violence in Iron Age Europe is abundant and complex.
- Violence, Non-Violence, the State and the Nation: India, 1858-1958
- Imperial Chinese society accepted and even lauded certain types of violence. Fundamental views of sanctioned violence developed in reaction to that culture's particular views of masculinity.
- This chapter examines the diverse communities of Britain from the ninth century bce to the early fifth century ce, and uses a Web of Violence model to examine the archaeological and primary source evidence for violence in both periods.
- Werner Reiss, author of the most detailed recent discussion on the subject of violence in the Greek world, defined violence as ‘a physical act', stating further that it is a ‘process in which a human being inflicts harm on another human being via physical strength’.1
- To ask what state-sanctioned violence meant in medieval Japan (1185-1615) is to be confronted with two attendant questions: what counted as violence; and what counted as state-sanctioned?