Talk:Christian martyr/Archive 1

The Christ Conspiracy
I read The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S. In her introduction, she mentioned that early Christian martyrs were less than tradition reports.

Question: From 34 A.D. to 135 A.D., Christian martyrdom did not consist of Christians being fed to the lions in the Coliseum? They were not singled out, a wider category of people were made sport of?

About This Article In G.P. Baker's Constantine the Great and the Christian Revolution, Christians suffered under Galerius. The author makes the point that a few Christians who had the character to make a stand against the oppression, did suffer torture while others were average people who thought life had other matters which required attention. Most people went back to their lives after being allowed release on the condition of recanting their faith. The few who chose not to bend found their life's purpose to stand against religious oppresion.

Baker reports that governors enforced the edicts against Christians with imprisonment and torture but killing Christians was not prevalent. He mentions the Fourth Edict that made the penalthy of being Christian death but the few, dozens, or hundreds are not determined. Can someone comment on this.

I'll look up crucifixion in Wikipedia next time. I think there is no doubt that there have been mass punishment by crucifixion conducted by the Ancient Romans. This may have been done in Ancient Palestine, perhaps 70 AD and 135 AD. Were more Hebrews killed in 70 AD and 135 AD than Christians at any time?

The Hebrew revolts, in my historical recollection, were blatant whereas the Christian threat at anytime and particularly identified by Galerius was more of a cultural phenomenon of a growing religion.

Baker says while the Roman military preferred Mithraism, the commercial class preferred Christianity.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by QuietTraveller (talk • contribs) 13:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite
This article needs a major rewrite. Martyrdom referes to a specific religious concept in Christian traditions, but 'martyrs' cannot be presented in list if the article is going to comply with NPOV. Rather one needs to assert the Christian concept of martyrdom in general, differences between different Christian denomination in regards to Martyrdom concepts and if someone is listed as a 'martyr' then it should be clear exactly who claims martydom for that specific person. The people who executed Jan Hus hardly saw themselves as anything less than Christians. --Soman 16:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, there are martyrs for other religions or beliefs (e.g. Socrates). Does the term refer specifically to Christians, or to anyone who is unjustly executed for their beliefs? --StuartGathman (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of image
User:Mamalujo has repeatedly removed the Image Image:Bethlehem-fatahchristianmartyr.JPG, claiming that it doesn't represent Christian martyrhood. At a closer look, the image contains biblical references, a passage from the Book of John, images of the Church of the Nativity and the explicit usage of the word 'martyr'. Wikipedia doesn't belong to any particular community or religious group, and its not the function of this article to judge who is and who isn't a Christian martyr (and for this sake, a through rewrite is needed). Rather the purpose has to be to present which role the concept of martyrdom plays within Christianity. Images, illustrating porttrayal of this concept are essential. I would not say that this particular image is universally typical for Christian concepts of martyrdom, but it is interesting as as it represent as discourse of introducing religious themes in the context of modern political conflict. Whether he person in question really is martyr or not is a secondary discussion at best. --Soman 21:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You write "the purpose has to be to present which role the concept of martyrdom plays within Christianity." The problem is that this image does not present the role which martydom plays within Christianity.  Most likely, it is an attempt by Hamas or the like to get Christians to sign on to a radical Muslim view of martyrdom.  It should be noted that NO Christian denominatation whatsoever would recognize the individual as a martyr or an example of martyrdom. Indeed, the image seems to be nothing more than POV pushing and misrepresentation.  You say "Images, illustrating porttrayal of this concept are essential."  The problem is that the image does not portray the concept. Not only is it not "universally typical", it is not typical in any way.  Mamalujo 21:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry not Hamas, but Fatah. A Christian martyr is someone who dies for the faith.  This guy either died for Fatah (a secular organization dominated by Muslims) or for the cause of a Palistinian state.  Neither cause constitutes, by any stretch of the imagination, dying for Christianity, no matter what Fatah says. Mamalujo 22:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Palestinian Christians would disagree with you. That is, if the Christian population of Bethlehem counts as Christians that is. --Soman 22:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Palestinian Christians (what few are left in Palestine) are mostly Orthodox and Catholic. When they recognize your guy as a saint, I'll quit arguing. Mamalujo 22:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And Fatah membership in Bethlehem is largely Christian. See, the candidatures of the pro-Fatah United Bethlehem Bloc had 8 Christian and 7 Muslim candidates in 2005. --Soman 23:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So what? That doesn't mean the schmuck in the poster is a Christian martyr.Mamalujo 17:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Throughout the history of the church there have been those who wanted to use the notion of martyrdom for their own political ends. This does not make them martyrs. Martyrdom is specifically the imitation of Christ, who allowed himself to be killed, offering no resistance, "like a lamb lead to the slaughter," and loving those who persecuted him, praying for them that they be forgiven for killing him (as also in the case of Stephen). He didn't go to his death wielding an AK-47. From the Christian perspective (and the article is about Christian martyrs), armed resistance is the opposite of martyrdom. MishaPan 15:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * During the arrest of Jesus, when Peter struck off the ear of the High Priest's servant, Christ told him to "put away your sword," warning him (and us) that "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword." The man in this picture is NOT a Christian martyr. Soman, you write that "the purpose [of this Wikipedia aricle] has to be to present which role the concept of martyrdom plays within Christianity." I agree with your statement; and by that standard, the photograph in question does NOT present the role the concept of martyrdom plays within Christianity--the photograph represents the exact opposite of the concept of martyrdom within Christianity. Please, PLEASE, stop putting this picture back in the article! MishaPan 21:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the image because, first, it doesn't say exactly who the person is or the circumstances of his death. Second, simply risking or losing your own life as you're killing others who happen to hold a different religious belief doesn't qualify as the dictionary definition of "martyr".  Third, in the Christian tradition or martyrdom, this man would have to lay down his weapon and suffer pain and/or death at the hands of those who seek to kill him for his religious beliefs alone.  He can't be called a Christian martyr just because he called himself a Christian and was a random casuality of a battle in which he was willing combatant.  --JJLatWiki 17:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting argument, and you actually make sense. For future reference, please sign your posts, JJLatWiki. Also, I have noticed you have taken a personal interest in my presence on Wikipedia. Watching my edits can be entertaining, but lets not go down the path of "WikiStalking", shall we? Padishah5000 19:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize. One of the very few times I have failed to sign my posts.  It will probably happen again, but I try.  I wasn't following you though.  I followed the image from Fatah.  I noticed it on this page several months ago and didn't really think anything of it until I recognized the same image on the Fatah page.  You and I share a couple areas of interest, so we are bound to bump into each other on occasion.  In a former life, I specialized in middle-east military intelligence, especially aviation and especially Iran and Iraq, which is where you and I first became acquainted and will probably see the most of each other.  I did recognize your user name on the edit and it almost kept me from making my first edit to this article to avoid the stalking accusation, but I could not resist.  I assure you that I rarely follow the edit habits of other editors.  It's only out of interest in seeing what I may be missing on Wikipedia.  --JJLatWiki 20:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The image uses Christian imagery, quotes the Bible, and even uses the word martyr. It is no doubt that Fatah considers this person to be a Christian martyr. Whether some of the editors here disagree with that viewpoint doesn't matter. So how about the picture being displayed, along with the text "The organization Fatah considers some of its members to be Christian martyrs". No editor here has the right to decide who is a Christian martyr and who isn't. Only reliable sources, properly attributed can call people Christian martyrs. This poster is sure as heck a reliable source.--Mostargue 19:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, Fatah is a political organization and could be considered a reliable source for information regarding Fatah. It is not neutral and certainly not scholarly on matters of religion or especially Christian traditions.  Therefore, Fatah is not a reliable source for this entry.  Fatah could publish a book about how this man is made entirely of tortilla chips, if their claim is clearly wrong, it does not require an entry in the tortilla chip article simply because Fatah made the claim.  History decides who is called a Christian martyr, not Fatah. --JJLatWiki 18:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Second, because "shaheed" is used as a loose synonym for "martyr", it is more of an Arab tradition to call one a martyr simply for being killed while fighting and killing in the name of your chosen religion. Shaheed can be interpreted to mean one who died or was killed while fighting for religion.  In the Christian tradition, martyrs are those put to death or forced to suffer for their religion, not because they were an enemy combatant.  There is a clear distinction. --JJLatWiki 18:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Third, we have no idea of the circumstances of this man's death. From the picture, I would guess that he was engaged in a violent fight in support of his cause.  I'm not judging the value of his cause or how he chose to fight for it.  I'm simply saying that in the Christian tradition, he can not be called a "Christian martyr".  In some traditions, he might be a martyr for his cause, and his cause happened to relate to Christianity.  But a martyr who is Christian is not the same as a Christian martyr. --JJLatWiki 18:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See . --Soman 20:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * One: According to Fatah's Christian tradition, he is a Christian martyr. If you ask any Palestinians, he is a Christian martyr. Just because it does not fit with your western Christianity does not mean that it does not warrant mention in the article. The title of the article is "Christian martyrs", not "Christian martyrs as identified by western scholars". If someone calls person A a Christian martyr then we can place it here. It's that simple.


 * Two: The crusaders were also called martyrs fordham.edu. Again, I find it offensive that you pretend that Christianity is monolithic.


 * Third:"Wanted by Israel. Killed by a Border Police undercover unit that chased him while he was driving a car in which two friends, both wanted, were passengers. One of the friends was killed, and the other was arrested."


 * --Mostargue 22:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. According to Arab tradition, he is a martyr.  And you agree with Fatah's claim that since he called himself a Christian, he is automatically a Christian martyr.  But who is Fatah?  Is Fatah a political organization or is Fatah a university?  How and when did Fatah become a reliable source for the pronouncement of Christian martyrs?  With your assertion that, "If someone calls person A a Christian martyr then we can place it here", I think you have set the standard incredibly low for the status.  By that standard, you must now include David Letterman on this list because I hearby call David Letterman a Christian martyr.  I, being a someone, have called David Letterman, person A, a Christian martyr.  Does he qualify for this article?  --JJLatWiki 23:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as ancient uses of martyrs, the text doesn't call them "Christian martyrs". And maybe I'm misreading some of the text, but it seems that the Jews were called martyrs first.  But please stop with your defensiveness.  I didn't mean to offend anyone.  I'm not a Christian and I'm only stating my opinion.  The dictionary and historical accounts of Christian martyrs suggest that a Christian martyr is put to death, a Christian martyr isn't just killed by a stray bullet.  Otherwise this article would have to be renamed, "Famous Christian martyrs" to differentiate from the millions of other soldiers who died fighting for Christian leaders whom you would call Christian martyrs.  --JJLatWiki 23:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem with the term "martyr". It's just like "terrorist". Who decides whether someone is a terrorist? Wikipedia should not call people martyrs, we should properly attribute sources to organizations who decide whether or not someone is a martyr. Please don't patronize. Whether or not Fatah is a scholarly source simply does not matter. They are a notable organization, they make the claim, therefore their claim is presented on Wikipedia. Just because YOU disagree with their claim does not mean that it is not permitted to be in article. You can call David Letterman a Christian martyr, good for you. You aren't a notable person according to Wikipedia standards. Now, if George Bush said David Letterman was a Christian martyr, then it should be listed here.

If you don't accept that, how about the story of Roland? --Mostargue 03:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "we should properly attribute sources to organizations who decide whether or not someone is a martyr"? Fatah is such an organization?  Even if that's accepted, a Christian martyr is different.  Not better or less than other martyrs, but different.  But I don't accept that Fatah is an organization with an accepted history in deciding whether or not someone is a martyr, much less a Christian martyr.  For the same reason, nor would I accept David Letterman being listed as a Christian martyr just because George Bush called him so.  Notability doesn't confer authority.  There are many people, groups, scholars, and philosophers who call Saint Stephen and Joan of Arc "Christian martyrs".  Who, beside Fatah, has called this man a Christian martyr?  And is this the first person Fatah has proclaimed to be a Christian martyr?  --JJLatWiki 04:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

John the Evangelist
I noticed that John the Evangelist was listed among Eary Christian Martyrs. I think rather the point is that he was the only one of the original twelve Apostles who was not martyred. MishaPan 15:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn?
I don't think that Anne Boleyn can really be classified as a Protestant martyr. Without doubt, the question of who would be Henry VIII's wife (all six of them) was always steeped in the Protestant/Catholic conflict of Tudor England. But Henry did not kill Anne because she was a Protestant, he killed her because he found it expedient to be married to someone else. Anne did not see herself as dying for the Protestant cause, at least from what we know of her writings or statements at the time. The Wikipedia article about Anne Boleyn says, "She was a devout Christian in the new tradition of Renaissance Humanism (calling her a Protestant would be an overstatement)." Nor do I know of any Protestant denomination that has oficially enrolled her as a martyr (I could be wrong about this, and am interested in any info. others may have). MishaPan 16:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Name change from Christian Martyrs to Martyrdom in Christianity
The recent name change was done without any discussion. I'm wondering the articles editors' thoughts are about the change. Why was it done? Is it an improvement? Should it be changed back? Mamalujo 20:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the list should be sepetrated into groups so that we have a clear understanding of who was with who so that there would be no confusion. For example, if one reads "Fox's Book of Martyrs" the people within the first three chapters can be easily identified, where as the rest of the book is so lacking in detail, you cannot even be sure if those people were real and if those events actually happened. Another example that I would bring up is that a number of those "martyrs" often gave contradictory and heretical teachings. "Getting back to "Fox's Book of Martyrs" one of those martyrs was a group called the Albigenses. They denied that Jesus came in the flesh. They also advocated suicide. They are clear violations of what it says in the bible. --209.244.30.237 15:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith
I'm thinking about adding a section about Joseph Smith, Jr. in representation of the Latter Day Saint movement, but do you guys think he qualifies as a martyr? He was specifically targeted for his religious beliefs and was killed by a mob along with his brother, and the LDS Church as well as other Mormon groups venerate his death and that of his brother as the ultimate sacrifice. In my opinion, they're pretty much the only specific martyrs Mormonism has, if you don't include the pioneers who died during thoe Mormon Exodus. What do you guys think? If so, would that qualify as a "Protestant Martyr"? Mormonism is a Restorationist movement...thanks for your input! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.163.54.220 (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a good question. He was apparently jailed for treason, he was a very disliked person by both non-Mormons, and many Mormons, as mayor, he authorized the destruction of a newspaper press to silence his detractors, he authorized martial law in response to warrants against him from outside his town.  I don't know if he was killed for his belief in Christianity, per se.  I don't even know if he was killed for his beliefs in general.  How he chose to pursue his beliefs had an extreme effect on all the people in his community.  Some might say that he was killed because he just rubbed people the wrong way, and he was a large contributor to the animosity that ultimately resulted in his death.  Maybe he is a Mormon martyr, but I don't think he's a Christian martyr.  If he's a martyr, then he's a martyr who happens to be Christian.  In my opinion, anyway.  --JJLatWiki 21:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The question of whether he is a martyr is secondary to the question of whether he is aChristian martyr. The fact of the matter, with all due respect to the virtuous Mormon faithful, is that most Christian churches do not consider LDS to be Christian. The Catholic Church, for example, requires LDS converts to be baptised, where they would not require that of a Baptist, Anglican or Methodist convert.  Most other Christian Churches maintain the same requirement of Mormon converts.  Likewise, Mormons have maintained that all of Christianity is wrong and in complete apostasy.  This quote regarding a survey of Christian clergy is telling: "In the year 2000, Scott Gordon and Dennis Egget of The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) -- a LDS positive group -- sent a survey to 430 Christian clergy who led non-Mormon congregations. They received 95 responses, which is what one would expect from a survey of this type. They found that only 6% of Christian clergy classified the LDS church as Christian."  So although LDS may consider itself a Christian church, particularly so today, other Christians do no consider them so.  As such, it would seem appropriate, if he is considered a martyr by the Mormon leadership, to have Smith in a separate article on Mormon martyrs. Mamalujo 18:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Martyrs of the 1st century
The lists for the other periods are sound history so far as I can tell, but the listing of Apostolic Age martyrs is frankly a mess. Late, late legend is slushed together with 1st and early 2nd century sources without any hint of the gulf in reliability. Of the 15 martyrs listed, only Stephen, James the Great, James the Just, Peter and Paul actually have any halfway decent source for their death by persecution. Everybody else, the support is a joke -- documents from the 6th century or "Acts" like those of Thomas that are clearly fiction and no respectable historian attempting to reconstruct the 1st century Christian world ever uses. I think the rest should be deleted, but maybe somebody would like to keep them but distinguishing their martyrdom as legendary. I'm not clear if there's a reason why an actual attested martyr from a 1st century document, Antipas (Revelation 2:13), is not included -- not an apostle or something? 69.237.197.37 14:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleting "without seeking his own death or any harm to others"
In the first line I'm deleting "without seeking his own death or any harm to others" because it's biased, inaccurate, and misleading. It also amke martyrdom seem somehow noble or desirable, which is objectionable adn offensive. Many examples can be found to demonstrate this is not always the case - for example the Christians who deliberately courted their own deaths by smashing up pagan temples in Roman-era Spain..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obiskatobis (talk • contribs) 15:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I like the American Heritage Dictionary definition, "One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles." By that standard, smashing temples of non-christian origin to draw wrath is tough to justify.  --JJLatWiki 16:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

list
maybe i'm overlooking, but what is this list based upon? Are we (editors) deciding who's a martyr and who's not? Interesting detail: between 1950 and 2000 less martyrs are named then between 2000 and today... Hard to imagine, not? Currently the list doesn't seem to be NPOV to me with that respect. Is it maybe wiser to stick with "recognized martyrs" or something? 23:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Union
Nothing here on what happened in the Soviet Union? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.178.159 (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Apostolic martyrs?
I suspect that all the accounts of apostolic martyrdom, including those of Peter and Paul, are legends. I guess these accounts were meant to bolster the faith of early Christians in the relatively rare times of execution for professing belief. Is there any convincing historical evidence of apostolic martyrdom?Jim Lacey (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Modern-era martyrs?
Where are the post-Reformation Christian martyrs? Cynwolfe (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Influence of persecution and martyrdom on the development of Christianity
This section presents an issue that I think is more pertinent than the discussion we've been having about the actual number of Christians that were martyred.

NB: There are a number of points in what follows. I am not seeking to put all of these into this article. All I'm looking for is to insert the simple assertion that the pre-Constantine persecutions and martyrdom made an indelible impression on the construction of the Christian self-understanding, one that continues to this day.

G.W. wrote "(Macmullen emphasizes) the irrelevance of the martyrs to the history of Christianization. The impact of the martyrs to the history of the Church, as Karanacs has noted, is important largely for the questions it raises about ecclesiastical governance and the treatment of apostasy. If the martyrs are noteworthy at all, it is on this point and, later, on Christian self-construction. "

I am perpelexed by the comment that the martyrs were irrelevant to the history of Christianization although this is perhaps due to my not being sure what G.W. means when he says that the martyrs might be noteworthy on "Christian self-construction."

My interpretation of what G.W. wrote about Macmullen's perspective is that the actual number of martyrs did not materially affect the growth of the Christian Church in the sense that few were killed and, in the long run, the rate of growth was not materially diminished. If this is what Macmullen's view is, then I can agree with it.

However, it is hard to for me to conceive that martyrs are irrelevant to the Christian faith, especially if we consider the Catholic and Orthodox faiths where martyrology has occupied a fairly central position, although perhaps somewhat less so in the last few decades.

Karanacs wrote "I think we will have a hard time sourcing 'One emphasis of the Christian teaching is faithfulness to the point of being willing to be persecuted for one's faith', and if we can we will likely be indulging in synthesis. This may very well be a modern Church teaching, but it was not necessarily the teaching of the 4th century. The scholars I've read point out repeatedly that not everyone thought martyrdom was the right answer. An overwhelming majority of Christians did not choose to die for their faith during the persecutions."

I agree with what Karanacs wrote but I think she misunderstood my point. I am not arguing that the 4th century Church taught as unchallengeable doctrine that one should be faithful to the point of being willing to die for one's faith. Yes, I understand that not everyone sought martyrdom any more than every Christian seeks martyrdom now. However, "being persecuted for one's faith" and the veneration of martyrs have been important components of the Christian faith for centuries, especially in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The point is not that everyone should become a martyr but that everyone should seek to have the same virtues and faith as the martyrs. AFAICT, the origin of these teachings comes from Eusebius and other Church Fathers.

I have two theories why this point may not be in the sources that you have been looking at. One is that you may be looking at "History of Christianity" sources which focus on secular perspectives of history i.e. who did what to whom and when as opposed to sources which take a "History of Religion" perspective that focuses on the evolution of theology and practices. The other theory is that this idea although obvious to me may actually be relatively new. Here are some sources that I have dug up in the last day or so....


 * Philosophy as Training for Death Reading the Ancient Christian Martyr Acts as Spiritual-Exercises (2006)

Excerpt from article:
 * In recent years several notable studies--including those by Judith Perkins, Daniel Boyarin, and Elizabeth Castelli--have assessed the importance of martyrdom and suffering in constructions of ancient Christian identity.(n1) This essay takes as its starting point the observation by Perkins that in early Christian communities, the threat of suffering (whether real or perceived) worked to create a particular kind of self.(n2) In Perkins's view, many ancient Christians came to believe that "to be a Christian was to suffer."(n3) Christian martyr acts, when understood as textual vehicles for the construction of culture and the articulation of Christian identities, emerge as one mechanism by which such selves were constructed. In the pages that follow I will explore how the reading and hearing of narratives about martyrdom constituted an exercise derived from Greek philosophy, adapted to inspire a largely nonliterate audience. This exercise not only trained early Christians to be ready for death and the world to come, but also worked to shape their perceptions of the Christian way of life in this world.(n4)


 * The Christian Coalition: Dreams of Restoration, Demands for Recognition by Justin Watson 1999

“Notions of persecution by the "world," after all, run deep in the Christian tradition. For evangelicals who read the New Testament as an inerrant history of the primitive church, the understanding that to be a Christian is to be persecuted is obvious, if not inescapable” From the Introduction: "My thesis is that the memory work done by early Christians on the historical experience of persecution and martyrdom was a form of culture making, whereby Christian identity was indelibly marked by the collective memory of the religious suffering of others." The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 44, No. 2 (Jun., 1993), pp. 303-339 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political Science "Martyrdom for the faith accordingly became a central feature in the Christian experience." Page 70 "The Christian experience of violence during the pagan persecutions shaped the ideologies and practices that drove further religious conflicts over the course of the fourth and fifth centuries... The formative experience of martyrdom and persecution determined the ways in which later Christians would both use and experience violence under the Christian empire. Discourses of martyrdom and persecution formed the symbolic language through which Christians represented, justified, or denounced the use of violence."
 * Martyrdom and memory: early Christian culture making by Elizabeth Anne Castelli 2004
 * The Sect-Church Dynamic and Christian Expansion in the Roman Empire: Persecution, Penitential Discipline, and Schism in Sociological Perspective by Joseph M. Bryant
 * There is no crime for those who have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire By Michael Gaddis  2005  University of California Press


 * Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church By William H C Frend (2008)

From the Book Overview: "Persecution was seen by early Christians, as by later historians, as one of the crucial influences on the growth and development of the early Church and Christian beliefs. (Fremd) shows how the persecutions formed an essential part in a providential philosophy of history that has profoundly influenced European political thought."

--Richard S (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is what I meant by "Christian self-construction", which you call "Christian self-understanding". I agree that, if we are to give this much space, the cultural aspect of this should be emphasized. The thing Richard is trying to do here is useful. But I am bad at dissolving cultural history into something that is at once interesting, true, and representative of consensus. Some time back, I asked Ealdgyth for literature on the martyrs' cult in the middle ages and she couldn't think of anything off the top of her head. She suggested PRL Brown, Cult of the Saints, which I never ended up getting. (I'm more interested in monasticism and doctrinal disputes than martyr-saints, just as Ealdgyth is more interested in politicized bishops than theologians.) I am unfamiliar with the literature here; I can't be of much help, unfortunately. Wish you best of luck, though! G.W. (Talk) 03:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On the point in which I was specifically named, Richard has given a fair summary: "My interpretation of what G.W. wrote about Macmullen's perspective is that the actual number of martyrs did not materially affect the growth of the Christian Church in the sense that few were killed and, in the long run, the rate of growth was not materially diminished. If this is what Macmullen's view is, then I can agree with it." Yes, this is what I present MacMullen as stating and believe to be his view. G.W. (Talk) 04:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

OK... so how about this... "Although the general consensus of scholars is that relatively few Christians were actually executed, the experience of persecution and martyrdom would be memorialized by successive generations of Christians and thereby become a central feature of their self-understanding continuing even to modern times. Thus, many Christians would come to view persecution as an integral part of the Christian experience.  The implications of this self-image have had far-reaching ramifications, especially in Western cultures." I think the sources provided above support this proposed text. --Richard S (talk) 05:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying what you meant earlier, Richard, I did misunderstand. You are right also that I am not focusing on the development of doctrine as much as the development of the organization and its practices, and we may need to have a discussion on where we draw the line.  I think the development of doctrine really belongs in its own article (Development of Catholic Church theology, anyone?).  In this particular issue, I am slightly concerned about taking matters out of context - the cult of martyrs was not everywhere in this time frame.  By discussing it here, are we misleading?
 * Another concern is that this is very, very vague and includes some sweeping generalizations. What exactly do we mean by "become a central feature of their self-understanding".  What exactly are we talking about with "The implications of this self-image have had far-reaching ramifications"?  With the apostasy, we can point directly to the schisms that resulted.  What can we point to for the martyrdom/"persecution complex"? If we are going to be discussing the ramifications later in the article, then I think that would be the appropriate place to point back to the persecutions (as a result of the earlier persecutions, ....), rather than point forward into history from here. Karanacs (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

[Edit conflict with G.W. below]
 * Of course most of the details of the development of the cult of martyrs belongs elsewhere. We have History of Christian theology and History of Catholic dogmatic theology.  Discussion of the cult of martyrs could kind of fit into History of Christian theology but my impression that this is an area where theology and praxis overlap and somehow discussion of the cult of martyrs doesn't seem to be a completely natural fit in either of those articles.  Those articles are overly long anyway and so a long addition about martyrology is probably inappropriate.  There is an article titled Christian theological praxis but apparently that term has a specialized meaning in liberation theology.  There is also the article Christian martyrs which could use some expansion.  This is my preferred candidate to put most of the detailed discussion into.


 * RE "Central feature of their self-understanding": "to be a Christian means to be 'IN this world but not OF this world". Jesus' kingdom is not "of this world".  Christians have been claimed by Jesus and because he was persecuted and martyred, they too can expect to be persecuted and martyred.  Such persecution is not only to be expected but undertaken joyfully for one's faith and even, to some extent, sought after.  To be persecuted is to share in Jesus' suffering and thus also in his triumph.  If we need to explain this, we should find a less preachy way to say it.  I bet you could find a source in the Catechism.


 * RE "Implications of this self-image": I am referring to the sources that say "Discourses of martyrdom and persecution formed the symbolic language through which Christians represented, justified, or denounced the use of violence." and "persecutions formed an essential part in a providential philosophy of history that has profoundly influenced European political thought." Of course, these are just two sources and I would not want to argue that either of these assertions is unassailable fact.  Rather, they are two interpretations of the importance of "martyrdom and persecution" to the Christian psyche and to the Western psyche.  The development of these ideas requires at least one article unto itself.  The question is what can we say that makes the point without being overly vague or overly detailed.  One problem is that my sources were found via Google Scholar and  thus tend to be from journals or the introductions to books on specialized topics.  It would be great if we could find a source that is more generalized (i.e. oriented towards "History of Christianity") that makes this point.  Such a source might help us to strike the right balance between overly vague generality and excessive detail.


 * RE "Appropriate time frame": I agree that the cult of martyrs was not fully developed at this time. However, it's not clear to me that there is a particular period in the history of the Church where martyrology developed.  If you can find one, I guess I'm OK to defer discussion of these topics until that section.  It would seem to me that veneration of the martyrs begins with the Patristic writings and then develops into a cult in the Christian Roman Empire and the Medieval period.  However, I would guess that it's been a gradual evolution over the centuries.  One of the criticisms of the Protestant Reformation was an excessive focus on the saints and martyrs.  Consider the Five Solas, especially Solus Christus and Soli Dei gloria.


 * RE "Referencing forward": As a matter of style, I prefer to reference forward but I could live with referencing backward if an appropriate section can be found to discuss this topic. My critical concern is that the central importance of persecution and martyrdom to the Christian mindset be mentioned.


 * By the way, consider this question. Why do Catholic crucifixes have the crucified Jesus on them and Protestant crosses do not?  The answer I 've heard from a Protestant source is that Protestants prefer to focus on the risen Christ implying that Catholics tend to focus on the suffering Christ.  Because the evidence is anecdotal, this is just OR but it might shed some light on the topic.


 * --Richard S (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Because the earliest Evangelicals (most notably those in Switzerland) smashed religious art. In fact the 10 commandments is numbered differently for Catholics/Lutherans and non-Lutheran Protestants, specifically to support the admonishment against "graven images". I do have a source for this: MacCulloch's The Reformation (p. 150 for the art smashing and p. 686 for Commandments numbering.) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * According to MacCulloch's Christianity, pp. 194-5, the cross did not become a prominent Christian symbol until the era of Constantine (post-persecution). Colin Morris, "Christian Civilization (1050-1400)" (in the McManners Oxford History of Christianity), p. 218, says the crucifix did not become really popular as a Christian symbol until the 11th or 12th century and (p. 211) that by the 12th century some priests were already unhappy with the idea of devotion to the crucifix. Karanacs (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The first point is correct as far as art goes, the second not; crucifixes were prominent from Carolingian times, but too expensive to probably be very common. If you are going to look at art history, for heaven's sake use art historians. I recommend Schiller, Gertrud, Iconography of Christian Art, Vol. II, 1972 (English trans from German), Lund Humphries, London, ISBN 0853313245 as a standard work with 80 pages of text and 200 illustrations on the development of Crucifixion images. The use of the cross as a sign (as in sign of the cross & similar things), seems from literary references to have long preceded the making of physical cross images. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A point: It's going to be very difficult to speak of histoire des mentalités/cultural history at all. Perhaps, to satisfy the vague/generalization bit, we could find a representative cultural artifact/cultural figure to pin the generalization to? There's probably some literature on martyr-portrayals in distinctly Catholic art. So something like a trimmed version of Richard's sentence plus another that says: Look at this example of martyr-kitsch/art! Also: "persecution complex" is, uh, kind of a loaded term and hasn't been cited to the literature yet, Karanacs! G.W. (Talk) 16:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, G.W., please excuse my (poor) joke! Thanks, Richard, for the clarification. I don't have any disputes with the ideas that you are presenting; although it isn't an area I've done any reading on, what you present fits with my own understandings.  To me, though, this is more of a doctrinal and cultural issue, and as G.W. points out, that is very difficult to cover.  Unless we can find a more generalized book that deals with cultural history of Christianity/this organization, then I wouldn't include any of that in this overview article. Karanacs (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Do remember that the martyrdoms which have the most lasting influence on Christian art, from St. Lawrence to St. Catherine [of Alexandria], rank from dubious to evidence-free; are there artistic traditions even of spurious martyrdoms of real people, like Clement and his anchor? (To avoid the obvious, I'm not discussing the Crucifixion; putting it under the head of persecutions of Christianity would be an original - although not unreasonable - synthesis.) This may belong in a section or subarticle on Roman Catholic culture, but not history; and I agree sourcing will be a bear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)I'm not at all sure what you're trying to say here. The martyrdom of St Catherine, as opposed to images of her with her attribute of a wheel, is in fact an pretty rare subject in art, & I can't see how either type can be said to have had "lasting influence on Christian art". Few saints were shown as other than standing portrait figures much before the Romanesque, & Peter, Paul & John the Baptist were the most common of these, all real people and martyrs, I think we can agree. Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a thing we remember, if it is not already a thing we know. But separating "culture" from "history" is unwise (unless we are speaking of contemporary Roman Catholic art, in which a thematic approach, separate from "Traditions", "Demographics", &c., might be wise). Culture and art are part of history. To the extent that we do not wish to annex history to fiction, we should (as Karanacs suggests) discuss them later on in the narrative, but that does not mean we cannot discuss them. It just means that, as in all things, we need to be careful. G.W. (Talk) 18:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am befuddled by this desire of some editors to talk about Christian art as part of culture when what I was describing was a deeper sociological phenomenon of which art is just an expression. The critical point here is that Christians built a self-understanding of themselves as persecuted based upon the persecution of the early Christians by the Jews and the Romans.   --Richard S (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if you think sociology is "deeper" than culture, then I'm befuddled too. I'd better go back into hibernation. Johnbod (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If we consider culture analogous to a disease, then art is a symptom and sociology is the study of the disease's pathology. That is art is an expression of culture while sociology seeks to understand the culture, its origins and how it operates. Sociology is not "deeper" than art in the sense of being more profound.  Sociology is analytical social science while art is sublime.  They cannot be compared and contrasted with each other as they operate in two entirely different planes of human understanding.  --Richard S (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Origins of martyrdom in Judaism and Christianity
The consensus is that this focus on martyrdom is a legacy from the Jewish tradition (cf. 2 and 4 Maccabees). However, there is one scholar who asserts that Christian attitudes towards martyrdom influenced Jewish attitudes. Some scholars also comment on how quickly Christians moved from being the targets of persecution to being the persecutors (i.e. in persecuting pagans and heretics). --Richard S (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this consensus, though? This is Frend's take, but others (the literature escapes me at the moment; maybe Lane Fox and Bowersock, Martyrdom and Rome?) point to independent origins. My attempt to bring up art as an expression of sociological trends is to avoid the "vagueness" Karanacs pointed out; art (and cultural artifacts more generally) provides granular examples of sociological phenomena that might otherwise be difficult to elucidate for the reader. G.W. (Talk) 21:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha! I managed to find this source that I had run across yesterday but failed to bookmark. Dying for God by Daniel Boyarin 1999

Excerpt from description: " Not long ago, everyone knew that Judaism came before Christianity. More recently, scholars have begun to recognize that the historical picture is quite a bit more complicated than that. In the Jewish world of the first century, many sects competed for the name of the true Israel and the true interpreter of the Torah—the Talmud itself speaks of seventy—and the form of Judaism that was to be the seedbed of what eventually became the Christian Church was but one of these many sects. Scholars have come to realize that we can and need to speak of a twin birth of Christianity and Judaism, not a genealogy in which one is parent to the other.... [Boyarin] argues that, in the end, the developing discourse of martyrology involved the circulation and exchange of cultural and religious innovations between the two communities as they moved toward sharper self-definition."

From Page 93: "...at present there are two major theses with regard to the origins of Christian martyrology, which [can be referred to] as the Frend thesis and teh Bowersock thesis... According to Frend, martyrdom is a practice that has its origins securely in "Judaism" and the Church "prolongs and supersedes" the Jewish practice. For G.W. Bowersock, on the other hand, Christian martyrology has virtually nothing to do with Jewish origins at all.  It is a practrice that grew up in an entirely Roman cultural environment and then was "borrowed" by Jews.  ... both of these seemingly opposite arguments are founded on the same assumption, namely that Judaism and Christianity are two separate entities, so that it is intelligible to speak of one (and not the other -- either -- one) as the point of origin of a given practice.  I (Boyarin) shall be trying to show that the making of martyrdom was at lest in part, part and parcel of the process of the making of Judaism and Christianity as distinct entities."

--Richard S (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Back to the sociological aspects of persecution and martyrdom
Myth and legend can influence society and historical events and, when they do, it is the influence that is the subject of historical discourse not the historicity of the myth or legend. The importance of "manifest destiny" and "American exceptionalism" as components of American self-understanding provides an example. In this view, myths and legends are stories that we tell ourselves because they tell us something about ourselves that we want to believe. Whether the martyrs were few or many becomes irrelevant in light of this model of the Christian as "persecuted for righteousness' sake". This attitude combined with the Great Commission provides the motivation to proselytize and to embark on missions to the unevangelized world. --Richard S (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As so expressed, isn't this more characteristic of Radical Reformation sects and Low Church evangelical Protestantism than the Roman Catholic Church (at least until the 19C)? I'd expect most religious movements without a living tradition of martyrdom/persecution don't have self-perceptions of this type. G.W. (Talk) 21:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I'm lost. It's like I understand all the words but I can't parse the paragraph.


 * What are you asserting is "more characteristic of Radical Reformation sects and Low Church evangelical Protestantism than the Roman Catholic Church"? The self-perception of the Christian as "persecuted"?


 * You wrote "I'd expect most religious movements without a living tradition of martyrdom/persecution don't have self-perceptions of this type." Well... yes, it would be hard to manufacture such a self-perception if there wasn't some history of martyrdom/persecution.  The issue seems to be one of whether there is a concerted effort to memorialize that history into a component of that religion's faith and culture.  The point is that Judaism and Christianity have made that concerted effort.


 * Interestingly, in my research, I read that initially Jewish and Christian perceptions of martyrdom were pretty similar but that, at some point, the Jews decided that encouraging such attitudes was undesirable which is why Jews do not revere as many martyrs as much as Christians do. Which is to say they have the martyrs of the Maccabees and they have Rabbi Akiva but there are relatively few martyrs since those.  NB: This is not arguing that no Jews have died for their faith since then.  Simply that they are not individually identified and held up as martyrs.  My own OR perspective is that the Jews choose to focus on the suffering and persecution of all Jews rather than the suffering and persecution of individual Jews.


 * Of course, this comparison of Jewish and Christians attitudes towards martyrdom is getting far afield from the focus of this article. I'm just sharing stuff that I found interesting while researching the specific topic of Roman persecution of Christians over the past couple of days.


 * --Richard S (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You missed the keyword living. My point being that a community's self-construction in martyr ideology should only subsist in cultures that have been persecuted in living memory. Thus, perhaps certain early Christian communities had such a self-understanding, but that it would not last much longer than perhaps fifty years after 313 except in the cases of marginal Christian sects persecuted by the state.
 * (Hence the Africans were able to have a Donatist church that could call itself the "Church of the martyrs" both because it believed it had stood more firmly against the state in 303–11, but also since the orthodox Roman state obliged them in refilling their cup with martyrs' blood in periods thereafter.) Otherwise it should die out when Christianity becomes the hegemonic religion. Now, that would still produce martyrs' cults for Catholics under Arian rule, or under the Julianic restoration of the old-time relijun (as indeed it did), but in the long peace of the Catholic Church in the West and Orthodox in the East from perhaps 600 to 1515 and 1648 to 1789, and in most countries thereafter (except Spain, France, Latin America, Africa, Japan, the independent or princely Subcontinent, 19C United States?, and, more recently, Communist and ex-Communist nations, the postcolonial Middle East, Nazi Germany and occupied territories, Ireland (where it is characterized more as anti-English and Irish National but no doubt retains a flavor of Catholic martyrdom), but most definitely not in liberal pluralist nations like the United Kingdom and Empire and the United States, the Swiss Cantons, modern Europe, hegemonic Catholic nations (like pre-Enlightenment Catholic Europe, and Austria, South Germany, Italy in all periods), we should not see such. We would, however, see it in marginal sects like Radical Protestantism, which have nowhere been hegemonic (except the Inland West and Inner South?) and everywhere marginal.
 * That is to say: Martyr cultures should be marginal except where there is a living tradition of martyrdom and persecution (which is a lot of places, admittedly, but not characteristic of huge swathes of Catholic history and lands), which is more characteristic of marginal sects of Protestantism than magisterial and hegemonic Catholicism. Uh, I assume. Perhaps your literature says otherwise? G.W. (Talk) 22:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Since there doesn't seem to be a clamor from other editors to insert my proposed sentence into the history section, I guess I'll just let it go for now. Based on a review of the current article text, there doesn't seem to be an obvious other place to make these points.  Most of the stuff on Catholic doctrine reads as if it was pulled from the Catechism and the tone of the writing in that section is not the kind that lends itself to this more analytical discussion of the components of the Christian faith from a sociological perspective.


 * --Richard S (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually think the martyrs had a great effect on the development of several aspects of Christianity. Chidester in his "Christianity: A Global History" has a whole chapter on the effect of martyrs such as Perpetua on the self-image and view of the Church on what it was to be Christian. There is more on this in Leeman's "More than a memory". These martyrdoms and their early commemoration are also considered to be highly important in the development of specific Saints Days and devotions from the 300s onwards.  Xan  dar   22:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Outline
I think the first thing we should try to tackle here is the scope of this article, and what our major headings should be. This could easily devolve into a detailed history removed from analysis, or a detailed analysis removed from history. Our guides should be the structure of the standard secondary and tertiary literature.

I don't know the shape of the tertiary literature, so what follows is still open to revision and comment: I think that we should begin with a section on "History". We can fold in "Origins of Christian martyrdom " (see WP:MOSHEAD: "Headings should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings") under that title. As at Catholic Church, we should rely heavily on subarticles to cover this topic. I've written a lengthy article at Diocletianic Persecution that is a daughter article of a daughter of this article (Persecution of Christians in the New Testament); Persecution of Christians in the New Testament is lengthy, though it appears to be heavily cited to primary materials without the structure of secondary literature (or perhaps the structure is simply hidden). We lack a history of all periods after Constantine, although subsequent persecutions in the Christian Roman Empire and successors were large and influential. We also lack, as Cynwolfe points out above, a history of Reformation-era martyrs and modern martyrs.

Following this, we should have sections on "Devotion" (martyrs relics, cults, veneration) and "Theology and doctrine". This latter section should cover rationales for persecution ("error has no rights"), rationales for resistance, and rationales for flight ("When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next": Matthew 10:23). I do not know if the literature is substantial enough to support a section on "Culture". You have developed a body of quotations to works on "Christian self-understanding". With your sociological research, this might add up to a full section. We should do some coverage on the "Psychology" and "Ethics" (self-perceived, self-constructed) of martyrdom; I think there is a literature on this.

I do not have the resources to undertake a lot of this. I don't believe I have anything on devotion to martyrs, for example. In history I am worse off: Frend ends his survey with Constantine. I don't have anything beyond that. If we're planning on working on this together, we should probably hash out this outline here and set up a research plan for the rest (e.g., who has what resources, who can cover what, &c.).

Regards, G.W. (Talk) 04:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Virgin Martyrs
An article on the Virgin martyrs is sorely needed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Misc
The last source mentioned comes with a dead link, namely martyrclass.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryz (talk • contribs) 02:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)