Martyrdom and Rome. By Glen W. Bowersock. [The Wiles Lectures Given at the Queens University Belfast] (New York: Cambridge University Press 1995.)
Bowersock’s ‘Martyrdom and Rome’ was originally delivered over four while’s lectures in 1993 at Queens University Belfast. The initial format of the arguments is unsurprisingly the source of the book’s strengths and weaknesses. Bowersocks’ purpose is to illustrate the significant role the Roman Empire had in the formation of the concept of Christian martyrdom. “Martyrdom came into being in the Roman Empire and was inextricably rooted in the society and culture peculiar to that world.”(p. xi). The book, however, following the format of the lectures, initially deals with the etymological evolution of the word martyr. Concentrating on its translation and its origin in Greek, meaning “Witness”, to its inevitable definition in the minds of Christians from the second century onwards (p. 1). The second chapter deals with the written records of the word, with the aim here being to determine what constitutes an authentic act of martyrdom. Chapter three explores rather succinctly and convincingly the role the Roman Empire played in the publicity it afforded the cause of early martyrs, establishing a tradition of selfless sacrifice that the author claims, would be impossible without the administrative and bureaucratic institutions of the urban landscape of Rome. “without the glorification of suicide in the Roman tradition, the development of martyrdom in the second and third centuries would have been unthinkable…. [B]oth Greek and Jewish traditions stood against them.” (pp. 72-3). Finally, chapter four deals with the divisive issue of where the line between suicide and martyrdom should be drawn, with Bowersocks placing himself in opposition to Van Hoof’s thesis, as shall be revealed subsequently.
Despite the shortness of the book, (due to its original format) I believe it does well to form and argue each point as persuasively as it does. The issue of its length is most apparent in its scant mention of fellow scholars’ arguments. While the bibliography is extensive, the author does not delve into the opposing theories of the field, rather he simply makes vague gestures to the fact. Only in chapter four do we see a name placed in opposition to the author’s argument. His qualms are directed at Van Hoof’s distinction of suicides’ relation to martyrdom.[1] With Bowersocks writing “their enthusiasm for death comes very close to a desire to commit suicide? A suicide to be arranged by an external agent but with the clear complicity of a victim.” (p. 61) Comparatively, Van Hoof believes only the case of Agathonike can be viewed as suicide.[2] Furthermore, and somewhat interestingly, Van Hoof subsequently argued that Bowersocks’ reasoning designates Jesus’ death as an act of suicide, in the sense his willingness allows him to become a victim.[3] Comparatively, Trumbower criticises the significance Rome played in the formation of the Martyr culture. Trumbower asserts Bowersock may have incorrectly placed Maccabees 6-7 and 4 to early discrediting the influence of Judaic notions of posthumous recognition.[4] Whilst the word martyr hadn’t yet appeared in the mind of Judeans the concept it stood for had already been formed. Trumbower claims the author had undertaken an “inadequate research of the Hebrew Bible.”[5] A further flaw in Bowersocks argument comes in his assertion of the great masses of voluntary martyrs, what instead appears to have been present, according to Droge and De Ste Croix, was mass apostasy.[6]Voluntary martyrdoms were common, just not, (according to the latter) on any mass scale. Instead, the hordes were seeking to renounce their faith, not die for it. A final point of contention within the scholarly literature arises from Bowersock’s distinction between the sects of “Christian” and “Judean”. Droge claims any attempt at clearly identifying these two groups within the first and second centuries is a fallacy, with the very notion of self-identifying “Christians” being a misnomer. What this fluidity means then is Bowersocks’ assertion that the concept of martyrdom being created distinct from Judean culture is, at best, difficult to assert, or, at worst, wrong.[7] What needs to be noted is the positive impact Bowersocks’ thesis has had on the literature. Both Carlin Barton and Paul Plass have undertaken research which has reaffirmed the authors’ arguments and illustrated just how influential the Roman Empire was in the establishment of Christin Martyr Culture.[8]
The brevity of the book, as mentioned, is a weakness. Arguments whilst wonderfully written and masterfully argued could do with defending themselves against the other scholarly works on the topic. What must be commended is Bowersocks use of primary sources, each point made is not without the relevant documentation, as well as, accompanying contemporary support within the footnotes. His use of documentation, particularly the anecdote of Pionios’ crucifixion even when read lends humour to an admittedly bleak end. A feature that was undoubtedly a by-product of the initial lecture series which still is effective in its written format. (p. 35) Chapter three stands out as a brilliantly persuasive argument. Despite any apparent fallacy in his reasoning the points come across neatly and in such an accessible manner, I believe his readers academic or not could not misunderstand his argument.
Conclusively, as a book there are weaknesses, as a lecture series, it would be potentially infallible. The question of whether the author achieves the purpose of his book is contentious. His desire to illustrate the inextricable link between Rome and martyrdom is done and done well. However, the problem lies further afield, any pre-existing of subsequent reading on the topic proves to dismantle the apparent firm ground Bowersock stood on whilst delivering his arguments. If one had no prior knowledge of the topic Bowersocks’ intelligible arguments would have no problem in persuading any reader of the thesis he so confidently presents. The work, however, must be read with the knowledge that Jerusalem and Athens’ role has been suppressed at the expense of Rome, leaving an incomplete picture for a scholar attempting to reconstruct the origins of martyrdom.
Bibliography
C. Barton 1994. “Savage Miracles: The Redemption of Lost Honour in Roman Society and the Sacrament of the Gladiator and the Martyr.” Representations, 45 pp.41-71.
G. E. M. De Ste Croix. 1945. “Aspects of the ‘Great’ Persecution,” Harvard Theological Review 47 pp 75-113.
P. Plass (1995) The Game of Death in Ancient Rome: Arena Sport and Political Suicide. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press
Reviewed Work Martyrdom and Rome Bowersock. Reviewed by A. J. Droge. 1997 Classical Philology, 92, (3), pp. 292-295
Reviewed Work Martyrdom and Rome Bowersock. Reviewed by A. Van Hoof. 1998. Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, 51, (5), pp. 601-604
Reviewed Work Martyrdom and Rome Bowersock. Reviewed by J. A. Trumbower. 1997. The Journal of Religion, 77, (1), pp. 128-129 p.128.
Van Hoof, A. (1990) From Autothanasia to Suicide: Self-Killing in Classical Antiquity London: Routledge.
[1] A. Van Hoof, (1990) From Autothanasia to Suicide: Self-Killing in Classical Antiquity London: Routledge.
[2] Ibid, p.84.
[3] Reviewed Work Martyrdom and Rome Bowersock. Reviewed by A. Van Hoof. 1998. Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, 51, (5), pp. 601-604
[4] Reviewed Work Martyrdom and Rome Bowersock. Reviewed by J. A. Trumbower. 1997. The Journal of Religion, 77, (1), pp. 128-129 p.128.
[5] Ibid, p.129.
[6] Reviewed Work Martyrdom and Rome Bowersock. Reviewed by A. J. Droge. 1997 Classical Philology, 92, (3), pp. 292-295
G. E. M. De Ste Croix. 1945. “Aspects of the ‘Great’ Persecution,” Harvard Theological Review 47 pp 75-113.
[7] Droge, Review, p.293
[8] C. Barton 1994. “Savage Miracles: The Redemption of Lost Honour in Roman Society and the Sacrament of the Gladiator and the Martyr.” Representations, 45 pp.41-71.
Plass (1995) The Game of Death in Ancient Rome: Arena Sport and Political Suicide. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.
write