When Philosophy Fought Back: Porphyry Against the Christians

November 26, 2025November 27, 2025 / Jason Conrad / Leave a comment

The later third century, roughly AD 260 to 305, was not a calm moment for Christianity. It was the most shaken, destabilized, and vulnerable moment the Roman Empire had experienced since the fall of the Republic. The empire’s myths of invincibility had shattered. The perception that the gods protected Rome had collapsed. No event demonstrated this more brutally than the humiliation of Emperor Valerian in the AD 250s.

Pagan historian Aurelius Victor gives the most chilling description of the moment:

“Valerian was captured in battle and taken into Persia. They kept him there until he died, and after his death they stripped the skin from his body along with the imperial purple.”
Aurelius Victor, Epitome of the Caesars 33.4

This was not just a military defeat. It was a cosmic humiliation. Rome’s entire self-identity trembled. People questioned everything: the order of the universe, the protection of the gods, the meaning of tradition, the future of the empire.

At the same time, Christianity was rising. Christianity had not collapsed under Decius. It had not shattered under Valerian. It grew and spread. It acquired intellectual converts. It developed Scriptures, bishops, and theological schools. It formed moral communities that stood out in a collapsing world. Even the elite philosophical schools of Rome were encountering Christian arguments face to face.

This is where Porphyry enters the story. He was born around AD 232 and lived into the early AD 300s. He grew up in a world where Rome was cracking, yet Christianity was accelerating.

The World That Formed Porphyry: Plotinus and the Defense of the Ancient Tradition

Porphyry came to Rome around AD 263 and became a student of Plotinus, one of the most revered philosophers of antiquity. His biography of Plotinus, written later, gives us rare insight into the intellectual environment that shaped his thinking.

Porphyry writes:

“Plotinus seemed ashamed of being in the body. He refused to speak about his birth, his parents, or his homeland, and was so ashamed of being in the body that he would not allow anyone to make a portrait of him. He said it was enough to bear the likeness of the body in which he was clothed.”
Life of Plotinus 1

Plotinus’s disdain for the body, for history, and for physicality formed the foundation of Porphyry’s worldview. Christianity, with its proclamation of a God who takes on flesh, enters time, suffers, dies, and rises in a body, contradicted everything Plotinus considered philosophically exalted.

Plotinus also condemned new religious movements that claimed to supersede ancient wisdom. Porphyry records:

“Certain people who had recently taken up teaching began to speak arrogantly, pretending that they had discovered the complete truth, though they perverted the doctrines of the ancients and invented fictions of their own.”
Life of Plotinus 3

And again Porphyry writes:

“Many others who had recently come forward asserted that they had discovered the complete truth, though they corrupted the oracles of the ancient sages and fabricated fictions of their own.”
Life of Plotinus 16

Scholars broadly agree that Plotinus is referring here to Christians, whose claims of a new revelation threatened the philosophical tradition he defended.

Porphyry also records one of the earliest direct testimonies of a philosophical debate between pagans and Christians. A Christian named Antoninus was part of Plotinus’s circle. Porphyry writes:

“Among those who came to Plotinus was also a certain Antoninus, who had forsaken the old religion and embraced the doctrine of the Christians. Plotinus argued with him many times, attempting to turn him away from these opinions, but could not succeed. Antoninus held firmly to the Scriptures of the Christians and would not give them up.”
Life of Plotinus 3

This is extraordinary. Plotinus, the greatest philosopher of his age, debated a Christian convert and was unable to win him back.

Porphyry witnessed all of this. He watched Christianity enter the philosophical elite. He watched his own teacher fail to defeat a Christian convert. This moment planted the seed of Porphyry’s later hostility.

What Plotinus Taught Porphyry About Scripture, Myth, and Truth

Porphyry also records Plotinus’s view that sacred texts must not be interpreted literally:

“Plotinus declared that myths and sacred writings must not be taken literally, but understood allegorically, for the literal meaning was often absurd.”
Life of Plotinus 22

This is the principle Porphyry later applies to Christian Scripture.

Plotinus insisted that true wisdom was ancient and that new movements were false. Porphyry writes:

“Plotinus taught that the ancient philosophers had already discovered the truth, and that the doctrines of those who had recently arisen were false and filled with contradictions.”
Life of Plotinus 18

Porphyry accepted this fully.

Christianity was recent.
Christianity contradicted ancient wisdom.
Therefore Christianity must be false.

Plotinus also revered the ancient gods:

“Plotinus had a reverence for the gods and delighted in the ancient rites, saying that they were established by wise men of old and should be preserved.”
Life of Plotinus 23

Porphyry embraced this same reverence and used it to criticize Judaism and Christianity for destroying images, rejecting rituals, and breaking from ancestral customs.

Porphyry’s Fifteen-Book Against the Christians

Somewhere between AD 270 and 300, Porphyry composed his massive fifteen-volume polemic titled Against the Christians. Christian emperors later condemned and destroyed it. The order survives in the Theodosian Code, issued under Theodosius II in AD 448:

“The books of Porphyry, written against the religion of the Christians, shall be sought out and burned with fire.”
Theodosian Code 16.5.66 (AD 448)

Because the work was destroyed, we depend on later authors who quoted Porphyry in order to refute him. Whenever one of these sources appears for the first time in this script, it receives a brief introduction so the reader knows who they are.

Porphyry’s surviving arguments attack every foundation of the Christian movement:

Moses and the Pentateuch.
The historical books of Scripture.
The Gospels.
Paul.
Christian prophecy, especially Daniel.
Christian miracles.
Christian exclusivism.
Christian literalism.
Christian rejection of images.
Jewish dietary laws that early Christians inherited.
Christian abandonment of ancestral customs.
Christian claims of new revelation.

Porphyry’s Attack on Moses and the Pentateuch

Our first witness is Eusebius of Caesarea, the early fourth-century Christian historian who wrote Church History and Preparation for the Gospel. Eusebius quotes Porphyry in order to refute him. From him we learn that Porphyry denied Mosaic authorship:

“Porphyry impugns Moses and says the writings attributed to him are not by him, but by others long after his time.”
Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 1.9

Porphyry also argued that Moses borrowed from Greek philosophy, reversing the Christian idea that Greek wisdom borrowed from Israel.

Porphyry’s Attack on the Gospels

Macarius Magnes was an early fourth-century Christian writer who composed a dialogue titled the Apocriticus. In it he quotes a pagan critic at length before responding. Scholars agree that the arguments he preserves come directly from Porphyry’s Against the Christians.

Macarius records Porphyry saying:

“The evangelists were unskilled men and of no education. Their writings are devoid of art. They show not malice but lack of ability.”
Apocriticus 3.2

Macarius also preserves Porphyry accusing the Gospels of contradiction:

“Your writings are full of contradictions. One says one thing. Another writes something different. Each evangelist follows his own fancy.”
Apocriticus 2.6

And again:

“You are compelled to make up explanations to make them agree.”
Apocriticus 3.9

Porphyry even challenges the resurrection appearances:

“Why did Jesus not show himself openly after he rose? Why did he appear only to a few? A god should have shown himself to all.”
Apocriticus 3.9

Porphyry’s Attack on Paul

Augustine of Hippo, writing in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, preserves Porphyry’s criticism of Paul in The City of God:

“Porphyry reproaches Paul for abandoning the law and introducing new doctrines.”
Augustine, City of God 19.23

Porphyry believed Paul corrupted the original Jewish faith and created a dangerous innovation.

Porphyry’s Attack on Christian Literalism

Macarius preserves Porphyry’s criticism of how Christians read Scripture:

“Your Scriptures contain myths and fables no better than the tales of the Greeks.”
Apocriticus 4.21

Porphyry argues that Christians interpret their writings in the most literal and unsophisticated way possible.

Porphyry’s Attack on Christian Exclusivism

The next source is the Suda, a massive tenth-century Byzantine encyclopedia that preserves brief quotations from older writers. It records Porphyry’s complaint:

“Porphyry wrote that the Christians forsake the customs of their ancestors and presume to condemn all others.”

This is one of the earliest pagan descriptions of the Christian claim that salvation comes only through Christ.

Porphyry’s Attack on Christian Miracles

In addition to the Gospels and Paul, Porphyry challenged the Christian claim that miracles proved Jesus was divine. Augustine of Hippo, writing in the early fifth century, preserves this line of argument. Augustine quotes Porphyry directly in The City of God, where he records Porphyry arguing that Jesus’ miracles were not unique at all:

“There are many others who have worked wonders no less than Jesus, yet they are not on that account gods.”
Augustine, City of God 10.32

For a philosopher formed by Plotinus, miracles proved nothing.
Medicine, magic, and religion could all produce wonders.
Jesus, Porphyry argued, belonged to a wider class of healers and holy men who never claimed to be divine.

Macarius Magnes preserves a similar statement from Porphyry’s lost work:

“If Jesus performed miracles, so have many others before him. Why then do you call him God when others who have done the same things are not gods?”
Apocriticus 3.6

For Porphyry, miracles were not evidence of divine identity.
They were common features of the ancient world.
Christians, he insisted, were naïve for treating them as proof.

Porphyry’s Attack on Christian Epistemology

Porphyry also attacked Christianity at its strongest point — its claim that the resurrection, apostolic testimony, Scripture, and the moral transformation of believers together provided a compelling reason for belief.

Macarius Magnes preserves Porphyry’s criticism of the Christian appeal to faith:

“You Christians have no demonstration for what you believe. You accept everything on faith alone, without proof.”
Apocriticus 4.19

This is one of the earliest explicit arguments that Christianity lacks philosophical evidence.

Porphyry demanded the kind of demonstration valued by the Platonic schools.
Christians responded that history, revelation, eyewitness testimony, prophetic fulfillment, and moral transformation constituted a different kind of proof.

Eusebius, writing in the early fourth century in direct response to Porphyry, explained it this way:

“Our faith is not based on clever reasoning but on the power of truth shown in deeds.”
Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel 1.5

Porphyry forced Christian writers to clarify the nature of Christian evidence.
They insisted they were not offering abstract philosophical argument but historical testimony to events God had done.

Porphyry’s Attack on Jewish and Christian Dietary Practices

Another preserved piece of Porphyry’s work comes from his treatise On Abstinence from Animal Food. In this work, Porphyry discusses the practices of several cultures, including the Jews. His comment is brief but revealing:

“The Jewish nation abstains from swine and certain other animals, not for reasons of purity, but because of ancient ancestral customs.”
On Abstinence 2.36

This statement is significant for two reasons.

First, Porphyry denies that Jewish dietary laws reflect divine command.
Second, he treats these customs as merely ethnic and cultural.

Early Christians inherited aspects of this Jewish debate and were still wrestling with food laws in the second and third centuries. Porphyry’s dismissal of these practices as “ancestral customs” fits with his larger claim that Christian practices were human inventions, not divine revelations.

Porphyry’s Attack on Jewish and Christian Views of Images

Porphyry also wrote a separate work titled On Images, in which he defended the philosophical value of pagan images, statues, temples, and rituals. Although the work does not survive, Eusebius preserves Porphyry’s arguments.

Eusebius tells us:

“Porphyry says images are symbols that lift the mind to the gods, and that the Jews are impious for destroying them.”
Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 3.6

This helps us understand two important points.

First, Porphyry believed that pagan worship involved profound symbolism, not superstition.
Second, he saw Jewish and Christian hostility to images as ignorant, impious, and culturally destructive.

Christianity’s refusal to honor images — its refusal to sacrifice, its refusal to join civic rituals, and its rejection of pagan temples — was, in Porphyry’s eyes, a direct assault on everything wise and ancient in the empire.

For Porphyry, the ancient rites deserved respect. Christians, he believed, were tearing down the cultural world that preserved truth.

Porphyry’s Appeal to Pagan Oracles

Porphyry did not only defend pagan tradition.
He argued that the gods actively revealed truth through the ancient oracles.

He wrote a now-lost work titled On the Philosophy from Oracles.
Much of it was destroyed by Christian emperors, but Eusebius preserves a summary:

“Porphyry says that the gods speak in oracles and reveal to us the ways of virtue and truth.”
Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 4.7

This is crucial for understanding Porphyry’s worldview.

For Porphyry:

The gods reveal truth through ancient rituals.
The philosophers preserve this truth through reason.
The ancestral traditions embody this truth through symbol and rite.

Christianity, in his eyes, had none of this.
It was recent, literalistic, exclusive, and dismissive of the traditions that carried the wisdom of antiquity.

This is why Porphyry regarded Christianity not as harmless but as culturally and philosophically dangerous.

Porphyry’s Attack on Daniel

Porphyry’s longest and most detailed attack focused on the Book of Daniel. More of his words survive here than on any other topic because the Christian scholar Jerome quoted him extensively in his fourth-century Commentary on Daniel.

Jerome explains Porphyry’s argument this way:

“Porphyry wrote his twelfth book against Daniel, denying that he was a prophet, but asserting that all the things narrated in his book happened in the past, under Antiochus Epiphanes, and that Daniel did not predict the future but reported the past in the form of prophecy.”
Jerome, Commentary on Daniel 11.5

Porphyry argued that Daniel’s predictions were too accurate regarding the events of the second century BC.
He concluded the book was written during the Maccabean crisis, not in the sixth century BC.

Jerome quotes Porphyry further:

“Nearly all the things he relates in this chapter have been fulfilled. He tells of Antiochus who fought against the king of Egypt. But he lies when he adds other things which did not take place at all.”
Jerome, Commentary on Daniel 11.5

Porphyry’s point was simple.
Daniel describes historical events accurately until a certain point.
After that point the predictions fail.
Therefore, Daniel was a historical narrative pretending to be prophecy.

Jerome’s frustration is evident.
He admitted:

“Porphyry followed the history so closely that he cannot be refuted except by saying that Daniel truly foretold the future.”
Jerome, Commentary on Daniel 11.5

For Christians, Daniel was foundational evidence that God reveals future events.
Porphyry’s attack struck at the heart of Christian apologetics.

Hierocles: A Roman Governor Attacking Christianity During the Persecution

At the same time Porphyry was sharpening the philosophical attack against Christianity, another voice emerged from within the Roman administration itself. Hierocles was a high-ranking Roman governor under Diocletian, first in Bithynia and later in Alexandria. Around the very moment the Great Persecution began in AD 303, he composed a work titled Philalethes (“Lover of Truth”), one of the most important pagan attacks on Christianity from the early fourth century.

Unlike Porphyry, Hierocles was not a philosopher speaking from a school.
He was a Roman official speaking from authority.
His critique reveals how Christianity was viewed by those charged with protecting the Roman order.

Eusebius, who lived through the same period, wrote a direct refutation titled Against Hierocles between AD 310 and 313 and quotes Hierocles at length.

Hierocles’s central claim was that Jesus was nothing special and that Christians foolishly exalted Him above other wise men such as Apollonius of Tyana. Eusebius preserves the argument clearly:

“Hierocles endeavors to show that Apollonius was more divine than Jesus, and reproaches us for worshipping Him whom he calls an ordinary man, while we overlook Apollonius, who performed more wonderful deeds.”
Eusebius, Against Hierocles 1 (AD 310–313)

Hierocles insists that Jesus accomplished nothing unique:

“He asserts that Jesus performed nothing remarkable, but that the apostles invented tales of His miracles out of foolishness, whereas Apollonius, he says, displayed greater power and wisdom.”
Against Hierocles 2

He mocks Christians for exclusive devotion to Jesus:

“He accuses us of folly, saying that while we overlook many men who have performed great deeds, we have exalted Jesus alone, though He accomplished nothing worthy of such honor.”
Against Hierocles 4

He even compares their trials:

“He says that Apollonius, when tried by the emperors, displayed courage and divine power, whereas Jesus, dragged before Pilate, showed nothing divine and suffered an inglorious death.”
Against Hierocles 4

He attacks Christian Scripture:

“He mocks us for preferring the barbaric writings of the Christians to the wise and philosophical doctrines of the Greeks.”
Against Hierocles 3

He denies Christian moral superiority:

“He says that what we admire in Christian conduct is found more beautifully among the philosophers, who taught moderation, justice, and wisdom long before.”
Against Hierocles 5

He mocks Christian intellectual status:

“He derides the simplicity of the faith, calling it the belief of unlearned men who know nothing of true philosophy.”
Against Hierocles 3

And he attacks Christian miracle claims:

“He says that the deeds attributed to Jesus are neither new nor extraordinary, for many have worked similar wonders, yet none of these are worshipped as gods.”
Against Hierocles 4

His conclusion is blunt:

“He declares that Christians have been deceived by exaggeration, exalting Jesus beyond measure, when in reality He was no greater than many others.”
Against Hierocles 1

Hierocles therefore stands beside Porphyry as one of the clearest voices opposing Christianity just as the Great Persecution began. He represents the mindset of Roman officials who saw Christianity not only as theologically dangerous but socially destabilizing and philosophically unimpressive.

Christian Responses to Porphyry

Porphyry triggered more Christian responses than any pagan writer before him.
Entire works were written to refute him.

Eusebius of Caesarea

In the early fourth century, he wrote Preparation for the Gospel and Demonstration of the Gospel intended as philosophical and historical weapons against Porphyry.

Eusebius openly acknowledges the scale of the challenge:

“Porphyry has written against us with no small skill.”
Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 1.1

Methodius of Olympus

In the late third century, he wrote a multi-volume refutation titled Against Porphyry.
The work is mostly lost.

Apollinaris of Laodicea

In the mid-fourth century, he wrote another large response to Porphyry.
Also mostly lost.

Augustine of Hippo

In the early fifth century, he addressed Porphyry multiple times in The City of God.

Augustine admits:

“Porphyry’s writings disturb many, for he was most subtle in his arguments.”
Augustine, City of God 19.22

Jerome

In the late fourth century, he quoted Porphyry’s arguments against Daniel and wrote a full-scale defense of the book as true prophecy.

The sheer number and scale of these responses show how deeply Porphyry’s arguments penetrated Christian thought.

Porphyry and the Road to the Great Persecution

Porphyry’s work did not lead to persecution by itself.
But his ideas shaped the intellectual atmosphere in which Diocletian’s Great Persecution began in AD 303.

Porphyry argued that:

Christianity rejected Rome’s ancestral customs.
Christianity undermined pagan wisdom.
Christianity destroyed images and temples.
Christianity refused to sacrifice.
Christianity misread ancient texts.
Christianity invented new doctrines.
Christianity was a danger to Roman identity.

These are the same themes echoed in Diocletian’s edicts, which demanded:

the destruction of Christian Scriptures
the destruction of churches
the removal of Christians from public office
the arrest of clergy
and the restoration of ancestral rites

Porphyry was not a politician.
But he helped provide the philosophical justification for a state-driven attempt to suppress Christianity.

His intellectual assault and Diocletian’s political assault belong to the same moment.
The empire tried to protect its cultural inheritance and turned to force when argument failed.

Conclusion: Why Porphyry Still Matters

Porphyry’s criticisms remain the foundation of many modern skeptical arguments:

That Daniel was written after the events it “predicts.”
That the Gospels contradict one another.
That miracles do not prove divinity.
That Christians rely on faith rather than proof.
That Christian practices came from Jewish custom rather than divine mandate.
That Christianity is a late and dangerous innovation.

Porphyry was the first to articulate these critiques in a systematic way. He understood Christianity well enough to attack it where it seemed strongest.

Christianity did not survive Porphyry because his arguments were weak. It survived because its historical claims, its prophetic confidence, and its communities of endurance were stronger than any philosophical challenge.

Porphyry represents the moment when philosophy fought back with full force. And Christianity answered with its own witness, writings, and courage.

Marcus Aurelius and the Martyrs: Stoic Resignation vs. Christian Resurrection

September 5, 2025October 28, 2025 / Jason Conrad / Leave a comment

When Antoninus Pius died in AD 161, the throne passed to his adopted son Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. For the first eight years he ruled jointly with Lucius Verus; after Verus’ death in 169, Marcus reigned alone until 180.

Marcus is remembered as the philosopher-emperor. His Meditations, written in Greek during military campaigns, are one of the most famous works of Stoic philosophy. They counsel calm acceptance of death and resignation to the fleeting nature of life.

Yet in these same decades, Christians were being persecuted across the empire. They too left writings — apologies, theological treatises, and martyrdom accounts. These voices allow us to set Stoicism and Christianity side by side in the years of plague and persecution.

Marcus Aurelius on Life and Death

In the Meditations, written in the 170s during the wars on the Danube frontier, Marcus constantly reminded himself of life’s brevity:

“Of man’s life, his time is a point, his substance a flux, his sense dull, the fabric of his body corruptible, his soul spinning round, his fortune dark, his fame uncertain. Brief is all that is of the body, a river and a vapour; and life is a warfare and a sojourning in a strange land; and after-fame is oblivion.” (2.17, Loeb)

“Consider how swiftly all things vanish — the bodies themselves into the universe, and the memories of them into eternity. What is the nature of all objects of sense, and especially those which attract with pleasure or affright with pain or are blazed abroad by vanity — how cheap they are, how despicable, sordid, perishable, and dead.” (9.3, Loeb)

He urged himself not to despise death but to welcome it, since dissolution is as natural as birth or growth:

“Do not despise death, but welcome it, since nature wills it like all else. For dissolution is one of the processes of nature, just as youth and age, growth and maturity, teeth and beard and grey hairs and procreation and pregnancy and childbirth, and all the other natural operations which the seasons of life bring. To be not only not resisted but welcomed by the wise man is no less fitting.” (9.3, Loeb)

For Marcus, death was inevitable dissolution into the cosmos; memory itself was destined to fade into nothing. Stoicism offered dignity and calm acceptance, but no hope beyond the grave.

Justin Martyr: Death Cannot Harm Us

At the very same time in Rome, the Christian philosopher Justin Martyr was writing his apologies to the emperor. In his First Apology, written about 155–157, Justin described how Christians worshiped:

“And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we said before, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a sharing with those who are absent, and to those who are not present a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.” (First Apology 67, Loeb)

While Marcus mused on life’s futility, Christians were meeting every week to proclaim eternal life through Christ’s resurrection and to share the Eucharist as a pledge of incorruption, with their offerings supporting the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, and strangers.

In the same work, Justin explained why Christians did not fear persecution:

“We are accused of being atheists. But we are not atheists, since we worship the Creator of the universe… Him we reasonably worship, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third… For though beheaded, crucified, thrown to wild beasts, in chains and in fire, we do not renounce our confession; but the more such things happen, the more others in turn become believers.” (First Apology 13, Loeb)

In his Dialogue with Trypho, written in the 160s, Justin emphasized that the soul does not perish with the body:

“For not as common opinion holds, the soul dies with the body. We say that souls survive, and that those who have lived virtuously shall dwell in a better place, while those who have done wickedly shall suffer a worse fate, and that the unjust are punished with everlasting fire.” (Dialogue 5, Loeb)

And in his Second Apology, probably written after Marcus came to power, Justin summed it up in one line:

“You can kill us, but cannot hurt us.” (Second Apology 2, Loeb)

The Martyrdom of Justin

Justin’s philosophy became confession, and his confession became death. In about 165 he and six companions were brought before the prefect Junius Rusticus in Rome. The Acts of Justin’s Martyrdom, preserved in Greek, record the trial.

Rusticus commanded them to sacrifice:

“Approach and sacrifice, all of you, to the gods.”

Justin replied:

“No one in his right mind gives up piety for impiety.” (ch. 5–6, Loeb)

Rusticus pressed him:

“If you are scourged and beheaded, do you believe you will go up to heaven?”

Justin answered:

“I hope that if I endure these things I shall have His gifts. For I know that all who live piously in Christ shall have abiding grace even to the end of the whole world.” (ch. 6, Loeb)

The prefect pronounced sentence:

“Let those who have refused to sacrifice to the gods and to obey the command of the emperor be scourged and led away to suffer the penalty of capital punishment according to the laws.”

And so, the account concludes:

“The holy martyrs, glorifying God, went out to the customary place, and were beheaded, and completed their testimony in confessing the Savior.” (ch. 8, Loeb)

Justin was condemned not for crimes but for refusing to renounce the name of Christ. And this was nothing new. The same policy had been in place since Nero, carried on by every emperor in one form or another.

Nero (54–68): After the fire of Rome in AD 64, Nero did something new in Roman history. Unlike any other group, he chose the entire class of people called Christians for punishment. Tacitus says they were convicted “not so much of the crime of firing the city as of hatred of the human race.” Anyone associated with the name was liable to arrest, and an “immense multitude” was executed. Their punishments were grotesque public spectacles: some torn apart by dogs while covered in animal skins, others crucified, others burned alive as torches in Nero’s gardens. This marked a turning point: from then on, Christians carried the deadly liability of the name itself.
Vespasian (69–79) and Titus (79–81): Christians in Judea perished in the Jewish War; across the empire, Jewish-practicing Christians bore the fiscus Judaicus, the humiliating tax imposed on all who “lived like Jews.”
Domitian (81–96): Remembered by Christians as a new Nero. Dio Cassius says he executed Flavius Clemens for “atheism.” Revelation, likely written in these years, calls Rome “Babylon” and portrays the beast as Nero reborn. For the church, Domitian was Nero come again.
Trajan (98–117): His rescript to Pliny set the empire-wide rule: Christians were not to be sought out, but if accused and refusing to sacrifice, they must be punished — “for the name itself.”
Hadrian (117–138): Required due process but left the liability of the name untouched.
Antoninus Pius (138–161): Reaffirmed the same: Christians could be prosecuted “merely as such.”
Marcus Aurelius (161–180): And under Marcus the pattern continued — Justin executed in Rome, Blandina and Pothinus tortured in Gaul, Speratus and companions condemned in Africa.

From Nero to Marcus, the empire’s stance was consistent: Christians were punished not for ordinary crimes but for the name of Christ.

Athenagoras of Athens: Resurrection vs. Dissolution

Written around AD 177 and addressed to Emperor Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus, Athenagoras’ Plea for the Christians (also known as the Embassy for the Christians) is one of the most eloquent defenses of early Christian faith. A philosopher by training, Athenagoras used the very language of Greek reason to defend the Christians against the charges of atheism, immorality, and political disloyalty. He explains the Christian understanding of God, the Trinity, resurrection, and the endurance of persecution with remarkable clarity.

From Plea for the Christians (Loeb)

“Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists? For we are not atheists, since we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by mind and reason alone, who is surrounded by light and beauty, and spirit and power unspeakable.

We are persuaded that when we are removed from this present life we shall live another life better than the present one, heavenly, not earthly, where we shall abide near God and with God, free from all change or suffering in the soul, and not as flesh but as spirits; or, if we shall again take flesh, we shall have it no longer subject to corruption, but incorruptible.

For as we acknowledge a God, and a Son His Logos, and a Holy Spirit, united in power—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, because the Son is the Mind, Reason, and Wisdom of the Father, and the Spirit is the effluence as light from fire—so we declare that there is a God, and that the universe came into being by His will.

And though we are beheaded, crucified, thrown to wild beasts, chains, fire, and all kinds of torture, we do not renounce our confession; but the more such things happen, the more others in turn become believers, who observe the extraordinary patience of those who suffer and reflect that it is impossible for them to be living in wickedness and pleasure. For when they see women and boys and young girls preserving the purity of their bodies for so long a time under tortures, and others who had been weak in body becoming strong through the name of Christ, they are moved to understand that there is something divine in this teaching.”
— Athenagoras, Plea for the Christians 10–12, 18 (Loeb Classical Library)

Key Insights

Contrast with Stoicism: While Marcus’ Stoicism accepted death as dissolution, Athenagoras presents death as transformation — a passage into the incorruptible life of God.

Addressed directly to Marcus Aurelius: Athenagoras wrote from Athens to the same emperor who condemned Justin, appealing for reason and justice.

First philosophical articulation of the Trinity: He names “God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” and explains their unity and distinction.

Immortality and incorruption: Christians believe that after death, they live near God — not dissolving into the cosmos, but sharing in incorruptible life.

Persecution as proof of truth: Athenagoras insists that the courage, purity, and endurance of Christian martyrs demonstrate that their faith is divine.

Theophilus of Antioch: Immortality and Resurrection

Around AD 180, Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, wrote To Autolycus — a three-book defense of the Christian faith addressed to a learned pagan friend. His work is especially important for two reasons:

It contains the earliest known Christian use of the word “Trinity.”
It presents the Christian doctrine of creation, resurrection, and incorruptibility in contrast to Greek philosophy.

Writing from one of the great intellectual centers of the empire, Theophilus appeals both to reason and to Scripture, insisting that faith in the one God — revealed through His Word and Spirit — is the true path to eternal life.

From To Autolycus (Loeb)

“God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own Wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things. He is called the beginning, because He rules and is Lord of all created things, fashioned by Him.

For God will raise up your flesh immortal with your soul; and then, having become immortal, you shall see the immortal, if you now believe in Him. Then you shall know that you have spoken unjustly against Him. For if you disbelieve, you shall be convinced hereafter, when you are tormented eternally with the wicked.

In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries are types of the Trinity: of God, and His Word, and His Wisdom. But to us who bear the sign, God has given eternal life. For he who has believed and has been born again has been delivered from death and shall not see corruption.”
— Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus 2.10; 1.14; 2.15 (Loeb Classical Library)

Key Insights

Connection to Marcus’ world: Writing at the end of Marcus Aurelius’ reign, Theophilus gives voice to a Christianity fully confident in both reason and revelation — a faith that promises incorruptible life amid an empire obsessed with decay and death.

Earliest known use of “Trinity”: Theophilus is the first Christian writer to use the term explicitly — describing “God, His Word, and His Wisdom.”

Creation through the Word: Theophilus presents the Logos (Word) as God’s agent in creation, echoing both Genesis and John 1.

Promise of bodily resurrection: Unlike Stoicism, which saw the soul dissolve back into nature, Theophilus proclaims the raising of the flesh “immortal with the soul.”

Moral urgency of faith: Belief in God’s Word leads to immortality; unbelief results in corruption and loss.

Melito of Sardis: Christ’s Victory

During the reign of Marcus Aurelius, Melito, bishop of Sardis in Asia Minor, wrote one of the most beautiful early Christian homilies ever preserved — the On Pascha (Peri Pascha). Preached during the annual Paschal celebration, it interprets Christ’s death and resurrection as the true fulfillment of the Jewish Passover.

Melito was deeply versed in both the Scriptures of Israel and the language of Greek rhetoric. His sermon combines poetic intensity with precise theology: Christ is both God and Man, the Creator who entered His own creation, suffered, and destroyed death. In the face of Roman Stoicism’s resignation to mortality, Melito proclaimed a faith that saw the cross as cosmic victory and the resurrection as the end of corruption.

From On Pascha (Loeb)

“He who hung the earth in place is hanged. He who fixed the heavens in place is fixed in place. He who made all things fast is made fast on a tree. The Master has been insulted; God has been murdered; the King of Israel has been destroyed by the right hand of Israel… He who raised the dead is himself put to death. He who has power over the dead is himself made subject to corruption. But he is lifted up on a tree, and nailed thereon, not for any evil he had done, but for the sins of the world.” (96)

“This is He who made the heaven and the earth, and in the beginning created man, who was proclaimed through the law and the prophets, who became human through a virgin, who was hanged upon a tree, who was buried in the earth, who was raised from the dead, who ascended to the heights of heaven, who sits at the right hand of the Father, who has the power to save all things, through whom the Father acted from the beginning and forever.” (105)

“This is the Passover of our salvation. This is He who patiently endured many things in many people: This is He who was murdered in Abel, and bound as a sacrifice in Isaac, and exiled in Jacob, and sold in Joseph, and exposed in Moses, and slaughtered in the lamb, and hunted down in David, and dishonored in the prophets. This is He that was made human of a virgin, that was hanged upon a tree, that was buried in the earth, that was raised from the dead, that was taken up to the heights of heaven.” (69–71)
— Melito of Sardis, On Pascha 69–71, 96, 105 (Loeb Classical Library)

Key Insights

A Message to Rome: Preached while Marcus Aurelius ruled, Melito’s words directly contradict Stoic despair: God has entered history, conquered corruption, and opened immortality to humankind.

Christ as Creator and Redeemer: Melito proclaims that the very One who made heaven and earth is the One who was crucified — uniting creation and redemption in a single act.

The Cross as Victory: Where Stoicism saw death as natural dissolution, Melito sees it as the moment when death itself was destroyed.

The True Passover: Christ fulfills every Old-Testament figure — Abel, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, David — revealing the unity of Scripture in Him.

Poetry and Power: The sermon’s rhythm and parallelism show how early Christian preaching rivaled classical oratory yet centered on the suffering God.

The Martyrs of Lyons and Vienne (177)

In AD 177, while Marcus Aurelius was still emperor, a violent persecution erupted in the Gallic cities of Lugdunum (modern Lyons) and Vienne. The empire was ravaged by plague, and popular suspicion fell on the Christians, whom many blamed for angering the gods. The hostility grew into mob violence, imprisonment, and finally public executions in the amphitheater.

The account was written by the local churches and sent to their brothers in Asia and Phrygia; Eusebius later preserved it in his Church History (Book 5, chapters 1–3). It is one of the earliest detailed descriptions of martyrdom in the western provinces of the Roman Empire and vividly records the endurance of ordinary believers—men, women, the elderly, and slaves—who suffered joyfully for the name of Christ.

From Eusebius, Church History 5.1–3 (Loeb)

“From the very beginning they endured nobly the injuries heaped upon them by the populace, clamors, blows, dragging, despoiling, stonings, imprisonments, and all things which the enraged mob are wont to inflict upon their adversaries and enemies.

They were shut up in the darkest and most loathsome parts of the prison, stretching their feet into the stocks as far as the fifth hole, and left to suffer in this condition. Yet though suffering grievously, they were sustained by great joy through the love of Christ.

Through her [the slave girl Blandina] Christ showed that things which appear mean and obscure and despicable to men are with God of great glory. For while we all feared lest, through her bodily weakness, she should not be able to make a bold confession, she was filled with such power that the insensible and the weak by nature became mighty through the fellowship of Christ. She was hung upon a stake and offered as food to the wild beasts; but as none of them touched her, she was taken down and thrown again into prison, preserved for another contest.

Pothinus, the bishop of Lyons, being more than ninety years old and very infirm, was dragged before the judgment-seat, beaten unmercifully, and after a few days died in prison.

They were all finally sacrificed, and instead of one wreath of victory which the Lord has given, they received many; for they were victorious in contests of many kinds, and endured many trials, and made many glorious confessions.”
— Eusebius, Church History 5.1.5, 14, 17, 29, 55 (Loeb Classical Library)

Key Insights

Legacy: The courage of these Gallic believers inspired churches from Asia Minor to North Africa. It shows how far Christianity had spread—and how deeply its followers trusted in resurrection over resignation.

A Letter from the Churches: This account was written by eyewitnesses—ordinary believers, not historians—making it one of the most authentic voices from the 2nd-century church.

Suffering Across Social Lines: The martyrs included nobles, slaves, and clergy. Blandina, a young slave girl, became the central figure of courage; Pothinus, a bishop over ninety years old, died from his wounds in prison.

Joy in Suffering: The letter repeatedly says the prisoners were filled “with great joy through the love of Christ.” Their faith turned the instruments of torture into testimonies of hope.

Public Spectacle: Their deaths were staged in the amphitheater, just as Nero had done a century earlier in Rome—proof that the name itself still carried a death sentence.

Contrast with Marcus’ Philosophy: The emperor wrote that life is vapor and fame oblivion; his subjects in Lyons believed their suffering crowned them with eternal victory.

The Scillitan Martyrs (180)

In July of AD 180, only months after Marcus Aurelius’ death, twelve Christians from the small North African town of Scillium (near modern Tunis) were brought before the proconsul Saturninus at Carthage.

Their brief hearing—preserved in Latin as the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs—is the earliest surviving Christian document in Latin, a legal transcript of their words before the Roman governor. The Christians were offered mercy if they would swear by the emperor’s genius and return to “Roman custom.” Instead, they calmly confessed their allegiance to Christ and accepted execution.

From the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs (Loeb)

Saturninus the proconsul said: “You can win the indulgence of our lord the Emperor if you return to sound mind.”

Speratus, the spokesman for the group, replied: “We have never done wrong, we have not lent ourselves to wickedness, we have never spoken ill; but when we have received ill treatment, we have given thanks, for we pay heed to our Emperor.”

Saturninus said: “We too are religious, and our religion is simple: we swear by the genius of our lord the Emperor, and pray for his welfare, as you also ought to do.”

Speratus said: “If you will listen to me quietly, I will speak the mystery of simplicity.”

Saturninus said: “I will not listen to you when you speak evil of our sacred rites; but rather swear by the genius of our lord the Emperor.”

Speratus said: “I do not recognize the empire of this world; rather I serve that God whom no man has seen, nor can see with these eyes. I have not stolen; but whenever I buy anything I pay the tax, because I recognize my Lord, the King of kings and Ruler of all nations.”

The others with him said: “We too are Christians.”

Saturninus said: “Do you wish time to consider?”

They said: “In such a just cause there is no deliberation.”

Saturninus read from the tablet: “Speratus, Nartzalus, Cittinus, Donata, Secunda, and Vestia, having confessed that they live as Christians, and refusing, after opportunity given them, to return to Roman custom, are hereby condemned to be executed with the sword.”

And they all said: “Thanks be to God.”
— Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs (Loeb Classical Library)

Key Insights

A calm defiance of Stoic fatalism: Stoicism accepted death with indifference; the Scillitan believers accepted it with thanksgiving, certain that life eternal had already begun.

Earliest Latin Christian text: The Acts are the first known Christian writing in Latin, showing that the faith had already taken root far beyond its Greek-speaking heartlands.

Execution “for the name”: The martyrs are charged with no crime but refusal to renounce the Christian name or sacrifice to the emperor’s genius.

Civic loyalty without idolatry: Speratus insists that Christians are not rebels: they pay taxes and pray for the emperor—but cannot worship him.

Quiet confidence: Their composure is remarkable. They require no “time to consider” and meet the death sentence with “Thanks be to God.”

Empire-wide continuity: Their trial in North Africa mirrors Justin’s in Rome and the martyrs’ in Lyons—proof that by the late 2nd century, persecution for the Christian name extended from the capital to the provinces.

Stoicism and Christianity Contrasted

Marcus Aurelius (Stoicism, 170s): Life is fleeting vapor. Death is dissolution. All things vanish. After-fame is oblivion. The best that can be done is to endure with dignity and accept fate calmly.
Christians under Marcus (Justin, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Melito, the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne, and the Scillitan Martyrs, 155–180): Life is fleeting, but Christ has conquered death. The soul endures. The body will rise. Judgment is certain. Incorruption is promised. Suffering is not meaningless fate but victory with Christ. Death itself becomes thanksgiving and triumph.

This was not new in Marcus’ time. From Nero to Domitian to Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and now Marcus, Christians faced the same charge: death for the name.

Conclusion

The reign of Marcus Aurelius brought plague without and persecution within. The emperor’s Stoic meditations gave him dignity to accept dissolution. The Christians’ writings and martyrdoms gave them courage to proclaim resurrection.

From Nero to Marcus, the story was the same: Christians were executed not for ordinary crimes but for the name. The philosopher-emperor wrote that life is vapor; the martyrs declared that life is eternal in Christ.

Plague may ravage. Governors may condemn. Emperors may command. But the Christians of Marcus’ reign — and every reign since Nero — bore witness that Christ has overcome death, and in Him incorruption and eternal life have already begun.