The Power of Sacrifice: Roman and Christian Discourse in Conflict (review)

Heyman’s engaging book raises questions of interest to all who consider Christianity’s relationship with the wider world in its earliest centuries. The introduction sets forth clearly the nature of this topic: the rhetorical force and the ideological emphases sacrificial language and ritual played for Romans and Christians. The thesis is that “the conflict between Rome and the early Church was ultimately a collision of sacrificial discourses” (xvii). The argument is that the language of public sacrifice was a key ingredient for both groups in shaping self-identity, and that the way Christianity shaped its discourse on the martyr tradition in terms of sacrifice not only paralleled the Roman imperial cult, the overarching symbol of Roman religion, but was influenced by it to an extent. The book is divided into four chapters.

Chapter one investigates discourse as an analytical tool and the religious discourse of early imperial Rome. The first task is accomplished through an overview of scholars like Foucault and Barthes. Of particular interest is the work of Bruce Lincoln about the ways in which subgroups are controlled by and react against the dominant discourse. Religio is seen as the proper behavior, not the beliefs, of the Roman people that promoted divine favor upon the state. Heymann argues that religion was both conservative and innovative in cementing proper social order and family values. Sacrifice was at the heart of this proper behavior: to honor, thank, and petition gods.

The next chapter concentrates on the new religious expression of power under the principate—the imperial cult—and the role sacrifice played in it. Various changes in religious practice in the late republic are presented, particularly those linked to the personal power of leading individuals. Heyman notes the distinction between Hellenistic ruler cults and heroic cults. The difference between deus and diuus is also explored, the latter being a title for a divine person so declared. Of note is the treatment of genius, the Lares Compitales, and the ara numinis Augusti to explain how the Romans regarded the divinity of their emperors.

The author is obviously more familiar with New Testament scholarly literature than with that on Roman religion. The more extensive notes in chapter three and the fact that so much material in the first two chapters is taken from websites (rather than from printed critical editions) is evidence of this. This chapter presents different understandings of sacrifice in Hebrews, Paul, the Synoptic Gospels, John, and Revelation. The chapter ends with an investigation into the idea of spiritual sacrifice and an excursus on René Girard’s rejection of the idea that Jesus’ death was sacrificial.

In the final chapter these two strands of tradition are brought together. The argument is made that early Christian discourse on sacrifice was linked with martyrdom in imitation of Christ and was a challenge to the ideological supremacy of Rome. Martyrdom is highlighted as the product of discourse about power. The complex relationship between voluntary death, suicide, and martyrdom in both Christian and non-Christian (including Jewish) contexts in antiquity is explored, particularly in regard to the notion of divine compulsion. If there is a criticism of this chapter it is that there seems to be insufficient attention paid to the martyrdom narratives themselves. Several martyr accounts are treated in either a paragraph or a couple of pages. There is no real engagement with the vast amount of secondary literature that has been produced on these texts.

I think Heyman works through his material with a sure hand and steady gaze to produce thought-provoking results. There is much here that will excite discussion and ongoing academic conversation. One may note the oversight of describing the death of Caesar as occurring in 42 b.c.e. (74). I also wonder whether Seneca’s comments about living well really support the argument about giving life away (165). I would also quibble about whether Socrates’ death can be called a suicide from a modern perspective because...