Johnny Skeptic

I have been debating the size of the 1st century Christian Church with James Holding et al at the Theology Web for a number of months. Holding and most of the other Christians have finally given up contesting my arguments, which occurred in a number of different threads that I started. I entered Rodney Stark's 'The Rise of Christianity' as evidence. Stark estimates that there were 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D., or in my own words, only about the size of three good sized high schools. If Stark's estimate is accurate, then that would conclusively prove that the writer of the book of Acts was a liar. The writer claimed that there were "many thousands" of Christians not long after Jesus died. You can't possibly have many thousands of Christians in say 40 A.D. and end up with only 7,530 Christians six decades later in 100 A.D. If the writer of the book of Acts was a liar, and there is good evidence that he was, then the writers of the Gospels are also guilty by association.

Stark discusses his statistical model in chapter 1, and he cited good deal of support from modern scholarship. The book was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize and the bibliography is twenty pages long, testifying to the fact that Stark is a consummate researcher. He has written over fifty books and publications and he has received numerous awards.

Christians make a big deal out of the 500 eyewitnesses. If there were 500 eyewitnesses, and since eyewitnesses evidence is the very best kind of evidence, the 1st century would have been the most ideal time for rapid growth in the early Christian Church, but that does no look like what happened.

Regarding Paul's claim of the 500 eyewitnesses, most scholars agree that his epistles are Pauline, but no competent scholar would ever claim that every sentence in the epistles is identifiably Pauline. The claim of the 500 eyewitnesses cannot logically be asserted to be identifiably Pauline. Hence, Christians have been deprived of their best eyewitnesses evidence, of course, not first hand eyewitnesses evidence, or even provably second hand or third hand evidence.

Mark was the earlist Gospel. Many scholars believe that it was released around 70 A.D. When it was released, did the disciples defend it? Well, to adequately answer that question we would first have to know how many of the disicples were still alive four decades after Jesus died, where they were and whether or not they defended the Gospel of Mark. I invite readers to post pertinent external evidence.

Layman

Why not give us the link to the discussion so we can see Holding's side of the debate? If you are so sure you won the argument, why not give the reference? Is it this thread where they gave up on you?

In any event, let's say that several thousand Jews were followers of Jesus around 40 AD. (Acts 21:20). Then let's say that there was some significant event that may have affected the lives of those Jews and, perhaps, even their theology. Say, something like a war with Rome and the razing of Jerusalem to the ground and the destruction of the Temple? How have you controlled for the possible deaths or discouragement of so many of the Jewish Christians? After all, we know that originally Christianity was mainly Jewish and by 100 AD it was mainly Gentile.

Also, we see additional effects on Christian numbers in Pliny the Younger's letters. Some due to persuection but some apparently due to a loss of interest. Pliny notes that he interrogated people and killed those who persisted in claiming to be Christians: "I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed." He is also clear that many who had been Christians had already renounced their Christianity. Others renounced it because of Pliny's interrogations: "Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ." Finally, although Pliny gives us no numbers, he is clear that the only reason he was bothering the emperor with this matter was because of the sheer number of Christians involved: "For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms."

Furthermore, we should not limit the number of believing Jews to the Jerusalem area. Most of Jesus' ministry was conducted in Galilee and that is where all the disciples are from. Acts likes to focus on Jerusalem, but you cannot simply assume that no one who had followed Jesus in Galilee continued as a Christian after his death. [Edited to Add: We also know this from Paul and his references to the "churches in Judea" (Gal. 1:22)].

But its pretty naive to simply classify Luke as a liar if he was not being literal here. He's not giving a precise number of refering to "myriads." Mr. Stark is aware of Acts' reports, but does not come to the conclusion that the author is simply a liar. He quotes Robert Grant's statement that "one must always remember that figures in antiquity . . . were part of rehtorical exercises and were not really mean to be taken literally." The Rise of Christianity, page 5. For example, Josephus reports in Jewish War the that the Egyptian lead 30,000 rebels. 2:261. Few historians gives this number credence. Luke is likely more on the mark when he puts the number of the Egyptian's followers at 4,000. Does this mean that Josephus is simply a liar and cannot be believed about anything? Or that all Jewish writers of this time are guilty by association? Nobody would be so naive as to reach that conclusion. Unless of course they had an agenda that they let croud out their better judgment.

In any event, while I appreciated Stark's efforts and his theories on the manner of Christianity's spread and the reasons for its success, it would be going too far to conclude that his numbers are ironclad. Stark basically surveys a number of different historian's speculation about the number of Christians in 300 AD and assumes a growth rate of 40 percent per decade. That's how he arrives at the 7,530 number for 100 AD. His "check" on this rate of growth is that it is similar to that of Mormon growth. But did the Mormons start out as a subgroup in one religion and become the dominant group in completely different culture? Did they have their nation razed to the ground, their people exterminated, and their Temple destroyed? Yes, they suffered some persuection and even internal rifts, but nothing like what happened to Judea especially but also Galilee at the hands of foreign invaders. So while the Mormon comparison may be the best tool available, but I'm not sure they are precise enough for the surgey Stark attempts.

Finally, assuming a simple rate of growth doesn't allow for expansion and contraction due to significant events having significant impact on the Jews, gentile Christians, and pagans. It also assumes a steady pace of growth, rather than spurts of growth followed by periods of stagnation. It might be nice as a rule of thumb, but not as a tool of biblical criticism.

Steven Carr

The only number we have is from Eusebius and he gives quite a small number of Christian clergy in Rome even in 250 AD.

The Gospels seem to imply that Christians were a small minority 'salt of the earth' implies a small number as salt was very rare.

'But its pretty naive to simply classify Luke as a liar if he was not being literal here. He's not giving a precise number of refering to "myriads."'

A myriad is 10,000. I'm sure that Luke's numbers are no more literal than Paul's 'more than 500 brethren' or even his '12', which we should also not take literally.

andrewcriddle

Eusebius quotes Cornelius Bishop of Rome as saying that as well as the bishop there were How large a congregation was required to support the above is unclear.

Most scholars estimate on the basis of the above figures that Rome at that time had at least 30,000 Christians.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Stark's argument assumes constant percentage growth over more than 250 years which is highly unlikely.

His very low figures for Christians in 100 CE requires

a/ 200,000 to 250,000 Christians in 200 CE which IMO is too low by a factor of two to three.

b/ growth by a factor of 25 to 30 between 100 CE and 200 CE which IMO is too high by a factor of two to three. (Persecution, internal divisions and other problems IMO limited growth during this period.)

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr

This is about 3% , in the centre of Christendom at that time, after 200 years of evangelism. Away from the centre of Christendom, the percentage must have been even less.

andrewcriddle

30,000 for Christians in Rome is probably a minimum and a million for the total population of Rome seems a bit high.

My guesses would be that 4-5 % of Rome was Christian in 250 CE with the figure for the Empire as a whole 2 % .

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If Stark's estimate is accurate, then that would conclusively prove that the writer of the book of Acts was a liar. The writer claimed that there were "many thousands" of Christians not long after Jesus died. You can't possibly have many thousands of Christians in say 40 A.D. and end up with only 7,530 Christians six decades later in 100 A.D.

Layman replied: Why not give us the link to the discussion so we can see Holding's side of the debate? If you are so sure you won the argument, why not give the reference? Is it this thread where they gave up on you?

Johnny: The debates over numbers went on for a number of months in various threads. If you had read all of the pertinent posts, you would already know the answer to your question. The post you mentioned discussed the Mormon Church and the writer of the post critcized Stark's use of the growth of the Mormon Church. That issue is in fact the smallest part of Stark's justification for his statistical model, as chapter 1 in 'The Rise of Christianity' shows. I doubt that you have read the chapter. I suggest that you do so. In my opinion, Stark should not have mentioned the Mormon Church. The Mormon Church was founded about 1800 years after Christianity was founded, in another part of world and in a dramatically different sociological setting.

I saved a lot of my debates with Holding in files in Microsoft Word. I don't remember which thread the following comes from, but it is verbatim:

Originally posted by James Holding:

Johnny Skeptic wrote: Do you still claim that 1 Christian per 5,000 people is miraculous? You are actually pretty close to agreeing with Rodney Stark’s estimate of 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D. You conveniently did not respond.

Holding replied: Sorry, Johnny, but I did already; you just didn't like it. But you say I'm close to Stark? So what? It doesn't affect my point one bit.

Johnny: It most certainly does. You said that in 70 A.D. there were from 100,000 - 250,000 Christians in the Roman Empire in 70 A.D., and that there had to be that many Christians in order to get the Romans' attention. Now you contradict yourself with "But you say I'm close to Stark? So what? It doesn't affect my point one bit." You said that even 1 Christian per 5,000 people would have been miraculous. That would be 10,000 Christians per 50 million people. Some time ago you said that Stark picked his numbers out of a hat, and on another occasion you said that Stark massaged the numbers, but now you are saying "But you say I'm close to Stark? So what? It doesn't affect my point one bit." If you don't mind agreeing with Stark, then there is no doubt whatsoever that by 70 A.D., the vast majority of people had flatly rejected New Testament claims of miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus. If there were no miracles and no Resurrection, then it is to be expected that the Christian Church could not have begun to grow more rapidly until after the deaths of the supposed still living eyewitnesses, which would have been late in the first century. End of quotes.

It that good enough for you Layman, or would you like to contact Holding and ask him if he wants to debate me any further on this issue here or at the Theology Web? I promise you that he will refuse to debate me any further on this issue. At the TWeb, over a number of months there have been a number of threads with many thousands of views and many hundreds of replies regarding this issue. I have taken on all comers, and now the hecklers are conspicuous by their absence.

Layman: In any event, let's say that several thousand Jews were followers of Jesus around 40 AD. (Acts 21:20).

Johnny: And why should anyone assume that? Where is your external corroboration?

Layman: Then let's say that there was some significant event that may have affected the lives of those Jews and, perhaps, even their theology. Say, something like a war with Rome and the razing of Jerusalem to the ground and the destruction of the Temple? How have you controlled for the possible deaths or discouragement of so many of the Jewish Christians? After all, we know that originally Christianity was mainly Jewish and by 100 AD it was mainly Gentile.

Johnny: I agree that by 100 AD the Church was mainly Gentile (what happened to the Jews?), but there are not any good reasons at all for anyone to assume that the "many thousands" of Christian Jews mentioned in the book of Acts is a credible historical claim. How many historians will back up the claim?

Regarding "the possible deaths or discouragement of so many of the Jewish Christians," there is no evidence that such was the case. If you wish to bring up Nero and Titus, I am ready to refute those arguments, as I have already done on a number of occasions at the TWeb. A good deal of scholarship is on my side, and I can quote the pertinent expert sources.

Layman: Also, we see additional effects on Christian numbers in Pliny the Younger's letters. Some due to persecution but some apparently due to a loss of interest. Pliny notes that he interrogated people and killed those who persisted in claiming to be Christians.

Johnny: I am well aware of Pliny's correspondence with Trajan, and I have debated it at length at the TWeb on a number of occasions. It is the size of the 1st century Christian Church that I am most interested in. I first brought up Rodney Stark at the TWeb in response to James Holding's mention in his article titled 'The Impossible Faith' of "the thousands at Pentecost and th 500 eyewitnesses, making it harder not to believe than you believe." Holding once told me that TIF deals only with the first century, actually through about 90 A.D., so for my purposes of attacking TIF, Trajan is irrelevant since he ruled from 98 - 117 A.D. If there were actually 500 eyewitnesses, then since eyewitness testimony is the very best kind of testimony, the first century would have given the Christian Church its best chance for rapid growth, but there is no evidence that such growth occurred.

Pliny's interest in controlling Christians does not in any way indicate how many Christians there were. As much as the Romans detested Christians, it wouldn't have taken very many to upset them. A preemptive strike is more logical to assume than assuming that the Romans waited for Christians to become numerous and then persecute them.

Laymen: Furthermore, we should not limit the number of believing Jews to the Jerusalem area. Most of Jesus' ministry was conducted in Galilee and that is where all the disciples are from. Acts likes to focus on Jerusalem, but you cannot simply assume that no one who had followed Jesus in Galilee continued as a Christian after his death. [Edited to Add: We also know this from Paul and his references to the "churches in Judea" (Gal. 1:22)].

Johnny: I do not assume anything. That is in fact what you do based upon taking the book of Acts at face value and trying to force history to agree. Presuppositionalism is not a credible historical methodology. I don't really have to assert that the first century Christian Church was quite small, or even that it probably was quite small, in order to have good arguments. All that I need to do is ask Christians why anyone should believe otherwise.

Layman. But its pretty naive to simply classify Luke as a liar if he was not being literal here. He's not giving a precise number of refering to "myriads." Mr. Stark is aware of Acts' reports, but does not come to the conclusion that the author is simply a liar. He quotes Robert Grant's statement that "one must always remember that figures in antiquity . . . were part of rehtorical exercises and were not really mean to be taken literally." The Rise of Christianity, page 5.

Johnny: I agree. I stand corrected. I am aware of your quotes of Stark and I have posted them in the past at the Tweb. Your problem is that the quotes do not help you in your claim that the first century Christian Church was larger than Stark claims it was. If Luke was not being literal, then why did James Holding mention "the thousands at Pentecost" in TIF? What do you think Luke meant, if it was actually Luke, but of course that issue is another debate in and of itself.

Layman: For example, Josephus reports in Jewish War the that the Egyptian lead 30,000 rebels. 2:261. Few historians gives this number credence. Luke is likely more on the mark when he puts the number of the Egyptian's followers at 4,000.

Johnny: And why is that?

Layman. Does this mean that Josephus is simply a liar and cannot be believed about anything? Or that all Jewish writers of this time are guilty by association? Nobody would be so naive as to reach that conclusion. Unless of course they had an agenda that they let crowd out their better judgment.

Johnny: Do you mean like the agenda that early Christians had when they destroyed every competing record that they could get their hands on, and actually became persecutors themselves after the first century? I can produce pertinent evidence of this if you wish.

Regarding Josephus, Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition says "As a historian, Josephus shares the faults of most ancient writers: his analyses are superficial, his chronology faulty, his facts exaggerated, his speeches contrived. He is especially tendentious when his own reputation is at stake. His Greek style, when it is truly his, does not earn for him the epithet 'the Greek Livy' that often is attached to his name."

Layman: In any event, while I appreciated Stark's efforts and his theories on the manner of Christianity's spread and the reasons for its success, it would be going too far to conclude that his numbers are ironclad.

Johnny: Stark's numbers need not be ironclad, nor does the Christian claim of a first century Christian Church that was good deal larger than Stark's estimate. My position is that unless Christians can adequately refute Stark's numbers, skeptics can fairly speculate that the first century Christian Church might have been very small due the to fact that there were no 500 eyewitnesses, and in fact no eyewitnesses at all. Paul's claim of 500 eyewitnesses might easily have been added in the second or third century. Robert Price told me that there is no mention of the claim in Christian literature until the third century. It is embarrassing to Christians that the Gospels never mention the 500 eyewitnesses, although they frequently mention claims of much less importance. Eyewitness testimony is the very best kind of testimony, and the few eyewitnesses mentioned in the Gospels(of course not first hand, or even probably second or third hand), who were mostly women, is not a good apologetic argument.

Layman: Stark basically surveys a number of different historian's speculation about the number of Christians in 300 AD and assumes a growth rate of 40 percent per decade. That's how he arrives at the 7,530 number for 100 AD.

Johnny: I agree. He worked backwards based upon a good deal of historical evidence, including papyrological evidence and a study of all known archaeological evidence.

Layman: His "check" on this rate of growth is that it is similar to that of Mormon growth. But did the Mormons start out as a subgroup in one religion and become the dominant group in completely different culture? Did they have their nation razed to the ground, their people exterminated, and their Temple destroyed? Yes, they suffered some persecution and even internal rifts, but nothing like what happened to Judea especially but also Galilee at the hands of foreign invaders. So while the Mormon comparison may be the best tool available, but I'm not sure they are precise enough for Stark's attempts.

Johnny: Nor do they need to be.

Layman: Finally, assuming a simple rate of growth doesn't allow for expansion and contraction due to significant events having significant impact on the Jews, gentile Christians, and pagans. It also assumes a steady pace of growth, rather than spurts of growth followed by periods of stagnation. It might be nice as a rule of thumb, but not as a tool of biblical criticism.

Johnny: Evidence of a steady rate of growth is not needed in order to justify Stark's estimate of 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D. His papyrological evidence (page 12) and archaeological evidence (pages 8-9) alone (from subsequent centuries) indicates a very small Christian presence in 100 A.D.

andrewcriddle

If one accepts the historicity of Nero's persecution of Christians in Rome in c 66 CE, (a subject of dispute on this forum), then it would seem to imply a reasonably large number of Christians in Rome at that time and hence a much larger number in the Empire as a whole.

By Stark's figures the number of Christians in the Empire in 66 CE would be roughly 2,500 with presumably no more than one hundred in Rome. This seems too low to be a plausible target for heavy persecution.

If Nero's persecution of Christians happened then there were almost certainly more Christians in 66 CE than Stark's figures would suggest.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

Do we have from Pliny here a rough start date for Christianity?