Toto

Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Sarah Ruden

Ruden is a classical scholar who is praised for her translation of the Aeneid.

Ferryman to the Dead

Might be a good read...no wonder he lost his head, chop! I saw another book on him at the local Wal-mart today but I forgot the author and title. I don't think this one, the one I saw was anything but Christian hype though....................

Ethan Brand

One of the reasons Gibbons gave for the quick rise and acceptance of Christianity was how decent it was in comparison to all other religions at that time. This seems to be in line with that thinking...

spamandham

It definitely had appeal to the underclasses (i.e., almost everyone)....but Stark has shown that ordinary growth is sufficient to explain the historical popularity of Christianity.

Clivedurdle

The Pharisees were also very modern - anti slavery, egalitarian.

Might xianity be a gentile version of phariseeism?

Are we looking at the invention and development of the idea of the self?

aa5874

Did Stark show that ordinary growth was sufficient or did he just speculate on a number at a speculated time that would be sufficient to explain his own assumptions?

The Church writers Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Origen in "Against Celsus" destroys any speculation that Jesus of the NT believers were very large and that their numbers were known in the first century.

Up to the third century, Jesus believers were operating in SECRET and there were INNUMERABLE Christian doctrines.

It is simply not true at all that all Christians of any century only BELIEVED in the Jesus of the NT, the offspring of the Holy Ghost. There were AT least 16 DIFFERENT Christian sects in the 2nd century.

DCHindley

S&H,

Aa has a point there. Growth rate is not something that is naturally at a constant rate. If that were so, where are the millions of members of ancient cults or paganism in general? Stark is making an assumption about growth rate, based on a modern Christian denomination that bucks the norm, that he has not demonstrated.

You pick up on this when you mention that Christianity appealed to "to the underclasses (i.e., almost everyone)," presumably in an effort to explain why it grew when other options did not. Stark's model is comparing apples to oranges.

Joseph Smith's tale of the angel Moroni revealing to him gold and brass plates recording the lives and fates of ancient Hebrews and Jews who had migrated to N. America in two waves in ancient times, and who were even visited by Jesus himself, appealed to a subset of 19th century Americans who were moderately exposed to mainstream Christian doctrine but not necessarily taking to it (the number of "unchurched" in this period was much higher than usually acknowledged, hence the revival movements). The period was one of speculations about Egyptian hieroglyphics, publication in English of Christian apocryphal books, and occult speculations (like peep stones, mysticism, the fate of the lost 10 tribes, etc) was rampant. They could read about these things in books and newspapers, or hear about it at very least. Smith started speaking about his revelation and the contents of the books revealed to him in New York state, not the dusty prairies of the territories.

On account of the novel matters his accounts introduced (lost tribes in N. America, Jesus visiting them, insistence that the accounts in his plates supplemented the bible and were to be added to the canon of scripture, his belief that he was a modern day prophet and his revelations from God were also of a sacred nature) rubbed the majority, churched or not, the wrong way. They were forced to form close associations much like colonies and move from place to place, hopping across Penna and Ohio, Missouri and finally to Utah territory, and as a result, had only their own kind to marry and associate with, except for business. They operated right in the open, making no attempt to keep a low profile.

Close associations like this tend to have high reproductive rates. The Hutterites of today, a closed Anabaptist sect similar to the Mennonites/Amish with a history of migration, has one of the highest birth rates in modern times. "Between 1880 to 1950, the Hutterites grew from 443 to 8,542 persons. This represents an annual increase of 4.12 percent, which appears to be the world's fastest natural growth rate." The Latter Day Saints were not quite as closed as this, but in their early decades did practice polygamy which increases birth rate.

So the LDS growth rate was due to a combination of "new-age" like attractiveness to disaffected portions of the general population, as well as close association and polygamy increasing their birth rate.

Early Christians operated as private associations, meeting in private homes, but living scattered among the general population, and generally flew under the radar, which caused the pagans to imagine some nasty, and untrue, things about them. They did have an appeal to many of the common people in towns and cities (not the country), but principally because they offered the eternal bliss promised by mystery religions like the Elysian mysteries but without the costly initiations and class restrictions. Reproductively they did not believe in abortion, but also practiced monogamy. I would guess that their overall birth rate would be close to the population as a whole. Overall, for their first 200 years, their growth rate would reflect their appeal to the population and receive little or no boost from their organizational structure. After 311 or so, with the conversion of the newly minted emperor Constantine, the growth rate would swell for reasons that had to do with culling favor with the emperor, and the freedom of being able to operate fully in the open and quash the rumors that they were eating babies and engaging in orgies at their "love feasts." Mmmmm.

DCH

spamandham

If not for Constantine, there very well could be millions of members of ancient cults today. Prior to Constantine, a slow and steady exponential growth is sufficient to explain the rise of Christianity. Stark does back up his numbers - it isn't just wild speculation, even though they are obviously not irrefutable. I haven't seen anyone who opposes his approach attack the data he uses.

grog225

The problem with most books on Paul is their use of Acts as an historically reliable source, usually very uncritically.