Johnny Skeptic

The Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition says that Nero "became infamous for his personal debaucheries and extravagances and, on doubtful evidence, for his burning of Rome and persecutions of Christians."

The Microsoft Encarta 2000 Encyclopedia says "In July 64, two-thirds of Rome burned while Nero was at Antium. In ancient times he was charged with being the incendiary, but most modern scholars doubt the truth of that accusation. According to some accounts (now considered spurious), he laid the blame on the Christians (few at that time) and persecuted them."

In ‘The Rise of Christianity, Rodney Stark says the following:

“Second, persecutions rarely occurred, and only a tiny number of Christians ever were martyred – only “hundreds, not thousands� according to W.H.C. Frend (1965:413). Indeed, commenting on Tacitus’s claim that Nero had murdered “an immense multitude� of Christians, Marta Sordi wrote that “a few hundred victims would justify the use of this term, given the horror of what happened� (1986:31). The truth is that the Roman government seems to have cared very little about the “Christian menace.� There was surprisingly little effort to persecute Christians, and when a wave of persecution did occur, usually only bishops and other prominent figures were singled out. Thus for rank-and-file Christians the threat of persecution was so slight as to have counted for little among the potential sacrifices imposed on them.�

Following is part of an e-mail exchange that I had with Jonathan Roth, Ph.D., ancient history, San Jose State University in California. Dr. Roth’s comments are in quotations marks.

Regarding Tactitus' statement that Nero persecuted "vast multitudes" of Christians, does the statement provide any indication of how many Christians are implied?

“It does mean that more than a handful were involved, but says nothing other than that. If you read the passage, however, it can be construed to mean that some Christians were arrested and tortured into confessing that they set the fires. Then they gave the names of others Christians ‘a large number of whom’ (another way of translating this) were executed not for arson, but simply for being Christians. In other words, the expression refers to the percentage of the number killed, rather than a total number.�

Is it reasonably possible that Tacitus was using hyperbole?

“Tacitus frequently uses such hyperbole. A good example is in his description of various emperors killing members of the Senatorial opposition. He implies that large numbers are involved, but when one counts up the numbers, they are only a few dozen at most. All ancient writers use exaggeration and hyperbole.�

Is it true that the use of hyperbole can vary greatly depending upon who is using it and that there is no way of knowing to what extent Tacitus might have used hyperbole?

“Yes. We seldom have a source other than Tacitus, so it is difficult to check his statements.�

Is it true that Tacitus's use of the words "vast multitudes" did no favors for future historians?

“True, but remember that history was considered literature and meant for entertainment. Tacitus is always thinking about making his stories more interesting and readable.� End of quotes.

I stand by my previous arguments. In addition, as some historians have stated, if Christians had not been around, Nero would have persecuted someone else.

Amaleq13

Johnny Skeptic,

Please use the quote tag feature. As you can see from your post above, it makes reading your post much easier. I've sent you a PM explaining the process.

Johnny Skeptic

Ok, I goofed the first time. Let me try again.

Excellent! I find using the Preview Post button useful to see how my formatting will look before I post it. You can use the brackets to format italics by using an "i" and "/i" instead of "quote" and "/quote" or bold with "b" and "/b". The fun never ends.

PS I deleted your first attempt at this post in case you were wondering.

Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

andrewcriddle

My point is not that Nero necessarily killed a large number of Christians, I agree that Tacitus is probably using hyperbole. (Although 1 Clement, probably referring to the same episode, speaks of 'a vast multitude of the elect')

My point is that a group has to be non-trivial in size before they become a sensible target for scapegoating. Blaming Christians as a means of pleasing the general Roman public, is only plausible if that public is already aware of Christians as a controversial recent group.

This is IMO unlikely, with Christians well under a tenth of a per cent of the Roman population.

Andrew Criddle

TedM

Of course you can have thousands in 40AD and end up with 7,530 6 decades later! The earliest evidence we have with regard to Christian population is Paul's own reference to his persecution of the Christians. This hints of it being a significant group before Paul's own conversion, and provides an explanation for why groth may not have continued at a fast rate (ie persecution).

The flaw in your logic is that you are assuming that a very fast initial growth would had to have continued for 60 years. Does Acts say that it did? Does Paul?

Might this reference by Tacitus be considered support for a growth rate that fluctuated? : "Christus, the founder of teh name, underwent the death penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of the procurator, Pontius Pilate, and the pernicious superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the home of teh disease, but even in Rome." (Annals, XV, 44)

I'm curious if Stark catagorizes/counts the churches and people Paul mentions by name. That might give a clue as to the size of the church in say around 55AD.

ted

Johnny Skeptic

There is no logical correlation that can be made between the persecution of Christians and the number of Christians. Whatever persecution of Christians there was might very well have been a preemptive strike by the Romans designed to deal more effectively with a small Christian population before it became larger and became more difficult to deal with.

Regarding the various Churches started by Paul, there is no logical correlation that can be made between the establishment of a Church and its size in subsequent decades.

'The Rise of Christianity' is about much more than just Rodney Stark. The bibliography is twenty pages long. Stark is always careful to provide a lot of corroboration from other expert sources.
On the other hand, Christians at this forum have produced little in the way of scholarly corroboration for their arguments.

TedM

I'll quickly admit I've never given the issue much attention. Maybe Stark is right about the population at 100AD. My point is that one can't logically go backwards and deduce that the account in Acts is incorrect.

I would think persecution would discourage the growth of Christianity, wouldn't you? It seems like basic common sense. It is reasonable to believe that persecution existed from the earliest days of Christianity, and Paul even says it did. Paul's writings attest to persecution against himself also. The other early writings -1 Peter, the gospels talk about it too.

If you believe what you just wrote, it looks to me like you just contradicted your conclusion that the author Acts is lying because you came to that conclusion from looking at the population of the sum of the Churches in 100AD.

ted

GakuseiDon

As I understand it, Stark is using a mathematical model to estimate the Christian population at various points, assuming IIRC a 20% growth rate per decade. His estimate is purely theoretical. He would probably be concerned at Johnny Skeptic's use of his estimates as hard figures. (Johnny has carried this debate over from TheologyWeb, where it has been done to death)

Johnny Skeptic

Many Christians claim that persecution would have discouraged the growth of Christianity, but in ‘The Rise of Christianity’ Rodney Stark adequately discredits that notion. Consider the following:

Persecution was limited to “bishops and other prominent figures,� and “……for rank-and-file Christians the threat of persecution was so slight as to have counted for little among the potential sacrifices imposed on them.�

“Moreover, the fruits of this faith were not limited to the realm of the spirit. Christianity offered much to the flesh as well. It was not simply the promise of salvation that motivated Christians, but the fact that they were greatly rewarded here and now for belonging. Thus while membership was expensive, it was, in fact, a bargain. That is, because the church asked much of its members, it was thereby possessed of the resources to ‘give’ much. For example, because Christians were expected to aid the less fortunate, many of them received such aid, and all could feel greater security against bad times. Because they were asked to nurse the sick and dying, many of them received such nursing. Because they were asked to love others, they in turn were loved. And if Christians were required to observe a far more restrictive moral code than that observed by pagans, Christians – especially women – enjoyed a far more secure family life.�

“The dynamics of stigma and sacrifice have the following direct and formal consequences (Iannaccone 1992). First: ‘By demanding higher levels of stigma and sacrifice, religious groups induce higher average levels of member commitment and participation.’ Second: ‘By demanding higher levels of stigma and sacrifice, religious groups are able to generate greater material, social, and religious benefits for their members.’�

Regarding Paul’s persecution of Christians, there is no evidence that he would not have been interested in persecuting a small Christian population.

Regarding my mention of the book of Acts, my arguments are just as good without mentioning it. Following is my revised argument:

If Jesus did not bodily rise from the dead and thus there weren’t any eyewitnesses, and if the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses was written by Paul and not a later addition, then widespread rejection of Christianity would be a given, which would correlate with Rodney Stark’s estimate of 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D. (that is only about the size of three good size high schools), and the Christian Church would not have been able to begin to grow more rapidly until after the deaths of the still living eyewitnesses late in the 1st century. Until then, people would have said “Hey, we were there and we didn’t see any risen Jesus.�

It has been stated at the Theology Web and in this forum that Stark would oppose the way that I am using his estimates. He might oppose my motives for using his estimates the way I am using them, but he definitely would not have gone to all the trouble of writing chapter 1 in ‘The Rise of Christianity,’ which is titled ‘Conversion and Christian Growth,’ if he was not trying to estimate the size of the early Christian Church at various times as accurately as possible. Much has been written by many scholars regarding conversion and Christian growth. It is only natural that many historians and sociologists are interested in studying the growth and conversion of the church that eventually became the largest church in history.

It seems to me that Christians who oppose Stark and his corroborative scholarly sources have only two choices. They can claim that there has been a conspiracy among modern scholars to attempt to discredit the Christian Church by dishonestly claiming a very small 1st century Christian Church, or they can claim that they are better able to assess the growth and conversion of the early Christian Church than historians and sociologists can. Either notion would of course be ridiculous.

TedM

Stark's arguments don't discredit that notion. They argue against it, yes, but the fact is that persecution will dampen growth. We can't put numbers on the earliest church based on our arguments. That's why I asked if Stark looked at Paul's writings (or really anything else) to try and estimate the church in say 55AD.

I don't follow your reasoning regarding 500 eyewitnesses. Are you saying it is a lie by Paul?

You are not addressing a few things which STRONGLY argue against you: The intellectual appeal of Jesus as the Messiah they so desperately were looking for since he had some interesting ties with the OT Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53. Paul refers to it, as does 1 Peter. In addition the BELIEF in resurrection is all that is necessary to entice people to conclude that the man some THOUGHT might be the Messiah really was. Look at the justification in early Acts: several times a psalm of David was used to bolster that belief. Also, look at the actual numbers reported to have followed other suspected Messiah's of the time: thousands. Messiah mania was HUGE! This argues strongly for a very fast early growth, even if the resurrection were in spiritual form and only claimed as such.

I haven't read his work. The use of 100AD figures to go back in time to derive earlier numbers is IMO a shot in the dark. Those figures IMO are WORTHLESS for determining the initial response in terms of numbers.

ted