Johnny Skeptic

As I showed in my previous post, Stark argues that persecution was quite limited and actually increased growth with “‘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.’�

Stark also said “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.�

Regarding the 500 eyewitnesses, there are not any good reasons at all for anyone to believe that Paul wrote the claim, or even that it was written in the 1st century. Dr. Robert Price told me that the claim does not appear in any Christian literature until sometime in the 3rd century. Yes, most scholars agree that Paul’s epistles are for the most part Pauline, but no scholar will claim that every single sentence in the epistles in identifiably Pauline. The same goes for Shakespeare’s plays and other literary works.

Regarding the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53, in an article at http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...nge/bible.html Theodore Drange says the following:

Verse 3 in the Tanakh also declares that the suffering servant was "familiar with disease", and verse 4 says that he was "stricken by God", where the Hebrew word for "stricken" is one that is used in the Hebrew Scriptures to stand only for leprosy (as at Le 13:3,9,20 and 2Ki 15:5). But Jesus is not known to have suffered from leprosy or any other disease, so those verses are not applicable to him. It may even be part of some forms of Christian doctrine that Jesus needed to be perfectly healthy in order to adequately play the role of "sacrificial lamb" (which by law needed to be "without blemish"). It is clear that the suffering servant of Isa 53 could not adequately play such a role.

As for Jesus being silent before his accusers (thereby satisfying verse 7), that seems not to work either. Verse 7 says (twice): "He did not open his mouth." But according to John 18:33-37, 19:11, Jesus said much to Pontius Pilate. In each of the four gospels Jesus opened his mouth and said something before his accusers. Hence, Jesus did not actually fulfill that part of the prophecy.

In verse 9 it says of the suffering servant "his grave was set among the wicked, and with the rich, in his death." It is unclear how that applies to Jesus, for there were no other bodies in the tomb in which Jesus' body was placed. The verse definitely does not say that the servant would have a grave provided for him by a rich man, so that part of the alleged prophecy is sheer invention.

According to verse 10, "the Lord chose to crush him by disease, that if he made himself an offering for guilt, he might see offspring and have long life, ..." That seems totally inapplicable to Jesus, for Jesus was not crushed by disease, nor did he see any offspring, nor did he have a long life.

Isaiah 53 does not actually mention the Messiah. In fact, when we look closely at the chapter, it is hard to find anything in it that is applicable to either the (Jewish) Messiah or to Jesus. Verse 1 does not actually say that the servant's message would not be believed, but merely asks, "Who can believe what we have heard?" There seems to be no prophecy there at all. Nor is there any indication that the servant would be arrested as a criminal or scourged or crucified with criminals or make intercession for his persecutors. None of that is in there. Verse 6 does say, "the Lord visited upon him the guilt of us all," but there are other interpretations of that than the Christian one.

There is a Judaic interpretation of Isa 53 that seems plausible. The suffering servant is the nation of Israel which is represented by King Uzziah, who was its king in Isaiah's time and who died of leprosy. According to Shmuel Golding, Isaiah's message may have been: "Here is your leprous king, who is in type suffering under God's hand for you the backslidden servant nation of Israel" (which explains verse 6). Uzziah was taken away from the royal palace because of his affliction as a leper and spent his remaining years in isolation, which fits verse 8. Golding says the following:

"Israel is portrayed as a suffering servant on account of its anointed leader being stricken with leprosy. Israel, like the leper, is a suffering servant of God. Both have suffered humiliation at the hand of their fellowmen: the leper because of his unsightly appearance; Israel through its defeat at the hands of the Babylonians. The gist of the message is that Israel like the leper has suffered, but nevertheless will retain its identity in the form of the exiled Jewish people and that they will prosper in this form."

This interpretation of Isaiah 53 seems preferable to the Christian one because it does not suffer from drawbacks mentioned above. It would also better explain the many changes of tense that occur in the chapter. And Israel is indeed referred to as "God's servant" (e.g., at Isa 49:3). However, the given interpretation does not make the chapter into a prophecy so much as an explanation of Israel's situation at around the time of Isaiah. At the very least, it shows, I think, that Isaiah 53 is not a clear example of a fulfilled prophecy (or set of fulfilled prophecies) in the Bible. So it is not any good support for premise (1) of the Argument from the Bible. End of quotes.

There is no credible external evidence at all that corroborates Ted’s reference to “Messiah mania.� Like many other Christians, Ted takes the New Testament at face value and tries to force history to agree, even when historical evidence that supports his arguments is conspicuous by its absence.

andrewcriddle

One only carries out premptive strikes against perceived threats.

A group has to reach a certain minimum size (or be openly involved in blatantly criminal activity) before it becomes a perceived threat.

Are you claiming that it would be plausible for Nero to decide to persecute and scapegoat Christians if there were less than 30 Christians in all Rome ?

If not what would be your minimum plausible figure and why ?

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

As I stated in another post, 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."

Regarding “A group has to reach a certain minimum size (or be openly involved in blatantly criminal activity) before it becomes a perceived threat,� as Rodney Stark and other scholars have said, if Christians hadn’t been around, Nero would have persecuted someone else.

Pliny told Trajan “For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms.� The words “has spread� indicate a fairly recently development. Trajan ruled from 98 - 117 A.D. If there were already enough Christians in Rome in 64 A.D. to attract Nero’s attention, then Christians most certainly would have already spread to cities, villages and farms decades before Trajan became Emperor.

If Nero was interested in persecuting Christians, then how do you explain the fact that there is not any credible external evidence at all that Trajan and Domitian were interested in persecuting Christians?

In ‘The Rise of Christianity’ Rodney Stark provides a good deal of corroborative scholarly support for his estimates. Where is yours corroborative scholarly support?

TedM

It's an argument. It is not provable. He could be wrong, as could I. It is a fact that SOME people DID renounce their faith under persecution, and it is highly likely that the threat of persecution discouraged some from becoming Christians also. Whether the net effect is an increase or decrease it not knowable no matter how much we try to speculate.

Your long analysis of Isaiah 53 is irrelevant to my point. I"m not defending it as valid, just as a viable reason for early growth. Apparantly Jesus' suffering was close enough because the fact is that Isaiah 53 WAS used to support growth of the religion--Paul quotes parts of Isaiah 53, and aspects of that chapter WERE deemed Messiac. Verse 2 is much like 11:2, and midrash of the times supports the belief that it was Messiac. To not see connections to the passion narrative is to be very obtuse. The narratives point out that Jesus was silent before his accusors, the 'rich man in his death' is close to the rich Joseph of Ar..., grave with the wicked is close to crucifixion with criminals. Your argument doesn't address my point: It WAS USED to support growth. Obviously it WAS used because it was deemed Messiac AND there were similarities to the story of Jesus early on.

My understanding is that Josephus provides pretty good external evidence of Messiah mania, and that it is widely accepted among scholars that the people were desperately seeking Messiah. You've given no historical evidence to refute my points, and are relying on speculative argumentation regarding persecution vs benefits to conclude that Christianity would have grown quickly but since it is computed to be only 7000 or so in 100AD it must have been very small to begin with. When I questioned your logic and you basically contradicted yourself you revised your reasoning for why it STILL was small to begin with to this 'benefits of persecution' argument. And, you dispute the likelihood that the public was psychologically ready to quickly embrace a Messiah, and find support for it in their own scriptures, despite clear evidence to the contrary.

The bottom line is that if you want to know what numbers there were in say 50AD, you have to look at the evidence from that period in time, and to my knowledge all we have to go on is Paul's epistles. One could look at the number of people he mentions by name, the number of churches, the distances of his travels, etc..and MAYBE get an idea. Secondly, one could look very closely to all references to that period in time and MAYBE get a good idea also. Maybe Stark has done this instead of just speculating about the earliest growth RATE, but I didn't see it here.

ted

andrewcriddle

I originally said (in effect) that IF Nero persecuted Christians then there must almost certainly have been several hundred Christians in Rome at the time. Do you agree and if not what is your minimum figure and why ?

The fact that if Christians had not been around Nero would have found other scapegoats is probably true but irrelevant.

If you are claiming that Nero did not persecute Christians at all, then that is a separate issue. If you confirm that that is what you think probable, then I will explain why I think this idea unlikely.

Andrew Criddle

TedM

The only implication is that the spread to the cities was first. The words 'has spread' don't indicate timing. Only action.

Johnny Skeptic

Richard Carrier just told me that he has a book of all of Pliny's official correspondence with Trajan while he was governor of Asia Minor, which is modern day Turkey. Richard said that there are 121 letters, and only one letter mentions anything about Christians. At any rate, Trajan ruled from 98 - 117 A.D., and there is no evidence that the Christian Chruch began to grow more rapidly until late in the 1st century. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then an eventual increase in growth late in the 1st century would have been quite natural since until then people would have said "Hey, we were there, and we didn't see any risen Jesus."

Johnny Skeptic

There is no way to know how many Christians there were in Rome. You said "The fact that if Christians had not been around Nero would have found other scapegoats is probably true but irrelevant." It is not irrelevant. Nero might have chosen to persecute Christians because he needed a scapegoat, not because of anything to do with how many Christians there were in Rome.

It is difficult to know what happened that long ago based solely upon what Tacitus wrote. Historians offer varying opinions. Some say that there is not good evidence that persecutions occurred. Others say that there is good evidence that persecutions did occur, but they seldom attempt to guess at how many Christians were persecuted and what the overall size of the Christian Church in Rome was at that time. If Nero did persecute Christians, my scapegoat argument is valid. It is important to note that there is no evidence that Titus or Domitian persecuted Christians, which gives more credence to my scapegoat argument. As much as the Romans detested Christians, it wouldn't have taken very many of them to get the Roman's attention.

It is a question of who is most qualified to judge the size of the 1st century Christian Church, which is most certainly not any member of this forum. Stark's bibliography in the 'The Rise of Christianity' is twenty pages long. It would be virtually impossible for you to read as many books as Stark et al have written and read, and even if you were able to read that many books, you do not have the analytical skills that well-educated historians and sociologists do. I have provided a good deal of scholarly sources that support my arguments. Where are yours?

andrewcriddle

On problem with Stark's argument as applied to the number of Christians in the mid 1st century CE is that Stark's figures depend on two claims.

a/ the number of Christians in the Roman Empire around 300, which Stark IMO very plausibly argues was around 6 million or slightly hiigher.

b/ the average percentage growth in Christians per decade from 40 to 300 CE.

Stark puts the average percentage growth per decade at 40% this is clearly approximately right in the sense that the figure has to be less than 50% and more than 30%. However relatively small variations in this figure produce substantially different results over more than 250 years.

EG with an average growth rate of 36% rather than 40% the figures for 40 CE are more than doubled even with the dubious assumption that percentage growth is constant over this whole period.

We simply do not know accurately enough the average percentage growth rate enough to use Stark's method to make meaningful estimates of the number of Christians before 70 CE. Even assuming that the assumption of constant percentage growth is valid.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

I will go with the experts. You oppose Stark, but what do you have to offer to the contrary? If Nero persecuted Christians, he might have used them as a scapegoat irregardless of their numbers. There is no evidence that Titus and Domitian persecuted Christians. The establishment of various churches by Paul does not give any indication of their sizes. Correspondence between Clement 1 and the Corinthian Church gives no indication of the size of the church.

In say 70 A.D., what means did people have of checking things out? The claim of the 500 eyewitnesses is not identifiably Pauline, and there are not any good reasons at all to discount the possibility that it was originally made in the 2nd or 3rd centuries.

Regarding the disciples, how many of them were still alive in 70 A.D., where were they and what did they claim about the Resurrection? Dr. Robert Price told me “We don't even really know who ‘the disciples’ were, much less how long they lived or what of the gradually forming gospel tradition they ever heard of.’

I will be happy to debate Eusebius’ claim that Papias was a hearer of John with you if you wish.

I look forward to your reply.