Russellonius

Herod had enough power that he appointed the actual priests. He was king with right of appointing successors (if OKed by Rome). Are you talking about historical expectations, or what was doable? (Hasmonean king/priests did not have hereditary rights to kingship or priesthood according to traditional expectations either when they first took power, but it was doable for them.)

I agree that effort was being made by Herod to make it seem as if his rule was acceptable to traditionalists by customary standards. On the other hand traditionalists who opposed Herod were being killed off in droves.

Christianity was in certain ways a transformed Judaic religious system (Shema, prophets). In other ways it was a radical departure from the past (Law). Reading your work has made me think more about internal dynamics of the mixed bloodlines of the royal family. I think that's the place to look for the origin of Christianity.

I'm trying to understand the importance you place on the legality of inheritance in a faith development that seems primarily concerned with abandoning legal custom.

maryhelena

Sure, Herod could get away with much - especially if Rome supported him. The issue is rather the legitimacy of any King/Priest type ruler that Herod could have appointed, from within his now Herodian/Hasmonean family - the question of it being acceptable to his Jewish subjects is a different issue...


Law verse faith type of thing? Yes, but keep in mind the two roots of early christian origins. The pre-Paul and the post Paul situations. It is only within the pre-Paul context in which 'law', in which bloodlines and legitimacy re any messianic ideas would be based. Post-Paul - it's a free-market.....

The big question re early christian origins relates to the pre-Paul situation. Once 'Paul' opened up the free-market approach to spiritual matters - the old ways of the pre-Paul niche market lost their hold on things. But until that happened - with 70 ce a defining moment - the Hasmonean/Herodian bloodline scenario, ie it's historical context, would have the upper hand re any legitimacy questions...

All this emphasis on bloodlines is not to ascribe any hereditary significance to the Hasmonean bloodline. It just happens to be that the Hasmonean bloodline is the bloodline that history has connected to the Herodian bloodline re the Herod the Great scenario. And actually, bottom line in all of this, all a bloodline is indicating, or highlighting, is the necessity for a dash of reality before we let our intellectual imagination take of on a flight of pure fantasy - or faith like journey...

Which, going back to the NT storyline - means that we should not minimize the importance of the pre-Paul context. The roots of early christianity do not just lie within Paul's imagination. Ideas, to be of real relevance, need to be grounded in reality - that bloodline again...

Russellonius

There is no way it could be anything other than conjectural. Everybody knows that.

Stark did consult quantitative claims in Acts, about which he writes: "These are not statistics." (Page 5, book cited)

He goes on to say (same page), "Indeed, as Robert M. Grant pointed out, 'one must always remember that figures in antiquity...were part of rhetorical exercises' and were not really meant to be taken literally."

The reason I posted this table is because many posters here seem to want to make an argument reductio ad absurdum that would prove that Christianity does not actually exist because it never originated. Or that it was created ex nihilo by people writing stuff down on paper and was not a natural human response to actual historical social realities.

The proposed 1,000 in 40CE would not have been called 'Christian' because the moniker was applied to the group only later. The record shows they met in 'house-churches' - peoples' living rooms. By the time of Constantine they represented a demographic group so large that the emperor thought it wise to appease them.

The table and the comparison to observed Mormon growth was intended by Stark to show that there was nothing miraculous about the growth of the church. He consulted many scholars proposed demographic figures, coming up with a consensus range.

The later the 'start date' and the lower the early 'census count' the more the growth rate would approach what reasonable observers would have to consider 'miraculous' - not observed in reality.