Nomad: "Historians of the ancient world (like A.N. Sherwin-White, and Michael Grant for example) tell us that the formation of all of Christian mythology within the first and second generation of believers is unprecedented."

It seems what Nomad claimed is clear: Christianity's development as a belief system was unique in that it occurred during the first and second generation of believers. He doesn't claim that Grant believed Christianity's PREDOMINANCE in the Roman Empire (as opposed to "formation" as a belief system) resulted for reasons apart from Constantine.

While Nomad himself might believe that Christianity's growth to predominance in the Roman Empire was unique, he does not appear to have claimed that Grant shared that view. Rather, what he claimed Grant believed was that Christianity's FORMATION as a belief system occurred within 1 or 2 generations of its founding was unique.

The difference is not very subtle, can't you see it?



[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 12, 2001).]

Toto

Nomad's original post asserted that there was something unique and (presumably) miraculous about the spread of Christianity in its first 300 years. His words from page 2 of his thread:

So far we have some quotes from Dennis McD indicating that Grant did not see anything unprecedented about the spread of Christianity in the first 300 years. (Dennis qualified his statement by saying that Grant might have said something in another book that he hadn't read.) We have another quote supplied by Bede indicating that Grant thought the spread of Christianity after 300 was unprecedented.

We still have no quote from Grant supporting Nomad's contention that the development of Christian mythology (his words) in its first 200 years was unique. Nomad himself seems to confuse the idea that there was something unique about the spread of Christianity in the first 300 years and the idea that there was something unique in the development of Christian myths in the first 200 years, since he started the thread talking about the unprecedented spread of Christianity and subtly switched to the unprecedented development of Christian myth as the thing to be explained.

Nomad does have a tendency to change the subject without warning, which was one of the frustrating things about trying to follow his arguments in that thread. I still don't know if he thinks that there was something miraculous about the spread of Christianity, or if this proves anything. But I tend not to have enough patience or time to follow everything.

The charge has been made that Nomad was lying about his quote. This is a positive assertion. As you skeptics like to say, you are skepitical of positive assertions unless they are supported by evidence.

Dennis' original post, and every post since, has failed to provide evidence that Nomad lied about relying on Grant for the proposition that the formation of Christianity's belief system within one or two generations was distinct.

So, where is your evidence that Nomad lied? And if you have none, and if you concede that Dennis utterly failed to provide any, are you indifferent to the fact that Dennis has made a serious accusation unsupported by any evidence?

Since Dennis' claim that Nomad lied has been demonstreated to be absurd and based on a misunderstanding of Nomad's clearly expressed point, I thought I'd add another Grant post to yours. Well, actually two.

"The task [of writing a life of Jesus] has often declared impossible on the grounds that our information is too little and too late, and can do no more than create the picture of a picture and can yeild only the whisper of Jesus' voice. But nowadays more and more scholars appreciate thatthis conclusion is unduly pessimistic. T.W. Manson, for example, has declared: 'I am increasingly convinced that in the Gospels we have the materials-reliable materials-for an outline account of the ministry as a whole.' J. Knox, too, believed us to be 'left with a very substantial residuum of historically trustworthy facts about Jesus, his teaching and his life.' And now Geza Vermes expresses 'guarded optimism concerning a possible discovery of the genuine features of Jesus.'"

Grant, Jesus, at 198.

"The most potent figure, not only in the history of religion, but in world history as a whole, is Jesus Christ: the maker of one of hte few revolustions which has lasted. Millions of men and women for century after century have found his life and teaching overwhelmingly significant and moving."

Grant, Jesus, at 1.

"The most potent figure, not only in the history of religion, but in world history as a whole, is Jesus Christ: the maker of one of hte few revolustions which has lasted. Millions of men and women for century after century have found his life and teaching overwhelmingly significant and moving."

Grant, Jesus, at 1.

Now a historian presumes to tell us that he can anyway know what "millions" of people have felt towards a particular mans life, "century after century". Hmm...

Jesus has been worshipped for two thousand years by billions of people. Undoubtedly millions have expressed their worship in writing, painting, charity, architecture, prayer, self sacrifice, martyrdom, singing and music, and good oldfashioned church attendance.

Yet you find Grant's statement somehow unsupported?


[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 13, 2001).]

Toto

I had to reread the post to find the word "lying". Probably that was not the best term to use, if it gets your back up so much.

I am more concerned about the question of whether Nomad actually has any support from Grant for his original proposition, that the spread of Christianity in its first 300 years was so extraordinary that it cannot be explained by normal historical means. This doesn't mean that I accept Grant as an authority, I just want to see if Nomad is fudging his research.

Although from the various quotes provided, it seems that Grant may at times write with more flourish than precision, so it may be possible to read a lot of different things into what he says.

I assume Nomad is busy with religious observances. I would prefer to hear from him when he returns. He may have a direct quote that will settle it.

Finding the "lying" accusation could not have been too hard for you Toto, considering that Dennis used it in the first full paragraph of his first post on this issue.

Nevertheless, as I remember it, and without having reread the thread, Nomad was claiming that the spread of Christianity right up until the modern day was unique and unparralled. I limited *my* focus to the first 300 years and I never mentioned Grant as a source. I don't remember that Nomad joined me in that limitation, although it is possible that he did.

Frankly, I think Bede and Layman have a wonky way of reading things. I find that Christians on this board frequently overstate what others have to say in order to defend their position, or to attack their opposition. This thread is a good example. Layman and Bede have me flatly calling Nomad a liar when what I actually said was:

I suspect that Nomad was lying to us -- I gave reasons why -- and after reading substantial portions of Grant's book on Jesus, I still do. I've seen nothing in that book -- and if Grant wrote it anywhere he probably wrote it there -- that would support Nomad's contention. Until Layman and Bede, I cheerfully admit that I could be wrong, but all Nomad's defenders can to is to point out a nuance I had already seen. Not a single quote from Grant -- even though Bede has his Jesus book -- that supports the notion that Grant said anything of the sort.

So, please, guys: show us something that supports Nomad's contention. Nomad? What exactly did Grant say, and where did he say it, that lead to you post what you did. Your inability to produce it does suggest that you are, indeed, a liar. I don't think that's unfortunate terminology at all; I think it describes Nomad quite accurately.

Oh, and Bede, if you've read Grant's book then you're aware that much of what he has to say is not going to sit very well with Layman and Nomad. Of course, other things he has to say won't sit well with skeptics either, but when I post about Grant's conclusions in his book at least I won't be as selective in my use of quotes as you are.

So you are making a conditional accusation that Nomad is a liar? Oh, that is much better.

Perhaps you could clary what you consider to be Nomad's contention?

You said this: "Nomad cites Grant in support of his notion that the growth of the church in the first 300 years was remarkable."

I for one don't remember Nomad citing Grant for that proposition, but I could be wrong.

What are you talking about? Nuance? Again, what are you claiming Nomad said? If you are still focusing on the growth of Christianity, then Bede certainly did supply a quote referring to Christianity's surpising spread.

So you are accusing him of being a liar? No room for error, eh? No mistakes allowed? Was your newfound friend Omnedon lying when he claimed that Metzger was an editor on the Oxford Companion to the Bible? No, he was mistaken.

And again, what are you claiming Nomad used Grant to say? Bede supplied a quote where Grant was amazed at Christianity's growth, but you ignored it. But you seem to indicate Nomad claimed that it was only the first 300 years (not sure I remember it that way). But the quote you gave didn't have anything to do with the growth of the number of Christians at all, rather it seemed to indicate something about the formation of the belief system. So, spit it out. What do you think is Nomad's position?

I have the book in front of me. The book sits entirely well with me. It is just that I disagree with Grant on several points. This is not unusual Dennis and neither Nomad nor myself ever claimed Grant agreed with us on every point.

And why would I quote Grant for propositions for which I believe him to be mistaken? That would be pretty stupid wouldn't it? This isn't a Book of the Month Club, Dennis.

Of course, I must reserve judgment on what you would do IF you ever used Grant as a source, especially considering your failure to refer to historical sources in general, you have yet to demonstrate just HOW you would refer to them. I welcome, however, you endeavour into the historical discussion.



[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 13, 2001).]