In his thread, What Happened, Nomad made the following claim:

I don't know about Sherwin-White, but unless Grant changed his mind since 1970 and published this somewhere else, Nomad is lying to us. In the course of researching my Caesar thread, I picked up Grant's Ancient Historians, and it is pretty clear that Grant saw nothing remarkable about the first 300 years of church history.

A careless reading of the following Grant quote might lead one to think Nomad was right:

What Grant is discussing here is the background against which Eusebius wrote his histories. In other words, the rise of Christianity was occuring in the 4th century, not the first. Moreover, we have reason to believe that Grant didn't regard pre-4th century Christianity as remarkable at all.

Yet Nomad cites Grant in support of his notion that the growth of the church in the first 300 years was remarkable. That isn't what Grant appears to be saying here.

In fact, Grant attributes the "Rise of Christianity" to Constantine's conversion, not any remarkable growth in the first 300 years.

Now, perhaps Grant said what Nomad said he did somewhere else. If so, in light of Grant's attitude toward the early church ("unrecognized and persecuted") and his opinion that the church's success had everything to do with Constantine's seal of approval and not anything that happened in the first century, I think the burden of proof lies on Nomad's shoulder to show that Grant did say something along the lines Nomad says he did, instead of relying on unsubstantiated hyperbole (which constitute the majority of what Nomad says).

The fact is, to Michael Grant, the key to understanding the success of Christianity lies solely in Constantine's tolerance of, and deathbed acceptance of, it. Not anything that happened in the first three centuries.

Unless Nomad can support his position, I think the rest of us are perfectly justified in evaluating Nomad the say way Grant evaluated Eusebius:

Though with Nomad I'd say it's mostly devout fiction. I certainly haven't seen any detailed facts.

Toto

Nomad seems to be ignoring this, but I don't want it to get lost.

I previously called one of the apologists on citing Will Durant for supporting his position, when Durant had not. I suspect if we went through a lot of posts and checked up on the alleged history, a lot of assertions would crumble.

Bede

Possibly true. A bit like that favourite atheist myth that Christians destroyed the Great Library of Alexandria.

Anyways, back to Grant. I'm not familar with the work dennis is quoting from but it is clear that he's a bit wonky on his reading.

I doubt very much that Nomad has ever said that Christianity took over the empire before Constantine or denied the Great Persecution of Diocletian. The question that Nomad appeared to be asking in his what happened thread is why Christianity was in the position to take over the Empire when an edict of GENERAL toleration was issued and how did it convert an Emporer. Why not Serapis or Mithras or any of the other cults from the East?

And Dennis calling Nomad a liar after reading one book by Grant? Oh dear. Grant's written fifty odd books and I can't help noticing that Dennis's quotes have nothing whatsoever to do with what Nomad was saying. Nomad talks about the myths developing within a generation or two (that is, by 100AD). Dennis, able to pick up an irrelevant point like lightning, quotes Grant talking about after 300AD. OK, so perhaps Nomad should tell us in which book Grant says the myth development is unprecedented but I fail to see what Dennis's quotes have to do with the matter.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

This is novel. An argument based on a suspicion of what the evidence would show. If I could use this in court I would win every case.

Of course I couldn't use this in court and rightly so.

Toto

Layman,

I was just adding a conversational gambit. I will try to be more adversarial in the future.

Bede

Oh silly me. This is what you get when you don't check your sources. I wasted an entire post on dennis when the answer was on my bookshelf all along.

- Michael Grant, Jesus p190-1.

Sorry Dennis, but your really should try and do some research before spouting off. Not only was your first post irrelevant to what Nomad said, it was total bollocks as well.

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Toto

Bede - read the original post. The issue is not the triumph of Christianity in the 3rd century, when it had military might behind it, but the spread of Christianity in the first two centuries of the Common Era.

Bede,

Perhaps you should read the initial post more carefully. In it, Dennis calls Nomad's contention that before the 4th centure, Christianity had taken over the Roman Empire.

I'll quote 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.

First and second generation... 4th century... yeah... It seems that you have also proven Nomad wrong.

Thank you, Bede!

On the contrary, I take unsubstantiated appeals to prejudicial assumptions to be highly adversarial. Substantive debate is actually refreshing.

Bede

Dennis's original post had nothing to do with this. It too was about the fourth century. I made that clear and just pointed out that not only was Dennis's post irrelevant, it was also wrong.

B