mountainman

Comparing the growth of Mormonism from the date of the first Mormon temple dedicated in 1836 one can count the temples dedicated today which exceed 124 to see the exponential growth of this cult. The growth rates of Mormonism are corroborated by the evidence.

But we do not have any christian churches for a base date before the basilicas were erected, and neither do we have any archaeological evidence for christian "church-houses" in the period before the fourth century. We can of course fall back to the third type of structure, the "christian house-church" of which one has claimed to have been found at Dura-Europa: but that's it. It is a very weak bit of evidence for such a large proposed expanding population - one rather ambiguous "house-church".

This sounds like the old story of leaving one dollar around for a long time at compound interest. At some stage the one dollar turns into tens of thousands by way of the length of time it was concealed and unspent. Stark's conjecture is clearly based on the concept of someone putting a grand into the bank in the year 40 CE. But where is the evidence for the bank buildings before the Constantinian Vaults open? Where is the evidence of continuous operation from the "Apostolic Age" through Masada for three uninterrupted centuries down to the epoch of Constantine? The New testament authors did not start banking their literature until perhaps as late as the second century according to the BC&H academics.

The growth rate of Mormonism since 1836 has architectural evidence and known Mormon subscriptions to back it up. The conjectural growth rate of christians in the first three centuries relies upon inferences drawn from the only evidence in our possession --- the literature written and prepared by Eusebius, particularly Historia Ecclesiastica. The problem that the ancient historians have with this reliance is that it remains uncorroborated.

If Stark uses "grave markings" for his corroboration I would really like to see how he distinguishes a christian grave-marking from the great mass of evidence on the table. I have examined the epigraphic sources for christianity in this early period, down to a study made on "The Christians-for-Christians" Epitaphs of Phyrgia, and have prepared a list and index of all citations in this field of epigraphy which must certainly include gravestones. Does he mention the Prosenes gravestone in Rome?

My position is that I seek to corroborate the literary assertions of Eusebius
with scientific and archaeologically accepted evidence, and cannot find any.

Toto

Stark has also compared early Christianity to the Unification Church. How much architectural evidence is there of that group? It is a shadowy group that recruits members, runs businesses, cultivates influence - but doesn't build Temples.

mountainman

Eusebius our only guide tells us explicitly that there were churches. That they existed and had "bishops" and were the subject in some cases of both destruction and repair. Eusebius is representing or infering the solid existence of monumental evidence constructed by a specific cult in antiquity. The archaeologists have found evidence of many networks of cults in the period from 0 to 325 CE, but nothing suggesting the presence of the architecture which Eusebius would has us infer existed.

So we are dealing with "early christianity" - precisely those people who authored (sometime between 50 and 150 CE) and preserved (between 150 and 325 CE) the New Testament "Visible Books" of the Canon - as a "Secret Society"? How does one then even begin to explain the gnostic heretics? We are to believe two separate lineages of New Testament literature - the "Visible Books" of the Canon and the "Hidden Books" of the NT Apocrypha were both preserved across many centuries by two separate secret societies? Dont you think that's a bit rich?

Archaeologists work on the principle that everyone including secret societies operating over many centuries sooner or later leave rubbish. Especially two competing secret societies - Group T - The True and Group F - the False.

Toto

Does Eusebius say that there were physical churches or "gatherings?"

But you don't think that Eusebius is telling the truth in any case.

mountainman

Continuing from:

Part (1) - The Mainstream Chronology of the "Visible Books" of the NT
Part (2) - The Mainstream Chronology of the "Hidden Books" of the NT

we introduce Eusebius ...

Part (3) - The Chronology of Ecclesiatical Historiography and the NT



As one can see at a glance Eusebius had
no rivals but plenty of continuators.
Momogliano declares Eusebius as the
inventor of Ecclesiatical Historiography.

mountainman

Eusebius refers to "churches" 113 times in HE.

In every city and village, churches were quickly established,
filled with multitudes of people like a replenished threshing-floor.

He refers to "church building" at least twice...

Neither did he throw down the church buildings.

Paul refused to surrender the church building, the Emperor Aurelian

He neither threw down the church buildings,81 nor did he devise anything else against us

Are we to read "churches" as "secret gatherings"?

All I seek is corroboration from the archaeogists that in
the words of Richard Carrier Eusebius is not either a liar
or hopelessly credulous.

spamandham

This is actually a valid point. I guess I don't know how many churches we should expect to have uncovered.

mountainman

Unfortunately we have one and one only informant in the matter of our expectations.
His name is Eusebius. What does Eusebius tell us? And is he lying through his teeth?

An "untrodden" digression

The word "untrodden" appears to be used by Eusebius in only
one other place. In Book One, Chapter 1, when he states,
in relation to his research into the story of "christian origins":

"I am the first to enter upon the subject,
I am attempting to traverse as it were
a lonely and untrodden path"

Why was Eusebius the first Christian historian after 300 years?
It makes me wonder why it took so long for a "write-up".

Anyway to continue with "The Physical Churches" ...

So not only does Eusebius assert that there were church builldings,
but he also asserts that their destruction can be proved by a royal
edict, from the Old Emperor. The Old Emperor was Bad. The New
Emperor was good, says Eusebius, who worked for the New Emperor.


Finally, while it occurs to me, Eusebius unwittingly tells us that
not only were there churches in the time of Tertullian, but also
that the heretics had churches as well.

So much for the inconspicuous christian theory.
We have two competing classes of christians.
And both classes seem to have possessed churches.
This compounds the problems of inconspicousness.

It would appear that the author of Tertullians
Prescription against Heretics is saying that a
minority of the heretics have churches.

So many assertions by so many church authorities.
How right have they been in anything at all?

Number of Christian churches found = 0
Number of Christian church-houses found = 0
Number of Christian house-churches found = 0/1 (Dura/Yale)

Who's on first base?