Champion

I didn't! you were the one who assumed he used nothing but Tacitus and then you used that assumption to discredit him.

In the next couple of days I'll post a few more sources who have no problem with Tacitus' account of the events.

see above.

Clement was one of the first Bishops of Rome. He alludes to Nero's persecution in a letter to the church in Corinth (see previous quote).
I did a few internet searches and I didn't find any sites questioning a date of 80-140 CE for 1 Clement. Assuming Clement isn't a forgery of some kind, his sources would be eyewitness.

"Peter, who because of unrighteous envy endured afflictions neither once nor twice, but many times, having thus been martyred, proceeded to the promised place of glory. (5.5) Because of envy and strife, Paul directed attention to the prize of endurance. (5.6) Seven times wearing bonds, being banished, being stoned, being a herald in the east and in the west, he received illustrious fame for his faith. (5.7) Having taught righteousness to the whole world, and having come to the extreme limits of the west, and having been martyred by the rulers, he was thus released from the
world and taken up into the holy place, being a magnificent example of patience. (6.1) To these men who conducted their lives in holiness are added a great multitude of the chosen, whoever because of envy suffered many tortures and torments, being most beautiful examples among us.
(6.2) Because of envy, women were persecuted, Danaids and Dirkai having suffered fearful and unholy torments. Having finished the race by their secure faith, the weak of body took up the illustrious prize."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Rome

Isn't my opinion obvious?

As I said above, I will post more sources who have no problem with Tacitus. But there is certainly no consensus as to the size of the persecution. Other than Mr. Stark, most historians are openly hesitant to speak in numbers and estimates. That is partially why this debate is so difficult. As andrew brought up, we are forced to interpret what phrases like "vast amounts", "few", "multitudes" actually mean numbers wise. This discussion seems to highlight some sort of difference of opinion between Stark and other historians on how to analyze history. But you are correct in saying that there is no consensus about whether the persecution extended beyond Rome. There is also no consensus about the scope of the persecution. However, I think that more historians believe that Nero persecuted Christians than don't.

I just don't know what "bargain" Stark is referring to. Is it some kind of entrance fee or is he using the word "expensive" in a purely abstract way?

Johnny Skeptic

But unless you know who Ferrero's sources are, you cannot claim that he used any sources other than Tacitus.

That is fine. I can easily find more sources if I need to. Universities are full of scholars who agree with me. No matter how many scholars you find, you will never be able to produce a consensus of secular scholars. You said that there is somewhat of a consensus of Christian and secular sources. No Christian is a secular source. You might be able to produce a consensus of Christian scholars, but you will never be able to produce a consensus of non-Christian scholars.

See above.

Well, it might be a forgery.

That will not do. First of all, the letter might have been a forgery. Second of all, you do not know who Clement's sources were.

And so will I, which will still leave you well short of a consensus of non-Christian scholars.

Actually, I suspect that at least 60% of secular sources do not agree with your secular sources. Since you are the claimant, it is up to you to produce a consensus of secular sources who agree with you.

Which is why you should not have claimed that a consensus of Christian and secular scholars agrees with you.

Oh no, Stark was just one of many prestigous sources that I used. In addition, in 'The Rise of Christianity,' Stark mentioned other sources who agree with him. One source that I mentioned was Marta Sordi. How many "other" historians are you referring to? So far, not very many, and no matter how many sources you can find who agree with you, it will never be enough to be a consensus.

But I have never said that Nero did not persecuate any Christians. All that I have questioned is Tacitus' claim that Nero persecuted "a vast multitude" of Christians. I think that more secular historians question that claim than secular sources who do not question that claim. I have already posted a good number of sources that do question that claim, and I will easily be able to find dozens more prestigious sources from leading unversities who agree with me. I enjoy conducting research a lot, so I do not mind contacting lots of scholars.

I believe that what Stark meant was that early Christians were despised by the Romans and were subjected to lots of verbal abuse, and occasional persecution. There is no way that he meant that people had to pay money to join a Christian church. In fact, he said exactly the opposite. He indicated that the pooling of resources helped poor Christians, a kind of socialism if you will.

Thank you very much for causing me to find lots of additional scholarly sources who I will use the next time that I debate a Christian regarding these issues.

Huguenot

But even Rodney Stark doesn't believe this number, as he used a number to plug into a population model. Sorry, Johhny, but if your google your name, you are on the butt end of some jokes regarding this topic.

Double check with Rodney Stark!

Number #1 - the Bible

Number #2

History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 100-325., by Philip Schaff

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Hugeunot: What information do you have regarding the size of the Christian church in 100 A.D.?

What information do you have regarding how many Christians Nero supposedly persecuted?

Johnny Skeptic

He most certainly does. You obviously have not read chapter 1 in 'The Rise of Christianity.' Stark goes to great lengths to reasonably establish that the first century Christian church was very small. Not only did he estimate that there were only 7,530 Christians in the world in 100 A.D., but he discusses archaeological and papyrological evidence that show a very small Christian presence in the first two centures A.D.

Regarding the claim in the book of Acts that says that 3,000 people got saved on one occasion, Stark essentially says that that was an exaggerated literary device that was commonly used at that time.

How may I ask did you find out that Stark does not believe his own model?

There is no need for us to discuss Stark any further unless you read chapter 1in his book and consider not only what he says, but also what his sources say as well.

My main interest in this thread is how many Christians were persecuted in the first two centuries A.D.

By the way, your rudeness is sinful. Paul told the Corinthians that they should not judge skeptics, that they should judge among themselves and leave judging skeptics to God. You have an apparent need to personalize your arguments with ad hominem attacks. Personal attacks needlessly divert attention away from discussing the evidence. I feel sorry for you, and I forgive you.

schilling.klaus

there was no such thing as a persecution of Christians who didn't even exist under Nero.

Klaus Schilling

mountainman

This is classic and Stark conjecture. The figures used by
Stark may be a literary and marketing device, but they are
not based on any commonly accepted evidence.

The figures have been extrapolated out of Paul, Acts
and Eusebius in a very literary sense. I have examined
his archaeological citations and they belong to the same
type of assessments --- that is --- woeful.

Stark conjectures, along with a boat-load of apologetic
biblical historians, that the manager of the Imperial Gladiatorial
Games, in Rome, under Commodus, named Marcus Aurelius
Prosenes, was undoubtedly a christian, part of a group of
well-to-do christians of course.

The Marcus Aurelius Prosenes inscription bears no relationship
to anything Christian. But a later hand, added the phrase:
"Welcomed before God". Quite obviously, to the mind of
Stark (and a whole boatload of apologetic lunatics) this
means that Marcus Aurelius Prosenes, the manager of the
Imperial Gladiatorial Games, in Rome, under Commodus,
was a christian Imperial Gladiatorial Games manager.

And then, no doubt, Stark mentions the "Basilides"
inscription in Rome as "evidence of early christians"
on the basis of the text .... "He Sleeps".


The appropriate question here is:
What sort of a cook is Stark?



Best wishes,


Pete Brown

spin

When you are asked for your sources, could you please cite accurately referenced primary sources. Thanks.


spin

Champion

Johnny Skeptic

I didn't make any claims about what sources he used. All I did was give an additional source he could have used. You were the one who made the claim.

You are correct and as a layman I wouldn't overstep my bounds and question your sources credentials. However, I think it is fair to say that a Christian making the claim that a large number of primitive christians were killed under Nero would be on fairly secure ground sources wise. I think it's also important to note that many of the Christian scholars you refer to with such disdain are well respected by their peers in the historical community and have credentials and contributions worth noting. Excluding every Christian scholar or professor from a religious institution means writing off some of the major experts in the field.

You base that opinion on what?

I do know that this letter was written sometime between 80 and 140 (most think it was written around) 94. I also know that Clement lived in Rome. In addition, I know that the fire occurred in 64 CE. All these put together means that it doesn't require a huge leap of the imagination to think that Clement either witnessed it himself or knew a few people who did.

It should be noted that Stark himself admits to the fact that his use of specific numbers and estimations is viewed with severe skepticism by many other historians:

"It remains a sad fact that many historians still delight in claims that quantification not only is often impossible, but of no particular value"

"Thus does a major issue come into view; great benefits would be realized if historians could be persuaded to count" from Cities of God P.212


As I mentioned before, here are some additional sources.

A History of Rome to 565 CE

"Nero's advisors blamed the Christians in Rome, probably because they were known to be unpopular with the masses. Many Christians were tried and condemned on charges of anarchistic tendencies and suffered terrible deaths. This was the 1st persecution of the Christians conducted by the Roman government" [Arthur Boak Ph. D Professor of Ancient History University of Michigan, in cooperation with William Sinnigen Ph D. Associate professor of History Hunter College]

The Roman World

"The authorities certainly encouraged the public to believe that the Christians could have been responsible for the recent holocaust. Many were consequently given an appropriate punishment. they were smeared with pitch..." p.182 [Edward Salmon Ph. D Fmr, Professor McMaster University]


The Roman Empire

"He tried to divert suspicion to the Christians, many were condemned to the beasts or burnt alive, but his cruelty was such that it discredited him further, and people felt sympathy for the Christians, even though they deserved what they were getting: (Tacitus Citation)" P.128 [Colin Wells, M.A. Oxford University]

The Jesus Party

At the very least they could be held guilty of ill wishing Rome and the Empire, A considerable number were rounded up and barbarously put to death. P.228 [Hugh Schonfield]

A Source Book for Ancient Church History

"To turn suspicion from himself as responsible for the fire, Nero attempted to make Christians appear as the incendiaries. Many were put to death in horrible and fantastic ways" [Joseph Ayer Ph. D]

Huguenot

The book you cited does not cover the years Nero was in power?????

Johnny Skeptic

That will not do. Now that you know that you are in trouble, you are trying to move the goalposts. You said that there is somewhat of a consensus of Christian and secular scholars who agree with you. That means a consensus of Christian scholars, and a separate consensus of secular scholars. The longer that we debate, the more that it will become apparent that you will not be able to provide anywhere near a consensus of secular scholars who agree with you, and that the facts will probably show that a sizeable consensus of secular scholars agree with me. In order for you to provide a reasonable consensus of secular scholars, you will have to produce two scholars for every one scholar that I provide.

I do not trust the opinions of fundamentalist Christians regarding the issue of the persecution of Christians because many of them use the New Testament as a partial basis for their opinions about the persecution of Christians. You will not find very many secular scholars who claim that there is credible historical evidence regarding how the apostles died, and how many Christians Paul persecuted before he became a Christian.

Regarding your additional sources, unless you can produce twice as many secular sources as I can, you lose because a consensus would have to be at least 2/3 of secular scholars. If I produce 100 secular scholars, which I am prepared to do if I need to, in order for you to provide a consensus of secular scholars, you will have to produce 300 secular scholars. Are you prepared to do that? If so, I will count up how many secular scholars that I have so far, and multiply them by three, and we can see if you have produced three times as many secular scholars as I have.

Even if Nero killed a large number of Christians, that does not reasonably prove that they died as martyrs. Most of them might have given up Christianity and been killed anyway because Nero needed a scapegoat to blame the fire on.