Freethought & Rationalism Archive

FathomFFI · 06-26-2008, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngalexander

It is startling perhaps to see how few Christians must have been in the first century, and how slowly they grew in numbers, despite a very healthy 3.42% per annum. It is worthwhile playing with these figures to get a 'feel' for this.
I ask your indulgence for a moment:

eg. enter 1.4 into your calculator, press the x^y button and then enter 1 = 1.4 ie. 1400 after 1 decade, assuming 1000 Xians at 40CE.
enter 1.4, press x^y, enter 6 = 7.529536, ie. 7530 at 100CE.

To calc the % just divide by 600, eg. 7.529536/600 = 0.0125%

Notice, that if you do not like 1000 at 40CE, all you have to do is multiply by your preferred starting value. If you do not like 40% per decade just change the 1.4 to 1.5, or 2.8 or whatever.

Now I note that mens_sana says that Stark's Orthodox assumption is but one of a multiplicity of scenarios. True, but it just happens to coincide with Team FFI's approach - at least it seems that way to me. Fathom's last take was that the numbers were pretty much agreeable to him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fathom

Right, and its identical to my numbers for Scientology. Notice it resembles the numbers in Acts? You laughed at me when i said that, and now you see Stark saying the same thing. Who's laughing now?

The evidence shows Christianity as a MAJOR cult at the time of Pliny; one major enough that he was found to be prosecuting large numbers of them, and that it was spreading to other villages and into the country.

Also, as Toto has sed, sometimes we must make some assumptions in order to explore a position. That is what I propose to do.

The Neronian events described by Tacitus took place in Rome in 64CE.
Place our 1.4 in the calc, press x^y, enter 2.4 for 64CE = 2242 & 0.0037%
A total Christian pop of 2242 in 60M. Assuming as Stark does that Rome has 700,000 and 3 times the average Xian pop gives 78 Christians in Rome circa 64CE.

Does this constitute an immense multitude? Depends upon your definition presumably. Perhaps something is amiss? Obviously Stark's model, couldn't possibly be Tacitus. After all, the latter is using Official Roman Records. They must have provided a fairly accurate number of miscreants. Pity Tacitus does not supply them.

So what do we adjust?
Perhaps there were 10,000 Xians in 40CE? That leads to 2.17M in 200CE and only provides 780 for Nero to immolate.
Perhaps they grew at a faster rate, say 80% per decade. That does not quite double Nero's victims but gives us more than 12M by 200CE.
Perhaps they grew real fast initially then ...
Perhaps there were more than 3 times the average in Rome - maybe 50%??

The trouble is that whatever you fiddle in the model, something else goes out of whack! Also, consider the effect upon this small pop of Xians if 'immense multitudes' are executed. Terminating a 1000 would put the pop back to the starting point.

You see Fathom, Stark is a sociologist. He does actually know what he is proposing and the numbers have to fit various constraints. It is not a handwaiving exercise as some might like to assume.

Next Pliny.

I understand all this Alex, but there are many variables not being taken into account. Let's look at Scientology, and use the method:

1958 - 1000
1968 - 1400
2018 - 7530?

Wait a minute, we have 10,000,000 today in 2008, yet only 7530 projected for 2018?

What's wrong Alex? What is not being considered here?

youngalexander · 06-26-2008, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pliny

I deemed it expedient, therefore, to adjourn all further proceedings, in order to consult you. For it appears to be a matter highly deserving your consideration, more especially as great numbers must be involved in the danger of these prosecutions, which have already extended, and are still likely to extend, to persons of all ranks and ages, and even of both sexes. In fact, this contagious superstition is not confined to the cities only, but has spread its infection among the neighbouring villages and country.

Pliny has not provided any exactitude either. Pity about that. Still let us see what the Starkian Model may suggest.

Same assumption, or would you care to insert the new ones that may seem more congenial?
enter 1.4, x^y, enter 7.1 (111CE) = 10.902 or 10,902 and 0.018%.

Now we do not know where in Bithynia Pliny wrote so we may only guess at the pop. Let us give it a very generous 10,000, that is 2 Xians. Hmmm, something seems amiss again?

Perhaps this place had 100,000 pop for 18 Xians? Still does not seem to fit the discription - great numbers, spreading hither and far. Perhaps 1M, but no, that is larger than Rome.
Perhaps the climate was particularly congenial and large numbers of Xians had travelled the 800 miles (if I recall your figure) to this pleasant locale. How many constitutes a great number? Say 200, 500, a 1000? That is 2, 5 or 10% of all Xians banged up in this one spot. Possible, but ...

We could fiddle the model parameters again, but as we saw previously that only leads to other difficulties.

What could the solution possibly be? A touch of Pliny hyperbole? Or, worse yet, the gentle hand of Eusebius on these provenance lacking letters?

Fathom, I am thoroughly familiar with numerical modelling and its many pitfalls and am not getting carried away with the verisimiltude of Stark's Model. However, such models are a very useful tool for exploring possibilities in a quantitative manner that is not always readily available otherwise.

With these number something, she is not right!:huh:

The key to your perceptional difficulty is the difference b/w linear and exponential growth.

youngalexander · 06-26-2008, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

What's wrong Alex? What is not being considered here?

Case of pseudo-history meets science. Game Over!:wave:

youngalexander · 06-26-2008, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngalexander

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

What's wrong Alex? What is not being considered here?

Case of pseudo-history meets science. Game Over!:wave:

I have not seen any subsequent posts.
FathomFFI I have never previously terminated a debate in such a manner. I do not apologise, but having studied Team FFI's tactics what other alternative would you suggest?

It seems to me that you have a great deal to offer BC&H at IIDB. When I came in here all bright and bushy tailed I sed a good many things that, upon reflection, I may not subsequently have deemed so wise.

We come here to learn.

spamandham · 06-26-2008, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

Maybe this will do?

Quote:

"...the Latin term, superstitio, often signified harmful beliefs but not specific activities, while the Greek term most often translated as "superstition", deisidaimonia, is of uncertain force, as it can range in meaning from "piety" (religious awe) to "superstition" (craven fear of the gods). Furthermore, we cannot impose modern definitions of "superstition" upon ancient society as modern and ancient categories do not coincide. For us, "superstition" does not imply specific activities, but rather whether explanations offered for the activities in question have been couched in sufficiently "scientific" sounding terms. In modern thought "superstition" is opposed to "science" and depends upon some concept of the "supernatural" as separate from "science." However, Martin argues, this division did not hold in antiquity, as no one denied the existence of the divine or conceived of "supernaturalism" as a category. For the ancients the contrast was one of "legitimate" versus "illegitimate," or "rational" versus "irrational" belief systems, in which "illegitimate" or "irrational" equaled "superstitious."

So with this definition in hand, it seems that there remains support for the idea that 'pernicious superstition' refers not to Christianity, but rather, to the (false) belief that Pilate executed Christus.

However, we have similar language in Seutonius' Life of Nero:

Quote:

During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale.45 Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.

In this case, it would be difficult to argue that 'mischievous superstition' is not a reference to (false) beliefs. So we've established from two nonChristian contemporary sources that the Romans considered Christians to be followers of false beleifs.

Now examine 2 Peter 1:16-18:

Quote:

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

The writer, presumably writing within a few decades of Tacitus, sees a need to refute the idea that Jesus is a fable. This supports patcleaver's interpretation of the meaning of Tacitus from a Christian perspective.

Toto · 06-26-2008, 08:00 AM

patcleaver's intepretation just doesn't seem right. There is no reason to think that the word superstitio applies to the single assertion that Christ was crucified by Pilate, as opposed to the rest of the Christian belief system. It is hard to argue that this fact alone would be called a "new a mischievious superstition."

spamandham · 06-26-2008, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

patcleaver's intepretation just doesn't seem right. There is no reason to think that the word superstitio applies to the single assertion that Christ was crucified by Pilate, as opposed to the rest of the Christian belief system. It is hard to argue that this fact alone would be called a "new a mischievious superstition."

The problem is which Christian belief system. The word's 'Christ' and 'Christian' were not exclusively used by followers of Jesus. There were multiple Christs and groups known as Christians at the time Tacitus was writing.

Further, the passion story goes out of it's way to exhonorate Pilate in a most implausible way and paint him as almost saintlike in his desire for justice. It's not like Rome was unaware of its own summary executions, or ashamed of them either. If it was well known and believed that Pilate had executed Christ, there would have been no risk to the writer in portraying Christ as crucifed by Rome.

The writer was trying to undo earlier beliefs that had caused lots of trouble for his group, and explicitly distance the Christians of his day from the earlier anti-Roman fanatics that Nero rounded up.

Ben C Smith · 06-26-2008, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

The word's 'Christ' and 'Christian' were not exclusively used by followers of Jesus. There were multiple Christs and groups known as Christians at the time Tacitus was writing.

Peter Kirby has written the following concerning the time of Josephus:

The simple fact is, there is no good evidence that anyone, anywhere was ever referred to as "Christ," with the exception of course of Jesus himself. One searches the extant Jewish literature in vain to find some example of a messianic pretender who had actually been called "Christ" by anyone. Jesus was unique in being called "Christ," and so it is not surprising that this term is only used when identifying Jesus.

I am wondering: Which individual do you have in mind (besides Jesus, of course) who was finally actually called Christ by the time of Tacitus?

Thanks.

Ben.

FathomFFI · 06-26-2008, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngalexander

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

What's wrong Alex? What is not being considered here?

Case of pseudo-history meets science. Game Over!:wave:

I'm afraid you didn't answer the question, Alex.

While using the precise same mathematical formula for the Church of Scientology as you did for Christianity, we did not come up with only 7530 people after 60 years, but instead we have 10,000,000.

This tells you that that Stark's formula was completely inaccurate with the Church of Scientology.

If the example of the Church of Scientology were to be applied to Christianity of the 1st Century Roman Empire, we would have 2,500,000 Christians by the time Tacitus and Pliny were corresponding.

FathomFFI · 06-26-2008, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngalexander

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngalexander

Case of pseudo-history meets science. Game Over!:wave:

I have not seen any subsequent posts.
FathomFFI I have never previously terminated a debate in such a manner. I do not apologise, but having studied Team FFI's tactics what other alternative would you suggest?

It's called "going to bed," Alex.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-26-2008, 08:00 AM	#226
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	patcleaver's intepretation just doesn't seem right. There is no reason to think that the word superstitio applies to the single assertion that Christ was crucified by Pilate, as opposed to the rest of the Christian belief system. It is hard to argue that this fact alone would be called a "new a mischievious superstition."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.