Malachi151

Its reliant on the fact that there was a widespread community of Jews throughout the Empire.

1 BCE to 1 CE. There is lots of well known history about this.

Specifically? I have no idea and will would never know. In general, concocted by militant Jews who were trying to create a flash point and create a marter to rally around.

To create a flashpoint to rally around.

All of those parts of the Jesus stoary come from much later, as much 150 years after the supposed "death of Jesus".

The oldest copies of these stories that contain these elements come from the 3rd and 4th centuries. We can claim that the gospel of Mark was probably written around 70, but we have no idea of the details of this gospel at this time.

All of the earliest references to "Christians" are references to militant followers of Chrestus/Christus or militant Jews.

Exactly, I'm only explaining how the Jesus myth got started initially and initially spread during the first 20 to 30 years. After that I propose that the Jesus myth took on a life of its own, as is apparent from the literature. For the first 20-30 years "Jesus" was a rallying cry for the Jewish resistance and for all those who were opposed to the Roman occupation of Judea, including some "Gentiles", the same types of people as Americas who are on the side of those who are occuped by the US today.

The evidence that there was some movement called Christianity is pretty irrefutable starting from before there are any so-called "Christian" writings. What the beleifs of these people were is completely unknown however.

Based on the earliest writings about Christians, they appear to be militants who were opposed to the Roman Empire and the occupation of Judea.

I provide the motive for the creation of the Jesus myth and an explanation for why it spread quickly.

hatsoff

Thanks! I like Carrier's stuff quite a bit. Well, it would appear the 7,000-8,000 figure, or, roughly 40,000 converts in all, by AD 100 is indeed quite reasonable. That would also account for the geographical scope. Interesting.

Gamera

This makes sense where the fictional belief has no cost.

There is no doubt that Christianity had a cost. Even if the persecution of early Christians is deemed an exaggeration, there were other costs -- such as social standing in pagan empire, the admonition to at least play lipservice to altruism, and the eschewal of wealth and sex and power: all the values of the classic pagan period. Further, subsequent persecution of Christians are well documented.

There seems little upside to becoming a Christian in the first three centuries of its existence. So, saying Christianity spread like a belief in UFOs is comparing apples and oranges.

Further, there is a conceptual disjoint here. UFOs are believed in based on a claim that they are real. The mythic view of Jesus posits that Jesus was a mythological creation, not purportedly real, but mythological. The two kinds of claim aren't the same. Factually false ideas propogate easily. In contrast, the issue for the mythologizers is how did a mythically generated Jesus mutate into an historically understood Jesus. The two processes don't seem to be in any sense the same.

Malachi151

There are plenty of examples from history to choose from.

King Aurther.

Molly Pitcher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Pitcher

Also: Moses, Muhammad, Buddha, possibly Homer, etc, etc.

Johnny Skeptic

This is a common Christian argument, but it is not a very good one.

Regarding “Further, subsequent persecution of Christians are well documented,” which documented persecutions that you are referring to? Consider the following from Rodney Stark in ‘The Rise of Christianity’:

“With Marta Sordi (1986), I reject claims that the state did perceive early Christianity in political terms. It is far from clear to me that Christianity could have survived a truly comprehensive effort by the state to root it out during its early days. When the Roman state did perceive political threats, its repressive measures were not only brutal but unrelenting and extremely thorough - Masada comes immediately to mind. Yet even the most brutal persecutions of Christians were haphazard and limited, and the state ignored thousands of persons who openly professed the new religion, as we will see in chapter 8.

“Second, persecutions rarely occurred, and only a tiny number Christians ever were martyred – only “hundreds, not thousands” according to W.H.C. Frend (1965:413). Indeed, commenting on Tacitus’ claim that Nero had murdered “an immense multitude” of Christian, Marta Sordi wrote that ‘a few hundred victims would justify the use of this term, given the horror of what happened’ (1986:31). The truth is that the Roman government seems to have cared very little about the ‘Christian menace.’ There was surprisingly little effort to persecute Christians, and when a wave of persecution did occur, usually only bishops and other prominent figures were singled out. Thus for rank-and-file Christians the threat of persecution was so slight as to have counted for little among the potential sacrifices imposed on them.”

Encyclopedia Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition: [Nero] "became infamous for his personal debaucheries and extravagances and, on doubtful evidence, for his burning of Rome and persecutions of Christians."

Microsoft Encarta 2000 Encyclopedia: "In July 64, two-thirds of Rome burned while Nero was at Antium. In ancient times he was charged with being the incendiary, but most modern scholars doubt the truth of that accusation. According to some accounts (now considered spurious), he laid the blame on the Christians (few at that time) and persecuted them."

Following are excerpts from two articles written by Joseph McCabe that can be found in their entirety at the Secular Web:

"According to the Catholic writers, and even the official liturgy of their Church, the Roman community of the first three centuries was so decked and perfumed with saints and martyrs that it must have had a divine spirit in it. Now the far greater part, the overwhelmingly greater part, of the Acts of the Martyrs and Lives of the Saints on which this claim is based are impudent forgeries, perpetrated by Roman Christians from the fourth to the eighth century in order to give a divine halo to the very humble, and very human, history of their Church.

"This is not merely a contention of 'heretics and unbelievers.' It is not even a new discovery. The legends of the martyrs are so gross that Catholic historians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries frequently denounced them. Cardinal Baronius and Father Pagi repeatedly rejected them. Pope Benedict XIV, of the eighteenth century, a scholar who by some mischance was made a Pope, was so ashamed of the extent to which these forgeries permeate the official ritual of his Church that he entered upon a great reform; but the cardinals and monks obstructed his work, and the literature of the Church still teems with legends from these tainted sources. In fact, many of these forgeries were already notorious in the year 494, when Pope Gelasius timidly and haltingly condemned them.

"These forgeries are so gross that one needs very little historical knowledge in order to detect them. Large numbers of Roman martyrs are, like the Pope Callistus whom I have mentioned, put in the reign of the friendly Emperor Alexander Severus, who certainly persecuted none. One of these Roman forgers, of the sixth and seventh century, is bold enough to claim five thousand martyrs for Rome alone under the gentle Alexander Severus! Other large numbers of Roman martyrs are put in the reign of the Emperor Maximin; and Dr. Garres has shown that there were hardly any put to death in the whole Empire, least of all at Rome, under Maximin. The semi-official catalogue of the Popes makes saints and martyrs of no less than thirteen of the Popes of the third century, when there were scarcely more than three or four.

"No one questions that the Roman Church had a certain number of martyrs in the days of the genuine persecutions, but nine-tenths of the pretty stories which are popular in Catholic literature ... the stories of St. Agnes and St. Cecilia, of St. Lucia and St. Catherine, of St. Lawrence and St. George and St. Sebastian, and so on are pious romances. Even when the martyrdom may be genuine, the Catholic story of it is generally a late and unbridled fiction.

"A short account of the havoc which modern scholars have made of the Acts of the Martyrs is given by a Catholic professor, Albert Ehrhard, of the Vienna University, and will cause any inquiring Catholic to shudder. Dr. Ehrhard mentions a French work, L'Amphithèâtre Flavien, by Father Delehaye, a Jesuit, and calls it 'an important contribution to the criticism of the Roman acts of the martyrs.' It is a 'criticism' of such a nature that it dissolves into fiction all the touching pictures (down to Mr. G. B. Shaw's Androcles and the Lion) of the 'martyrs of the Coliseum.' It proves that no Christians were ever martyred in the Amphitheatre (Coliseum). The English translation of Father Delehaye's Legends of the Saints (1907) gives an appalling account of these Roman forgeries. Another scholar has, Professor Ehrhard admits (p. 555), shown that 'a whole class' of these saints and martyrs are actually pagan myths which have been converted into Christian martyrs. The whole literature which this Catholic professor surveys is one mighty massacre of saints and martyrs, very few surviving the ordeal. These fictions are often leniently called 'pious fancies' and 'works of edification.' Modern charity covers too many ancient sins. These things were intended to deceive; they have deceived countless millions for fourteen centuries, and in the hands of priests they deceive millions to-day.

"The early Roman Church was a poor little sect, like any other. It had some noble-spirited martyrs during the three or four short persecutions (in two hundred and fifty years) which affected it; but it had a far larger number who either sacrificed to the gods or bought a false certificate that they had done so. It had many men and women of strict life, and still more of lax life. Its first thirty Popes were obscure men of no distinction in the Church, of no learning, who just managed to hold together their ten or twenty thousand followers until the golden days of Constantine began.

"Even the most orthodox reader will recognize the force of the modern criticism of martyr-legends when so retrograde a work as the 'Catholic Encyclopedia' is compelled to admit it. Usually its writers deny the most certain facts of science or history with an ease that must command the envy of a politician."

Whatever costs there were for early Christians, the costs must be considered along with the substantial benefits. Consider the following from ‘The Rise of Christianity’:

“But Christianity was not about sacrifice and stigma alone. The fruits of this faith were equally substantial. As a direct result of their sacrifice and stigma, Christians were largely immune to the free-rider problem. Consequently, they were able to produce a very potent religion. The services conducted in those early house churches must have yielded an immense, shared emotional satisfaction.”

“Moreover, the fruits of this faith were not limited to the realm of the spirit. Christianity offered much to the flesh as well. It was not simply the promise of salvation that motivated Christians, but the fact they were greatly rewarded here and now for belonging. Thus, while membership was expensive, it was, in fact, a bargain. That is, because the church asked much of its members, it was thereby possessed of the resources to give much. For example, because Christians were expected to aid the less fortunate, many of them received such aid, and all could feel greater security against bad times. Because they were asked to nurse the sick and dying, many of them received such nursing. Because they were asked to love others, they in turn were loved. And if Christians were required to observe a far more restrictive moral code than that observed by pagans, Christians - especially women - enjoyed a far more secure family life.”
“Christianity did not grow because of miracle working in the marketplaces (although there may have been much of that going on) or because Constantine said it should, or even because the martyrs gave it such credibility. It grew because Christians constituted an intense community, able to generate the ‘invincible obstinacy’ that so offended the younger Pliny but yielded immense rewards. And the primary means of its growth was through the united and motivated efforts of the growing numbers of Christian believers, who invited their friends, relative, and neighbors to share the ‘good news.’”

“But, perhaps above all else, Christianity brought a new conception of humanity to a world saturated with capricious cruelty and the vicarious love of death.”

“As was established in the previous chapter, dreadful as the persecutions were, they were infrequent and involved very few people. Hence the early Christians may have faced some degree of social stigma but little actual repression. Henry Chadwick reported that when a Roman governor in Asia Minor began a persecution of Christians during the second century, ‘the entire Christian population of the region paraded before his house as a manifesto of their faith and as a protest against injustice’ (1967:55). The more significant part of this story is not that the Christians had the nerve to protest, but that they went unpunished.”

“In similar fashion, archaeological evidence shows that from very early days, house churches were clearly identifiable - the neighbors would have been entirely aware that these were Christian gathering places (White 1990). In addition, soon many Christians began to take names that were distinctively Christian…”

“…….To know how Christianity arose it is crucial to see how it was given the opportunity to do so, to learn why it was not limited to obscurity by an incredibly diverse and entrenched paganism.”

“Henry Chadwick assured his readers that ‘Paganism was far from being moribund when Constantine was converted to Christianity’ (1967:152), and E. R. Dodds noted that in the fourth century paganism began ‘to collapse the moment the supporting hand of the State [was] withdrawn from it’ ([1965] 1970:132). I quote these two distinguished scholars to illustrate the general agreement among historians that paganism was brought down by Christianity and that the conversion of Constantine was the killing blow – that paganism declined precipitously during the fourth century when Christianity replaced it as the state religion, thus cutting off the flow of funds to the pagan temples.”

“…….the idea that paganism’s weakness was caused by Christian political power fails to explain how Christianity managed to be so successful that is could ‘become’ the state church. As outlined above, on theoretical grounds I must propose that Christianity would have remained an obscure religious movement had the many firms making up Roman pluralism been vigorous. That Christianity was able to wedge out a significant place for itself against the opposition of paganism directs our attention to signs of weakness in paganism.”

Stark goes on to discuss more of the weaknesses in paganism, but suffice it to say that whenever you are trying to promote anything, the quality of the opposition that you face is quite important. In the Western world, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the late 1800’s, with accompanying advances in science and education, fundamentalist Christianity has been under a siege that has weakened it substantially, and a lot more weakness is likely to come.

It is my position that had the Industrial Revolution happened in 100 A.D., with accompanying advances in science and education, Christianity would never have become anywhere near the largest religion in the world, and in fact, might very well have become an obscure movement by 250 A.D.

What about persecutions BY Christians? Consider the following:

Elaine Pagels: For nearly 2,000 years, Christian tradition has preserved and revered orthodox writings that denounce the Gnostics, while suppressing and virtually destroying the Gnostic writings themselves. Now, for the first time, certain texts discovered at Nag Hammadi reveal the other side of the coin: how Gnostics denounced the orthodox. The 'Second Treatise of the Great Seth' polemicizes against orthodox Christianity, contrasting it with the 'true church' of the Gnostics. Speaking for those he calls the sons of light, the author says: '...we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant (pagans), but also by those think they are advancing the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals.'"

Richard Carrier: All other religions but Judaism were outlawed under pain of death throughout the Mediterranean and Europe by 395 AD.

Larry Taylor: How does this apply to the story of Jesus? Simply that all of the early critics are dead. Skeptical opinions were banned. Christian opinions, other than those of the establishment, were banned. Books were destroyed, and later, heretics were burned.

Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2002: By the 3rd century Gnosticism began to succumb to orthodox Christian opposition and persecution. Partly in reaction to the Gnostic heresy, the church strengthened its organization by centralizing authority in the office of bishop, which made its effort to suppress the poorly organized Gnostics more effective.

S. Angus, Ph.D., D.Lit., D.D, who was a Christian author: No one could have dreamed that the Christians, who had themselves suffered so much from persecution and protested so vehemently against the injustice and futility of persecution, would so quickly have turned persecutors and surpassed their Pagan predecessors in fanatical savagery and efficiency, utterly oblivious of the Beatitude of the Divine Master (Matt. V. 10, 44, 45). It became ominous for subsequent history that the first General Council of the Church was signalized by bitter excommunications and banishments. Christians, having acquired the art of disposing of hostile criticism by searching out and burning the objectionable books of their Pagan adversaries, learned to apply the same method to the works of such groups of Christians as were not in power or in favour for the time; when this method proved unsatisfactory, they found it expedient to burn their bodies. The chained skeleton found in the Mithraic chapel at Sarrebourg testified to the drastic means employed by Christians in making the truth conquer otherwise than by the methods and exemplified by the Founder. The stripping and torture to death with oyster-shells in a Christian church and the subsequent mangling of limb from limb of Hypatia, the noblest representative of Neo-Platonism of her day, by the violent Nitrian monks and servitors of a Christian bishop, and probably with his connivance, were symptomatic and prophetic of the intolerance and fanaticism which Christianity was to direct throughout the centuries upon its disobedient members and troublesome minorities until the day – yet to dawn – when a purer, more convincing because more spiritual, Christianity gains ‘the consent of happier generation, the applause of less superstitious ages.’ (From his book that it titled ‘The Religious Quests of the Graeco-Roman World’)

The largest colonial empire in history by far was conquered by Christian nations by means of persecution, murder, and theft of property.

It is important to note the following from one of Joseph McCabe's writings:

"From the first Constantine had, apart from his unsuccessful decrees, showered wealth and privileges upon the Church. A stream of gold flowed from the palace, and new churches, of a more attractive nature, began to rise. At court and in the army the best way, if not the only way, to secure promotion was to become convinced by the brilliant evidence of the religion. Even ordinary citizens were rewarded with a baptismal robe and a piece of gold. Villages were raised to the rank of cities if all their inhabitants exchanged Jupiter for Christ. In ten years imperial gold had done more than the blood of all the martyrs, the miracles of all the saints, and the arguments of all the apologists.

“Except that wealth continued to reach the Roman clergy, the progress of the Church in the west was now suspended. The city of Constantinople was dedicated in 330. The world had at least a Christian metropolis; and it was a superb city. Already, as I said, more than three fourths of the Christians were in the ignorant east, and they were now encouraged to attack pagan temples and openly ventilate their scorn. Few pagans could get advancement in the east. Constantine had lost all his vigor and clear wit. Dressed in effeminate robes, laden with jewels, crowned by a mass of false hair, he sat amongst the women and priests who now 'converted' the world by means of his money and favors. Only now and again did the old anger burst, when the quarrels which rent the Church, from Africa to Mesopotamia, showed him how futile was his dream of a spiritual empire or, as Napoleon would later say, a spiritual gendarmerie. But he had chosen: and he had opened a new chapter of the human chronicle. He was baptized, and died in 337."

Gamera

Well, she got that right, and herein is the reason Christianity spread: it speaks to humanity's existenial situation in a way classic paganism never did.

And of course the proofs in the pudding: the ethical restraints of Christianity lead to the enlightenment and a rejection (at least as a ethical position, if not in reality) of pure self interest as the ground for human action.

Johnny Skeptic

Now please. That is your entire rebuttal to my lenghty post? You have grossly misused Stark in a way that he never intended. Today, humanity in the Western world is increasingly REJECTING fundamentalist Christianity, and Christianity in general, due to the quality of the opposition, namely continuing advances in science and education. For instance, in the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, only 7% of the members are Christians, and for the past few decades, it has been quite unusual to find a Christian who wins a Nobel Prize in Physics, Chemistry, or Biology, particularly a fundamentalist Christian.

Christianity being better than paganism does not automatically make it right.

Regarding "... and herein is the reason Christianity spread: it speaks to humanity's existenial situation in a way classic paganism never did," you have committed the fallacy of 'argumentum ad populum'. As a Christian at the Theology Web once told me when I was trying to prove that the first century Christian church was quite small, "the truth does not depend upon how many people believe it." He was right and I no longer debate the size of the first century Christian church. If Christianity becomes an obscure religion within 200 years, what would your arguments be then if you were still alive? You would be forced to refute your present argument and admit that humanity got it wrong after all, right?

Gamera

I don't know what you mean by "right." The issue is why did Christianity spread so quickly. The answer is inadvertantly given by your quote -- it addressed the existence condition of millions of people left hopeless by pagan classicism and its cruel, immoral and selfish view of human existence.

I happen to thing that is right, but right or wrong (and I hope you're not arguing for the "rightness" of classic paganism, which was indeed utterly and completely without consideration for other human beings not part of the in group), Christianity addressed a universal human issue and that's why, I posit, it spread so quickly, and continues to influence billions of people today. Not too many believers in Zeus left.

Johnny Skeptic

I am not arguing for paganism, and neither was Stark. "Better than" does not necessarily mean "true", nor does the truth depend upon how many people accept it.

Gamera

Nobody's claiming it does. What it does show is that Christianity's ability to address existential issues had a hand in its remarkable success, which apparently even Stark concedes. And that's the topic.