Were there as many 1st century converts as the bible says?

by gumby 21 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Justin
    Justin


    The Bible scholar Bart Ehrman has stated that he considers the Acts to be about as historically accurate as the Gospels. That is, that there is a historical core to it, but it is not history. This is the Bible book which the WTS uses to support the idea of the Christian congregation as a centralized, unified organization - and that is just what the author of Acts desired that the Christianity of his day would become. In such a work, the actual historical details can be thematized. For example, taking the miracle stories in the Gospels, it is likely that if Jesus was an actual historical person (and the a-historical approach has not so far been accepted by mainline scholarship), he did perform healings - but the examples in the Gospels may be likely stories rather than specific examples of those cures. In the same way, small scattered groups of proto-Christians may have experienced charismatic phenomena, and this is thematized by the story of the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost. This thematizing would include the large number of converts received even on that first day of the Church's existence. But, as narkissos has pointed out, this ignores the thought that the early Jesus movement was also found in Galilee - as indicated by the promise attributed to the risen Christ that he would meet the disciples in Galilee. The way Acts presents the movement as centered in Jerusalem is reminiscent of Isaiah's prophecy, that the word of YHWH would go forth from Jerusalem. (Isa. 2:3)

    The statement in Acts 21:20, however, that there were thousands of believers among the Jews by the time James had his dealings with Paul - being a statement which, if historical, would have been made sometime in the 60's of the first century - is probably correct for the time it was supposedly made. This would be the case whether it is an actual recollection of a real conversation, or simply another literary device.

    And just for the record, I have not made these statements as an atheist, but as a liberal Christian.

  • gumby
    gumby
    This is the Bible book which the WTS uses to support the idea of the Christian congregation as a centralized, unified organization - and that is just what the author of Acts desired that the Christianity of his day would become.

    And just for the record, I have not made these statements as an atheist, but as a liberal Christian



    A Liberal Christian? You sound like either a dub or a Catholic. What do you mean by "centralized"?

    Do you mean run by a certain group of men or one man? Christianity was to spread...how could it be ceteralized? And unified? Paul wouldn't have sent out letters chewing out arses of every church he started if things were supposed to be unified. People disagree christian or not. The only unity that was important other than to love each other was to believe in christ. There wasn't a need for a centralized group of governing body members to botch the shit out of things with their OWN ideas and taking away the christian freedom of others who was to look for the "spirit" to guide them.

    Gumby

    Edited to add.....if I read you wrong here justin...I'm sorry. I may have... after reading some of your back posts.

  • Justin
    Justin

    I was not arguing in favor of the type of organization JWs have - I was saying that Acts has been used to support the idea that there was a golden age of Christianity in which all Christians believed and taught alike, but that this was not actually the case. But because Luke attempted to present the earliest Christianity as more unified than it was rather than presenting its diversity, he laid the foundation for what was later attempted in the fourth century and even later by the WTS. (Of course, he did recall the circumcision issue, but presents it in such a way that it was settled by the proper authority [the Jerusalem council], and left his readers to conclude that there was never any question as to what the ligitimate form of Christianity was.)

  • blondie
    blondie

    Donald Gardner says:

    http://www.allexperts.com/displayExpert.asp?Expert=58394

    Seriously, though: there are no documents that enable a reliable estimate of the number of Christians baptized between 33 and 100--certainly not if what you have in mind is the kind of baptismal records kept by churches later in history.

    Extant Christian writings from that period include mostly books in the New Testament: the letters of Paul come from the 50s. Some of the other NT writings also come from the 50-100 period. The Acts of the Apostles (written perhaps between 80 and 90, though some think as late as around 150) gives numbers (Acts 1:14-15; 2:58; 4:4; 21:20), but historians aren't sure what to make of them. Where would the author of Acts have obtained those numbers? And were they meant as statistics in our sense or as general indicators of a trend?
    The most interesting attempt of which I am aware to quantify the growth of earliest Christianity is that of sociologist Rodney Stark in The Rise of Christianity. It's an inexpensive paperback, so you might want to find it and buy a copy. He figures there were probably about 7,500 Christians in AD 100. The book explains his logic, which makes interesting use of comparative materials (including statistics regarding the early rise of Mormonism).

    The first generations of Christians would have died already by the year 100, so your number (total baptized between 33 and 100) would be higher than 7,500, assuming that was the size of the Christian population in 100. Not sure how much higher--somewhere between 8,500 and 10,000, I would imagine.

    Of course Stark could be wrong; but I doubt he's wrong by an order of magnitude...

    OR

    First of all, I'm not going to say flat out there there are no estimates of Christian populations by persecuting Roman emperors; but if there are, I've never heard of them; and I rather expect I would have. Contrary to popular belief, the really systematic persecution of Christians didn't get underway for a couple of centuries, anyway. Earlier persecutions were spasmodic and localized. The emperors before 200 or 250 were not worried about one more weird little quasi-Jewish religion from the eastern provinces. Weird eastern religions were a dime a dozen.

    Obviously no comprehensive census or data exists for the ancient world that would tell us how many Christians there were. In my experience, historians of Christianity who risk giving numerical estimates generally start by quoting some earlier scholar's guess and then opining "that's too low" or "that's too high" without giving much convincing argument.
    Such arguments as there are must depend on stray comments in ancient sources as to whether Christians were few or many in a given place and time and then assign percentages to such comments, often, for the earliest centuries, by comparison to statistics for the Jewish population in various areas (and where do those come from?). In the case of Egypt, one scholar (a papyrologist, i.e., he studies the papyri, surviving documents that contain everything from high literature to business records, receipts, inventories, government correspondence, etc.) tried to estimate the Christian population by logging all the names that occur in the ancient documents and noting what percentage of them are Christian. But even that's tricky, because not every Christian had a name that was definitely Christian rather than Coptic or pagan Greek.

    The best I can do bibliographically is to point you to a book by Rodney Stark, a sociologist (hence more interested in and sophisticated in his use of quantitative data than many theologians and traditional church historians). In The Rise of Christianity (first published in 1996 by Princeton University Press, then published in paperback in 1997 by HarperSanFrancisco--I have the paperback), an early section in chapter 1 is called The Arithmetic of Growth. He gives his own argument (which includes some interesting comparative suggestions--he compares the spread of early Christianity with the spread of Mormonism in its early days, positing some similarities in the social dynamics) and lots of references to other secondary literature. Much of the rest of the book is also relevant to your question. If you want to find the various points of criticism by traditional church historians and theologians who think that Stark (as a newcomer to the study of early Christianity) didn't get quite right, you can track down reviews of the book in the scholarly journals; but regardless of all that, Stark's book is I think still to be highly recommended for its interesting approaches to quantifying early Christian growth. It's not too long, it's unusually readable for a book by a scholar, and much of the content is fascinating. Some of it is also potentially edifying from a contemporary Christian point of view, e.g., the effects of Christian self-giving caring [vs. pagan self-preservation] in the face of plagues, or of Christian treatment of women [in a terribly misogynistic social universe]--chapters 4 and 5, respectively.

    I just checked Amazon and the book is still available. Search for ISBN: 0060677015.

  • gumby
    gumby

    Blondie.........good work! This is the problem with the pro's and cons of early christianity........insufficient evidence.

    Thanks for your research

    Justin....this isn't the first time I've put my foot in my mouth.

    Gumby

  • BluesBrother
    BluesBrother
    The WTS agrees that 40 000 Christians were martyred under Domitian around 95 AD

    I thought i would put up what the WT published on this..

    ............................................................................................................................................................................................................

    *

    w72 7/1 pp. 415-416 Questions from Readers ***

    Large numbers of Christians are said to have been put to death during the Roman persecution in the first few centuries of the Common Era. How, then, is it possible for thousands in this century to have been called to become part of the body of Christ composed of only 144,000 persons?—U.S.A.

    There are historical indications that many Christians were bitterly persecuted, even killed, in the first few centuries. However, it should be remembered that, in itself, a martyr’s death did not give a person merit before Jehovah God nor did it guarantee membership in the heavenly kingdom. Many persons, even in recent times, have been willing to die for a cause, religious or otherwise. A person’s claiming to be a Christian and even dying for his belief does not in itself mean that he is an approved servant of Jehovah God. As the apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "If I give all my belongings to feed others, and if I hand over my body, that I may boast, but do not have love, I am not profited at all." (1 Cor. 13:3) It is not death, but faithfulness to the very death, that determines whether an individual will receive "the crown of life."—Rev. 2:10.

    Thus the fact that today there is still a remnant of the 144,000 on earth would show that down to this twentieth century fewer than 144,000 finished their earthly course in faithfulness.[hardly evidence Blues}

    While some persons may be inclined to think that more persons must surely have been involved even as far back as the early centuries of the Common Era, actual proof to this effect is completely lacking. Today it is impossible even to establish how many persons were killed, much less the number of those who proved faithful to death. "We have practically but few facts to go upon," writes Frederick John Foakes-Jackson in the book History of Christianity in the Light of Modern Knowledge. He further states: "The testimony to the persecution by Nero is recorded by two Roman historians, Tacitus and Suetonius, both of whom were very young when it occurred, and wrote in mature life. There is no contemporary Christian document describing it, though it may be alluded to in the book of Revelation. . . . Tertullian at the end of the second century is our authority that Nero and Domitian, because they were the two worst emperors in the first centuries, persecuted the Christians." Early in the third century C.E., Origen (a Christian writer and teacher) observed: "There have been but a few now and again, easily counted, who have died for the Christian religion."

    Much that has been written about Christian martyrs is embellished by tradition and therefore unreliable. For example, the martyrdom of Polycarp of the second century C.E. is described in Fox’s Book of Martyrs as follows: "He was . . . bound to a stake, and the faggots with which he was surrounded set on fire, but when it became so hot that the soldiers were compelled to retire, he continued praying and singing praises to God for a long time. The flames raged with great violence, but still his body remained unconsumed, and shone like burnished gold. It is also said, that a grateful odour like that of myrrh, arose from the fire, which so much astonished the spectators, that many of them were by that means converted to Christianity. His executioners finding it impossible to put him to death by fire, thrust a spear into his side, from which the blood flowed in such a quantity, as to extinguish the flame. His body was then consumed to ashes, by order of the proconsul lest his followers should make it an object of adoration."

    Whatever the source of Fox’s information, manifestly little of this account is truly historical. Nevertheless, if the allusion to the adoration of the remains of Polycarp is to be viewed as indicating the existence of relic worship among professed Christians of the second century C.E., this would be additional evidence that many at that time were not faithful worshipers of Jehovah God. Christians were under command to "worship God," not relics. (Rev. 19:10) In fact, idolaters are among those specifically named in the Scriptures as unfit to inherit the Kingdom.—1 Cor. 6:9, 10.

  • greendawn
    greendawn

    Blondie there are indeed no statistics for the number of Christians in 100AD but that number of 7500 I feel is ridiculously low, it's hard to imagine why Domitian would bother launching such a ferocious persecution against them if they just numbered a few thousands spread all over the empire. By that time the gospel had been preached over the whole of the Roman empire AND the adjacent countries Persia, Armenia etc. Likely there were several thousands of christians in Rome alone.

  • blondie
    blondie

    Greendawn, I wasn't advocating the answer but it does show that there is no way that scholars can document historically. Just the sociological number projections. If you have a credible historical source, please share. The man I went to is fairly reliable and the person he recommended reading Rodney Stark tries to look at it objectively.

    Too bad Christians weren't as anal about numbers as the WTS is today. (smile)

    Blondie

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    Me, I'm grateful the bean-counters were NOT in charge in the early days of Christianity.

  • TheOldHippie
    TheOldHippie

    Sociology does not exactly work hand-in-glove with the supernatural; assuming logical explanations for everything and calculating the growth of the first century Christian congregations based among other things upon early Mormonism - well, there was a Man who was more than just a man and whose name was Jesus, and who was backed by some might forces, God and The Holy Spirit - and I guess that combination could produce slightly more growth than could early Mormonism or sociologic calculations assumptions .........

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit