| Round 9 - From Brady
Hi Johnny, You wrote: Even though
many skeptic Bible scholars will not make such a stipulation, I will for
the sake of argument make such a stipulation so that we can move on to
chapter 6. Chapter 6 is actually the chapter that I should have
recommended in the first place…. What we have
here is a numbers game, and the New Testament is good at playing such a
game, i.e. its reference to the feeding of the 5,000, a number of people
who saw the empty tomb, over 500 eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after he
rose from the dead and the brief sermon that Peter preached where about
3,000 people got saved. Johnny, Don’t you see a problem with stipulating that the NT is
historically reliable in one paragraph and then saying it is not
historically reliable in the next paragraph? If the documents are
reliable, then the numbers stand, unless you have some positive evidence
from the period to contradict them (i.e. another eyewitness or associate
thereof that has another number). If you want to say the documents are
not reliable, then we need to return to Chapter 5 and do the work to
determine if Moreland’s conclusion is strong based on him meeting the
criteria. You wrote: The very best
evidence that such claims were true would have been reasonable proof of
a positive, substantial aftermath during the first few decades following
the Resurrection. However, there is no such proof. As far as I know,
there is no credible secular historical evidence that states that there
was a positive, substantial aftermath during the first few decades
following the Resurrection. Regarding secular historical evidence, how many secular historians were
running around Jerusalem from 33 A.D. to 60 A.D.? Could you name me a
couple and the works they wrote about the period and the area? If the NT
documents are historically reliable, then we do have a history that
shows a positive, substantial aftermath in the book of “The Acts of
the Apostles.” So, here we are back at the same question again. Do you
want to attempt to show that Moreland does not meet the criteria that
confirms the NT is historical reliable or are you willing to stipulate
that it is? You wrote: If over 500
people actually saw Jesus after he rose from the dead, then that many
eyewitnesses would have gone a long way towards building an early
Christian Church that was much larger than the estimates of Rodney
Stark, Ph.D., sociology. In Stark’s book titled ‘The Rise of
Christianity,’ he estimates the approximate size of the early
Christian Church during various stages of its growth. In 100 A.D., he
estimates that the Christian Church comprised 7,530 believers, or in my
words, less than the size of four good size U.S. high schools.
To be honest with you, I have not read this book and I don’t have time
right now to read it, but I did read several book reviews and interviews
with the author. With this very basic knowledge I think I can shed some
light on the basic premises of the Book. Please, let me know if I get
anything wrong. Stark begins by dismissing the numbers we find in the NT, much as you did above. Then he applies his Arithmetic of Growth theory that says the Growth of Christianity would be about 40% per decade. At the end of the 1st century Stark estimates there would be about 7,530 Christians, as you quote above [how am I doing so far?]. Stark recognizes a problem. Given his theory, there would be less than 2,000 worldwide at the time of Nero’s persecution of the church. Historians have long held that many thousand of Christians died under Nero. This would mean that more Christians died in Rome alone than Stark asserts existed in the entire world. So, Stark discounts these reports and asserts that less than a hundred bishops were martyred over all the persecutions, not just Nero’s. He also asserts that Rome didn’t really pay much attention to Christians for the most part. I hope I got Stark’s basic argument for his numbers right. Based on his interviews and reviews, I think you will find that even though much of the detail is not laid out the basic argument is there. The lynchpin to whether his argument stands or falls is the martyrs. If it can be reasonably shown that there were many thousand of martyrs in Rome in the mid 60’s, then it becomes obvious that Stark’s numbers are way out of whack. So, let’s take a look at why historians might believe that many thousands of Christians died at the order of Nero. First, there is the report of Tacitus: But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the
emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister
belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently,
to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most
exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called
Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin,
suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands
of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous
superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in
Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things
hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and
become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded
guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was
convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred
against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths.
Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished,
or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to
serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. -Annuals, Book
XV At this point we need to see if we can determine what Tacitus means by
the term “multitude.” If we examine different passages in
‘Annuals’ we get a feel that it has a couple of meanings. The first
is that of a majority in a group, regardless of the size of the group.
For instance, in a group of 20 people, if 17 voted a certain way those
17 would be a multitude of the group. The other way that Tacitus uses
“multitude” is to express a large number of people. For example: They had forced the Ciniphii, a far from contemptible
tribe, into their cause, when Furius Camillus, proconsul of Africa,
united in one force a legion and all the regularly enlisted allies, and,
with an army insignificant indeed compared with the multitude of the
Numidians and Moors, marched against the enemy. There was nothing
however which he strove so much to avoid as their eluding an engagement
out of fear. It was by the hope of victory that they were lured on only
to be defeated. The legion was in the army's centre; the light cohorts
and two cavalry squadrons on its wings. Nor did Tacfarinas refuse
battle. The Numidians were routed, and after a number of years the name
of Furius won military renown -
Annuals, Book II Here we find that a “multitude,” in this case, is much larger than a legion (about 4,000 to 6,000 men) and a number of other forces. We could also show where “multitude” could be a much smaller number too, but not as small as Stark needs it to be. However, in the case of Nero’s persecution, Tacitus adds an adjective to “multitude.” He calls the number of martyrs not just a multitude, but an “immense multitude.” In other words, this is a very large group of people. Tacitus does use this phrase in another place: About the same time, the mountain between Lake Fucinus
and the river Liris was bored through, and that this grand work might be
seen by a multitude of visitors, preparations were made for a naval
battle on the lake, just as formerly Augustus exhibited such a
spectacle, in a basin he had made this side the Tiber, though with light
vessels, and on a smaller scale. Claudius equipped galleys with three
and four banks of oars, and nineteen thousand men; he lined the
circumference of the lake with rafts, that there might be no means of
escape at various points, but he still left full space for the strength
of the crews, the skill of the pilots, the impact of the vessels, and
the usual operations of a seafight. On the raft stood companies of the
praetorian cohorts and cavalry, with a breastwork in front of them, from
which catapults and balistas might be worked. The rest of the lake was
occupied by marines on decked vessels. An immense multitude from the
neighbouring towns, others from Rome itself, eager to see the sight or
to show respect to the emperor, crowded the banks, the hills, and
mountain tops, which thus resembled a theatre. The emperor, with
Agrippina seated near him, presided; he wore a splendid military cloak,
she, a mantle of cloth of gold. A battle was fought with all the courage
of brave men, though it was between condemned criminals. After much
bloodshed they were released from the necessity of mutual slaughter. -Annuals, Book XII The crowd that Tacitus describes as an “immense multitude” is huge, many thousands. It is not a few people, as Stark would have us believe. By the way, Tacitus is a secular historian. But Tacitus is not the only person to record the same type of thing about Nero’s persecution. Clement of Rome, was a guy who knew Peter and Paul, and was co-presbyter of Rome at the time of Nero. He writes concerning the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, and then he adds: To these men (i.e. Peter & Paul) who
spent their lives in the practice of holiness, there is to be added a
great multitude of the elect, who, having through envy endured many
indignities and tortures, furnished us with a most excellent example (i.e. martyrdom). -1st Clement ch.6 Regarding Starks claim that Rome was not really that interested in
Christians, Pliny the Younger, during the Tajan persecution (c. 108)
writes a letter to the Emperor asking for clarification on how to handle Christians. According to Stark, at that time
there were less than 10,000 Christians worldwide. If there were only a
hundred churches worldwide that would mean that each church only had 100
people on average. Now, we realize that some would have more and some
would have less, but listen to how Pliny describes what seems to be a
large infestation of Christians: For it appears to be a matter highly deserving your (Trajan)
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 neighboring villages
and country.
- Letter XCVII.
Pliny to the Emperor Trajan I suggest you look up the entire letter. It gives a very different
picture than we get from Stark. By the way, Pliny was a secular, Roman
governor. In conclusion, we can either accept Stark’s thesis and reject the
testimony of the people that were there at the time, who lived in the
culture and had some contact with the actual events or we can believe
the people of the period and reject the hypothesis of someone who lives
two thousand years after the fact, in a completely different culture and
had no contact with the events. Which do you think we should do? Regards, Brady
Round 9 - From Johnny Hi
Brady Brady wote:
Given his (Stark’s) theory, there would be less than 2,000
worldwide at the time of Nero’s persecution of the church. Historians
have long held that many thousand of Christians died under Nero. According to the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, Nero lived from 37-68.
It also says “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 the accusation. According to
some accounts, (now considered spurious), he laid the blame on the
Christians - few at that time – and persecuted them. He sheltered the
homeless, however, and rebuilt the city with fire precautions.”
Is that not credible evidence that during Nero’s reign there were only
a few Christians? Brady continued:
The lynchpin to whether his argument stands or falls is the martyrs.
If it can be reasonably shown that there were many thousand of martyrs
in Rome in the mid 60’s, then it becomes obvious that Stark’s
numbers are way out of whack. So, let’s take a look at why historians
might believe that many thousands of Christians died at the order of
Nero. First, there is the report of Tacitus: But all human
efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of
the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was
the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero
fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class
hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.
Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme
penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our
procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus
checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first
source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and
shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become
popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded
guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was
convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred
against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths.
Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished,
or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to
serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. -Annuals, Book XV At this point we need to see if we can determine what Tacitus means
by the term “multitude.” If we examine different passages in
‘Annuals’ we get a feel that it has a couple of meanings. The first
is that of a majority in a group, regardless of the size of the group.
For instance, in a group of 20 people, if 17 voted a certain way those
17 would be a multitude of the group. The other way that Tacitus uses
“multitude” is to express a large number of people. For example: They had
forced the Ciniphii, a far from contemptible tribe, into their cause,
when Furius Camillus, proconsul of Africa, united in one force a legion
and all the regularly enlisted allies, and, with an army insignificant
indeed compared with the multitude of the Numidians and Moors, marched
against the enemy. There was nothing however which he strove so much to
avoid as their eluding an engagement out of fear. It was by the hope of
victory that they were lured on only to be defeated. The legion was in
the army's centre; the light cohorts and two cavalry squadrons on its
wings. Nor did Tacfarinas refuse battle. The Numidians were routed, and
after a number of years the name of Furius won military renown -
Annuals, Book
II Here we find that a “multitude,” in this case, is much larger
than a legion (about 4,000 to 6,000 men) and a number of other forces.
We could also show where “multitude” could be a much smaller number
too, but not as small as Stark needs it to be. However, in the case of
Nero’s persecution, Tacitus adds an adjective to “multitude.”
He calls the number of martyrs not just a multitude, but an
“immense multitude.” In other words, this is a very large group of
people. Tacitus does use this phrase in another place: About the same
time, the mountain between Lake Fucinus and the river Liris was bored
through, and that this grand work might be seen by a multitude of
visitors, preparations were made for a naval battle on the lake, just as
formerly Augustus exhibited such a spectacle, in a basin he had made
this side the Tiber, though with light vessels, and on a smaller scale.
Claudius equipped galleys with three and four banks of oars, and
nineteen thousand men; he lined the circumference of the lake with
rafts, that there might be no means of escape at various points, but he
still left full space for the strength of the crews, the skill of the
pilots, the impact of the vessels, and the usual operations of a
seafight. On the raft stood companies of the praetorian cohorts and
cavalry, with a breastwork in front of them, from which catapults and
balistas might be worked. The rest of the lake was occupied by marines
on decked vessels. An immense multitude from the neighbouring towns,
others from Rome itself, eager to see the sight or to show respect to
the emperor, crowded the banks, the hills, and mountain tops, which thus
resembled a theatre. The emperor, with Agrippina seated near him,
presided; he wore a splendid military cloak, she, a mantle of cloth of
gold. A battle was fought with all the courage of brave men, though it
was between condemned criminals. After much bloodshed they were released
from the necessity of mutual slaughter.
-Annuals, Book XII The crowd that Tacitus describes as an “immense multitude” is
huge, many thousands. It is not a few people, as Stark would have us
believe. By the way, Tacitus is a secular historian. Again, the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2002 disagrees with you, and
most modern historians will disagree with you as well. The Microsoft
Encarta Encyclopedia 2002 says that Tacitus lived from about 55 until
after 117. It also says “The earliest known work of Tacitus is the
‘Dialogus de Oratoribus’ (Dialogue on Orators), written probably
about 81…….” It is important to note that none of Tacitus’
writings reasonably prove that during the first decade following the
Resurrection, the Christian Church comprised many thousands of members
and that the majority of
Christians living during that time period believed that Jesus physically
rose from the dead. If only a few Christians living during that time
period believed that Jesus physically rose from the dead, then possibly
Jesus did not physically rise from the dead after all. Sincerely,
Johnny Skeptic
|
