Steve Clark said
One question thats been on my mind off and on over the past couple years is this: Is there a way to give a reasoned estimate as to the number of followers Jesus had attracted by the time of his death. Thanks for your input.  

This is a wonderful question.

If you accept the historicity of “The Twelve” as led by Cephas, and of James being the brother of Jesus, then I think it’s responsible to presume a similar size of congregation as we’ve seen in similar infancy stages of other cult/religious/political movements with a governing committee of 12 or so.  On that basis, I would guess about a thousand, maybe.

gavriel said

There was no membership cards in those days. An original fellowship of twelve, a number selected according to a religious doctrine. Then there would be followers, sympathizers, admirers, and people occasionally seeking advise. Some of those would be on the road with Jesus.  

That makes sense.  I used the term “congregation” as a sort of modern anachronism to encompass what you listed in your post.  I certainly don’t think 1,000 were constantly on the road with Jesus.

vergari said

That makes sense.  I used the term “congregation” as a sort of modern anachronism to encompass what you listed in your post.  I certainly don’t think 1,000 were constantly on the road with Jesus.  

On the other hand, Paul mentions that 500 finally experienced visions. That number is probably intended to be a round figure of the complete community in the early years of the movement.

Stephen said
1000 seems way too high.  I would expect the number of Jesus’ followers to be no more than 125 – 150 at the most.  Archeological results show those towns in Galilee that Jesus was associated with in his ministry were small hamlets at best with very small populations.   The writings in the NT clearly exaggerate Jesus’ impact in his ministry. Amusingly enough the Mythicists do the same thing when they wonder why Jesus wasn’t well known outside Palestine.  The answer is that he wasn’t well known within Palestine.  We should avoid the tendency is to assume that since it came to dominate the West and became a world religion the Christian movement must have had magnificent beginnings.   

It definitely could have been that small.

The reason that I think it’s probably more than that — like closer to 1,000 if you include all the people throughout Palestinian who at one time or another followed his movement — is that the movement not only apparently pre-existed Jesus (through John the Baptist), but also continued on, not just in Galilee, but in Jerusalem.  Josephus mentions John the Baptist, Jesus and James the brother of Jesus.  If this was strictly a community of 125 or so, it’s tough to figure out why Josephus would say anything.  It’s also tough to figure out how the community survived in Jerusalem, if this was simply a small, regional movement of Galileans. 

Stephen said
Okay, but Josephus was born and raised in Jerusalem — at the very same time James was head of the early Christian Church (i.e., the 40s and 50s CE).

Josephus was raised by aristocrats.  Do you think he knew about a small group of Galilean day laborers in a city that has been estimated to have had a population of up to 100,000 people?  

Trying to follow in exchange here:

I had argued that we can probably infer that the movement had more than 125 or so follower because it preexisting Jesus, through John the Baptist, then Jesus and the James the brother of Jesus (all three of whom are discussed by Josephus), and that, if this was strictly a community of 125 or so, it’s tough to figure out why Josephus would say anything.

You then responded that “Josephus is writing in the 90s” and that “by Josephus’ time the church had spread out considerably of course.”

At this point, I should probably add that Josephus has material on both James and John were are different than what is found in NT texts and traditions; so it’s a bit hard to believe that the source for Josephus on John and James is the church outside of Israel.

I then made the point that “Josephus was born and raised in Jerusalem — at the very same time James was head of the early Christian Church (i.e., the 40s and 50s CE).”

So here’s the problem we have.  Somehow Josephus found out about John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus.  John died around 30 CE and James died at some points in the 60s.  Yet, Josephus did not write this material until the 90s.  

Now …. you can argue that the source for Josephus was members of the church outside of Jerusalem.  But how much sense does that make?  Particularly since the accounts Josephus uses are so much different than those of the early Church.

I can’t prove this, but my best guess is that Josephus knew about both John the Baptist and James, if only remotely, during his early years in Jerusalem.

Stephen said

Is this based on Galatians 1?  I’m just not clear what text you are basing this on.

Inference from our sources.   If the Jerusalem community is thriving why is Paul making a concerted effort to raise a collection of money for them?  Look at the circumstances. A group of day laborers from the sticks together in the big city.  What are they doing for money?  They are disciples of a man condemned to death.  They claim he was the Messiah.  This can’t have made them very welcome in the synagogues.  Paul himself testifies to the difficulty of converting Jews to the cause.  (Contradicting Act’s tales of mass conversions.)  

No offense here, but your speculation that “Jerusalem “church” was a small, impoverished, marginalized community hanging on by it’s nails” doesn’t seem to be derived from Paul at all, but from conclusions you’ve draw from the Gospel and Acts.

Look, you may be right on this.  I’m kind of agnostic on whether the movement was particularly impoverished.  Though one reason to think it was not is that members of the movement are traveling up to Asia Minor to try to steal away members from Paul’s congregation.  But i certainly can’t conclude from either Paul’s writing or from Act that the movement was “small” and “hanging on by it’s nails.”  Maybe it was; but I just don’t see the evidence for that; not even by way of inference.

Stephen said

I’m not saying I have strong feelings you are wrong.  But the smaller you make the pre-crucifixion movement, and more you center it exclusively in Galilee, the harder it is to explain the early history of the Church as we have come to know, to wit: it was centered in Jerusalem by no later than 40 CE; it was led, not by the earliest followers of Jesus, but by Jesus’s brother; by 50 or CE, the movement in Jerusalem is certainly not tiny, and, indeed, you have Jewish members of movement traveling to the Gentile Churches, attempting to gain influence; at around this time, the movement appears to be gaining ground in Rome, ultimately resulting, about a decade and a half later, with a persecution at the hands of Nero.

My scenario follows from what I’ve said before.  A small group of Jesus’ immediate disciples, including his family, relocate to Jerusalem in expectation of an imminent Parousia.  They establish a community that would of course have expanded to some degree over the years but certainly not dominating the entire region as described in Acts.  One group among many that would have existed at that time.  The majority of Jesus’s followers remain in Galilee out of economic necessity. 

Paul’s conversion shifts the focus to the Gentile converts outside Palestine after he has some degree of success.  The interest of the Jerusalem community in this effort to convert Gentiles is probably fueled to some degree by their own lack of success.  They probably accommodate Paul’s eccentricities because of his success. But whatever the level of activity of the Jerusalem church (James does seem to have achieved a reputation for piety among other Jews who were outraged by his murder) it all came to a halt with the first revolt.  We do have records of Jewish Christians like the Ebionites at the end of the first century. These are probably descendants of the original Galilean Jesus community.  Of course by that time the community that probably most resembled the original Jesus movement were declared heretics!

I’m just saying basically that Jewish Christianity was a failure.  After 70AD it was chiefly a sectarian movement that eventually died out.  The excitement was elsewhere.  

The only note I’d make here is that it’s pretty clear that Jewish Christian sects continued on, perhaps located outside of Jerusalem, after the destruction of the temple.  Justin Martyr discusses them, and draws a distinction between the law-observing sects which require its observance by others, and those which do not.