(9 votes, average: 4.89 out of 5)
Loading...One of my favorite parts of my book Triumph of Christianity (Simon & Schuster, 2018) is the Appendix, where I explain how to figure out how quickly early Christianity grew. Did thousands of people convert in the first months of the religion (as in the book of Acts)? Were there millions of Christians by the second century? How can we know? Or can we know?
For some reason, even though I’m not a serious math guy, I’ve found the question interesting just on the level of the numbers. Unusually intriguing, in fact. Here’s how I talk about it there.
******************************
In 1996 Rodney Stark published a book for general audiences called The Rise of Christianity.[1] In it he explained sociological factors that, in his judgment, led to the triumph of Christianity in the Roman world. The book was not well received by experts in the field of early Christian studies, who noted numerous flaws in Stark’s reasoning and, especially, in his uncritical use of ancient sources.[2] But even though Stark is not a historian of ancient Christianity, he is a sociologist. As a sociologist, he knows how to calculate population growth. By far and away the most significant and intriguing part of his book are his calculations.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
“Christianity began with a small group of Jesus’ followers, men and women, something like twenty people.”
————————————————–
Professor, I think your estimate is a bit conservative.
Jesus’ team had thirteen disciples, plus Mary, which means there were fifteen core members.
These fifteen people were all full-time missionaries who did not work to make a living. How many believers’ contributions were needed for these fifteen people to live? And these fifteen people clearly did not live in poverty, to the point where they could afford an extremely expensive bottle of perfume.
I’m talking about the number of people who at the very outset believed he was raised from the dead.
I thought about it, and your standard is more accurate: the Christian doctrine was incomplete when the followers donated to Jesus, and they were all a rabble; Those who believed in Jesus’ resurrection immediately after his death were die-hard fans, and their doctrine was complete.
I have read very captivating book Emmanuel Carrère – Le royaume about early Christiantiy. It is interesting how wide is Atlantic or how wide is divide between an author that is not a historical scholar and academic environment. I believe all the data are not provable but still it makes compelling picture of past and characters. However no one outside France and outside Europe ever heard for this book. I guess it is irritating for any historian with its light style and attempt to give big picture. You mentioned you never heard of it and it has many pages but little hisorical fact and I can imangine you can’t waste your time on that but still It would be great if you would read it and comment on it. Please …
jus to add 350 000 copies in France is quite a bit for religious borderline nonfiction
Again: “Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world.“
Albert Einstien
The population growth rate when the Mormon church was founded was 3-4% per year, so it seems that the Mormon church could have grown simply through followers having children, and didn’t have to spread very far. Meanwhile, Christianity seemed to be growing at that rate while population growth was much slower, and so spread largely through conversion.
Do we know if the early growth of Christianity was slow and steady within many communities across the Roman Empire, or was it concentrated in certain “hotspots”?
It almost certainly was slow, but it must have gone in peaks and valleys.
I’m in the middle on this subject because there’s a lot of speculation either way. 20 followers vs 1000. There may have been many more believers that weren’t mentioned because they played no significant roles. Maybe not. There’s really no concrete way of knowing either way for certain.
Doesn’t it seem likely that when Jesus and his disciples made their fateful trip to Jerusalem that he might have left behind some group of sympathizers in Galilee who did not make the trip?
And wouldn’t it make sense that there would have been a commmunity of Galilean expats living in Jerusalem that could have produced a support network for Jesus and his disciples? There would have been traffic back and forth between Jerusalem and home and so perhaps already some Jesus followers in Jerusalem.
Obviously the gospels wildly exaggerate Jesus’ following but isn’t it likely that at the time of Jesus’ death there might have been more than just Jesus and his immediate disiples?
They would not have been among the original group of those who believed Jesus was raised from the dead.
“Obviously Christianity was not growing at a steady rate… But clearly, in the early years, it had to grow faster than 40%.”
Indeed!
Just about 30 years after Jesus’ death, there were so many Christians in Rome that Nero chose them as scapegoats for the Great Fire of Rome. As Tacitus wrote:
“Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace… an INMENSE 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…Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being DESTROYED” (Annals Book 15.44)
Pliny the Younger, while governor of Bithynia, circa 112 AD (two hundred years before Constantine), wrote to Emperor Trajan regarding the ‘trials of the Christians’:
‘For the matter seemed to me well worth referring to you, especially considering the NUMBERS ENDANGERED. Persons of ALL RANKS AND AGES , and of BOTH SEXES are and will be involved in the prosecution.’
Pliny goes further in what could be seen as a failed prophecy:
‘For this CONTAGIOUS SUPERSTITION is not confined to the cities only, but has spread through the villages and rural districts; it SEEMS POSSIBLE, however, to CHECK and CURE IT.’
My conclusion is that Christianity did not grow at a ‘steady rate’; on the contrary, it grew rapidly, but then it caught the attention of the authorities. At certain times, it was almost decimated (as in Rome under Nero), but it always came back. The Christians had to go ‘under the radar’; direct opposition to Roman authorities was fruitless, so they learned to ‘turn the other cheek.’ This was not a superior ethical rule but a matter of survival. In his letter to the Romans, Paul explains the real meaning of that ‘rule’:
‘Do not take REVENGE…
but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written:
It is mine to AVENGE, I will REPAY
On the contrary:
if your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD.’
(Romans 12:19-20)
The Christians in the Roman Empire turned the other cheek while imagining the annihilation of the pagan world.
Cults sometimes spread quickly like infectious diseases.
I estimate that by the time Jesus died, the Christian community had already had 150 to 200 members.
I just recently read this book. In it you describe the telling and retelling of miracle stories as a key factor in people converting to Christianity in the very early days after Jesus died. But not the concept of being saved or salvation.
I’m just finishing How Jesus Became God and your quote of Constantine’s prayer for the army doesn’t mention salvation anywhere. It seems for Constantine salvation had nothing to do with his conversion. It seemed to be driven by awe, power, and being on the winning side. But ask anyone today in a Christian church and they will immediately tell you about being saved and becoming Christian.
So when did that shift occur? When did the driving factor for becoming Christian move away from awe and wonder to a total belief in salvation?
I guess it depends on what you mean by “being saved.” Both books are all about how Christians insisted that belief in Jesus was the only way to have eternal life, that the power/help Christ brought now to people continued in the life to come, and whoever rejected him would face damnation.
If the number of Christians grew from 3 million in 300 c.e. to 2 billion in the year 2000, that would correspond to a growth rate of roughly 4% per decade by my calculations, much lower than in the early years before 300 c.e. Maybe there were fewer potential converts available as time went on and paganism faded away. I think this was mentioned in the “Triumph of Christianity.” Much of this growth may have been due to children being born into Christian families and thus sort of automatically becoming Christians themselves rather than due to conversions per se. The world population grew from around 220 million in 300 c.e. to around 6 billion in the year 2000 according to Microsoft Copilot. This increase corresponds to a growth rate in world population of roughly 2% per decade (my math). Assuming the same 2% per decade growth rate for the Christian population, the 4% per decade growth rate in the total number of Christians would appear to include 2% worth of conversions.
Well, that’s enough mathematics for one day. Getting a headache.