Christians in 100 AD

[Phleggy_Sang]

Heyall-
Can anyone tell me aprox. how many Christians there were in 100 AD? Need this info for a project, and can't seem to find it anywhere! It's killin' me!

I sure would appreciate an assist!

Thanks!
~Phleggy :smile:

[Minnesota]

The church in 100AD was approximately 25,000 people in number. The Roman Empire at the time was 45 million people.

SOURCE (http://www.livingroom.org.au/blog/archives/cat_emerging_church.php?page=6)

[James Peter]

Two things....firstly that source doesn't actually link to anything about the size of the church in 100AD...

Secondy, that estimate seems very low. I'd expect there to be more than that in 60AD in all honesty based on how diverse geographically the church was and accounts in Acts etc. The 'true' answer is that we don't know. Even crude estimates are very difficult because we have very limited evidence. But to suggest that less than a thousand people a year were added to the church when on multiple occassions thousands were added at once seems incredibly unlikely.

If we assume that Rome's population was approximately one million then she alone likely had 25,000 converts by 100 AD. How many were not martyred is a slightly different quetsion though :wink:

For Tacitus to mention the early church and for the apostles arriving at a city to have such an impact to turn the craftsmen against them there must have been a much more significant impact than you are suggetsing. A hundred people not buying idols isn't really that many considering that there were more Jews than that in many of the places and they already bought no idols.

[Sparko]

According the "World Christian Trends" http://www.globalchristianity.org/wce2.htm the Christian population in AD 100 was 800,000

[Minnesota]

Two things....firstly that source doesn't actually link to anything about the size of the church in 100AD...
Was it suppose to? What it does say under the heading Church Growth 4 December, 2003 11:35 AM is,
:The church in 100AD was approximately 25,000 people in number. The Roman Empire at the time was 45 million people.

By 300AD before Constantine the church is estimated to be 27 million people. The Roman Empire was 60 million. Something happened that brought about an explosion in this time.
The figures evidently supplied by Alan Hirsch, National director of Forge and co-author of Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21 Century Church.
Secondy, that estimate seems very low.
On what factual basis do they "seem" so?
to suggest that less than a thousand people a year were added to the church when on multiple occassions thousands were added at once seems incredibly unlikely.
Your treading on VERY dangerous ground here when you start speculating about what things "seem" to be or should be. Unless you are well versed in history, population demographics, sociological trends, etc. you may want to be a bit more circumspect in your assumptions.

That having been said, it appears that John Sparks figure of 800,000, having the backing of a reputable source, may be closer to the correct figure

[James Peter]

Well normally when you cite a source its usual to actually link to the source itself. What would have been dangerous is to argue for a specific number based on the arguments I made. To point to how many churches there were and that they were reasonably large (at least in their hundreds if not thousands) and so to dispute a figure that somebody else has just picked out of the air seemingly is perfectly legitimate.

800,000 is more in the region I'd expect the number to be based on the internal evidence of the NT but I'd still like to see the paper which originally calculated and proposed the figure...just because estimates about the population of Rome in this period vary by a large factor (8 or so, between 250k and 2 million) and so any one figure shouldn't be taken as reliable 'just because' it comes from a reputable source. It is, as you alluded to, incredibly difficult to get to a final figure which is why looking as the original research that led to it is critical.

[Minnesota]

Well normally when you cite a source its usual to actually link to the source itself.
If you click on the underlined word, "source," (SOURCE) in my first post it will link you to that source.