320
. From Craig S. Keener, “The Plausibility of Luke’s Growth Figures in Acts
2
.
41
;
4
.
4
;
21
.
20
.” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism
7
(
2010
):
140–63
. Reprinted by permission from Sheffield Phoenix.
. Van der Horst, “Parallels to Acts,”
58
, notes the two thousand converts in Porphyry Vit. Pyth.
20
and Iamblichus Vit. Pyth.
30
. These are from so longer after Pythagoras’s time that we can no longer ascertain the extent to which these depend on tradition.
. Goulder, Type,
84
.
. I borrow language from US religious history, but it has already been widely applied to global contexts; see e.g., Shaw, Awakening.
. Cf. Jervell, People of God,
45
. Luke’s apologetic includes grounding his story in Israel’s heritage, but this of course makes his historiography fictitious no more than Josephus’s apologetic makes his historiography fictitious.
. For the many towns and villages the apostles could have readily evangelized even within a
15
-mile (
25
-kilometer) radius around Jerusalem, see Schnabel, Mission,
739–44
; he plausibly argues that the figures in Acts
21
:
20
include all of Judea and Galilee (
745
).
. Johnson, Acts,
374
.
. Marshall, Acts,
343–44
(tentatively); Dunn, Acts,
285
; Fitzmyer, Acts,
693
; Porter, Paul in Acts,
176
(also listing various views); Pervo, Acts,
544
.
. Haenchen, Acts,
608–9
, citing ancient exaggerations. Even ancient historians often inflated their statistics (or guessed high), though the generosity of such calculations could subject them to other historians’ critique (Polybius
12
.
17
.
1
—
12
.
22
.
7
), and very careful historians might explain what factors rendered an estimate impossible (Thucydides
5
.
68
.
2
).
. Patzia, Emergence,
142
, thinks Rodney Stark’s maximum of
7,530
by the end of the first century is probably closer to correct (though perhaps on the low end) than Glover’s half million, noting that Stark’s model accounts for growth to about
6
million, i.e.,
10
percent of the Empire, by the time of Constantine. Yet the growth rate would not have been constant, and the revival fervor of the first generations probably yielded a more rapid early growth rate, as in the history of most subsequent revival movements.
. Luke elsewhere uses it only for a specified number, in Acts
19
:
19
. Early Christians applied it to angels, but probably genuinely believed them innumerable (Heb
12
:
22
; Jude
14
; Rev
5
:
11
).
. See further e.g., Euripides Med.
965
; Musonius Rufus
1
, p.
34
.
19
; Diogenes Laertius
6
.
7
.
98
; Iamblichus Vit. Pyth.
16
.
70
;
28
.
135; Philo Abr.
1
,
64
; Lev
26
:
8
; Deut
32
:
30
;
1
Sam
18
:
7–8
;
21
:
11
;
29
:
5
; Josephus Ant.
19
.
1
,
67
; Ag. Ap.
1
.
38
; Justin Dial. 115
; perhaps Luke
12
:
1
(though this is unclear); a huge but indefinite number in Dio Chrysostom Or.
17
.
4
,
20
; on deliberately losing count, see Catullus
5
.
7–13
;
7
.
3
; for other clearly hyperbolic numbers, e.g., Catullus
48
.
3
. Cf. also Rowe, “Style,”
125
.
. Munck, Salvation,
241
.
. Fiensy, “Composition,”
214
(noting also the claim in Pliny Nat.
5
.
70
that it was “the ‘most illustrious city in the east’”); Reinhardt, “Population Size,”
241–43
; Wilkinson, “Population”; Broshi, “Population de l’ancienne Jérusalem.”
. Reinhardt, “Population Size,”
237–38
.
. E.g., Hull, Spirit in Acts,
93
.
. Barrett, Acts,
159
.
. With e.g., Taylor, Immerser,
63
; Adler, “Baths” (interpreting the baths differently from Regev). Cf. Meyers and Strange, Archaeology,
25–26
.
. See Reich, “Possible miqwa’ot”; Mazar, “Excavations,”
52
; Meyers and Strange, Archaeology,
25–26
,
55
; Regev, “Baths”; in later literary sources, cf. m. Tam.
1
:
1
; Mid.
1
:
9
; Neg.
14
:
8
. Other miqvaot apparently appeared en route to Jerusalem, or at least nearby (e.g., Reich, “Miqweh”; m. Parah
3
:
7
). For the tradition of officers over water resources in the temple, see Jeremias, Jerusalem,
171
,
174
.
. McRay, Archaeology,
106
. Cf. Josephus Ant.
12.145
.
. See m. Ter.
5
:
6
; Eduy.
1
:
3
,
7
:
3–4; Miqv.
2
:
3
ff,
3
:
1–4
,
4
:
1–5
,
5
:
1–6
; t. Miqv.
2
; Ed.
1
:
3
; Sipra Sh. par.
9
.
118
.
1
.
1
; b. Sabb.
16
b;
65
a;
144
b; Pes.
17
b;
34
b; Bez.
18
; Git.
16
a; B.B.
66
a; Mak.
4
a; Bek.
55
b; p. Ter.
4
:
12
,
5
:
7
; cf. CD
10
.
12
; more fully, Keener, John,
1
:
510–11
. Even most homes in Herodian Jerusalem had underground cisterns for collecting drinking water (McRay, Archaeology,
125
).
. Safrai, “Temple,”
884
. Some estimate that the subterranean reservoirs beneath the Temple Mount functioned as cisterns holding up to ten million gallons (McRay, Archaeology,
123
). I am not aware whether conduits existed between some cisterns and miqvaot here, but some did elsewhere (cf. Avigad, Jerusalem,
139
; Pearlman, Zealots,
180–81
; Yadin, Masada,
166
; Hachlili and Killebrew, “Saga,”
44
,
46
).
. On these other pools in Jerusalem, see e.g., McRay, Archaeology, 122–24
; Reich and Shukron, “Brykt hsylwh.”
. M. Zab.
1
:
5
; y. Taan.
2
:
1
, §
8
; Jeremias, Jerusalem,
320
.
. See Grasham, “Archaeology and Baptism.” Pools also apparently occurred on roads en route to Jerusalem, for pilgrims (Amit, “Miqveh Complex”). Such accommodations proved particularly important just before festivals (cf. John
11
:
55
; for early arrivals for purification, see e.g., Safrai, “Temple,”
876–77
, citing e.g., Josephus War
1
.
229; esp. for corpse-impurity, cf. deSilva, Honor,
274–75
; Sanders, Judaism,
134–35
).
. E.g., Barrett, Acts,
159
. He is also skeptical that the women among the
120
would have participated; but only women would supervise women’s immersions, at least insofar as such immersions would have been done in the nude (cf. Meeks, Urban Christians,
151
) as with miqvaot on the Temple Mount.
. Conversion could also include emotion in a philosophic setting (cf. the desired response in protrepsis in Plutarch Lect.
37
F–
38
D in Malherbe, Moral Exhortation,
71–72
).
. Though by analogy with John’s baptism and various passages claiming that the apostles “baptized” people, some sort of supervision probably remained the norm (cf. Luke
3
:
7
;
7
:
29–30
; Acts
1
:
5
;
8
:
38
;
10
:
48
;
11
:
16
;
19
:
4
).
. So defeated soldiers in Tacitus Hist.
3
.
61
. Cf. e.g., high enemy numbers in Velleius Paterculus
2
.
23
.
3
;
2
.
30
.
5
;
2
.
47
.
1
;
2
.
110
.
3
(though Velleius was himself an officer in this war—
2
.
111
.
3
—he would not have compiled the statistics himself). Cf.
150
,
000
dead in Diodorus Siculus
14
.
76
.
2
. Few rivalled the rabbis in numerical hyperbole, with
80
,
000
myriads (i.e.,
800
million) slain at Betar (p. Taan.
4
:
5
, §
10
);
150
,
000
schoolchildren slain there (Lam. Rab.
3
:
51
, §
9
); the blood flowing to distant lands (y. Suk.
5
:
1
, §
7
; Lam. Rab.
2
:
2
, §
4
); and gentiles fertilized their vineyards for seven years with Jewish blood (b. Git.
57
a). Cf. the growth in Philistine numbers between Judg
16
:
27
MT and L.A.B.
43
:
8
.
. Dunn, Acts,
34
.
. Rubincam, “Numbers” (evaluating, among others, Thucydides). Thus Quintus Curtius
4
.
16
.
26
(LCL
1
:
319
), reports the number of Persian casualties, “so far as the victors could determine their number” (and even here does not match all other sources). Suetonius Aug.
30
lists higher values for one donation than Res Gestae
4
.
21
(which would not underestimate) lists altogether, but in addition to the real possibility that Suetonius misinterpreted his source, his value estimates might account for inflation by his day, or perhaps Augustus may not have calculated the gems and pearls in equivalent sesterces (gold appearing later in the passage).
. Sometimes scribes did miscopy numbers (e.g., reading VIII as CIIII in Livy
3
.
3
.
9
; see LCL
2
:
251
n
1
). Authors today similarly know that some copy editors are more reliable than others.
. Even Roman legions provided a higher paper strength than their real force; thus a century contained no more than eighty troops; see Campbell, “Centurio,”
127
; Campbell, “Centuria: Military.”
. Some large figures must have depended on genuine sources despite their propaganda value; see e.g., Res Gestae
1
.
3
;
4
.
21
; Res Gestae summary.
. As is widely acknowledged (e.g., Feldman, “Introduction,”
45–46
).
. Cf. Josephus Ant.
6
.
203
with
1
Sam
18
:
27
MT (though the LXX, if derivative, actually decreases the MT number!)
. Cf. e.g., Foakes-Jackson and Lake, “Background,”
1
n
3
; Avi-Yonah, “Geography,”
109
.
. See Byatt, “Population Numbers” (but most think that Byatt estimates too high).
. Pliny Nat.
5
.
70
(Fiensy, “Composition,”
214
).
. Where Luke lacked any incentive to inflate; Josephus may have had some, but may simply have a habit of estimating high. Commentators address this discrepancy in greater detail; see discussion in my Acts,
3
:
3174–76
.
. Reinhardt, “Population Size,”
237
,
240–41
(suggesting
60
,
000–120
,
000
in the thirties CE); Borg, Vision,
173
, suggests
40
,
000–70
,
000
. Even much earlier, F. C. Grant’s estimates were triple Jeremias’s; estimates were, as some scholars (e.g., Bruce, History,
39
; Sanders, Judaism,
125
) note, difficult. Foakes Jackson and Lake, “Background,”
1
, estimated
50
,
000
.
. Reinhardt, “Population Size,”
243
.
. Reinhardt, “Population Size,”
245
. Population density in Ostia (
435
per hectare) was much higher than in Pompeii (
125–56
per hectare; Horsley, Galilee,
166
); Jerusalem was probably analogously heavily populated compared with Galilean towns.
. Reinhardt, “Population Size,”
250
.
. Broshi, “Estimating,”
14
(close to double his estimate for the Herodian period, p.
13
); cf. also Broshi, “Population de l’ancienne Jérusalem.” Earlier, Let. Aris.
105
estimates a compass of
40
stadia.
. Reinhardt, “Population Size,”
241–43
. Wilkinson, “Population,” estimates over
70
,
000
for this period.
. See e.g., McRay, Archaeology,
122–23
.
. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment,
97
. Some have even suggested that Rev
11
:
13
provides one ancient estimate of Jerusalem’s population at around
70
,
000
(cf. Beasley-Murray, Revelation,
177
; Aune, Revelation, 628
), though it is difficult to know how accurate Revelation’s guesses would have been.
. Fiensy, “Composition,”
233
(also citing archaeological evidence for the community centers that housed many of them, including the Theodotus inscription, i.e., CIJ
2
:
332
–
35
, §
1404
). Pervo’s denial that Luke could include diaspora hearers would seem to ignore
2
:
5–13
, but he may mean this objection only to diaspora hearers in
4
:
4
(Pervo, Acts, 86–87
n
115
).
. Witherington, Acts,
156
.
. Sanders, Judaism,
126
.
. Ancients sometimes did the same with ruined cities (a practice to which Thucydides objected in
1
.
10
.
1–2
).
. Sanders, Judaism,
126
.
. Sanders, Judaism,
127
.
. Cf. the older romantic notions that earliest Christianity’s converts were necessarily few (Case, Origins,
79
).
. The modern history of revivals readily illustrates the possibility of rapid growth (Wolffe, Expansion,
57–62
; cf. Noll, Shape,
111
), as does the rapid proliferation of Christianity (and its particular branches).
. Stark, Cities,
65–70
.
. Pervo, Acts,
87
, citing Stark, Rise,
7–13
.
. MacMullen, Second Church,
112
.
. His distinction between the faith of the elite and that of the masses, however, is well-taken. Literary sources provide higher estimates; see Hart, Delusions,
184–86
,
192
.
. E.g., Noll, Rise,
190
. More conservatively, Wigger, Saint,
10
, notes “more than two hundred thousand” at his death in
1816
, but (
402
) more than
250
,
000
by
1820
and nearly
500
,
000
by
1830
(nearly three million by
1876
). Cracknell and White, Methodism,
45–46
, note a few thousand in
1784
; about a quarter million by
1820
; half a million a decade later; over a million
13
years later, in
1843
. For rapid Methodist growth in US and Great Britain, see also Wolffe, Expansion, 40–41
,
70.
. Noll, Rise,
216
; Wigger, Saint, 139
. For a chart showing the growth to over
70
,
000
in
1791
, see Noll, Rise,
218
. Note figures showing variations in the growth rate in Wigger, Saint,
10
,
165
,
185
(
578
percent increase in the
1780
s, but only
11
percent in the
1790
s),
303–4
(nearly threefold increase from
1800
to
1810
); numbers of those who attended services were far higher than those on these membership rolls (
196
).
. Bebbington, Dominance,
51
. For more restrained yet comparable statistics from about
1800–1850
, see Wolffe, Expansion,
70
(about
18
-fold increase in the US and fivefold in Great Britain); for growth from
14
,
000
to over a million between
1784
and
1844
, see Mullin, History, 182–83
;
1000
to nearly half a million from
1770–1830
in Sweeney, Story,
64
. For some factors, see Wolffe, Expansion,
41
; but apart from immigration such factors could have applied equally to the Jerusalem church as a renewal movement within Judaism.
. Synan, Power,
123
.
. Mullin, History,
138
.
. Lee, “Korean Pentecost,”
81
.
. Lim, “Evaluation,”
182–83
; with a generally “
20–30
% annual growth rate,” Lee, “Movement,”
518
; in South Korea generally, cf. also Hong, “Leadership,”
233–34
.
. York, “Indigenous Missionaries,”
249
.
. Oosthuizen et al., “Introduction,”
5
; cf. Oosthuizen, “Healing,”
73–74
; for
35
percent of the indigenous population, see Oosthuizen, Healer-Prophet,
1
.
. Pothen, “Missions,”
187
(on the Filadelfia church movement, see more fully,
174–94
); as in Acts, miracle reports are a major factor in the growth (
189–90
). From a single mother church in
1981
, the Filadelfia movement grew to
450
churches (
40–50
,
000
people, all from non-Christian backgrounds) in
1991
, to some
1,200
churches with over
150
,
000
adherents by
2006
; see Punnoose, “Filadelfia Church,”
32
; Philip, “Revolution,”
21
; personal correspondence with Finny Philip, September
21
,
2006
.
. Tomkins, History,
220
.
. Barrett, “Statistics,”
813
.
. Barrett, “Renewal,”
388
; cf.
460
million in Synan, Tradition, ix, 281
, for
1995
;
530
million in Synan, “Streams,”
372
, for
1999
.
. Sanneh, Disciples,
275
.
. Cox, Fire, xv.
. Cox, “Miracles,”
88
. Cf. the breakdown of figures in Synan, Grow,
5–11
(though note the many inactive “postcharismatics”). The figure of “two billion” (attributed to “some estimates” in Mullin, History,
272
) is plainly impossible.
. Noll, Shape,
22
, cites these figures (as “best estimates,”
23
) from Barrett, Encyclopedia.
. Johnson, Barrett, and Crossing, “Christianity
2010
,”
36
. The comparable figures for evangelicals more traditionally defined are about
263
million for
2010
and
348
million for
2025
(ibid.). By these figures charismatics broadly defined thus comprise roughly
28
percent of global church membership (estimated as closer to
31
percent by
2025
), and perhaps closer to
40
percent of church attenders (closer to
45
percent by
2025
). Pentecostals proper account for an estimated
94
,
383
,
000
; charismatics for
206
,
579
,
000
; and Third Wave for
313
,
048
,
000
(Johnson and Ross, Atlas,
102
). The growth rate does appear to be slower today than during some previous estimates.
. Johnson and Ross, Atlas,
102
, estimate that “renewalists” comprise
22
.
4
percent of Protestants and
22
.
7
percent of Catholics.
. Hanciles, Beyond Christendom,
121
(noting also that by
2050
“only about one-fifth of the world’s Christians will be white”). The shift of Christianity especially to the global South is now too widely documented (and regularly noted, e.g., Escobar, Tides, 84–85; Rah, Next Evangelicalism,
13
) to require much comment.
. Laing, “Face,”
165
. The label “global south” is not very precise geographically; in employing the title, I am deferring to a current usage.
. Hanciles, Beyond Christendom,
121
; on Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity (including Catholic charismatics) leading Christian expansion today, see also Noll, Shape,
115
.
. Norwood, “Colloquium,”
24–26
; also my interview with Dr. Douglas Norwood, June
6
,
2006
. Norwood was an eyewitness of the initial revival, including the initial conversions and the healing of a skeptic who had previously had the disability for decades.
. The popular work Rutz, Megashift,
25–26
, also claiming “hundreds of thousands” of healings.
. Neill, History of Missions, 31
,
235
,
257
,
364
,
405
,
446
,
479–81
; Kraft, Christianity in Culture,
365
,
371
; Hanciles, Beyond Christendom,
87–89
; Noll, Shape,
34–35
.
. Khai, Cross,
130–31
; among Karens, Say, “History.”
. Devadason, “Missionary Societies,”
224–30
(esp.
228
; cf.
22–23
); among the Nagas, Philip, “Growth,”
162–64
; Longkumer, “Study.”
. Wiyono, “Timor Revival,”
276
.
. Cf. e.g., Hesselgrave, Movements.
. Smith, Magician,
45
, avers, “Since he barely mentions it we may suppose he did not think it of much importance.”
. E.g., Josephus Life
10
.
. For example, Josephus mentions two varieties of Essenes; later rabbis mention Boethusians as very close to yet distinct from the Sadducees (Ab. R. Nat.
5
A; Ab. R. Nat.
10
B), though they might simply be Essenes (cf. t. Suk.
3
:
1
; Yoma
1
:
8
; Schremer, “Boethusians”; for one study, see e.g., Bowker, Pharisees,
53–76
). Cf. Goodman, “Note” (though I still believe that Essenes authored the sectarian scrolls).
. Avi-Yonah, “Geography,”
109–10
, argues for a population of about
2
,
800
,
000
for pre-
70
Jewish Palestine; some estimate at about two and a half million (Jeffers, World,
213
) or three million (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment,
83
). But estimates vary between one and six million (McRay, Archaeology,
123
); some estimate
200
,
000
(Hoehner, Antipas,
291–95
) or
300
,
000 (Goodman, State,
32
) for Galilee (for some calculations, cf. Horsley, Galilee,
166
,
193
). Even at the lowest population figure, Josephus’s sects account for not much more than
1
percent of the population.
. Josephus’s figures for Passover are inflated, but the same may be true for the “sects,” who may have liked to inflate their own numbers. Some estimate the Passover figures at about
40
percent of Josephus’s figures (Byatt, “Population Numbers”); most other estimates are much lower still (
35–40
percent of Byatt’s figures). Most regard Josephus’s estimates as unreliable (Safrai, “Description,” esp.
320–21
), although later rabbinic estimates of the Judean population depart even from a plausible order of magnitude (Song Rab.
1
:
16
, §
3
).
. See Suetonius Claud.
25
.
4
and Keener, Acts,
3
:
2697–711
.
. Tacitus Ann.
15
.
44
.
. Thus Eisenman, Maccabees,
1
, suggests quite plausibly that the Christian movement was unpopular and Josephus omits reference to it because he wanted “to avoid certain potentially incriminating facts.” On Josephus wishing to dissociate Judaism from the Christians, see Paget, “Observations”; Josephus could not suppress mention of the Sicarii or Zealots, but he could minimize mention of Christians (though he mentions Jesus favorably). Certainly they were controversial in Rome, especially after their expulsion under Claudius and persecution under Nero.
. Goguel, Life,
82
. (By contrast, connection with Sicarii and other revolutionary groups was unavoidable.)
. See e.g., Feldman, “David.”
. Witherington, Christology of Jesus,
83
.
. On his likely mention of Jesus, see e.g., Thackeray, Josephus,
125
; Vermes, Jesus the Jew,
79
; Dubarle, “Témoignage”; Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth,
55
ff; Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism,
90–98
; Charlesworth, “Jesus, Literature, and Archaeology,”
189–92
; Meier, “Jesus in Josephus”; Meier, “Testimonium”; Sanders, Figure,
50
; Whealey, “Josephus”; Whealey, “Testimonium”; Gramaglia, “Testimonium”; Theissen and Merz, Guide,
64–74
; Ehrman, Prophet,
59–62
; Van Voorst, Jesus,
81–104
; Paget, “Observations”; Martínez, “Reevaluación”; Elledge, “Eyes”; Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 190–98; Flusser, Sage,
12
; Niemand, “Testimonium.” The Arabic version tends to confirm the thesis of a redacted original (e.g., Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism,
95–96
; idem, “Jesus, Literature, and Archaeology,”
191–92). Less plausibly, a few have tried to defend the passage as authentic without interpolations (see Bruggen, Narratives,
30–37
).
. Presumably he also recognizes Jesus’s significance partly because a movement grew up around him, but this argument is weakened by his parallel attention to John (whose movement does not seem to attained such magnitude).
. For my argument supporting Luke as the eyewitness of the “we” narratives, see Keener, Acts,
1
:
406–14
;
3
:
2350–74
; against arguments that James deliberately betrayed Paul, see Keener, Acts,
3
:
3134–35
; Bauckham, “James,”
478
; Rudolph, “Jew to Jews,”
61–62
.