Christianity's early days debated by scientists

[BackRowBaritone]

“How did the Mediterranean world become predominantly Christian?” asks historian Adam Schor of Long Island University, in Brookville, N.Y., in the current Journal of Religious History. “Generations of scholars have approached it, but each new theoretical angle seems to reopen basic questions.”

“Appearances have deceived us here in many ways,” Schor writes, looking at the various approaches since then that try to explain the growth in the Christian population. “Without concrete data, none (of the approches) truly counts early Christians.”

usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2009-11-20-christianity-roots-science_N.htm

The story briefly describes three possibilities: the ‘mission’ model, the ‘values’ model, and the ‘social’ model. It even suggests that “early Christian numbers grow like microbes in a Petri dish.” Why is it that the only possible explanation not considered is the obvious one? (Hint: H-o-l-y S-p-i-r-i-t) No, you don’t need to tell me … I know.

Here’s an idea for another story: “Science’s early days debated by theologians.” Now THAT would be interesting … on several levels. I would think the history of science would have as much potential for controversy and scandal as anything the media can find in the history of the Church.