Here is an interesting question that I addressed on the blog exactly five years ago today, one that continues to be relevant and significant;



Another very very popular evidence put forward for the resurrection is “the disciples would not have died for what they knew was a lie, therefore it must have happened.” I hear this all the time. You note that they really believed they saw Jesus after he died so they were not lying. However, is there evidence (historical or literary) that they were killed because of their belief in Jesus’ resurrection?


Ah yes, if I had a fiver for every time I’ve heard this comment over the years, I could retire to a country-home in Maine…. Several other people have responded to this question on the blog by saying that we have lots of records of lots of people who have died for a something that they knew, literally, not to be true. I am not in a position to argue that particular point. But I can say something about all the disciples dying for believing in the resurrection.

The way the argument (by Christian apologists) goes is this (I know this, because I used to make the same argument myself, when I was a Christian apologist!): all the apostles were martyred for their faith, because they believed Jesus had been raised from the dead; you can see why someone might be willing to die for the truth; but no one would die for a lie; and therefore the disciples – all of them – clearly believed that Jesus was raised from the dead. And if they *all* believed it, then it almost certainly is true (since none of them thought otherwise, they must have all seen Jesus alive after his death).

FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR???

The big problem with this argument is that it assumes precisely what we don’t know. We don’t know how most of the disciples died. People always *say* that the apostles were all martyred. But next time someone tells you that, ask them how they know. Or better yet, ask them which ancient source they are referring to that says so.

The reality is this. We simply do not have reliable information about what happened to Jesus’ disciples after he died. In fact, we scarcely have any information about them while they were still living! Read the Gospels, and ask yourself what they tell us about Bartholomew, or Judas-not-Iscariot, or Matthew and so on. Answer: next to nothing. And what does the book of Acts tell us about what they did after Jesus death and resurrection? Answer: next to nothing (just some comments about them as a group, not as individuals). And what does the book of Acts tell us about how they died? Almost nothing. (Acts does mention the death of James and the death of Stephen – the latter was not a disciple and did not have a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus granted to him.)

Nor do we have reliable accounts from later times. What we have are legends, about some of the apostles – chiefly Peter, Paul, Thomas, Andrew, and John. But the apocryphal Acts that tell their stories are indeed highly apocryphal. They are great reading and great fun, highly entertaining and highly enlightening for what later Christians were saying about these earlier champions of the faith. But they are not historically reliable accounts of their lives (recall Peter and the smoked tuna and Peter and the flying heretic) or their deaths (such as Peter’s crucifixion upside down; during which he gives a long sermon).

There are indications that Peter and Paul were martyred that come from the first century (from the book of 1 Clement). My view is that both of them did indeed die in Rome, possibly under Nero. There are hints in the New Testament that John and James were also killed, but we do not know the circumstances. Early on there is nothing about the death of the others (Andrew, Matthew, Bartholomew, Judas-not-Iscariot, and so on).

At the same time, I would say that it is safe to say that some, or most, maybe even all, the disciples came to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. But that is not necessarily because they personally had a vision of Jesus afterwards, or visited the empty tomb. . I think Peter and, later, Paul certainly did have a vision of Jesus after his death, and possibly Mary Magdalene did as well. As for the others? They may just as well have heard from someone they trusted (e.g., Peter) that he had seen Jesus, and they believed it heart and soul, without seeing Jesus themselves. Did they really believe this? Yes, I think so. Was it because of a personal experience with Jesus? Probably not, but it’s hard to say. Were they martyred for their faith? We simply don’t know, and probably should stop saying that they were – we don’t have any reliable information.

In case someone should object – why would anyone believe so fervently in the resurrection without being an eyewitness?? – need I point out that there are about two billion people today who believe it without being an eyewitness? Really, truly, and deeply believe it? You don’t need to see Jesus with your own eyes to believe what someone else says about him, that *they* saw Jesus with their own eyes. So too with the early disciples. None of them left us any writings, so we don’t know what they saw, heard, or experienced. And we don’t know how most of them died. And so it makes no sense to argue that they were martyred because they “knew” on the basis of their own experience that Jesus had been raised.