(14 votes, average: 4.57 out of 5)
Loading...Here is an interesting question that I addressed on the blog exactly five years ago today, one that continues to be relevant and significant;
************************************************************
QUESTION:
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?
RESPONSE:
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.
I wonder how much Hollywood is responsible for promulgating the activities and personalities of the New Testament. “Quo Vadis”, from the 50s, is an excellent movie which depicts the crucifixion of Peter…Still, a great movie. “The Bible”, a TV series of more recent vintage, solemnly informs the viewer at the end of the movie of Thomas being martyred in India and Matthew in Ethiopia. I personally know devout Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, who’ve never read the Bible. Wherever are they getting their beliefs?
Another point to raise was that there were many religious martyrs–not just Christians, and not just in ancient times–think of the Buddhist monk who agreed to be burned alive to protest oppression under the Catholic-dominated South Vietnamese government. Think of the Catholic priests and nuns who were martyred in El Salvador–none of them saw a resurrected Jesus. And there have been atheist martyrs, though they were more frequently described as Heroes of the Revolution. People have always been ready to die for their faith, theistic or secular, and it isn’t really faith if you know if for a fact.
I think a better phrasing of the argument presented here is that none of the disciples believed they’d made up Jesus to con people into giving them stuff. They believed this was a very special man, who had sacrificed himself, and they felt impelled to make the same sacrifice, if not necessarily in quite so dramatic a fashion. They wanted to carry his message to as many people as possible, to share what they’d learned from him, and if that made people angry, put them at risk, they were prepared to take that risk, to follow their master’s example. And unlike proponents of some other belief systems, they took these risks entirely unarmed, and resolved to commit no act of violence against anyone, even in self-defense. This was fairly new, I think. Pity it didn’t catch on more.
So against the very bad arguments made by some atheists, that Bart and other historians have consistently debunked, one can, if one wishes, point out that if the first Christians were con artists, they were suicidal ones. Yeah, Joseph Smith knew he had written the Book of Mormon himself, and it finally got him lynched, but he was surrounded by armed followers when they came for him, and let’s just say there were a lot of fringe benefits that came before his martyrdom.
“why would anyone believe so fervently in the resurrection without being an eyewitness?”
I believe for the following reasons:
– Mark’s gospel was based on Peter’s sermons and he claims Jesus was resurrected from the dead.
– I believe Luke’s claim that his gospel was based on eyewitness testimony and that John’s gospel was written by the Apostle John. Both gospels cite several accounts of meeting the resurrected Jesus where his disciples physically touched him and he ate food in their presence.
– Paul met James, Peter and John who told him of their post-resurrection encounters with Jesus. More so, he knew of 500 disciples who met the resurrected Jesus on one occasion and he was familiar with some of those who were still alive. I don’t believe he would have passed on this account in 1 Cor 15:3-7 if he wasn’t certain it was true.
– Finally, I don’t believe that Christians today could have the life-transforming experiences we have, without the power of the resurrection being effective. We may not be eye-witnesses, but we are witnesses nonetheless.
But people who are not Christians have life-transforming experiences, all the time. And be honest–most Christians don’t. Most Christians can’t even live the way Jesus told them to.
Not pointing the finger specifically at Christians, because the truth is, any belief system, with or without gods in it, is going to produce very few genuine believers. Most are just going along for the ride. Only a few are steering.
I know, cynical, but look around you. Don’t I have reason to be?
Genuine faith is the most precious thing in the world–because it’s the rarest.
And Jesus said as much in the gospels. He told his own disciples, who had given up everything to follow him, they didn’t have faith the size of a mustard seed.
So argue with him, why don’t you?
I had a life transforming experience. More than one. All were attributed to the Holy Spirit. I no longer believe and I no longer attribute those amazing experiences to God, but rather to the power of the human brain.
Dr ehrman
Out of curiosity, why was not Paul convinced by the claims of the Jerusalem desiples , why persecute Christiana other than the desiples if the ressurection was very convincing?
Let me plug one of your books –Lost Scriptures, Books That Did Not Make It into the New Testament. It contains some of the stories about the disciples, such as my personal favorite, The Acts of Peter. Members can find all these documents on the Internet for free, but your commentary in Lost Scriptures is quite informative and I trust your translation.
As I contemplate what I believed as a Christian for the majority of my 60 years the story seemed to quickly unravel.
When I realized the “church” was hijacked early on by power hungry Jew hating church “fathers,” and that the trinity was a hoax perpetuated by those same people to give credibility to their religion with a newly created god, I set aside my “learned” beliefs and began to search for the truth.
What I have found is that Christianity, as taught by the Church, is nothing more than a patchwork of lies and deception; with most of Christian orthodoxy simply made up to fill in the cracks created by their lies to shore-up a counterfeit gospel stolen from a meek human being called Jesus.
Good summary. I too have heard this argument many times.
It’s possible for someone to believe true that which is false. And it’s possible for someone to believe false that which is true. What people *believe* to be true or false is not always in line with what is *actually* true or false.
Oh boy, is *that* ever true….
Heaven’s Gate. Nuff said.
Prof Ehrman
What is your opinion of the work of Candida Moss? Do you agree with her conclusions about the development of the idea of martyrdom in early Christianity?
thanks
She’s one of the leading scholars of early Christian persecution and martyrdom. I completely agree with her that martyrs saw themselves as imitating the death of Jesus. (If that’s what you’re asking)
Well in the context of your post, I’m asking for a historical opinion. Prof Moss asserts that the idea of widespread persecution by Romans in the early church was overblown and the idea of matyrdom developed at least partly as a polemical tool. Do you agree? If so, wouldn’t the assumption that the disciples were all martyrs for the faith be part of that developing polemic?
thanks
I agree that persecution was not widespread or constant (especially in teh first century); I’m not sure of the polemical utility of the idea. Remind me: in what *way* does she see the tales as polemical?
Prof Moss claims the developing church put the moral authority and unimpeachable testimony attained by the martyrs’ willingness to suffer and die to use in defining orthodoxy and right conduct. Victimhood conferred status and that status could be used to gain support and justify attacks on others.
Ah, right, now I remember. yes indeed, Proto-orthodox authors did use the martyrdom narratives this way.
I’m not entirely convinced here. If all the key players – Peter, Paul, James, John and James the Brother likely were killed, and we at the same time have almost no information about the backbenchers, wouldn’t that be a pretty strong argument ? Of course, insignificant community members are less likely to become endangered.
We don’t know, for example, why they were killed. The earliest persecutions we know about for certain were against Christians who were thought to be socially disruptive troublemakers (not because they believed in the resurrection)
Dr Erhman .. On testing a hypothesis , I guess it is often useful to use an ” If-Then” equation. For example , Jesus said if any follow me , let them first count the cost , etc. ..this would give the understanding that there would be an actual cost to follow ” The Way of Truth ” From some of the writings passed down , it appears that ” The Way ” was a change which constituted a threat ..not in a theoretical way but in actuality. For example , a threat to Jewish understandings of God’s plan and how He had chosen to implement it. What their ( The Jews )reign would look like ..A cost to authority , power and last but not least money and the accepted “way of life .” The same thing happened when the silversmiths of Diana’s trade was threatened by the preaching of Paul ..the same thing happened when Luther spoke out against ” Indulgences” . To use the If- Then equation …I wonder how the “chief amongst the people ” would view a ” truth” today if it came with a cost . For example I wondered what it would cost the economy to do away with christianity as it is currently practiced ? The Moody Bible Institutes , Seminaries, Christmas/ Black Friday profitability ..The restaurants after church on sundays , mothers day , easter , church grounds landscaping /building maintenance…not to mention those who make their living either supporting the gospel or debunking it ? ( What would Lee Childs , David Limbaugh , Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins do ???? ) If Christ were to return today incognito and speak out against these things and effectually put an end to them ..then who would support him ? It seems that both the atheist and believers would not be very keen to the cost of that . Would he be martyred ? Obviously this is speculation but I can see how this man would be a threat to the economy ( Hersey’s , Macy’s , Walmart , Pastors , really Wall Street ) It would seem that they were martyred for the sake of love as was Christ.
Dr Bart am thinking while Jesus apocalyptic message was on repentance for the coming kingdom of God, his disciples preached the same message but used Jesus resurrection as testimony or proof of there tidings but Paul came and made the death of Jesus the point of redemption. Is that correct?
That’s *roughly* right, but I think there were people saying this before Paul.
What I remember from my childhood is not claims about martyrs, but just being given the impression – somehow – that the resurrection was so well attested to that it had •undoubtedly• happened. I think I imagined a large crowd having seen Jesus emerge from the tomb! (No one ever actually read the Bible.)
In retrospect, I think the Catholic culture I came from was deliberately keeping people from realizing that there were numerous similar claims in the ancient world of people being “raised from” the dead. They didn’t acknowledge anyone’s believing God the Father had “raised” Jesus. No, Jesus had •risen• from the dead, under his own power! A once-in-all-of-history miracle.
A more detailed analysis of early accounts of martyrdoms, which pretty much agrees with your account, can be found at https://celsus.blog/2012/12/18/48/ for interested readers.
Dr Bart do we know for certain those who assigned names to the gospels?
Nope. The names first occur in Ireanaeus around 180 CE, but he is not coming up with them himself, almost certainly.
Bart, off topic. Will your contemplated future book on the afterlife include a paragraph or two about the early Greek church father Origen, who believed in universal heaven for all? That would have saved a lot of grief, wouldn’t it?
Maybe an entire section! (Though not a chapter)
If you could transport yourself back in time to say 35 CE, for only 15 minutes and talk to either Peter, Paul, or Mary Magdalene, which would you choose?
Ah, that’s tough. Probably Peter, a week after Jesus’ death.
Some apologists cite the example of the changed life of Peter after the death of Jesus. He was a cringing coward before Jesus’ Crucifixion (denying Jesus three times, hiding out during the trial and execution);but allegedly became a fearless pro-claimer of the Resurrection, including his alleged martyrdom during the reign of Nero. But the same sort of reasoning might explain Paul changing from a persecutor of Christianity to its most courageous advocate. Guilt feelings have been responsible for many a person to experience a radical change in convictions.Many born-again believers whom I’ve known seem to enjoy telling others how horrible they were before they were “saved.”.In reality, most of them were fairly decent people before their conversions but you can’t tell them that.
But they know this about Peter only from the same Gospels that narrate the resurrection — Gospels written decades later by people who didn’t know Peter, but are simply repeating stories they heard that had been in circulation year after year after year….
About Peter’s having been a “cringing coward” for denying Jesus, and “hiding out” during the trial and execution…I’ve always thought that if Jesus was a decent human being, he would have *instructed* his disciples to scatter if he was arrested. (And maybe, he actually did.)
Peter was a punching bag wasn’t he? Poor guy couldn’t even eat without James and Paul hassling him.
It’s a human thing to desire transformation, apotheosis–to believe that we can get better, shed our failings (and a ‘fairly decent’ human being is little more than a mass of failings).
Nothing about this changes at all when you get rid of theistic belief. It just attaches itself to some other type of belief. Every bit as irrational, and sometimes far more so, since it poses under the guise of rationality and ‘science’ (not dissing science, but most people who prate about it don’t understand it, which is also true of religion).
The goal is, or ought to be, self-understanding and acceptance. But it’s so hard. And not at all glamorous.
In my opinion, we rejected what Jesus was really telling us, because it was too hard. In place of his teachings we erected an idol to worship–and to excuse our failings, take them on himself. So we could go on sinning.
How is the myth that all the apostles were martyred for their faith, because they believed Jesus had been raised from the dead, any different than the myth that Jesus of Nazareth existed?
Because the first (literally) has no evidence to support it and the second has massive documentation.
What massive documentation? Lee Strobel (I know – not a scholar) makes the same statement. In DJE you seem to make the argument that every document mentioning Jesus is independent evidence of his historicity! That, and the argument from authority – that scholars all think alike – so it must be true.
The Jesus myth model is simply a better fit for the existing primary data. That is, Paul’s mystery religion about a celestial Jesus was one of the sources for Mark, who pulled Paul’s Jesus down to earth, and placed him in an historical setting. The quantity of Jesus documentation goes up from there. Similarly, I can assure you that Harry Potter is not an historical figure!
Tony, just curious, but do you go onto Buddhist, Confucianist, Daoist, Zoroastrian, Pythagorean, and Muslim websites and argue just as strenuously for the non-existence of Siddhartha Gautama, Kung Tze, Lao Tze, Zarathustra, Pythagoras and Muhammad, respectively? I mean, is this really a search for truth or just a bizarre fixation?
I’m sure you’re trying to make a point, but I’m not sure what it is. You and I live in a predominantly Christian society – and not in one of the others you list. As someone brought up without religion, I developed, a couple of decades ago, an interest in the sociology and also the history of Christianity – because it surrounds me. What is so bizarre about that?
You plan to write a Jesus novel. The truly bizarre part of the historical Jesus literature is that there are so many historical Jesus varieties. A well known scholar observed that there is an embarrassing number of wildly different historical Jesus’s, from having been a liberal leftist feminist to a right wing small government proponent, to a religious zealot, and everything else in between. Historical Jesus authors seem to create their Jesus reflecting themselves. What Jesus will you create?
A growing number of scholars and others find that in all likelihood there was no historical Jesus. This is far from a bizarre observation. It is based on a legitimate analysis of the evidence. Bart Ehrman sticks with his apologetic prophet model and has attacked all competing Jesus varieties including, of course, the “no Jesus” model. Why would the last one be “bizarre?
@Tony (given that there is no direct “reply” to Tony’s response to talmoore’s post)
Perhaps I missed it, but did you answer talmoore’s questions–somewhat loaded as they are?
I ask because I too am curious: do you visit other religious oriented websites and argue similarly, and, “is this really a search for truth or just a bizarre fixation?”
To be clear please, I make the assumption, perhaps like talmoore, that we are in pursuit of truth, irrespective of whether or not it is attainable.
Additionally, since your response brought in issues somewhat orthogonal to talmoore’s questions, where did Dr Ehrman posit “his apologetic prophet model and … attacked all competing Jesus varieties…”?
“I’m sure you’re trying to make a point, but I’m not sure what it is.”
That’s all too apparent.
“A growing number of scholars and others find that in all likelihood there was no historical Jesus.”
I suppose that depends on what you mean by “growing”. If the list goes from 7 to 9, then, I’ll concede, technically, yes, that’s growth.
Sorry there is ZERO evidence that Paul invented Jesus. Paul’s letters are full of disagreements between Christians on whether christians need to keep the Jewish laws on circumcision and food. If Paul invented Jesus and Christianity then such arguements wouldn’t have taken place as Paul could have had his Jesus deal with these issues directly. Also why would Paul invent pillars of the church who had more experience and authority than himself (peter, James etc) then argue against them in his letters? In numerous places in the Pauline letters he has to justify his credentials compared to the 12 disciples who knew the real Jesus- why would he do this if Jesus was his invention??
Paul never invented Jesus. But at Paul’s time Jesus was an archangel who who was sacrificed in the heavens and not on earth. It was the Gospel writer who invented an earthly Jesus based on Paul’s celestial Jesus.
And nobody will ever say otherwise. Because the Harry Potter stories are written as just stories.
The gospels are written as (garbled) accounts of somebody who was really alive, and who was really killed.
I mean, you could at least have picked a story where the hero dies, never returns to mortal existence, and the people who killed him are never punished (and not one of Harry’s friends ever betray him). Sloppy!
😀
Oh, Ok, so if only I’d used a better analogy, you would agree with me that the Gospel Jesus story is fabricated.
I think you are missing the point of the argument. The argument is not put forward to show that the resurrection really happened. It’s put forward to show that the disciples were really sincere in their belief that Jesus was raised and did not say make it up for malicious purposes (this seems to be something you already write is “safe to say”).
The question the argument raises on why did the disciples came to believe in the resurrection is a difficult one, and to compare it to modern times where 2 billion people believe in the resurrection doesn’t do it justice.
Today people believe for several reasons including cultural and societal reasons. But for the early Christians their belief didn’t make any sense in their culture and society given that the resurrection of one before the general resurrection was a completely outlandish idea in Judaism.
I’m afraid the reason people make the argument actually is to prove that Jesus must have been raised (otherwise no one would have died for believing so). And my point is that people continue to believe so without personally having direct evidence of it being true. As to Christian belief making sense, my view is that ancient Christians came to faith precisely because it helped make sense of the world they lived in. Their “new” sense came, for them, to be “common” sense.
Should Paul be considered an ‘eyewitness’ to the resurrection? If we are to believe the story, Jesus ascended a couple of months after his resurrection. Paul had a vision a few years after this. I would think that anyone who has a vision of Jesus after the ascension, even if it’s just a few years later, wouldn’t be an eyewitness to the resurrection–they’re just someone who had a vision. No different than someone having a vision of Jesus today.
He would be an eyewitness to the resurrected Jesus, but not to the resurrection.
So how accurate or reliable is the Luke account of Jesus eating with the disciples after his resurrection?
Are you asking if it really happened? In my view, absolutely not.
In a recent post you referred to a thread you ran in July 2014. In the posting for July 2nd 2014 you argue that Jesus would not have had a decent burial because the evidence points to bodies being released only to family members in certain circumstances. You go on to state, “…and what is more, in our earliest accounts none of them, even his mother, was actually at the event (i.e. the crucifixion).” What are these ‘earliest accounts’ please? Do you mean, for example, Mark, our earliest gospel or Paul, or are you referring to early gospel manuscripts which were subsequently altered to include Mary?
Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Jesus was a nobody from Galilee, which is why the tradition had to invent a somebody like Joseph of Arimathea to explain why a nobody like Jesus would end up in an expensive tomb. Joseph literally gives up his own tomb for Jesus. Every detail that surrounds the crucifixion narrative is like this: a convenient plot device meant to fill holes and create a more plausible, more compelling story. Mary came to be added to the story in order to add such plausible and compelling detail. By adding Mary into the crucifixion narrative it allowed the early Christians to make Jesus’ own mother one of the women who discovers his empty tomb, giving that part of the story ostensibly even more veracity. It says: “Even Jesus’ own mother is a witness to his resurrection. And his own mother wouldn’t lie about that, would she?”
An aphorism that I’ve coined (at least I’ve never heard anybody else use it) is: It’s easier to turn a nobody into a somebody than it is to turn a somebody into a somebody else. As a nobody, Jesus was such a blank canvas that those who came after him were able to turn this regular — though probably highly charismatic — Jewish guy from Galilee into a member of the Holy Trinity. It’s like if 2,000 years from now half the planet were to worship L Ron Hubbard as the creator of the universe.
Jesus was poor. He was not formally educated. He never had more than a handful of followers. He was put to death, basically, for speaking his mind. He left no writings of any kind, and his teachings came down to us from others.
So question–do you think Socrates was a nobody?
Seems like nobodies can exert a lot of influence over time–and be remembered long after all the somebodies are dust.
They couldn’t have done it for just anybody. You’re kidding yourself.
“do you think Socrates was a nobody?”
Socrates actually had a school, where he taught the sons of Athenian aristocrats. He was most definitely NOT a “nobody”. The two cannot be compared at all. Apples and oranges. Until there is a discovery of a play by Aristophanes that is critical of Jesus and his teaching, I can’t imagine anything proving otherwise.
Suggested by the idea of martyrs’ being willing to die for their beliefs, however they’d come by them…
Isn’t it possible that Paul made up that story about a vision of Jesus, to exalt himself (“Jesus appeared to ME!!”), despite his pretense of humility…and/or to avoid giving credit to whatever proselytizing Christian actually had converted him, in an undramatic way? (Probably, by convincing him of an alternate interpretation of that Scriptual passage about someone “hanged from a tree” being “accursed”?)
It’s possible, but seems unlikely to me.
Dr.,
What is the evidence that Peter went to and died in Rome? Did an illiterate, Aramaic speaking, Jewish peasant from Galilee actually travel to Rome and preside over the xtians there and the entire xtian world?
Thanks for the reply and for this blog!
It’s *suggested* (though not definitively) by 1 Clement in 96 CE (written in Rome); the first accounts are not until late rin the second century in the Acts of Peter, which are highly legendary. But yes, it’s certainly possible, just as it’s possible for people from Bogota to move to NYC today.
Are there any accounts of people in Britain being crucified under the Romans or was this practice peculiar to the Middle East, please?
Great question! I assume there were, but I don’t know offhand.
Not only did the Romans crucify anyone and everyone, anywhere and everywhere (e.g. the rebels of Spartacus), even non-Romans crucified each other. And sometimes non-Romans crucifed Romans! (e.g. Queen Boudica’s crucifixion of captured Roman soldiers)
Bart,
Was it not the original worldly authority-defying character of the new movement, which had gotten John the Baptist and Jesus killed, that would also threaten whoever followed in their footsteps, their beliefs being somewhat incidental at this time (and was heresy even the issue)?
It seems doubtful that the resurrection belief played such a central role in the minds of the first Christians, at least until it’s more recognizable meaning-defining purpose had developed into what we read in the gospel of John, when it’s apocalyptic associations had dissipated after enough decades had brought a slightly different turnout of events than anticipated, and God’s kingdom had now a more otherworldly, transcendent character.
Therefore, if the disciples died for their beliefs, I don’t see why such a belief in Jesus’ resurrection in and of itself would be enough of a threat to get oneself killed (unless the authorities were worried the disciples would spread this belief, thereby renewing the messianic vigor behind the movement. Even so, without said belief, couldn’t they have been martyred simply for maintaining the general leaning that made Jesus seem such a threat to Roman authority; declaring, among other things, their land belonged, not to Caesar, but to God to whom it was soon to be restored, and Jesus’ most dedicated followers would be appear no less seditious in the eyes of Rome. Or did the resurrection belief pose a threat simply as subversive symbol representing, and thus reinforcing the strength of their defiance?
And one wonders how strongly Jesus’s disciples were associated with the firmly anti-authoritarian JB; Could just being associated with John the Baptist have cast Jesus in such cast him in a bad light, and set the stage for his arrest, as in: they were just waiting for the right publicly witnessed events to bring sufficient charges against him, in this case, the temple cleansing incident. At that point, assuming the Galileean authorities had already identified Jesus as a disciple of, and, eventually, successor to JB, Herod Antipas could’ve reported to Pilate/Sanhedrin who this temple-cleansing Galileean rascal was, and that he was propagating a subversive movement that had begun with JB ( especially a red flag with word going around attaching the title of “king/messiah” to him).
Moreover, if it’s historicity is accepted, the comment in Mark (or another?) Gospel that Pilate and Antipas had become friends/allies the day of the crucifixion; they had knowingly done each other a favor in getting rid of Jesus. If they saw the disciples as continuing the same trouble as JB and Jesus had, that is, getting the people to resist, or at least to strongly question the authorities.
Which also makes me wonder if Paul tried to defend his brand of Christianity by reaffirming the proper place of worldly authorities and submission to them, but in doing so, he had altered the original ideology of Jesus’ followers so much that it was no longer the same movement in spirit.
I think Jewish apocalypticism was driven by a disatisfaction with the current socio-economic-political order, but I don’t think Jesus and his followers were principally interested in political rebellion or upheaval. They thought God was going to take care of all that.
To back up what Dr. Ehrman is saying here, keep in mind that all the Gospel accounts have Jesus and his followers going to the Mount of Olives immediately after their Passover Seder, in the middle of the night, for no apparent reason other than they felt compelled to leave Jerusalem. But the important question is why, of all places, did they go to the Mount of Olives? Well, all of the apocalyptic literature up to that time has the Messiah (or the Son of Man) descending down from heaven onto the Mount of Olives at the beginning of the end. This was because a great battle was supposed to take place within and around the Qidron valley, which was situated right between the Mount of Olives and Jerusalem itself. So why does the account of Jesus’ last night have him and his followers hiding out in the Mount of Olives? Obviously, because they believed the Messiah or Son of Man was to descend down to there, possibly on that very morning. Jesus and his followers weren’t expecting to lead the charge of rebellion. They were expecting to take part on the side of angels. Read the War Scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls and you might get an idea of how some Jews viewed the final battle: the heavenly host and the righteous of humanity on one side, and the demon army of Satan and the wicked of humanity on the other. Jesus and his followers were probably waiting and expecting to become part of the “righteous of humanity” on the side of the angels.
Well, yes, I agree, Bart, that Stephen was not one of the twelve. However, it appears to me that Acts 7:55-56 does in fact claim that a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus was granted to him.
Many thanks!
And, it appears to me, Bart, that Acts 12:2 is more than a “hint”, as you put it, that James was killed. To my mind it is a straightforward assertion that James was killed.
Am I missing something here?
Many thanks! 🙂
Yes, James was killed. But we don’t know why.
Ah. So although Acts is explicit that James was killed, the reason(s) why (he “belonged to the church”, his execution “pleased the Jews”, NRSV) is only hinted at.
Thanks, Bart. 🙂
Is there any credibility to the claim that in Matt. 24:34 the word generation should have been race
Not really. It doesn’t have much force to say that the world won’t end until the Jewish race has disappeared from the earth, if you’re trying to warn people to be ready because these catastrophes could happen any minute now….
Bart, isn’t it also likely that Paul headed off for Spain “the end of the world a t that time” and no one really knew how he died? With everything becoming so legendary so rapidly, I think that it is possible that many of the Apostolic martyrs just died but legends just grew from there.
Also, loved Candida Moss’ book. Martyrdom became a recruiting tool and pages and pages were devoted to the “horrors” they endured. All creative fiction.
Yup, it’s certainly possible. Though there are a lot of later sources that put his death in Rome for some reason.
Hi Bart, do you think its possible that the empty tomb stories were invented by some of the disciples themselves, maybe later in life? My thought is that they probably genuinely believed Jesus had been raised from the dead through some visionary experiences and thought that an embellishment of the facts would make their message seem more convincing to people they were trying to convert. In the same way Christian apologists today don’t seem to mind bending the truth for their ends the disciples may have seen this lie as justified?
I don’t think we know who came up with the stories.
You may have discussed this before Bart so apologies if you have! Why do you think the names of the disciples differ between the Gospels? Were only the names of some of them remembered leaving the authors to fill in the blanks?
I think this shows that everyone in the early church knew there were twelve of them, but the actual identities of some of them were not known.
I am intrigued by the passage in Matthew 28:16-17, in which Jesus appears to the eleven disciples, and we are told that they worshiped him, but some doubted. It sounds like the doubters, and we aren’t told which disciples those were, might not have been as convinced of the resurrection as Christians tend to presume.
Bart, I’ve just thought of another big problem with die for a lie. It seems likely the original disciples thought that the world was soon going to end and they would be resurrected from the dead. People are going to be less afraid of dying for their beliefs if they don’t think they are going to stay dead! What do you reckon?
Yup, I think that’s right.
Question (a bit off topic for this post but somewhat related):
Is Justin Martyr called “Martyr” because he was Martyred, or does the term “Martyred” come from Justin Martyr’s name because he died for his faith (thus one who dies for faith is Martyred), or is this just a coincidence, or something else?
I have always tried to find the answer to this peculiarity (peculiar to me anyways), but with no luck.
Thanks
Ha! Great question. “Martyr” in Greek means “one who bore witness.” Justin was called that after his martyrdom.
I’ve heard a lot of stories and legends about where the apostles went after Pentecost. Unfortunately, my teach in church history views these stories as factual. Is there any solid evidence as to where the original disciples went? Is it true that mark went to Egypt and Thomas to India? I have to write a report on this for my church history teacher? Could anyone provide me with any evidence as to where they went or as to what they did? And if there isn’t any evidence how do I respectfully explain this to him?
The stories about teh apostles are all late and legendary; they first start showing up in the “apocryphal Acts” of the second and third centuries, and in other legends in circulation that we know about only because people later wrote them down. The tradition is indeed that Thomas went to India, but that is based on the legends in the Acts of Thomas. In that account, by the way, he is Jesus’ twin brother (identical twin!). Mark was claimed later as the founder of the church in Alexandria.
How likely is do you consider Peter and Paul being executed for the great fire of Rome? Or executed at all?
I think they were probably martyred (though I’m not certain of it); but I doubt if it was in connectoin with the fire in Rome. I’m not sure Peter ever made it to Rome.
Do you consider Paul’s trial by Agrippa to be historical?
Also, in Acts 26:24, why do you think Agrippa called Paul crazy? Is that just him saying “you are going too far” instead of something serious like a mental disorder?
NOpe. And no, he is not making a psychological evaluation.
Ah, I was just wondering why Paul would then reply “I’m not insane”. Perhaps Agrippa was just calling him “crazy” not because of his mental state but because his message (Jesus being the first of the resurrection) was a ludicrous statement.
future university
[…]that may be the finish of this report. Right here youll uncover some web pages that we feel youll enjoy, just click the links over[…]