Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[Green Adams]

There is no evidence of any eyewitness to the resurrection dying for declining to admit it didn't happen. An apologetic often alluded to is the claim that there were many witnesses to the resurrection, who were later persecuted and killed, and as they had been present at the alleged resurrection, they would have not died for a lie. Thus, this is evidence that the resurrection did occur.

This argument only works if the following are in place:

1. we have a credible historical source (I would expect 1st century) for the witness' death story, that includes the following:
2. The witness in question must be someone who would have seen the resurrection,
3. that the witness was being sentenced to death for not admitting the resurrection was a lie
4. That the witness was given the option of living if he admitted the resurrection was a lie
5. that the witness refused to admit it was a lie.

In other words, if admitting the resurrection never happened would not have changed the witness' fate, then the choice was: to die seen as a martyr, or die seen as a fake martyr and admitted liar. This is no reason to admit the lie, rather the opposite.

If you have any evidence of an account that fits the criteria, please provide it and be specific. I have certainly heard the claim that there are hundreds or thousands of such accounts. But when you dig to the actual account it turns up to be quite weak.

[jimwalton]

Let's try to look at this systematically.

First of all, 1 Corinthians 15.3-7 is verifiably the oldest historical record of the resurrection witnesses. If you have done any study of the text, you will have discovered that there is widespread affirmation, by believers and critics, that the creed written there originated at the most within 5 years of Jesus' resurrection. Historiographically speaking, it virtually takes us to the event itself.

2. Most of the people mentioned as having witnessed his resurrection (the 500 brothers and sisters of 1 Cor. 15.6) are unnamed, so for them your question is unanswerable.

3. We do have the names of the 11 disciples (sans Judas) and of James, probably the James who was the brother of Jesus. What do know about the deaths of these blokes? Very little, and what we have is only questionably reliable. Here's what we have:

James was killed by Herod Agrippa (Acts 12.2). The implication is that his death related to his faith, because the text says Herod arrested some who belonged to the church. Herod then proceeds to arrest Peter. The logical connection between the two arrests is their Christian faith. James's death is also mentioned by Clement of Rome.

Peter's martyrdom is reported by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and more.

Andrew is thought (supposedly by the Acts of Andrew, a document that is no longer extant, but is referred to in the 3rd c. and in the 6th c.) to have been martyred by crucifixion at the city of Patras in Achaea, on the northern coast of the Peloponnese. We have no earlier information about his death.

We just have traditions about Philip. Stories of his death come from "The Acts of Philip," a 4th c. work. According to one tradition, he was crucified upside-down; in another he was martyred by beheading.

Bartholomew (Nathanael): One tradition says he was flayed alive and crucified upside-down, while another says he was beheaded. These accounts are sparse and their reliability is unknown.

Thomas: The earliest record of his death comes from Ephram the Syrian in the 4th c. According to tradition, he was killed in AD 72 in India.

Matthew (Levi): As far as I know, nothing is known of his death.

James, the son of Alphaeus: Very late tradition says he was crucified in Egypt.

Thaddeus (Judas, not Iscariot): Late tradition says he was martyred in Lebanon (Roman Syria).

Judas: suicided.

Simon the Zealot: Traditions vary from dying peacefully to being martyred by being sawn in two.

John, son of Zebedee: Little or nothing is known about his death.

Now, since the records we have, such as they are, indicate these men were dying for what they were preaching, we can have quite a bit of credibility to contend they were preaching the resurrection of Jesus, and died for that proclamation.

If they knew the resurrection was a story they just made up to gain some kind of notoriety or status in the community, or to start a new religion, whatever, then they were willing to die for what they knew was a lie. That's different from Muslims willing to die for their faith (which they believe is true), or Hindus (which they believe is true), or for a cause that they believe is a worthy cause. We see many people through history willing to die for a worthy cause or for what they are convinced is the truth. But this is not the situation here if they conspired together to perpetrate a lie.

Let's think it through, supposing the disciples got together and decided to spread this rumor in the community that Jesus had risen from the dead. In the first couple of weeks their ploy worked, and people were turning to the "Lord" ("Great joke, eh? And now people respect us!"). But now the pressure comes on. James is killed. Stephen is killed. Peter is imprisoned. In all practicality, we may find one or two of them willing to die for their ruse, but all 11? Not likely at all. Somebody (most of them) would crack under the pressure and confess it was fictional.

Chuck Colson tells the same story after the Watergate scandal broke in the early 1970s. The major players were all protecting each other and maintaining the lie until the pressure came on and they were going to be sent to prison for a long time (just prison, not execution). Then, Colson says, a bunch of them started singing like canaries, implicating the others, fighting for their own freedom and innocence, brokering deals. Many may die for what they believe to be true (plenty of martyrs of all stripes), even if it's false—they believe it's true. They do not, however, die for what they know is a lie. As Paul Little says, "If ever a man tells the truth, it is on his deathbed."

[Green Adams]

1 Corinthians 15 - this says Jesus appeared to 500, it doesn't say these 500 saw him die, or knew that the person they saw was the same Joshua that Pilate crucified. Paul certainly saw none of this. But more to the point, no evidence any of these 500 were persecuted much less were executed for not recanting about the resurrection.

Yes we have names of disciples, what we need is evidence of their deaths.

Acts says James was put to death by the sword. What we lack is why, and more to the point that he could have survived if he admitted he never saw Jesus after his death.

"Peter's martyrdom is reported by..." but you need more than a report of martyrdom to make this argument work, you need a killing with the offer of reprieve if they admitted the resurection was a lie.

Same for Andrew, Phillip, and the rest.

Even if it was crystal clear they were killed for what they were preaching this is not enough to make this argument work. There is no doubt that hundreds of people were convinced of the resurrection and that some were persecuted for it. But these all may have admitted it was a lie and been killed anyway, or they may not have been given the option.

"whatever, then they were willing to die for what they knew was a lie." Not if they were killed for plain blasphemy or a failure to sacrifice to the imperial cult, which are much more likely reasons. They may very well have been killed for preaching the resurrection itself. Recall, this is a world where Jews might kill each other for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. And the Christians were saying the go ahead and work on the Sabbath. Simply claiming the messiah had come would have been enough for them to be executed, no matter what they tried to recant.

Sure, I expect that either the stories of these disciples are largely fabricated or wrong, or that indeed many disciples believed this stuff and preached it, many may very well have been killed for this conduct. They just never actually saw Jesus either before (like Paul) or after, but were relying on accounts of him appearing. That when they were killed they were killed not for failing to admit the resurrection was a lie, I wouldn't expect they were given the option.

There are many reasons why early Christians might have preached what they believed and even welcomed martydom.

But in any event, you have provided the evidence needed to make this argument work.

[jimwalton]

> 1 Corinthians 15 - this says Jesus appeared to 500, it doesn't say these 500 saw him die

You're right. We don't know how many saw him die. The Gospel accounts only say there were passers-by (indicating it was possibly by a roadside), some religious leaders were there, a group of soldiers, and a handful of followers. I wouldn't expect that many hung around at the crucifixion site. First, it was grisly. Second, the Roman population couldn't have cared less. Third, most of the Jewish population would have been busy preparing for Passover, and fourth, most of his followers were scared and hiding.

> Paul certainly saw none of this.

I never claimed Paul saw it, although he was the prize student of a teacher of Gamaliel, a one-time president of the Sanhedrin. It's intriguing to consider the possibility that Paul was one of the religious leaders in Jerusalem and possibly he was part of the crew that condemned Jesus. (Full disclosure: we have no evidence that this is the case.) But since Gamaliel was in Jerusalem, and Paul was a top student of his, and Paul was a Pharisee, and Paul was in Jerusalem shortly after the crucifixion since he was at the stoning of Stephen in Jerusalem (Acts 7 - and Stephen was, by the way killed for preaching the crucifixion, Acts 7.56), it's intriguing to think that maybe Paul was there. It would help to explain why Paul considered himself to be the "chief of all sinners" (1 Timothy 1.15). Just interesting to think about, that's all.

> But more to the point, no evidence any of these 500 were persecuted much less were executed for not recanting about the resurrection.

Correct. Though we do have plenty of historical accounts of Christian being persecuted and executed by the Roman Empire under Nero. Again, we have only a handful of names. Ignatius and Clement were martyred in Rome for their faith. Justin Martyr, who wrote a work called "On the Resurrection" (still extant), was beheaded for his faith. Origen and Polycarp both died as martyrs.

> what we need is evidence of their deaths.

It would be nice to have more information than we do, but we have to play with the hands we have been dealt. The fact is, we do have information about the martyrdoms of several of the apostles. There is no evidence suggesting otherwise. If evidence is the standard of judgment, the evidence is stronger in favor of martyrdom.

Peter's martyrdom is one of the most well-attested facts from the era that we have. As I said, it is reported by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and more. If evidence is what you're after, here it is. "You need a killing with the offer of reprieve if they admitted the resurection was a lie." If this is your standard of historicity, you better throw out more than 90% of all the history we know about anything. It's an unreal standard if you want that sentence recorded or you reject the account.

> Even if it was crystal clear they were killed for what they were preaching this is not enough to make this argument work.

What they preached was the resurrection. Acts 2.14-35; 3.26; 4.8-12; 5.30-32, and on for dozens of references. You are really pushing against the evidence to claim what you are claiming.

> They may very well have been killed for preaching the resurrection itself.

Now you have it. Acts 17.32; Romans 4.25; 1 Cor. 15.3-5. And so many more.

> I expect that either the stories of these disciples are largely fabricated or wrong

And why do you expect that, except that you are biased before investigating the case?

> They just never actually saw Jesus

Case in point: Peter. he saw Jesus and was killed for his preaching the resurrection.

> That when they were killed they were killed not for failing to admit the resurrection was a lie, I wouldn't expect they were given the option.

What evidence do you have for your claims? Anything? Do you have the script from their execution as you are requiring of me?

> But in any event, you have provided the evidence needed to make this argument work.

Which argument—yours or mine?

[Freddy Johns]

> the creed written there originated at the most within 5 years of Jesus' resurrection. Historiographically speaking, it virtually takes us to the event itself.

You are using confirmation bias in your entire piece I'm sorry to say. Since eye witnesses get things wrong all the time with regard to testifying in court, five years later is a very long time indeed.

Now, just like with all religions, people often think they know someone who has seen a "vision". In those desperate times of Roman cruelty it is not surprising in the least that some wild tales arose and stuck around.

What I'm saying is you are finding the interpretation you want (and perhaps expect) to find. Do you believe that the hundreds of Islamic martyrs who willingly die every year are actually correct in what they believe? I suspect not.

[jimwalton]

> You are using confirmation bias in your entire piece I'm sorry to say.

Then I regret to see that you have misunderstood my point. What I'm saying is the scholars have placed the well-formed creed within 3-5 years of Jesus' death, which means that the formation of that creed began early enough before that to have formed as it did, which means the scholars, both believers and critics alike, have determined that the creed itself traces back to the event of the resurrection. That has nothing to do with confirmation bias, but only the source of the creed of which Paul writes in 1 Corinthians.

> Since eye witnesses get things wrong all the time with regard to testifying in court

It's true that eyewitnesses at times get things wrong, but it is also true that they get them right. The criteria for truth is not in the medium, but in the message. We know about Arab Spring because there were people there reporting on it. We know what Donald Trump said in his speeches because people were there reporting on it. I made a list once of all the things we believe in our culture because of eyewitness testimony, and it was a long list. I tend to think we believe far more because of reliable eyewitness testimony than because of lab experiments.

Five years is not that long for a life-changing event. I was fired from a job 5 years ago, and it stands out quite vividly in my mind. I firmly believe that if someone actually saw a dead person standing in front of them and talking to them, resurrected and alive as they had been a week before, it would be a memorable occasion.

> Now, just like with all religions, people often think they know someone who has seen a "vision".

The writings of the apostles clearly separate what they experienced from a vision. They went to great pains to let us know their seeing Christ was a flesh-and-blood experience with physical eyes and touched with the hands. This was no wild tale.

> Do you believe that the hundreds of Islamic martyrs who willingly die every year are actually correct in what they believe? I suspect not.

You miss the point again. The point is not "Are people willing to die for what they believe to be true?", but "Are people willing to die for what they know to be a lie?"

[1.62]

> Peter's martyrdom is one of the most well-attested facts from the era that we have. As I said, it is reported by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and more.

What kind of "well-attested fact" can Eusebius add? Eusebius was no witness and is merely "claiming" that he had heard that Tertullian was there and he (Eusebius) writes: "It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero."

Seriously, why not add yourself in the chain as a witness? It would be just as credible as what Eusebius claims...i.e., "Jim read that Eusebius claimed that Tertullian was there and he (Eusebius) writes: 'It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero.' " I offer this as an example of how Eusebius's writing cannot be considered "well-attested fact" for martyrdom. He is only repeating hearsay. I haven't researched the others, i.e., Clement of Rome, Ignatius, etc., but I'd guess that they too are only repeating hearsay. Am I wrong?

[jimwalton]

> Eusebius was no witness and is merely "claiming" that he had

Eusebius had access to writings and sources that are no longer extant for us. Lots have been lost to the ravages of time, but Eusebius had references we still dream we had. Not only can he not be written off so easily, but it has to be admitted that our quantity of sources is slim, but the sources we have give us the set of cards we're looking at. If it's evidence you're after, this is the evidence we have, and we have nothing to the contrary. Therefore, the evidence, such as it is, gives us the information we have. To believe otherwise is substantiate by nothing other than opinion or bias.

You haven't researched the others, but you're assuming "guilty until proved innocent." Hmm. Clement of Rome was born in about AD 30 and died around the turn of the century. He would have been about 35 when Peter was martyred. Some guess that he was the Clement mentioned by Paul in Phil. 4.3, but there is no direct evidence of that. He became the bishop of Rome in AD 92, so he could very well have been in Rome when Peter was executed, for all we know. We now very little of his life. Irenaeus writes that Clement knew the apostles. Ignatius says Clement was a helper of Peter. In addition, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian link Clement to Peter.

Ignatius of Antioch was born in around AD 35 and lived to about AD 110. He is said by some to have been a disciple of the Apostle John. A guy named Theodore of Cyrrhus reported that Peter appointed Ignatius to his position in Antioch.

So the evidence stands in favor of what I was claiming, and though we wish we had more, there is no evidence to the contrary.

[Freddy Johns]

> The writings of the apostles clearly separate what they experienced from a vision. They went to great pains to let us know their seeing Christ was a flesh-and-blood experience with physical eyes and touched with the hands. This was no wild tale.

This portion you wrote certainly requires comment. Chronologically, we have the letters of Paul first, then the gospel of Mark, then Matthew and Luke, and finally John. It is important to note how for Paul a spiritual resurrection is just fine. Then we have Mark as originally written in the oldest manuscripts with no talking Jesus, spirit or otherwise, after the crucifixion and burial story. Then, we have the added ending of Mark which now includes a talking Jesus. Then, things get progressively more amazing and detailed culminating with John. All of the evidence points to you being badly mislead by a "tall tale" if the Jesus of whoever wrote John is what you think actually happened.

[jimwalton]

> It is important to note how for Paul a spiritual resurrection is just fine

Then you have grossly mis-read Paul. His entire theology is based on a physical resurrection of Christ, not just a spiritual one. His book of Romans is saturated with physical resurrection theology, as are the Corinthian letters, climaxing in chapter 15. N.T. Wright comments, "Granted that the early Christians drew freely on Jewish traditions, and engaged energetically with the pagan world of ideas, how does it happen that we find virtually no spectrum of belief about life after death, but instead an almost universal affirmation of that which pagans said could not happen, and that which one stream...of Judaism insisted would happen, namely resurrection? I must be quite clear at this point: we shall see that when the early Christians said 'resurrection' they meant it in the sense it bore both in paganism (which denied it) and in Judaism... . 'Resurrection' did not mean that someone possessed 'a heavenly and exalted status;' when predicated of Jesus, it did not mean his 'perceived presence' in the ongoing church. Nor, if we are thinking historically, could it have meant 'the passage of the human Jesus into the power of God.' It meant bodily resurrection, And that is what the early Christians affirmed."

> Then we have Mark as originally written in the oldest manuscripts with no talking Jesus, spirit or otherwise, after the crucifixion and burial story.

You're right, but we do have in Mark a physically resurrected Jesus (Mk. 16.6-7).

> Then, we have the added ending of Mark which now includes a talking Jesus

This segment of Mark is to be disregarded.

> Then, things get progressively more amazing and detailed culminating with John

There are many parts of Matthew and Luke that are not drawn from the Gospel of Mark. Matthew and Luke were their own authors and not just copycats. Their accounts of the resurrection are based on the accounts of those who were there.

> All of the evidence points to you being badly mislead by a "tall tale" if the Jesus of whoever wrote John is what you think actually happened.

All of the evidence? That's quite a stretch. You haven't posited enough evidence to conclude that by a long shot, especially since you're off the mark by your second sentence ("It is important to note..."). John is the one Gospel with an abundance of eyewitness details. His account is full of them. So if you want to identify John as a tall tale, you need to substantiate your case.