The Apostles' Martyrdom

Great Debates
1

Except for Judas Iscariot, who committed suicide, the remaining Apostles were martyred for their preaching in the name of Jesus. Each on suffered an excruciating torture and untimely death. Yet, not one of them denied their faith.

St. Andrew was crucified on an X-shaped cross where he preached to his tormentors for two days before dying. St. John was boiled in oil. St. Peter asked to be crucified lest he be killed in the same manned as Christ. St. Bartholomew was flayed in Armenia. These men embraced their martyrdom as badges of honor.

Non-believers in Christianity have often suggested that Jesus either never existed or whole parts of His life story were concocted by the Apostles after His death. These accusations suggest that the Apostles knowingly lied and spread lies.

However, since nearly all the Apostles died, willingly, for their claims about Jesus, one would have to assume that these men did not knowingly lie. What otherwise sane individual would be tortured and die for a claim he/she knew to be untrue. Even Galileo recanted the truth when threatened with torture. On Galileo’s behalf, it is very sane to lie about your beliefs to save your own skin (even Peter denied Christ on Good Friday).

However, none of the Apostles chose life over their beliefs in the end. Therefore, if one believes the martyrdom stories, one must conclude that the Apostles were either true believers or lunatics, for only a lunatic would embrace death for something known to be false.

There is no indication, whatsoever, that the Apostles were lunatics. The New Testament portrays them as flawed (just like any other human), but filled with incredible inner strength after the Resurrection. These men wrote some of the wisest, most beautiful words written. They spoke charismatically and won many new converts. They were seen as threats to the establishment, as evidenced by their martyrdom.

Most importantly, these men were true martyrs unlike the 9/11 terrorists. The terrorists chose the when, how, and where of there “martyrdom” and inflicted pain and torment upon thousands. The Christian Martyrs had martyrdom thrust upon them (although they readily accepted the call) and were inflicted with terrible pain.

Therefore, one must conclude based on the evidence and lack of contradictory evidence that the fist Christians were sane and ethical men who so fervently believed in the Messiah-ship of Jesus, their compatriot, that they accepted excruciating deaths rather than deny Christ as their Savior.

2

That should have read “St. Peter asked to be crucified upside down lest he be killed in the same manner as Christ.”

3

Mambo, I believe that the biggest problem with your argument boils down to the phrase “if one believes the martyrdom stories.” That is another topic in itself, and even for believers (I’m Roman Catholic, myself) there can be a lively discussion as to which of the martyrdom stories are historical and which are pious legends. For non-believers, appealing to legend for support of scripture is going to be a non-starter, I’m afraid.

Also, according to tradition, St. John was not martyred. According to Tertullian, he was boiled in oil, but survived unharmed, and died of old-age in Ephesus.

4

JohnM nailed it. What are your sources for these stories of martyrdom? Tertullian, for instance, lived around 200 AD - more than 100 years after the apostles died.

5

Thanks John. I have also heard that St. John did not in fact die a martyr. Thanks for clearing that up. Whereas Church tradition can be flawed in the details, it is not likely that the early Church completely invented these stories. Additionally, there are countless other examples of martyrdom in early Christian history such as St. Mark being dragged through Alexandria or Saint Stephen the first Martyr. I chose to focus on just the 12 Apostles.

The point is that these early Christians accepted tremendous amounts of pain, suffering, ostracism, and ultimately death. They gained nothing materially for these sacrifices. A critic of Christianity must respond to these facts and explain why the Apostles were either liars or lunatics.

6

That is one conclusion, but not necessarily the only conclusion.

If one is simply mistaken in one’s beliefs, it is not a lie. There have been similar martyrs in many religions; that fact does not mean that all are in possession of the truth.

This is a False Dilemma; there are other reasonable explanations for their behavior. Perhaps they were misled; it is possible to truly believe in something that is, in fact, false.

Or they were simply mistaken. No lying or lunacy is necessary.

7

This won’t help you, as there are many examples of people dying for faiths other than mainstream Christianity. What about the Heaven’s Gate folks, or the followers of Jim Jones? Or the early Mormons? You seem to think that there’s a difference in that the apostles supposedly witnessed the resurrected Christ in person, but the facts of that are open to much interpretation. Many people have died for their faith without having had to experience anything that dramatic. Human beings, as a whole, are just a crazy lot.

8

How many died in Jonestown, Guyana believing in a lie? How many Jews and Moors died during the Spanish Inquisition without truly recanting their faith? Waco ring a bell?

It a fallacy to believe that strength of commitment is the same as truth.

9

The martyred apostle stories are completely apocryphal. With the possible exception of James, the brother of Jesus (whose stoning is mentioned by Josephus) there is no historical evidence for any of them.

Yes, the church did make up those kinds of stories as object lessons to the flock. Historical accuracy did not have much importance back then.

10

Homebrew et al are correct. The mere fact that these people died for a cause does not prove the cause true, any more than the Koresh followers who died at Waco were correct in their view of Koresh as a messianc figure.

  • Rick
11

I think a reasonable, if circumstantial, case can be made that James aka the brother of John aka “The Great” was martyred by Herod Agrippa I (reigned 41-44).

His beheading is mentioned in Acts (XII 1-3), as is the reason Agrippa does this (and imprisons Peter) to “impress the people with his zeal for the law”. Josephus tells us the same thing about Agrippa, that he has a great zeal and love of the law (Jos., “Ant.”, XIX, vii, 3). And mentions “His ambition to please the people” (ibid.)

Agrippa’s death is described in Acts, (XII, 21-23): He died at Cæsarea during a grand public festival; when the people having heard him speak cried out, “It is the voice of a god and not of a man”, his heart was elated, and “an angel of the Lord struck him, because he had not given the honor to God”. Josephus gives substantially the same account. "When Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea, he came to the city Caesarea […] There he exhibited shows in honor of the emperor […] On the second day of the festival, Herod put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a truly wonderful contexture, and came into the theater early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment was illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays upon it. It shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him. At that moment, his flatterers cried out […] that he was a god; and they added, ‘Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature.’[…] Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery. […]A severe pain also arose in his belly, and began in a most violent manner. He therefore looked upon his friends, and said, 'I, whom you call a god, am commanded presently to depart this life; […] blah-blah he dies within hours.

So to James‘ martyrdom: anyone sane is going to agree that Acts got Herod “right” on his public piety & eagerness to please the populace with his piety. No one really has a leg to stand on to argue that Acts and Josephus don’t agree on the essentials of place and manner and even the crowd shouts on Agrippa’s death. Given that, I submit it is entirely within reason to suppose Acts account of James’s martyrdom is reasonable and take it at face value. The writers of Acts is someone with access to firsthand knowledge of the situation on the ground in present day Isreal/WestBank-- who must be now be given a motive to fabricate a story of one of Jesus’ 4 main “inner circle” Apostles being beheaded – why make that up? I submit the circumstantial evidence and ‘occam’s razor’ answer suggest that he didn’t make it up – he polished the embarrassing beheading up as well as he could and wrote the story as he knew it or as it was related to him.

12

Jonestown, Waco, and Heaven’s Gate were all examples of people choosing the when, where, and how of their deaths. Additionally, there was deception involved on the parts of the leaders. The victims of the Inquisition were indeed martyrs to their beliefs, as you said.

My point is that we have a group of historical figures who founded a religion revolving around the worship of their friend, their colleague. The majority of these early leaders were martyred but did not recant their account of the Christian story. They did not betray their belief in Jesus as the Risen Messiah.

One can argue that they were deceived but one can not say that the founders of Christianity, the largest religion in the world, were deceivers. They all stuck to the story. They all preached in three continents. Nearly all of the closest group were martyred. And they all claimed to have personally witnessed the events in question. I think that is rather convincing testimony.

13

Mambo–this is the first religion debate I’ve had in a long time, but I just can’t let this go. My major issue is with the claim that the apostles must have been martyred for preaching/believing in the resurrection of Jesus. This isn’t necessarily so. It is entirely possible, for instance, that the early Christians considered the resurrection a spiritual, rather than physical event. Or it’s possible that despite what the Bible says, none of the apostles were actually witnesses to the resurrection, and that they believed upon the words of others. And if you look at the story of St. Stephen in Acts, his martyrdom has nothing to do with the miracles of Jesus, but rather an alleged blaspheming of the Mosaic Law.

Finally, as to your claim that “it is not likely that the early Church completely invented these stories,” I refer you to the various stories of St. Matthew. One such legend holds that he battled sorcerers and dragons in Ethiopia. cite.

14

Okay, this is getting weird. First Fenris and I agree on a political issue and now Bricker says I’m right about something.

Hold me, I’m scared

15

What part of “the martyrdom stories are apocryphal” " do you not understand?

Hell, there’s no real proof that the apostles (or Jesus) even existed much less that they were martyred.

16

I understand fine. I said in my OP that my point is based on the martyrdom stories actually taking place.

Tainted with religion or not, the earliest evidence we have says that Jesus and the apostles did exist and established a new religion which now has over one billion adherents. There is no evidence indicating that these stories were completely invented. It would seem that the burden of proof is on the cynics.

I certainly acknowledge that we have no hard evidence that these stories took place, however, it would take a greater leap of faith to imagine that these stories were complete fabrications and not based on any historical events.

17

Not so fast, Mambo. Even if Jesus existed, there is no evidence that he was the Son of God. The likelyhood remains that the apostles were simply deluded followers of a charismatic cult leader. Such fools often die for their beliefs, without ever realizing their folly.

18

There is no smoking gun evidence that Jesus ever existed. Everything written about him was written long after his death (if he had a death) by people who didn’t know him. When I speak of a lack of evidence for the apostles, I am speaking in terms of strict empiricism. We have legends about apostles. We don’t know what’s true and what isn’t.

You can compare the Jesus myth to other legends like King Arthur or Robin Hood. Both Arthur and Robin Hood had legendary compatriates about whom stories were spun for centuries after these characters supposedly lived. While it’s possible that some historical kernel lies at the the origin of those legends, there is no actual proof that either Arthur or Hood were real people, much less Little John or Lancelot.

Even if you believe the Gospels, the martyrdom accounts are still 3nd and 3rd century inventions with no supporting evidence. The martyrdoms of the apostles are not history. they are hagiographical stories intended to glorify the apostles and hammer a messsage of loyalty to the church.

19

I’m interested to know why you feel it unlikely that the early church would completely invent stories. As you point out in your OP, these stories greatly help in convincing people that their message is the truth. That seems to me to be an enormous incentive to repeat (if not invent outright) the stories, even if you know them to be untrue. After all, aren’t parables made-up stories to illustrate a point?

Throughout history, to the present day, groups trying to promote a cause which they believe to be just have often made up stories which will help them to achieve their aims. Political groups do it all the time - just look at the smear campaigns on both sides of US politics at the moment. Even if they do not invent the stories themselves, they make no attempt to stop the stories from spreading.

(I don’t really want to give explicit examples because I don’t want to sidetrack this into a political debate, but I will if necessary.)

The point is that when you truly believe that you are right, especially on an issue you think is the most important one there is, it is only natural to want to convince others that you are right. The temptation to stretch the truth can be great.

20

No, the burden of proof is always on the person who seeks to prove something. You want to prove that the apostles suffering testified to Christ’s holiness? Sure, knock yourself out, but you have to prove the steps in your argument, beginning with whether Christ and the apostles existed at all, moving through the historical basis for the suffering and martyrdom, and then linking these things with your argument.

I think all these martyrdom stories are very unlikely, but please prove me wrong.