William Lane Craig (one of the most passionate defenders of
the resurrection as a historical event) and many other Christian apologists use
this argument from martyrdom with stubborn regularity. It makes sense to some
degree, because if it is true, it’s a very powerful argument for a
transformative experience outside of themselves. But there are two problems
with this argument. The first one is pretty huge; there’s no real solid
evidence I could find that any of the disciples did die for their beliefs at
all. And it’s not just because I was only looking at skeptical sources; even the
Christian websites I found couldn’t come up with anything better than “second-century
church tradition.” The lack of historicity for this claim should be made clear
by the fact that Craig himself (who’s fond of using arguments from authority to
bolster his claims) doesn’t even try to back this one up with a quote from a
scholar or a blanket statement of scholarly consensus. Generally, the only
specific evidence he cites for this claim is a passage in Josephus about James,
as seen here:
According to the first century
Jewish historian Josephus, James was martyred for his faith in Christ in the
late AD 60s. Now most of us have brothers. What would it take to convince you
that your brother is the Lord, such that you would be ready to die for that
belief? Can there be any doubt that this remarkable transformation in Jesus’
younger brother took place because, in Paul’s words, “then he appeared to
James”?
Even in a written piece like this (which doesn’t have the
time restrictions of formal debates), Craig can only provide any actual citation for a single one of those many disciples who supposedly went to their deaths refusing to
deny their belief in the risen Lord. As far as I’ve ever seen, there is no
historical evidence that most of the disciples were martyred, prior to
second-century church tradition. And yet, Christian apologists keep right on
stating this as fact, without bothering to ever produce any sources that can validate such a high level of confidence in its historical accuracy (seemingly,
because they don’t actually have any). That seems intellectually dishonest to
me.
Now, I think that in itself should be enough to cast serious
doubt on this point, but there is a second factor that needs to be considered.
Even if some of the disciples were killed, it only has significance to the
strength of their belief if they were killed after being given a chance to
recant. If someone puts a gun to your head and says, “admit you were lying or I’ll
kill you,” and you stick to your story, then that’s pretty strong evidence that
you really believe it. But if you’re walking down the street, and someone just
shoots you without making any such challenge, then it says absolutely nothing
about whether you really believed whatever it was you were claiming. So, for
this claim (that the disciples went to their deaths unwilling to recant) to be substantiated,
there has to be historical evidence not only that they were killed, but also that it
only happened after they were given a chance to recant. Now, let’s look at the passage
from Josephus about James that William Lane Craig offered as such profound
evidence for this argument. It fails that criterion on both levels. It does not
indicate that James was given a chance to recant his belief that Jesus rose
before he was executed, and it doesn’t even indicate that this belief was why
he was executed in the first place. Contrary to how Craig describes it, there
is no indication in Josephus that “James was martyred for his faith in Christ,”
or that he specifically did “die for that belief.” It’s actually remarkably
vague about the reasons for his execution, which makes it easy to read between
the lines that his seditious faith in Jesus as his savior was the real reason,
but only if you already believed that going in. Assumption is not evidence.
In my perception, the passage about James in Josephus is the
most oft-cited evidence of martyrdom by one of the disciples who allegedly saw
the risen Christ, and yet this is how thin it is. It’s like saying that someone
who claimed to be an alien abductee was killed in a mugging, so that must mean
he really believed he was abducted. It’s an argument that sounds very dramatic
and compelling at first blush, but doesn’t hold up when you actually look
closer at what evidence the proponents of this argument are citing to
substantiate their claim.
