From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Revisionist History   [was: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:33:50 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

Robert Weiss echos Mr Pitts, in insisting that the martyrdom of of the
Apostles proves the verity of Christianity.  On the other hand, Eric Rescorla
disagrees that there exists evidence for the martyrdom of the Apostles:

>>	There is a notable differance that Ivan is overlooking. Richard's 
>>point was that the disciples gave their lives for the message of the 
>>gospel; and that if the message was false, they would have known it.
>>
>>The problem is that Richard's chain of logic depends upon two
>>things which are highly tenuous.
>>1) The "fact" that the disciples gave their lives.
>>  In fact, we only really know well that Paul and Peter gave their
>>  lives, and Paul was not in a position to know that Jesus had
>>  not risen.
>
>	The historical evidence (from Josephus, Eusebius, Tacitus, etc.) 
> that has come down to us is that all of the apostles were martyred, with
> the exception of John.

Mr Weiss, I have to concur with Mr Rescorla; I have not seen any real evidence
for the claim that all of the Apostles except John were martyred.  This belief
seems to be a truism; it is believed by many, but there is no actual evidence
for most of that claim.  For example, I believe the New Testament only records
the martyr death of four disciples: Judas (of whom I doubt you were speaking),
Stephen, James the Just, and James, brother to Jesus, (and the second James
was not one of the original 12 apostles).  The only other semi-timely evidence
for such deaths (which I know of), is from Josephus, who also mentions the
death of the second James, though not whether James went to his death
willingly or protesting.  So, unless one is already convinced by the verity of
the New Testament, you cannot even show evidence of that even those disciples
went willingly to their death. 

I would also point out that even the evidence for the martyrdom of Paul and
Peter is rather thin and ambiguous.  My reference for this discussion of the
martyrdom is "Persecution in the Early Church" by Herbert Workman. 

Right from the start I would note that Workman was a devout Christian, and did
fully accept the stories about the martyrdom of Peter and Paul as being true. 
On the other hand, Workman was also a historian of high integrity, and several
times makes the point of noting the distinction between evidence and "truth". 
While Workman believed that Peter and Paul were martyred, he also openly
states that the actual evidence surrounding those martyrdoms are rather weak
and oft disputed.  For instance he points out the earliest evidence of for the
martyrdom of Peter and Paul is some 30 years after the fact, and a bit
ambiguous:

	For the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul, the earliest
	evidence, thirty years after the event, is a letter - somewhat 
	too rhetorical alas! - from the Church of Rome to that of 
	Corinth:

	  Let us come to the athletes who lived but lately, the noble 
	  example of our own generation...Let us set before or eyes the good
	  Apostles. There was Peter, who by reason of unrighteous jealousy 
	  endured not one nor two but many labours, and thus having borne his 
	  witness, went to his appointed place of glory.  Paul also by reason 
	  of jealousy and strife, pointed out the prize of patient endurance... 
	  He won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith; having 
	  taught righteousness unto the whole world, and having reached the 
	  bounds of the West; and when he had bourne his witness before the 
	  rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place,
	  having been found a noble pattern of patience.

Note that in spite of the fact that he points out the grey area left by the
evidence, he never personally expresses doubt that they were martyred.  This
does not though, keep him from pointing out the lack of actual evidence.  The
author points out the actual details of the legends which have grown up about
each of these men, but also points out that they are, as far as evidence goes,
only legend.  For instance, before going into the legends surrounding Paul, he
says:

	With the acquittal of St. Paul after his first captivity (A.D. 61)
	the Apostle vanished, though as one immortal, from the pages of 
	certain history.  The rest of his journeys East and West, his sudden
	arrest at Troas or Nicopolis, his second entrance as a captive into 
	Rome, the letters of this second captivity, the manner of his trial,
	the date of his death, are matters of dispute, the exact details of 
	which are lost. 

Workman then says of Peter:

	The date and circumstances of the martyrdom of St. Peter are even 
	more uncertain.  

and 
	Very beautiful is the story of St. Peter's own release, though,
	unfortunately, its historical value is not without doubt.

Truthfully I find Workman's book to be an excellent representative for
Christianity.  He presents the actual evidence, the salient legends and his
own faith; and most of all he works quite hard to present each of these things
as quite distinct for the reader.  I never had any doubt that I was reading
the views of a faithful Christian, or an honest historian, and the book comes
across very much as being written by a Christian historian, who is honest,
open and sure of the choices he has made. 

It is with this in mind, that I conclude that, in this discussion of
martyrdoms, even the martyrdoms of Paul and Peter are open for debate.  On the
other hand, if major new evidence has come to light which contradicts
Workman's work, I would be very interested (ie: Mr Weiss, I would be very
interested in any actual documentation you have which proves any martyrdoms,
but I will not be convinced solely by your words). 

On a slightly different subject, I would also point out that there are
recognized motivations and situations (eg: cognitive dissonance) which can
induce people to martyred themselves for something they "know" is not true,
and I would, if requested, enumerate those motivations.  Thus even if we knew
the Apostles were martyred, we still could not say that their deaths actually 
PROVED the verity of their claims.

Now I wish to emphasize something.  The fact that there is no real evidence
for the martyrdoms does not prove that the apostles were not martyred.  Nor
does the fact that motivations exist which can drive someone to die for a
false cause, prove that the apostles fell victim to those motivations.  The
problem is though, that both Mr Pitts and Mr Weiss are claiming that the
apostles WERE MARTYRED, and that their martyrdom DOES PROVE the verity of their
claims, when actually neither assertion is true.  There is not sufficient
historical data to render a verdict on whether these men were martyred, nor is
there evidence which would show their motivations, even if we assume they were
martyred.  So what I am trying to say is, Mr Pitts and Mr Weiss do not
actually possess the "evidence" which they trying to present here, in spite of
their sincere belief to the contrary. 

				Later,

				Dave Butler

    He that dies a martyr proves that he was not a knave, but by no means
    that he was not a fool.
				Charles Coulton, English Poet
				"The Lacon"

    (Actually I disagree that martyrdom even proves that one isn't a knave)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc