The Testimony of the Early Christian Martyrs

The Testimony of the Twelve

And if Christ be not raised,
Your faith is vain;
Ye are yet in your sins.
(1 Cor. 15:17)

What was the core message in the preaching of the early Christians? It was namely that Jesus is resurrected Lord who conquered physical death. The fact that resurrection was a prominent theme in the early preaching of the Christians could be witnessed by another fact that some of the Gentiles thought that Christians had two gods, namely Jesus and Anastasia. How was that possible? Simply by the reflection of the fact that the Greek word of "resurrection" is anastasis . In The Acts of the Apostles we can read the following episode in the life of the Apostle Paul.

"Therefore he disputed in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the marketplace daily with those who met with him. Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans and of the Stoics encountered him. And some said, "What will this babbler say?" And some others said, "He seemeth to be a proclaimer of strange gods," because he preached unto them Jesus and the resurrection. And they took him and brought him unto the Areopagus, saying, "May we know what this new doctrine is whereof thou speakest? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears, and we would know therefore what these things mean." (For all the Athenians and strangers who were there spent their time in nothing else than either telling or hearing some new thing.) Then Paul stood in their midst on Mars' Hill and said, "Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription: 'To the Unknown God'. Whom therefore ye worship in ignorance, Him I declare unto you. God who made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of Heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands. Neither is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, seeing He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things. And He hath made of one blood all nations of men, and caused them to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined their appointed times, and the bounds of their habitation, that they should seek the Lord, if perhaps they might feel after Him and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us. 'For in Him we live, and move, and have our being.' As also certain of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.' "For inasmuch, then, as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold or silver or stone, graven by art and of man's devising. The times of this ignorance God overlooked, but now He commandeth all men everywhere to repent, because He hath appointed a Day in which He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ordained. Of this He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead." But when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked and others said, "We will hear thee again on this matter." So Paul departed from among them." (Acts 17:17-33)

In the above passage we observe of the historical quality of description of the events. Writer of The Acts , namely the physician Luke (who was a disciple of the Apostle Paul), didn't hide the fact how intellectuals regarded the preaching of the Apostle Paul. Notice all the historical details, e.g. that "Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill," about the Areopagus, etc. The whole book of The Acts of the Apostles has excellent historical quality that have been testified by the archaeology. Luke tells us under which rulers all those events happened, the architecture and names of certain buildings, etc. The same thing can be said about the Gospels; (one of the Canonical Gospels were written by Luke himself).

One well-known historical fact was that Jesus tomb was empty. Immediately after the crucifixion of Jesus, one thing that was sensational topic in Jerusalem was about the empty tomb of Jesus. Why was it so sensational? It was for two reasons:

It was sensational that Roman guards could let it happened that body of Jesus simply disappeared. They faced death penalty for such thing. But somehow they escaped their punishment by the protection of the High Priest. The condition to grant the pardon was that they should spread the rumour that the disciples of Jesus stole his body. They were even paid to spread such rumour. Let us see how The Gospel According to Matthew describes those events suronding the emptiness of the tomb.

"Now the next day, that following the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, saying, "Sir, we remember that that deceiver said while he was yet alive, 'After three days I will rise again.' Command therefore that the sepulcher be made secure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night and steal him away, and say unto the people, 'He is risen from the dead,' so that the last error shall be worse than the first." Pilate said unto them, "Ye have a watch. Go your way, make it as secure as ye can." So they went and made the sepulcher secure, sealing the stone and setting up a watch."
(Mat. 27:62-66)

Notice how the chief priests and Pharisees call Jesus, namely "the deceiver." Very realistic feature of the story that confirms the historicity of the above passage. Furthermore, Matthew doesn't hide the issue about the possibility that Jesus' body could have been stolen. This is very significant point which we have to think more about it. This very point of the Matthew's historical description of the events makes it distinguished from mythological narration within ancient polytheistic religions or histories in Hinduism. In such mythologies hero would be described with fame, not mentioning any elements that could put history under doubt.

What do you think who would be the first one to witness the emptiness of Jesus' grave? If such theme were central in the myths then surely it wouldn't be some women but men with some authority who would witness the very event of resurrection; (because the testimony of the women were regarded not so reliable). Who was the first witnesses of Jesus empty grave and his resurrected body? If we read 28. chapter of Matthew, then we can read that it was Mary Magdalene and other Mary who were the first witnesses of the Great Event of the Christian Faith. Not some men of authority, but women, who were regarded as unreliable witnesses. Other interesting fact around the first witness was that Mary Magdalene had been demon possessed but who were set free when she met Jesus. So, the first witnesses of the Resurrected Lord was one person which testimony was highly questionable. If disciples did really fabricated the history of the Resurrection of Jesus, would they mention who were the first witnesses? Would they mention the possibility that they could stole his body? I don't think so.

The problem is how could they stole His body if there were Roman watch? Remember that the Gospels and The Book of Acts were written in the first century (that is verified; someone who claim that they date from the third century is influenced by the old fashioned theories from the last century. Now it was found so many fragments of papyri that date from the first century). If there wasn't Roman watch then it would be easily disclaimed by the priests, Pharisees and other governing bodies. Apostles couldn't tell such lies because such kind of lies could be easily checked by the enemies of Christ.

Other problem was that Gospels report that Apostles were cowards (remember Peter's denial) and that they very sceptical towards the possibility of Jesus' resurrection. (This very fact makes the Testimony of the Gospels very reliable.) So, would they have courage to steal his body if there were Roman watch? I don't think so. Nevertheless, those same Apostles, who were cowards and disillusioned, began to preach, with extraordinary courage, that they had meet Jesus resurrected. Thus, something happened in their lives that they were so radically changed: from cowardice to boldness. They preached in spite of the risk to be killed under torture. And they were killed as martyrs. To be witness of His resurrection did mean to be a martyr, and it is interesting that the Greek martyrion means both 'witness' and 'martyr'. I can trust in the Testimony of the Apostles because of those twelve, eleven died as martyrs. They died because they preached the resurrection of Jesus and that He was manifested God in the flesh. They were tortured, flogged and were brutally dead:

So, it is very problematic to assume that Apostles had stolen his body. But if disciples of Jesus didn't steal his body, who did, IF it was stolen? The enemies of the Christian movement didn't steal, for they could easily show his dead body to put the early stop for the rise of the new movement. Could it be some other group? Which one, and if so what possible motive could they have? It is highly implausible assumtion. So if the body was stolen, then it was stolen either of Jesus' friends or of his enemies. But both asumtion has serious drawbacks. To repeat, if it was the case that the enemies of the Christ have stolen his body then they could easily show his dead body. If it was the case that apostles have stolen his body then it is very difficult to believe that they would die as martyrs for one deception they have made.

Now someone could object and say that people are willingly ready to die for some idea, be it religious or some political. That is true. People can die for various lies and deceptions. But can people die for a self-made lie, a lie they are perfectly aware of in the virtue of the fact that they have made it? It is easy to die for one lie that you didn't made, but to die for a lie you perfectly know that it is a lie is indeed one madness! If they stole his body then they have fabricated a lie about his resurrection, which they were perfectly aware of. Remeber that they were quite simple fishers and not some kind of mystics. They had quite a pragmatical mind. So why should they fabricate some lie and brutally die for it? It is quite implausible to assume such possibility. Perhaps one person could do it, but to say that all twelve died for a lie they have fabricated is really difficult to accept. It is psychologically very implausible hypothesis. To repeat, we can perhaps think that one person could be willingly to undergo torture and martyrdom for self-fabricated deception, but all twelve? Hm, ..., sounds very implausible.

Also we have to remind us that there wasn't only those twelve who met Jesus resurrected. Paul tells us this:

"And that he was burried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures (meaning the prophetic scriptures who predicted that Messiah would rise from the death, my comment). And that he was seen of Cephas (Peter), then of twelve. After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep." (1 Corinthian 15:4-7)

Of course, my offered reasons are not proofs in the strict (philosophical) sense of the word. But I claim that my belief in the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is founded on very high plausible grounds. I am also not prejudiced in my judgement over this issue. What I mean by this is that my judgments will not not be influenced by the fact that it is physically impossible for a human being to be resurrected from the death. That would be a naturalistic prejudice that should be put under question. If we are lead by the naturalistic prejudice, that would be a question begging kind of inference in denying the possibility that Jesus had resurrected from the death. Also we should be reminded that here isn't the issue over one ordinary human being but over a being that is God manifested in human flesh. Thus, it wouldn't be philosophical acceptable to deny the possibility of resurrection on the naturalistic assumptions. That would be, what we philosophers call, a "question begging"-fallacy in the inference. Rather, we should conceptually and historically investigate this issue, by examining all extent historical documents that are relevant for the question.

There are also two other articles that deal with two objections. The first objection is about the alleged discrepancies in Gospel accounts. The second article deals with the external evidences for the support of Gospel accounts, and it also deals with the comparison between gospel accounts and other myths. They can be found at below links.

If you are more interested in the evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ then please read a serie of three articles written by William Craig :

Google Our Site