Those Apostolic Martyrs

[cameronversluis]

Hey gang,
Still writing my paper on the resurrection. We'll see how it keeps developing.

Right now I am especially wondering about apostolic martyrs. I hear all the time about the apostles being martyred for their faith, especially in resurrection apologetics, but what I need are some ancient sources attesting to this.

Anyone?

[One Bad Pig]

Try Ecclesiastical History (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.toc.html) by Eusebius. IIRC Foxe's Book of Martyrs has som accounts of apostolic martyrs as well. Jesus Freaks (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Freaks-Stories-Those-Ultimate/dp/1577780728) by DC Talk and Voice of the Martyrs also has some accounts of apostolic martyrs.

[Rational Gaze]

Josephus mentions the martyrdom of James at the hands of Ananus in Antiquities of the Jews.

[cameronversluis]

Thanks guys! Add Stephen from Acts and things are shaping up rather nicely.

[technomage]

There is some question as to whether or not "James the brother of Jesus" mentioned by Josephus is, indeed, James the Just--it is argued that the passage "who was called Christ" may be a later interpolation. I don't consider the argument to be terribly persuasive.

However, I would caution against using what Jerome quoted from Hegesippus--as Jesus (and James) were both of the tribe of Judah, it would have been considered blasphemous (by both Jews and early Christians) for James the brother of Jesus to enter the Holy of Holies.

[Rational Gaze]

I'm sorry but acceptance of this passage in Josephus as completely genuine is almost universal. I think perhaps you are referring to the longer earlier passage referring to Jesus? Of course, that passage is still considered partially authentic by a substantial portion of academics. :shrug:

[technomage]

I'm sorry but acceptance of this passage in Josephus as completely genuine is almost universal.

Hold on, Shadow--I accept the passage as authentic. I'm not saying that I doubt it: I am noting that there are some arguments against it--arguments that I personally find unpersuasive, but that must be mentioned for a full discussion.


I think perhaps you are referring to the longer earlier passage referring to Jesus?

In this case, no, I am referring to the "James the brother of Jesus" passage. I am aware of the interpolations in the Testimonium (and consider the passage as questionable for any substantial argument beyond the fact that Josephus does mention Jesus).

[Rational Gaze]

Your reply is acceptable.

[technomage]

Your reply is acceptable.
Watch it--you may have a Terminator avatar, but even the Shadow Gaze is vulnerable to a pie in the face. :hehe:

[cameronversluis]

Hold on, Shadow--I accept the passage as authentic. I'm not saying that I doubt it: I am noting that there are some arguments against it--arguments that I personally find unpersuasive, but that must be mentioned for a full discussion.



In this case, no, I am referring to the "James the brother of Jesus" passage. I am aware of the interpolations in the Testimonium (and consider the passage as questionable for any substantial argument beyond the fact that Josephus does mention Jesus).

Mind posting the reasons, and why you find them unpersuasive? Most secular scholars like to knock around Tacitus' and Josephus' mentions of Jesus, but they are usually arguing seriously uphill.

Not sure about the James-the-brother-of-Jesus passage, but as far as the other mention of Jesus by Josephus (which I have researched a little more), it's not easy to discard. Most scholars agree that much is interpolated by Christians, but per Josephus' general style I think it is a piece of cake, even for a layman like me, to see which pieces are interpolations and which aren't. For instance, he calls Jesus a "wise man", which is not vocabulary Christians of the time used, but it fits in perfectly with Josephus' style. He also refers to the Christians as a "tribe", a term not used by Christians at all. Additionally, several times he refers to Christians without counting himself one of their number.

Additionally, an Arabic version of the passage has been discovered, without the interpolations. This, in my opinion, basically validates Josephus' account.

Oh, I should mention I'm ticked at the early Christians who added interpolations. They had no idea how dumb an idea that would turn out to be... :tongue:

[technomage]

Mind posting the reasons, and why you find them unpersuasive?

1. The passage is present in all manuscripts. (The Testimonium, on the other hand, is present in the Arabic manuscript, but is different, suggesting interpolation.)
2. While the Testimonium is not cited by Origen, this passage is--repeatedly, iirc.
3. The few scholars who differ don't have another "James" to offer as a possible candidate to the identity of the person in question.


Most secular scholars like to knock around Tacitus' and Josephus' mentions of Jesus, but they are usually arguing seriously uphill.

Excuse me, but most secular scholars accept Tacitus without question: the "James the Brother of Jesus" passage is also almost universally accepted. The only passage with any problems is the Testimonium, and those problems are widely acknowledged by secular (and most Christian) scholars.


Not sure about the James-the-brother-of-Jesus passage, but as far as the other mention of Jesus by Josephus (which I have researched a little more), it's not easy to discard. Most scholars agree that much is interpolated by Christians, but per Josephus' general style I think it is a piece of cake, even for a layman like me, to see which pieces are interpolations and which aren't.

I think you'll find that what you are reading as "Josephus' general style" is the style of the translator(s), not the style of Josephus. "Style" is both difficult to quantify, and deucedly difficult to translate from one language to another.


Additionally, an Arabic version of the passage has been discovered, without the interpolations. This, in my opinion, basically validates Josephus' account.

The accuracy of the Arabic account is under question, as it seems to follow a Syriac paraphrase, and also addresses some 10th century Muslim arguments regarding Jesus. I usually prefer to use the Greek manuscripts, with the acknowledgment that there have been interpolations, but that Josephus wrote something about Jesus.


Oh, I should mention I'm ticked at the early Christians who added interpolations. They had no idea how dumb an idea that would turn out to be... :tongue:
Eh, most religions have enthusiasts, to whom "winning the argument" is more important than accuracy. Heaven knows Wicca is not immune to such.

[cameronversluis]

Excuse me, but most secular scholars accept Tacitus without question: the "James the Brother of Jesus" passage is also almost universally accepted. The only passage with any problems is the Testimonium, and those problems are widely acknowledged by secular (and most Christian) scholars.

Sorry, "most" was definitely wrong, I should have said "some".


I think you'll find that what you are reading as "Josephus' general style" is the style of the translator(s), not the style of Josephus. "Style" is both difficult to quantify, and deucedly difficult to translate from one language to another.

Good point, I concur. I think it's still pretty easy to tell what pieces are interpolations and which are not, even in English. The general wording is markedly different.


Eh, most religions have enthusiasts, to whom "winning the argument" is more important than accuracy. Heaven knows Wicca is not immune to such.

Agreed... virtually any belief system has such. I think the world is just filled with strange individuals distributed rather randomly - all of them hold beliefs.

[technomage]

I think the world is just filled with strange individuals distributed rather randomly - all of them hold beliefs.
:hehe: I've got an "amen" for that!

[cameronversluis]

OK, thanks Bad Pig, I have been looking through the Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. It's a long book, but it is providing excellent data so far. The coolest part is that while he is writing in the third century, he cites Tertullian, Origen, Josephus, etc. on the martyrdom of James in particular, so we can be well assured that it was a historical event.

So, from Eusebius, on the death of Peter and Paul:

Ecclesiastical History 25
"Thus publicly announcing himself as the first among God’s chief enemies, he was led on to the slaughter of the apostles. It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day.

[...]

...that they both suffered martyrdom at the same time is stated by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in his epistle to the Romans, in the following words: “You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth. And they taught together in like manner in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at the same time." I have quoted these things in order that the truth of the history might be still more confirmed."

I found this here (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vii.xxvi.html), am I correct in stating that this is from Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History? If I were to quote it, would I do like, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 25.3, or something?

[technomage]

I found this here (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vii.xxvi.html), am I correct in stating that this is from Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History? If I were to quote it, would I do like, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 25.3, or something?

Eusebius Ecclesiastical History II:25:8. (Book 2, chapter 25, and the appropriate paragraph).

Now, my respect for OBP notwithstanding, I do have some doubts as to the accuracy of Eusebius' accounts: there are several places where he allows his enthusiasm for his thesis to overcome objectivity. This is unavoidable, as "objectivity" as we understand it would not have served his purposes, but it also means that he is not always what a modern historian would call "reliable."

[cameronversluis]

Eusebius Ecclesiastical History II:25:8. (Book 2, chapter 25, and the appropriate paragraph).

Now, my respect for OBP notwithstanding, I do have some doubts as to the accuracy of Eusebius' accounts: there are several places where he allows his enthusiasm for his thesis to overcome objectivity. This is unavoidable, as "objectivity" as we understand it would not have served his purposes, but it also means that he is not always what a modern historian would call "reliable."

Thank you for the help, I appreciate it! I have certainly noticed Eusebius' enthusiasm. It's certainly understandable that he would be biased for that reason. It also does not help that he is a third-century source. (Though his quote of second-century Dionysius is helpful.) For further confirmation, I found that Clement of Rome also recorded the martyrdom of Paul and Peter.

"...let us set before our eyes the holy Apostles: Peter by unjust envy underwent not one or two, but many sufferings; and so at last being martyred, he went to the place of glory that was due to him."
I Clement 3:12

"For the same cause Paul in the same way received the reward of his patience. Seven times he was in bonds; he was whipped and was stoned; he preached both in the East and in the West, leaving behind him the glorious report of his faith: And so, having taught the whole world righteousness, and for that end traveled even to the utmost bounds of the West, he at last suffered martyrdom by the command of the governors"
I Clement 3:13-14

So definitely better and earlier than Eusebius.

Out of curiosity, how would Wiccans generally view the resurrection?

[technomage]

So definitely better and earlier than Eusebius.

Assuredly! I will note that there is some question of whether or not Paul actually "traveled even to the utmost bounds of the West," but beyond that, yes, Clement is one of the best sources we have on the martyrdom of Paul and Peter.


Out of curiosity, how would Wiccans generally view the resurrection?

Of course, there is no "one true Wiccan view" (TM) of the Resurrection--or for mch of anything else, for that matter. :hehe: We do tend to be a diverse lot.

For my part, if I am dealing with a mythico-religious context, I deal with it as presented. If I am dealing with a historical context, I view it as a legend that developed (fairly quickly, as legends can) regarding an actual historical person. I do not subscribe to any of the "Jesus was a myth" hypotheses--most of them sound like they were written by idiots. :hehe: