Program / Course 16: Historical Defense / Lesson 6.3
What you will learn
- Explain the difference between a witness’s sincerity and the truth of what the witness believes.
- State the argument from the willingness of early Christians to suffer, in its strongest form.
- State the main objections to the argument.
- Say what role martyrdom should and should not play in a historical case for the resurrection.
The big idea
People are willing to die for beliefs that are false, so the fact that someone dies for a claim does not prove it true. What martyrdom can show is sincerity: a person who dies for a claim probably believes it. This matters in one specific way. If the first disciples were willing to suffer for the claim that they had seen Jesus alive, then the explanation that they knowingly invented the story becomes much less likely. The argument leaves other explanations open, namely that they were sincerely mistaken. It is therefore a modest argument, strongest against conspiracy and silent about delusion.
Key terms
- Sincerity
- Honestly believing what one says. A sincere person may still be wrong.
- Truth
- Whether a claim corresponds to reality, regardless of how strongly anyone believes it.
- Conspiracy theory (in this context)
- The proposal that the disciples knew the resurrection was false and lied about it. Lesson 7.3 treats it.
- Firsthand witness
- Someone who personally saw the events claimed, as opposed to someone who inherited a belief from others.
- Zeal
- Intense commitment to a cause, which can lead people to take great risks for ideas that are mistaken.
- Epistemic access
- A person’s ability to know whether a claim is true. Disciples had direct access to whether they had seen Jesus, but not to whether the cause of the experience was supernatural.
Background
The suffering of early Christians has often been used as an argument for Christianity. The old saying that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church is attributed to Tertullian. Many modern apologists repeat the argument in a stronger form, claiming that no one would die for something he knew to be a lie. Skeptics reply that people die for things they believe, including false things.
Both sides are partly right. The question is what the argument is meant to prove. Used to prove the truth of the resurrection, it fails, because it infers truth from sincerity. Used to rule out one explanation, deliberate fabrication, it has some force. This lesson sets out the argument and the criticisms so that it can be used with precision.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Dying for a belief
History offers many examples of people who died for beliefs that others hold to be false. Followers of different religions, political movements and cults have accepted death. Examples include members of groups who committed mass suicide, and people who died for an ideology they later turned out to be wrong about. Fanatics may die for a cause with no doubts.
So the fact that Christians died for their faith does not prove that Christianity is true. Nor does the manner of their death. A willingness to suffer indicates conviction, not accuracy. This point is generally accepted by thoughtful defenders as well as skeptics, and an argument that depends on the contrary is a bad argument.
Step 2: The narrower argument
The narrower argument claims something different. The great majority of martyrs in history died for beliefs they received from others, such as a religion taught by their parents, and they could not check whether the belief was true. The first disciples were in a different position. They claimed to have seen Jesus alive. They were in a position to know whether they had seen something or had made it up.
If they had invented the story, they would have known it was a lie. People do not usually accept torture and death for something they know to be false when they could escape by admitting it. So the argument concludes that they probably sincerely believed they had seen the risen Jesus. This leaves open what they saw.
Step 3: The strength of the argument
The argument is aimed at a particular theory: that the apostles stole the body or made up the appearances to gain power or to save face. That theory, argued by Reimarus in the eighteenth century and still found in popular writing, has been given up by almost all scholars. The behavior of the disciples, including Paul’s sufferings and the deaths of James and Peter, fits poorly with a deliberate fraud with no benefit.
Outside observers noticed the Christians’ attitude to death. Marcus Aurelius, writing around AD 170 to 180, spoke of readiness for death that should come from reasoned judgment and not from mere obstinacy, as with the Christians (Meditations 11.3). Lucian of Samosata, a satirist, mocked the Christians for treating death lightly (The Passing of Peregrinus 13). Neither of them thought the Christians were lying. They thought they were deluded.
Step 4: The objections
Objections include these. First, it is only the sincerity of the earliest disciples that matters, and the evidence for their deaths is sparse (Lesson 6.2). Second, sincere people can be wrong: a person who has an intense vision can be convinced it was real. Third, social pressure and group commitment make it harder for a person to withdraw, and many sincere believers will not recant. Fourth, the argument proves too much if applied to other groups. Muslims, Mormons and others have martyrs, and the argument would then support incompatible claims.
Defenders reply that they do not claim to prove the resurrection from martyrdom alone, only to remove one alternative. They add that the other groups’ founders did not claim that a dead man had appeared to them in public, and that the circumstances differ. Critics remain unconvinced that the differences are as great as stated.
Step 5: How to use the argument
A careful student can use martyrdom for a single purpose: as evidence of sincerity, to weaken the theory of deliberate fraud. The student cannot use it as proof of the resurrection, and should not claim that all the apostles died for it. The argument stands beside others: the empty tomb, the early creed, the sudden change in the disciples, and the conversion of Paul and James.
It also helps to keep in mind that the question for the historian is what best explains the sincere belief of the disciples. Lessons 7.1 and 7.2 turn to the main sincere-error explanations: hallucination and legend.
- Does this evidence show that the person believed the claim, or that the claim is true?
- Did the person have a way of knowing whether the claim was true?
- Is the claim one that can be checked, or one received from tradition?
- Would the same argument also support beliefs that I reject?
- What explanation does this argument rule out, and which does it leave open?
- How well attested is the suffering in the case at hand?
Examples
A mistaken believer
A man is certain that he saw his late wife in the room and is willing to swear it in court. He is sincere. He may also be mistaken, if grief produced the experience. Sincerity does not settle the question of what he saw.
Second-hand versus first-hand
A modern believer who dies for his religion usually received it from others. He cannot check the original events. An early disciple who claimed to have seen Jesus alive claimed to know the original event firsthand. The cases differ, though a firsthand witness can also be mistaken about the cause of an experience.
Lucian and the Christians
Lucian wrote a satire about a man, Peregrinus, who joined the Christians and was supported by them in prison. He says they despise death and think themselves immortal. He is mocking them, and his testimony shows that outsiders saw the Christians as believing, not as faking.
Different perspectives
Evangelical apologists
Many state that the transformation of the disciples from frightened followers to bold witnesses, willing to die, is evidence that they believed what they said, and treat this as an important piece of the cumulative case.
Catholic and Orthodox Christians
Both traditions honor martyrs and teach that martyrdom is a witness to the faith, while holding that the faith rests on grace and revelation. Martyrs are venerated as witnesses, not as proofs.
Skeptical philosophers and historians
They emphasize that sincerity does not prove truth, that many groups have martyrs, and that martyrdom is evidence of commitment. Some also note that stories of martyrdom were shaped by later communities.
Careful Christian scholars
Some argue that martyrdom should be given a small role in the historical case, because it shows sincerity and does not prove truth. They say that apologists who overstate it weaken their case.
Muslim, Jewish and other perspectives
Believers in other religions point to their own martyrs and their own sincere witnesses, and note that the argument cannot prove one religion over another. Jewish history in particular includes many who died in witness to the faith, from the Maccabees onward.
Why it matters
A good argument is used for what it can prove. The argument from martyrdom is often used for too much and then rejected entirely. Seeing exactly what it can do helps a student use it fairly, defend the faith without exaggeration, and answer critics without being defensive.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: People only die for what they believe is true, so Christianity must be true.
Correction: People die for beliefs that are false. Dying shows sincerity, not truth.
Misunderstanding: Martyrdom proves nothing at all.
Correction: It shows sincerity, and sincerity matters against the theory that the disciples knowingly lied. It is limited, but relevant.
Misunderstanding: The argument applies to Christianity alone.
Correction: Other religions and movements have martyrs. The argument concerns the specific position of firsthand witnesses, not martyrdom in general.
Misunderstanding: Sincere belief rules out hallucination and legend.
Correction: A sincerely mistaken witness is exactly what these theories propose. The argument does not touch them.
Knowledge check
Why does the fact that someone dies for a belief not show it is true?
People have died for many incompatible beliefs, so willingness to die cannot show which, if any, is true. It shows that the person believed it strongly. A sincere person may be mistaken, deceived or misled by experience, so the step from sincerity to truth is not valid.
What is the narrower argument from martyrdom?
It says that the first disciples claimed to have seen Jesus alive and so were in a position to know if they had made it up. People rarely suffer and die for what they know is false, so the disciples probably sincerely believed they had seen him. This weakens the theory of deliberate fraud.
Give two objections to the argument.
The evidence for the deaths of the first witnesses is limited, and sincere people can be wrong, so sincerity leaves open hallucination or legend. Also, other groups have martyrs, so the argument cannot by itself distinguish true from false religious claims, and group pressure can make retraction hard.
How should martyrdom be used in the case for the resurrection?
Modestly, as evidence of the sincerity of the earliest witnesses, which counts against the claim that they knowingly invented the story. It should not be used as proof of the resurrection or as a claim that every apostle died for it. It works alongside other evidence.
Think it through
- Can you think of someone who was sincerely wrong about something important?
- Why might the firsthand position of the disciples matter?
- How would you answer a friend who says that Christians are the same as any other martyrs?
- What other evidence would you want alongside the argument from martyrdom?
Independent assignment
A short argument, carefully limited
In your own notebook, write 300 to 500 words. Present the argument from the willingness of the first disciples to suffer in its narrowest, most defensible form. Then give the strongest objection and say what the argument can and cannot establish. Do not send this to anyone.
Further study
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fallacies Check the argument against fallacies of reasoning from sincerity or popularity.
- Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics Read for an early Latin writer’s response to persecution and heresy.
- Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians Read Ignatius for the voice of a believer facing death.
- Justin Martyr, The First Apology Read his comments on the courage of the Christians.
- Blaise Pascal, Pensées Pascal wrote that he believed witnesses who were willing to be killed. Read to see how he uses the argument.
- Acts 4:20 We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.
- Revelation 2:13 Antipas, my faithful martyr.