Chris Weimer

I never said it wasn't tradition. I'm saying that your views on tradition are skewed and not in line with current modern anthropological views (views from anthropologists who don't even work with biblical texts).

Where in this thread, heck, where at all on IIDB have I argued that the "cult of the martyrdom" spread before Ignatius? I've never examined the issue. What I have been arguing, though, is that not all tradition is ahistorical, that if something is based on tradition, it may well be fact. I've cited peer reviewed papers from outside the Biblical studies field in support of this - what have you cited? Your feelings on tradition?

Roger Pearse

Or, indeed, traditor.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Chris Weimer

I think most people just put him on ignore.

Haha! Are you trying to imply something, amice?

Amedeo

I don't know how the Apostles died, but I believe that the so-called Martyrs [witnesses to the Faith] died at the hand of emperors or other public officials. Their histories were written by Christian believers or prelates, who in effect say that many Christians were persecuted and executed on account of their being Christians (or their refusing to give up their faith).

This sounds exactly like the claim that Jews were persecuted in Europe on account of being Jewish, on account of their faith. Nothing is said that there were hosted by Christians as Jewish migrants and that, for example, in 19th century Germany, the Jews were defined as Germans of a different faith (and were treated like any other German). If anything, the Jewish faith was as respected as the Bible which the Christians had adopted.

So, granting that the Apostles and various communities of Christians died at the hand of public officials, I doubt the veracity of the interpretation of the facts, that they died for being Christians or as witnesses to their faith. This interpretation is a cover-up of the reason of the persecution, when Rome and the empire enjoyed freedom of religion and Rome itself harbored the Egyptian and the Persian (Mithraic) religion. The political authorities were never concerned with the religious beliefs and practices of the people, with the ethnic characters of populations under Roman jurisdiction, for Rome operated as a republic: AS A SOCIETY OF FREE CITIZENS. An emperor was not their owner or ruler of their lives. The jursprudential office (for inter-citizen relations) was the core of the republic officialdom. So, those interpretation of the persecution events are unquestionably false.

If they didn't die "for Christ", why were they persecuted and executed? For the same reason that Christ was persecuted and executed -- not Jesus the messiah who preached peace and good will, but Jesus the son of Joseph, who was the distant son of King David. Jesus was the legitimate king of Israel, or so the evangelists claim, but the Gospels are practically silent about the life of Jesus King, except that at a certain moment, we find him accused, tried, and crucified as THE KING OF THE JUDAEANS. The reason for the crucifixion was blurred out by Paul of Tarsus, who preached that Jesus died to atone for the original sin of mankind, which makes a mockery of the sign on the cross, "Jesus Nazarene King of the Judaeans, "Not Jesus Nazarene Messiah of Mankind." So, for Christians, the fact that Jesus was a king by blood simply means that he will be the king in the Kingdom of God to come. His actual royalty is allegorized and thus denied.

As a pretending king, Jesus, or the ones who set him up as the legitimate king, wanted to replace the hated and illegitimate Herodian kings, who were protected by the Romans. The Herods and the Romans were the targets of all the rebels of the time, who wanted them out.

No rebel could really cope with the Roman forces. So, the Christian followers of King Jesus decided, upon the death [real or simulated of Jesus], as the Acts say, to recruit Gentiles [soldiers etc.] into Judaism FOR A LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME. I think the operative principle was, "IF YOU CAN'T WIN, WIN THEM OVER."

So, the apostles went to various central cities of the empire to recruit and establish a forced against the Herodian and/or Roman establishment. In effect, the Christianized Gentiles inherited the mission of overturning the enemy government in order to establish Jesus' kingdom of God. It was these rebels against the Roman governments in Rome and elsewhere that were apprehended and executed. Indeed, they were Jesus' royalists who died for his cause... even after he had died and the Judaean government had come to an end.

Two types of Christians emerged: the royalists and the messiahists; the latter established monastic communities for themselves, somewhat in the Essene manner, rather than being secular activitists against the existing governments, ultimately aiming at having the vicar of Jesus, the Pope, as the ruler of the kingdom. The papacy was established when Constantine became a Christian, unleashed the Christians on the pagans, and moved the capital from Rome to Byzantium. The document which is called Constantine's Donation [of the territory around Rome to the Pope, may have been a later forgery, but there was a real donation. So, the Christian royalists (called secularists) finally won: Their Vicar of Jesus was their own king. And a clash developed in the later Middle Ages, between the Pope and the Emperor about supreme secular authority over Christendom. For many more centuries, countries under the papal jurisdiction had "civil governments" which were subordinate to and executing for the Papal authority. (In domains with the separation of church and state, there was only one authority, the civil one. So, in Jefferson's Virginia, the citizens were no longer obliged to pay mites to their churchmen or to live by their rules. The American camp churches are dying to re-acquire authority over the people; meanwhile, they are getting rich by just selling salvation.)

Doug Shaver

If there was a real Jesus, then, if he had any disciples, then it is not just probable that they died. It is certain. The question is whether we have good reason to think we might know how they died.

I'm aware of that. I was not responding to such a claim. I was responding to your comment about trashing beliefs that are based on tradition. I gave you an example of a tradition-based belief that I would not trash, and this was an example of a tradition-based belief that I would trash.

Solo

IOW, there is no method by which you could establish with any degree of accuracy the probability that the disciples martyred themselves for Jesus.

It may be and again may be not. The reason I brought up Ignatius was because it really looks like the martyrdom of the kind he pioneered (i.e. that we are talking about here) was not on the menu before him. Paul sought vindication in Rome, not martyrdom. Peter likely never set foot there. I know of no evidence that the persecuted Christians under Nero were eager to die for their cause. The likelihood is that there were no martyrs among Jesus immediate disciples. John's Jesus runs away from stone throwers (8:59) and goes permanently into hiding after warrant is out on him and Lazarus. He had survival instincts. If he was a leader he would have been followed.

Mind you this is all just a guess, a belief, or as you say, "my feelings" on that particular tradition. But I would rather go by that than pretend I can establish the disciples' martyrdom as probability, and end up talking through my hat.

,...yeah but the devil is in the details. If you go out claiming you can establish "something" as probability, and not just a hunch or belief, you better have something up your sleeve.



Jiri

Doug Shaver

Close enough. Works for me.

What we're discussing is whether we have good reason to believe those statements made in those books. To answer that, it is essential to inquire about the writers' sources for those statements. If their sources were traditions, then what they wrote was traditions. The mere fact that those particular traditions come to us in writing rather than by word of mouth is irrelevant to the issue of their credibility. A tradition gains no credibility solely because it happens to have been put in writing.

andrewcriddle

I think we should make a distinction here.

Are you saying that even if Peter and Paul were killed by the authorities for reasons relating to their Christian activities, this would not mean they were martyrs in the sense of Ignatius and other 2nd century and later Christians ?

If so you may well be correct.

Or are you saying that Peter and Paul were probably not killed by the authorities for reasons relating to their Christian activities ?

In which case I think the evidence (from 1 Clement onwards ) is against you.

Andrew Criddle

Solo

No 1. is my fallback position. I believe (on what I know presently) that the Ignatian model shaped the second century church view of the apostolic age and by its internal values basically prescribed martyrdom.

As for Peter and Paul, again the most important consideration to me in this context is "did they consider themselves martyrs" again in the Ignatian sense of seeking death to confirm Christ. I have seen no evidence for this anywhere. 1 Clement extolls the perseverance and endurance of P&P but does not mention their sacrificial, Christ-like, death which strikes me as extremely odd.

What in 1 Clement do you read as evidence that both Peter and Paul were executed by the authorities ?

Jiri

Chris Weimer

Did I say there was? :huh:

Aren't you really building a strawman out of what was said?

What are you responding to?

What did I say to make you say this?

Is it because you don't have anything to offer that you dismiss it?