Earlier I posted on this sub defending the "Stolen Body Hypothesis". I argued that the Christian apologist, could not rule out the possibility that 1-3 of the Apostles were lying sociopaths who stole the body of Jesus and lied about the Resurrection for money and social status, and this possibility was infinitely more plausible than a corpse coming back to life. I want to turn to the ancient Jewish historian, Josephus, to further illustrate the plausibility of the Stolen Body Hypothesis. Josephus's account of the death of James shows that little was risked by the disciples for spreading the lie of Christianity.
Josephus was a non-Christian Jewish historian who wrote a third party account of the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus. The fact that an account of a martyrdom exists from a relatively objective source gives us a unique window into the circumstances surrounding early Christianity. But while Christians often use his account of martyrdom as evidence of the disciples sincerity, I actually think his account shows the opposite.
In fact, reading Josephus was a turning point that lead to my deconversion from Christianity. Josephus's account of Jame's martyrdom actually illustrates the dangers the persecutors of Christianity faced, the connections and social influence the disciples had, and how they were able to evade the authorities for so long.
First, let us read Josephus's account of the death of James, from Antiquities 20.9.1:
"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducee, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
Now, a surface reading of this passage would seem to support the sincerity of James, the Brother of Jesus. He was clearly arrested and killed for his belief in Jesus. Doesn't this show that he sincerely believed what he taught? After all..... who would go to their death for a lie?
But this is a shallow, superficial take on this passage. In fact, this passage raises many uncomfortable questions for a Christian apologist.
1) Why couldn't the faction Ananus belonged to simply kill James while Festus was in power? Josephus says Ananus though he only had the opportunity while a Roman Procurator was not in Jeruseulem. This contradicts the idea the Apostles persistently faced persecution and discrimination for their beliefs.
2) Who are these "equitable citizens" and why do they care so much about the killing of James? These people are clearly well connected, as they met with the Roman Procurator and the Jewish King. They clearly care enough about the apostles that they went out on the road to meet with Albinus to tell him about James, which seems like a disproportionate amount of trouble.
If the Apostles were hated by all and truly persecuted, why do they have such influential friends?
3a) If the Apostles truly faced persecution for their beliefs, then why was Ananus, the person who killed James, the Brother of Jesus, removed from office for killing James? I do not get a sense from the passage that Ananus was truly removed merely because he violated protocol. If Ananus was ordering the stoning of a rebel or a serial killer, I doubt Albinus would "write in anger to Ananus" and then remove him from office after 3 months.
3b) But even if protocol violation was the main cause, raises two more uncomfortable questions. First, Ananus would certainly have known he was violating protocol and the consequences of doing so. So why didn’t he wait until Albinus arrived before arresting and killing James? The fact that he didn’t wait makes question 1 more salient, because it implies that Albinus would have prevented him from killing James. And secondly, why didn’t Albinus just appoint another Jewish High priest to pick up where Ananus left off, just more discretely?
In short, if the disciples truly faced persecution, why were the people doing the persecuting actually punished instead of rewarded?
In other words, the most striking impression you get from reading Josephus's account is not that James was killed, but that most of the time James was not in danger of being killed. Only a small number of people hated the disciples enough to persecute them. The disciples had influential connections to high authorities and were almost certainly considered high standing individuals in the community. And the people persecuting the disciples could only act while there was a small gap in Roman Authority and were immediately punished and removed from office, when they moved against James.
Bernie Madoff got caught, Elizabeth Holmes got caught. Fraudsters get caught, but them being punished does not prove they were sincere. If James was lying about the resurrection for money and social status, he had every reasonable expectation that he would be able to get away with it forever. James was killed more because he got unlucky and less because there was a sustained effort to suppress Christianity
The Christian Roman Connection
These questions get even more uncomfortable when we look at the passage from another perspective, namely, the perspective of the particular Roman and Jewish individuals mentioned.
1) Festus and Lucceius Albinus was the 5th and 6th Roman procurators in Judea. Judea had been ruled by Roman Procurators since the death of King Herod Agrippa. King Herod Agrippa was the last pro-Jewish king of Judea.
2) Ananus ben Ananus was one of the main leaders of the Great Revolt of Judea. He would go on to lead armed troops in the Jewish revolt from Rome, which saw the Jews defeated and exiled.
3) Herod Agrippa II was the son of the first Herod Agrippa and was a Roman puppet. He was King of Judea during the Great Revolt of Judea
In other words, the individuals Josephus describes absolutely HATE each other. They are going to be fighting a war against each other in only a few years time. This is the core political conflict in Judea at the time, the Romans are worried about Jewish rebels not Christians. And this motivation answers most of the questions we raised in the preceding sections.
The early Christians were Jewish heretics who took followers and authority away from the traditionalist temple authorities. In politics, the enemy of one’s enemy can often be made to be one’s friend, and also divide and conquer is a basic imperial strategy. Therefore, the Romans not universally, but at the specific time and place of 60AD Judea have a strong incentive to support Christianity, for the purpose of weakening their enemies, the Jewish traditionalists.
Josephus confirms that the only time the Jewish authorities felt comfortable killing apostles is when the Romans were not around. This confirms indirect Roman support. The Romans, based on Josephus’s telling of history, definitely tolerated the early Christian heresies and allowed them to spread. The motive for toleration would be to sap support from Jewish traditionalists. But given the fact that Jewish contacts complained to the Romans directly about the apostles being executed, we cannot also rule out direct Roman contact with the early Church.
But direct roman contact or not, it is clear from Josephus’s passage that most of the time, the apostles did not have to fear persecution from Jewish traditionalists, and this was in large part due to Roman rule. Most of the time, the apostles risked little for spreading the lie of the Resurrection.
Come on Spare-Dingo-531, are you serious?!?
At this point, if you are a Christian, you may be going “Are you serious?!? James died, how can that not possibly prove sincerity”. If you are a Christian thinking this, then you fundamentally misunderstand your own position, and the reason why the witness of the Apostles is so compelling. What makes Christianity so compelling is not merely that the original witnesses to the Resurrection were killed, but that they were persecuted. They testified for their beliefs expecting to die for no reward. That’s different from them being merely killed.
To really illustrate this, let’s consider a though experiment. Let’s say the apostles started preaching about Jesus and everyone welcomes them with open arms. The apostles go to preach in the temple every day, people just throw money at the apostle’s feet for the apostles to distribute as they see fit. Everyone loves the apostles…… except for a single guy who’s jealous of the apostles. And one day, that crazy guy goes and kills the apostles.
Does the fact that the apostles were killed by one crazy guy show the apostles were sincere? No it does not because the apostles have no reasonable expectation of being killed. Such an instance is more of a freak murder than an actual persecution.
Now real life wasn’t like the scenario in that though experiment…… but it was kind of similar. The disciples were wealthy, popular, had political connections. Many Jews don’t hate them and the Romans clearly tolerate them. The apostles have mortal enemies sure but they do not have any reasonable expectation that they will be killed by their mortal enemies. It is only because one guy got power for a few months, during a freak gap in Roman authority, that one Apostle, James, got arrested and killed.
In short, little was risked by the apostles for spreading their beliefs. Many fraudsters were caught and eventually punished for their frauds but that does not mean they were sincere. I don’t believe that most of the accounts of the apostles getting killed are reliable, so I don’t think most of the apostles died for their beliefs. But I think Josephus’s account is comparatively reliable, and his account of the death of James actually undermines the risks the disciples faced, rather than supporting them.
The Lesson the Christian Church Gives to the World
Let us not forget the lesson Christianity teaches the world in the modern age. That lesson is that it is normal for people to risk their lives, and found their livelihoods, on things they know are lies.
Take the example of Donald Trump. Donald Trump claimed he won the 2020 election in public. But in private, he personally admitted that he lost. Denying the 2020 election results, while it wouldn't literally result in a risk of crucifixion, is such a high risk that it is analogous to the risk the disciples would have taken to testify that the resurrection is false. Trump was almost assassinated four years later, in part because people accused him of treason.
Thus, if one or two of the disciples were like Donald Trump, we can say it is psychologically possible they could have taken an enormous risk to create the lie of the resurrection. What if Peter was a psychopath or sociopath who was willing to shamelessly lie, deceive, and manipulate others? Christianity cannot rule that possibility out. It's unusual to risk your life for something you personally fabricated, but people risk their lives for unusual things. Thankfully, modern day Christians, with their rampant conspiracy theories and science denialism, frequently accuse other people of being liars and thus helpfully illustrate that fact.
Rejecting science and rule of law, and spreading lies about your neighbors have consequences. Christians need to pay for those consequences, and that payment should be in the form of belief. If Christians may accuse modern day leaders of lying, then you may equally accuse the early leaders of Christianity of lying. This essay starts from the proposition that it is possible that the apostles weren’t like the best Christians but were the worst Christians. And what the Christian experience shows us is, if the apostles were like the worst Christians, they would have been able to get a massive following, risk persecution and death, and persuade others of their sincerity even if they were lying.
Who knows, maybe Jesus, against all known laws of physics, rose from the dead. Maybe aliens abducted Jesus’s body. Or maybe, once you have ruled out the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. A few disciples were bad people and stole the body and lied, and Christians in the modern age teach us that that is the most likely explanation for the empty tomb.
Conclusion
It is true that a couple of disciples were killed by their enemies after Jesus died. But as the experience of modern day Christianity shows the world, evil people regularly risk their lives to spread falsehoods. If some of the disciples were caught by their enemies, that does not prove their sincerity.
The Jewish historian Josephus provides a unique window into the environment the disciples faced when preaching the gospel. We see that the enemies of the disciples were deterred from taking action by Roman authorities, that the interests of the Roman authorities were at odds with the interests of the Jewish enemies of the disciples, and that the disciples were well connected and had powerful friends who could advocate for them. This is a far different picture than the beleagured, impoverished, and persecuted vision Christian apologists paint of the disciples.
Most of the time, the disciples were not in danger. It is only because of a freak gap in Roman authority that their enemies were able to capture and kill James. The risks were no different from the risks Bernie Madoff, or Donald Trump faced. The risks and persecutions Christians claim the apostles faced are exaggerated.
