by The resurrection of Jesus is not a legend that evolved over time. Historical documents and Scripture are evidence that supports the event was recorded and shared correctly, dispelling the notion that it was legend. Legends take generations to develop and contain exaggerations without embarrassment of the main characters. The accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are opposite of these types of stories. The historical evidence and bedrocks of the facts are undeniable and maintain the claim of the resurrection of Jesus.
Knowing that Jesus existed is an important establishment to understanding that His resurrection did occur and was not just a legend that evolved over time. There needed to be people that remembered Jesus to claim the Easter celebration that He has risen. The response when someone said, He has risen, would be He has risen indeed! This would not have become tradition if no one knew who He was. “This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses” (Acts 2:32, New King James Version). It would be like saying, “God raised Fred from the dead,” and people would respond, “who the heck is Fred?”[1]
There are several reasons why the legend theory should be rejected. The first argument is the Biblical accounts of Jesus not resembling what legend stories resemble. Legend stories do not have a lot of details and are long on drama. The characters are larger than life, act in theatrical ways, and govern the story.[2] Scripture does not resemble this as it has a large amount of relevant and irrelevant details. “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Pet. 1:16). John’s account of the resurrection (John 20:1-8) is another example of this. The Gospel writers wrote details because they were facts, they also stated that it was not legend, “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Pet. 1:16).
A second argument for rejecting the legend theory is that the Gospels contain embarrassing facts that would have been removed from the year after year retelling of the stories.[3] Some examples include Jesus calling Peter “Satan” (Mark 8:33), Peter denying Jesus three times after promising that he would not (Matt. 26:33-35, 69-75), and Jesus’ disciples falling asleep after being asked specifically by Jesus to pray for Him (Mark 14:32-41). First-century Jewish culture was an oral culture which emphasized memorization and oral recitation in community gatherings. This would have been the perfect method and time to remove the embarrassing facts.
The third argument for rejecting the legend theory is that there was not enough time for legend to replace historical facts. The books and letters were written within two generations of Jesus’s death and it would have been impossible for legendary features to have crept into the biblical documents because it takes at least two generations for legend to replace historical facts.[4] “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother” (Gal. 1:18-19). With research, it is concluded that Acts was written between 60 and 62 AD. There is also large support and agreement that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written before Acts. Some of the evidence is what is not included in Acts such as the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the death of the Apostle Paul in 62 AD. Both events would have been included in Acts if they had occurred before it was written.
All three of these arguments reject the claim of the legend theory, next are the arguments for the resurrection of Jesus. Biblical support is critical to knowing truth and there are multiple instances with multiple authors over a span of years that proclaim Jesus’ resurrection. One of the arguments for the resurrection is using the map of theories explanation using the tools of necessary and sufficient conditions against the two historical assertions on the emptiness of the tomb and the meetings with the risen Jesus.[5] A necessary condition is defined as something that must be case for the conclusion to follow. A sufficient condition is something that will certainly, and without fail, produce the conclusion. With this method, the conclusion is that the combination of the empty tomb and the appearances of the living Jesus creates a group of circumstances, both necessary and sufficient, for the rise of early Christian belief. Wright explains, “Without these phenomena, we cannot explain why this belief came into existence, and took the shape it did. With them, we can explain it exactly and precisely.”[6]
Another argument for the resurrection of Jesus versus the legend of Jesus is the establishment of historical facts that are virtually indisputable. These facts are known as historical bedrocks since the thesis must built on these.[7] There are two criteria that need to be met, the first is that the facts to have strong evidence, and the second is that contemporary scholars almost unanimously regard them as historical facts.[8] Gary Habermas, an American theologian, adopted a similar approach and identified three historical facts that proved the resurrection was real. He noted that something does not become a face just because the majority of scholars believe it to be true.[9] It is noted that there is nearly universal consensus of scholars writing on the subject agree with the three historical bedrocks that include, 1) Jesus died by crucifixion, 2) Very shortly after Jesus’ death, the disciples had experiences that led them to believe and proclaim that Jesus had been resurrected and appeared to them, and 3) Within a few years after Jesus death, Paul converted after experiencing what he interpreted to be a postresurrection appearance of Jesus to him.
A third argument is the establishment of historical facts and the hypothesis of Jesus’s resurrection is a two-step process as the historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus over any other hypothesis including the evolution of Him being legend.[10] The conclusion is that the three great, independently established facts of, 1) the empty tomb, 2) the resurrection appearances, and 3) the origin of the Christian faith assert that God did raise Jesus from the dead.[11]
In conclusion, the thesis that the resurrection of Jesus is not a legend is supported by several key arguments. The first arguments reject the possibility of Jesus’s resurrection being a legend that evolved over time. The next set of arguments prove that Jesus was resurrected. All of these arguments, rejecting legend, and establishing truth of the resurrection, have scholarly support with Scripture support where appropriate.
Note from Professor: Impressive! Thank you, Shawn, for your super-good short argument paper defending the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. It was very well done overall. The argument was very good. – Cky Carrigan.
Bibliography
Allison, Dale C., Jr. Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters. New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2005.ProQuest Ebook Central.
Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 3rd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central.
Licona, Michael R. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010.ProQuest Ebook Central.
Moreland, J. P., Tim Muehlhoff, and Lee Strobel. The God Conversation: Using Stories and Illustrations to Explain Your Faith. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2017.
Wright, N. T. Resurrection Son of God V3: Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003.ProQuest Ebook Central.
[1] Dale C. Allison, Jr., Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2005), 375,ProQuest Ebook Central.
[2] J. P. Moreland, Tim Muehlhoff, and Lee Strobel, The God Conversation: Using Stories and Illustrations to Explain Your Faith (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2017), Reasons Why the Legend Theory Should be Rejected.
[3] Moreland, Muehlhoff, Strobel, The God Conversation, Talking Crosses and Mysterious Giants.
[4] Ibid., The Alamo and the New Testament Documents.
[5] N. T. Wright, Resurrection Son of God V3: Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 686,ProQuest Ebook Central.
[6] Ibid., 696.
[7] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010), 221,ProQuest Ebook Central.
[8] Ibid., 222.
[9] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 223.
[10] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), 538, ProQuest Ebook Central.
[11] Ibid., 608.