The Liberal Compromise of Christ’s Resurrection Part 1

Our last two posts have been devoted to the world’s rejection of Christ’s resurrection and how the history of Christianity confirms the veracity of the resurrection.  Despite the fact that belief in the resurrection rests on solid historical and rational ground, liberal Christians (those who have no right to the name Christian) have compromised the truth of the resurrection to appease unbelievers.

With the swoon theory, conspiracy theory and hallucination theory thoroughly debunked, many have realized that historical facts cannot support any other conclusion than Christ did rise from the dead.  Their solution?  Toss out history altogether.  In other words, much of what has been received as historical record actually did not occur.  It is myth.  This “myth theory” is the standard party-line held by theology departments in most of today’s liberal seminaries and universities.  They claim that the resurrection story in the Gospel accounts is not literally true.  However, neither is it false.  The truth of the resurrection is in the message of hope it conveys.  In other words, though the event didn’t happen in the realm of time and space, it communicates something that is spiritually true.  They insist the story is not to be taken literally but symbolically.

This is a red herring.  They haven’t provided a new alternative at all.  They have simply dismissed the historical evidence for the resurrection out of hand.  The myth theory portrays Jesus as a good man who taught wonderful things.  But over time, this good teacher became larger than life, growing into a mythical figure.  Perhaps it started as simple exaggeration and eventually took on a life of its own.  As the years passed, they claim that Jesus was idealized to the point that He no longer resembled the humble carpenter from Nazareth.  Others suggest that early Christians created this myth intentionally, deciding this approach would better perpetuate the truths Jesus taught.  Either way, what we have in the Gospel accounts is not history. It is legend. It is myth.

The myth theory rests on an uncomfortably fragile foundation.  Many assumptions are required to make it work.  The presuppositions on which this theory rests are not simply ideas with inferior evidence to support them; they are propositions for which there is no evidence at all.  There is a disturbing pattern here.  Modern literary critics often form a hypothesis about how the Bible was transmitted and then invent the missing links needed to support their theory.  For example, anyone who has read the four Gospel accounts knows that Matthew, Mark and Luke are very similar while John is quite different.  Mark, the shortest account, is believed to be the oldest.  It is claimed that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a reference point for penning their accounts.
 
"The myth theory rests on an uncomfortably fragile foundation.  Many assumptions are required to make it work.  The presuppositions on which this theory rests are not simply ideas with inferior evidence to support them; they are propositions for which there is no evidence at all."

However, Matthew and Luke contain a lot of similar material not found in Mark.  Where did it come from?  Textual critics have invented another source they refer to as the “Q document.”  No such document has ever been discovered and there is no direct evidence that any such document ever existed.  Nonetheless, countless professors and students refer to the Q document as if it were fact.  Is it unreasonable to think that Matthew included more accounts in his record because he was an eyewitness of the events?  Is it unreasonable to believe Luke when he says that he carefully researched the facts and penned his account based upon eyewitness reports?  Liberals think so.  There must be some other explanation.  Admittedly, those who research the Q hypothesis it in greater detail will find more sophisticated aspects to their arguments.  But, at the end of the day, it is based solely on conjecture.  This is the kind of assumptive scholarship behind the myth theory.  

In our next post we will begin an examination of the presuppositions needed to support this theory.