In our last post, we began looking at how liberal Christian scholars have tried to appease modern skeptics by disregarding the historical facts confirming Christ’s resurrection. They insist the story is somehow “true” but not to be taken literally. While the resurrection never actually occurred, they state, there is truth in the spiritual message of hope it conveys. The resurrection of Jesus is a myth.
This “myth theory” has two Christs, the Christ of the Gospels, and the historical Jesus. Therefore, the truth of Jesus is in layers. Liberal scholarship claims that stripping away the layer of myth is required to see the real Jesus of history. However, there is absolutely no evidence for this “layered” Jesus. Everything we know of Jesus agrees with the Gospel accounts. The letters of Barnabas and Clement, written around the end of the first century refer to Jesus’ miracles and His resurrection. Ignatius, who was martyred around AD 107, believed in Christ’s resurrection. Polycarp, who was martyred around AD 155, proclaimed that Jesus rose from the dead. Justin Martyr refers to the miracles of Jesus. All the evidence that exists points to a single Jesus, the Jesus of the Gospels that performed miracles and rose from the dead. Christianity began with belief in a resurrected Christ, not a dead one.
Christianity began with belief in a resurrected Christ, not a dead one.
Given the abundance of early extrabiblical literary accounts, there was simply not enough time for such a myth to have developed. Literary critics acknowledge that, for a myth to develop around a historical figure, a considerable amount of time is needed to distance the mythical figure from historical reality. For example, it was many generations after the death of religious leaders like Buddha and Muhammad before myths began to surface. If in first century Judea, the truth about Jesus had been displaced by a myth, there were many who could and would have exposed it. The conflict between the Jewish leaders and the Christians is a well attested historical fact. The Jews had every reason to try and discredit the disciples’ claims. But they were unable to do so. There were too many eyewitnesses.
Paul himself insisted on the literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus, citing eyewitness testimony
The ever-resourceful liberal scholars have proffered a solution. They simply date the Gospels very late, claiming they were not written by eyewitnesses or people who knew eyewitnesses. They suggest the Gospels were authored by zealous Christians many generations later. However, archeology has not been kind to these liberal scholars. All the evidence agrees with what we have always known; the Gospels are first century documents. It is interesting that even those who continue insisting on a late date for the Gospels admit that Paul’s epistles were written before AD 70 when many eyewitnesses were still alive. Paul himself insisted on the literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus, citing eyewitness testimony (1 Cor 15:5-7).
Another problem with this liberal theory is the fact that the New Testament documents are not written in “mythic style.” Myths are fanciful exaggerations in which the hero appears larger than life. Myths are big on imagination with little attention to insignificant historical particulars. However, the biblical accounts of Jesus are filled with what an ancient “myth writer” would consider “irrelevant details.” For example, why would Luke give us political background information for the nativity? Why are we told that Jesus was anointed while He was in the home of Simon the Leper? Why are we told that the first witnesses of the resurrection were women? Women were not allowed to serve as legal witnesses. Their testimony would have been considered useless! Why does John tell us that Jesus stooped down and wrote in the sand with His finger? We are not even told what he wrote! These are all events consistent with the accounts of eyewitnesses, not the fabrication of a fantastic myth. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John reported these details because they were true. Given this pattern, there is a reasonable explanation for the Gospel writers they reported Christ’s resurrection; it actually occurred! As Mark Twain observed, the truth is often stranger than fiction.
In our next post, we conclude our consideration of the historical veracity of Christ’s resurrection with further evidence that discredits the presuppositions on which the liberal compromise rests.
