Was the Resurrection a Legend?

The gospels were written decades after the alleged resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Even then they don’t like to say a lot about the resurrection as if it was an embarrassment. The crucifixion of Jesus proved he was a fraud but his resurrection supposedly showed that those who reached this conclusion were wrong. But did it really happen? Was it a legend?

THE POSSIBILITY OF LEGEND

Perhaps the story of the resurrection just started off as the result of some unusual event or report and got exaggerated and got window dressing as time went on so that the gospel accounts are legendary.

We must remember that the gospels report that Jesus exercised a lot of pressure on his audience and disciples. He taught that if they stopped believing in him they would be on God's rubbish heap, Hell, to suffer for all eternity. He said that anybody who suspected that Satan was behind any of his miracles was blaspheming the Holy Spirit and there would be no forgiveness for them in this life or the next. In that kind of atmosphere, the witnesses of Jesus would have not just been biased in his defence but totally biased. It was the right cauldron to cook up a legend in. There has never been one as good since. The apostles (see Galatians 1) put curses called the anathema and the handing over to Satan on those who contradicted them. Jesus accused his critics of being completely bad (Matthew 12:34) - no room for loving the sinner and hating the sin if there is no good in the person at all! This was incitement to hatred.

Proof that the resurrection is a legend is in 1 Corinthians 15. There Paul, the first Christian writer, has to deal with Christians who have decided that there is no resurrection and that Jesus is dead and hasn’t risen at all.

He tells them that if Jesus hasn’t risen then the dead are lost

He tells them that if Jesus hasn’t risen then the witnesses of the apparitions of the risen Jesus are liars.

He tells them that if Jesus hasn’t risen believers are still in their sins and are to be pitied above all people.

The bad consequences he spells out prove nothing. To believe your grandma is alive because it is dreadful to think she is dead doesn’t mean she really is alive. Dreading to think of her death is not evidence that she is alive. Just because you want to believe your sins are pardoned doesn’t meant you have to believe in the resurrection. His arguments are so weak that they prove that he couldn’t do any better. If Jesus wasn’t the saviour maybe somebody else was.

Paul said that Jesus must have risen for Paul himself and the apostles could not be liars and would not misrepresent God – a sure indication that he thought they were lying and he should have known for he was one of them. If a salesman came to your door telling you that an amulet would solve all your problems for he says so you would see through him for saying that. And the honest give the best evidence they can to support their statements and don’t want you to just take their word for it.

Paul gave a breakdown of the resurrection appearances but didn’t use them as evidence or say they were evidence. In fact it was after doing this that he attempted to give evidence in the form of those weak arguments that smack of desperation. They were not evidence for he gave no details and of course he knew that the Corinthians just didn’t believe the stories of the appearances of the resurrected Jesus any more. They couldn’t function as evidence.

The weakness of the arguments proves the resurrection was a legend. He couldn’t even promise to send them affidavits from witnesses.

It is conveniently forgotten by the Church that though the resurrection of Christ has great importance in the New Testament, it is not important by itself. It is important in that Jesus was found alive after his death TO GO UP TO HEAVEN! The resurrection was Jesus’ salvation. However, we know that Jesus ascending into Heaven is nonsense for if he went up is he living in a cloud or did he go to the moon or to Mars? It is totally ridiculous to believe in the resurrection and to deny that Jesus is up in the clouds. If one is not true then why trust the other? If one is legend so is the other.

Christians say the gospels were written in the seventh decade of the first century which was too soon for legends of that proportion to develop. They reject accounts written sooner after the alleged miraculous events – like the Bell Witch and the Blair Witch story. They are showing undue prejudice. Faith never depended on charity despite the Church linking the two as two sides of the one coin. The Christians say that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the most stupendous miracle ever. The apostles agreed for they heralded the resurrection as the one miracle Satan or nature could not fake and the crown of God’s miraculous achievements and the credential that established that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. Christians neglect their duty to make sure it is all that before they believe in it. Now if the resurrection is all that then it puts the miracles of the god-man Apollonius to shame in comparison even though this character also appeared after his death, had miraculous escapes and fought with vampires and demons. Yet Christians say the accounts of Apollonius are fabricated for they are full of miracles! But surely if the greatness of the miracle indicates fabrication then the resurrection cannot be true? Apollonius’s miracles though many would be more believable than the resurrection if this is the case for as a whole even then they cannot compete with it. This repetitive perversion of logic and facts that takes place in Christian circles is really tiresome and distressing for unbelievers.

Robert Price in Beyond Born Again reminds us that when the false Jewish Messiah Sabbatai Zevi was alive and despite him and his disciples saying there would be no miracles there were still miracle stories about him. He was said to have walked into a fire and emerged unscathed. After his death he was alleged to have appeared to many. His cult eventually died out from the blow he struck it when he converted to Islam but still despite the evidence that he was not God’s chosen the legends appeared.

The cult-founder William Branham was believed by many to be virgin born though he said in his autobiography that he was anything but.

Kimbangu was made a god against his will when he was alive. If his followers had left writings about him and this was the first century these writings would be edited and the embarrassing stuff removed and burnt and presto we would have him instead of Jesus.

The best answer to the legend theory is that there is no evidence that the gospels were available to the generation that knew Jesus or their immediate offspring. But this answer can be turned the other way. And the other way is the most likely way to be correct. The gospel writers were working in secret and their works were kept hidden or heavily censored versions were given out and so they were able to invent all the legends they wished. There was no need for a long process of legend making. If the gospels were published at all before the middle of the second century then it was to a carefully chosen few who would have been too bloody-minded to believe other than what the Church was saying. That means the gospels could be out and out novels presented as true stories. If Justin Martyr and Tatian are the indisputable first people to show knowledge of the gospels as many believe then the problem is that these two were hellbent on promoting Christianity at any cost even telling huge porkies. The first quoted from non-existent books and twisted everything while the second, his close friend, rewrote the Gospels to deceive the Church into accepting his peculiar prejudices.

Robert Price says that the resurrection legend could have started easily because many people believed that Jesus was John the Baptist physically raised from the dead (Mark 6:14). Their evidence was that Jesus was doing miracles but John never did any so if the people wanted to believe something they were not going to let the evidence stop them.

Any good man could die and seem to have come back and sometimes evidence for something can itself be a mistake. For example, a man is murdered in a house. John’s belt buckle is found beside the body and John goes to jail for the murder. But what if John lost it and the dead man had found it and was holding it when the killer struck? So evidence might indicate that a man rose though he did not. Unless we can get the legal reports about the crucifixion and the tomb and the appearances we are entitled to keep an open mind but we certainly are not entitled to believe.

There is not a single eyewitness testimony to the appearances of Jesus following his death. There have been attempts to make the gospels seem to be such accounts but they fail for the gospels do not make that claim. This supports the legend idea.

Jesus at his trial, refused to speak up for himself when accused falsely. According to John, he didn’t want to be asked about what he taught and said to go and ask what his hearers had to say about what he taught. People were brought in who said that he said that he would raze the Temple and in three days raise a new Temple not built by human hands. The gospels are keen though to claim that this was false testimony even though it could be taken as referring to the Temple of his body. Why do they feel this one is the one worth quoting and attacking? Even he had razed the Temple and built a new one not by human hands that wouldn’t be blasphemy if he had the power of God in him as the gospels claim. The answer is that the resurrection was invented and was condemned by the first believers. Even Christians who cannot admit this and that there were legends about Jesus, must admit that there were legends about Jesus even when he was supposedly alive. The people were so sure of them that they testified to them in court. If true, then we have legal statements then to that effect and all we have for the gospels is hearsay and gossip. So it is wiser to believe those testimonies than the gospels.

But nevertheless expressions like that used in court could have led to the idea that Jesus intended to rise again. The gospels speak of visions. But they don’t say what kind of visions. We know from the history of mysticism that visions is a very broad thing. You can have tangible visions of a being from another world or Heaven. You can have spiritual visions and see beings inside your head. You can have visions without seeing anything – without the minds eye and your physical eyes ie intellectually. St Teresa of Avila had visions of this kind. She believed that her soul had these visions and spoke of it as sight. We speak today of seeing the light meaning we have an intellectual vision. This kind of sight is actually stronger and better than physical or spiritual sight because physically seeing things or spiritually seeing things does not prove they are real but intellectual sight does or is thought to.

The gospels reporting the seeing and hearing and touching of the risen Jesus could mean intellectually for they don’t treat the risen Jesus as being the same as the Jesus as he was before his death. They keep saying that Jesus referred them to and they kept going to the scriptures to see if Jesus had risen. The appearances were only regarded as proving the resurrection not by themselves but by showing that the scriptures proved it. The idea that the apostles had intellectual visions of Jesus through thinking his resurrection was predicted in the Old Testament is possible. The women at the tomb could have been the first to start this. We must remember they found an open tomb but no indication is given in the gospels that this was a miracle for Jesus could have been stolen before they got around to looking in. This could have been the trigger.

In John 2, Jesus causes trouble in the Temple and claims authority to put the buyers and sellers and their animals and stock out. The Jews asked him where he got this authority and what evidence he had to show he had it. He replied that they should destroy this Temple and in three days he will raise it up. He didn't say what he meant by that. John says he meant the temple of his body which would die and be raised up again three days later. The Jews assumed he meant he would demolish the Temple and rebuild it in three days. From this they concluded that he was mad. Jesus is declaring that the resurrection is his big proof that he is the Messiah, Son of God and whatever else he claims to be. Would Jesus have misled them that way and made them think he wished to demolish the Temple? What other interpretation could they take of him? Maybe that is what he meant. Especially when he was attacking the Temple physically. It is tempting to think that the resurrection story could have started with a missing tomb. Then the apostles remembering the prophecy about the Temple decided it was his body he meant not the real Temple and decided they had enough to go on to proclaim a resurrection. In any case, Jesus was claiming the right to meddle even violently in Temple affairs without giving any evidence that he had authority to do so. He needed that evidence before he could act. But he didn't let that stop him. John puts this episode at the start of Jesus' ministry when he hadn't even started his ministry with its alleged miracles which worsens it all. He was not to be trusted.

The resurrection failed to be his big proof for nobody saw him rising. That can be taken as support for a literal interpretation of his Temple prophecy.

The resurrection implies that God protects his own. This suggests the malicious doctrine that God doesn’t not protect sinners and so if people suffer its their own fault. No matter how much good the belief can cause that evil doctrine is behind it. It is it’s very essence.

It is odd how the oldest gospel, Mark, states that Jesus could do no miracle among people because of their great unbelief. If that was the case, then how could he have risen when at that time the people had turned against him and ceased to believe and the disciples had abandoned him? In fairness, the gospel ends without saying there was any real evidence for the resurrection.

ST FRANCES XAVIER AND LEGEND MAKING

FROM debunkingchristianity.blog.org
I regularly encounter pseudo-skepticism -- reflexive doubt in response to
criticism of credulous belief -- on the question of how the legend of
Jesus could have developed in the period between Jesus' death and the
writing of the synoptic gospels. Many Christians just don't see how or why
such fantastic inventions arose from the crushing disappointment of the
crucifixion of the man they supposed the Messiah (assuming here, arguendo,
the historicity of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans at around the
time commonly supposed)? "Why would these people die for a lie?" goes a
common retort.

That's a fair question, even if it is offered pseudo-skeptically. But I
don't think it's nearly as difficult as Christians commonly suppose. Even
granting the dubious claims that all of Jesus disciples except John died a
martyr's death (and indeed, this is precisely the kind of narrative we
might expect as a later bit of legendary embellishment), we need not
suppose a deliberate, coordinated conspiracy of lies is demanded of the
situation. Rather, we need only look to the social capacity and
disposition toward legend-making.

Inevitably, the pseudo-skeptic demands an example. I've suggested the
legend and folklore of King Arthur, and pointed to the invention of
"Newton's apple" by Voltaire as casual examples of the tendency to
mythologize and embellish real people and events that capture our passions
and imaginations. Reading a bit about Andrew Dickson White this week,
intrigued by his provocative phrase "an asylum for Science", used in
reference to his ambitions for Cornell University, a school he co-founded,
I came across White's book A History of the Warfare of Science with
Theology in Christendom (which title I believe is familiar to me from the
words of Bertrand Russell?). In the book, White recounts the case of
Francis Xavier, co-founder of the Jesuits, patron saint of missionaries,
and the man the Catholic church credits with converting more souls to
Christianity than any other since Paul.

White's book (which can be read here, or at Google books complete with
footnotes here) has a chapter on Xavier, in which he details the
progression and development of legends -- miraculous legends -- about
Xavier in the aftermath of his death. Here is why White chose to examine
the case of Xavier:

"We have within the modern period very many examples which enable us to
study the evolution of legendary miracles. Out of these I will select
but one, which is chosen because it is the life of one of the most noble
and devoted men in the history of humanity, one whose biography is
before the world with its most minute details - in his own letters, in
the letters of his associates, in contemporary histories, and in a
multitude of biographies: this man is St. Francis Xavier. From these
sources I draw the facts now to be given, but none of them are of
Protestant origin; every source from which I shall draw is Catholic and
Roman, and published under the sanction of the Church. " [1]

White provides his basic claim for the chapter here:

"During his career as a missionary he wrote great numbers of letters,
which were preserved and have since been published; and these, with the
letters of his contemporaries, exhibit clearly all the features of his
life. His own writings are very minute, and enable us to follow him
fully. No account of a miracle wrought by him appears either in his own
letters or in any contemporary document. At the outside, but two or
three things occurred in his whole life, as exhibited so fully by
himself and his contemporaries, for which the most earnest devotee could
claim anything like Divine interposition; and these are such as may be
read in the letters of very many fervent missionaries, Protestant as
well as Catholic."[2]

White continues with an example:

"For example, in the beginning of his career, during a journey in Europe
with an ambassador, one of the servants in fording a stream got into
deep water and was in danger of drowning. Xavier tells us that the
ambassador prayed very earnestly, and that the man finally struggled out
of the stream. But within sixty years after his death, at his
canonization, and by various biographers, this had been magnified into a
miracle, and appears in the various histories dressed out in glowing
colours. Xavier tells us that the ambassador prayed for the safety of
the young man; but his biographers tell us that it was Xavier who
prayed, and finally, by the later writers, Xavier is represented as
lifting horse and rider out of the stream by a clearly supernatural act.
"[3]

(emphasis mine in both quotes above)

According to White, Xavier is both quite keen on identifying diving
providence, but claims or even mention of miracles is conspicuously
missing from his writings. Not only are miracles absent from Xavier's own
accounts, the man who knew Xavier best, fellow Jesuit and historian of the
order Joseph Acosta, positively denies the presence of miracles in the
Jesuits' missionary enterprise of the time:

"But on the same page with this tribute to the great missionary Acosta
goes on to discuss the reasons why progress in the world's conversion is
not so rapid as in the early apostolic times, and says that an especial
cause why apostolic preaching could no longer produce apostolic results
``lies in the missionaries themselves, because there is now no power of
working miracles.'' He then asks, ``Why should our age be so completely
destitute of them?'' This question he answers at great length, and one
of his main contentions is that in early apostolic times illiterate men
had to convert the learned of the world, whereas in modern times the
case is reversed, learned men being sent to convert the illiterate; and
hence that ``in the early times miracles were necessary, but in our time
they are not.''[4]

Over the course of the decades following Xavier's death, admiring
biographers and sponsors for Xavier's canonization produced a rapid
"evolution" of miracles and supernatural works that got attached to
Xavier, increasingly fantastic as time went by. Here, White recalls the
situation 70 years after Xavier's death:

"In 1622 came the canonization proceedings at Rome. Among the speeches
made in the presence of Pope Gregory XV, supporting the claims of Xavier
to saintship, the most important was by Cardinal Monte. In this the
orator selects out ten great miracles from those performed by Xavier
during his lifetime and describes them minutely. He insists that on a
certain occasion Xavier, by the sign of the cross, made sea-water fresh,
so that his fellow-passengers and the crew could drink it; that he
healed the sick and raised the dead in various places; brought back a
lost boat to his ship; was on one occasion lifted from the earth bodily
and transfigured before the bystanders; and that, to punish a
blaspheming town, he caused an earthquake and buried the offenders in
cinders from a volcano: this was afterward still more highly developed,
and the saint was represented in engravings as calling down fire from
heaven and thus destroying the town.

The most curious miracle of all is the eighth on the cardinal's list.
Regarding this he states that, Xavier having during one of his voyages
lost overboard a crucifix, it was restored to him after he had reached
the shore by a crab.

The cardinal also dwelt on miracles performed by Xavier's relics after
his death, the most original being that sundry lamps placed before the
image of the saint and filled with holy water burned as if filled with
oil.''[5]

This is just a small sample of the inventory provided by White in the
chapter. What is striking is not just the breadth and depth of the body of
legend associated with Xavier in the years following his death, but the
"whole cloth fabrication" of the stories. For most, and possibly all of
the miraculous accounts given later, there doesn't even seem to be the
"seed" used for later embellishment, but a kind of ex nihilo creation of a
miraculum vitae for Xavier (one can feel the account of the crab returning
Xavier's crucifix resonating with Paul's miraculous survival of the
viper's bite on Malta in Acts).

The import of the example of Xavier, and the spontaneous appearance and
evolution of miracles attributed to him should be obvious to the
Christian, to the pseudo-skeptic; given a couple decades, and a cult
following, the invention and development of miracle accounts -- accounts
of fantastic miracles -- isn't implausible, or even novel, and relevant
examples are found right inside the history and culture of Christendom
itself.

I do note that White's book is now well over a hundred years old, and as
science proves, a lot can be discovered over the course of a hundred and
more years. I've done some googling on this, but have not found anything
that indicates that White's claims in the book have been overturned by the
discovery of new evidence from Xavier's writings or reports by his
contemporaries that substantiate the miracles later attributed to him. If
readers are aware of such a case, I stand to be corrected. But as it is, I
commend the case of Xavier and his admirers to the pseudo-skeptic, as a
vivid historical example of "legendation" in action, the kind of
inventions and embellishments we see accounting for the death of Jesus
circa 30CE and the legend of Jesus emerging over the next 50-60 years.

[1] Andrew Dickson White, A History of the Warfare of Science with
Theology in Christendom (Prometheus Books, 1993), lib ii, cap XIII, p. 5.