Introduction
There are numerous attacks against Christianity that must be defended, but one of the
most important defenses for Christians today is the defense of the resurrection of Jesus. One of
the most prominent arguments against the resurrection is the legend theory, which states the
story of Jesus evolved over time into an fictious legend. The legend theory is illogical because
the resurrection of Jesus does not look like legend, contains uncomfortable information about the
authors, and does not have the time needed to change historical facts into legend.
Why a Legend?
Before delving into the reasons why the legend theory is illogical, we first need to
understand why people take this stance on the resurrection of Jesus. First, any skeptic of the
Bible and the life of Jesus will always assume the resurrection of Jesus is a myth and something
that is too farfetched to be true. To be honest, how many people have ever seen a dead person
come back to life, especially someone who was dead for three days? Second, it is easier to paint
the resurrection as a legend with Jesus as just a kind and gentle man whose life was cut short
when his actions and words interfered with the authorities of his time. Then, when he died, his
followers wanted to keep his memory alive by telling of his great acts of kindness, which over
time became divine and godly qualities that began to replace fact with legendary claims that
included him rising from the dead.1 Finally, as Michael Licona states, “legend emerged rapidly in
antiquity…[and] historians were often guilty of reporting incredible events in order to win
approval.”2 Therefore it is easy to see how some would jump to the resurrection as a legend as
well.
1 J. P. Moreland and Tim Muehlhoff, The God Conversation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2017), 87.
2 Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (La Vergne:
InterVarsity Press, 2020), 442, ProQuest Ebook Central.
2
Defense of the Resurrection of Jesus
However, the first issue with this legend theory of the resurrection is that the biblical
writings of Jesus do not bear a resemblance to legends.3 As with any historical writing, the
information known by someone is presented in varying forms of both verbal and written
dissertation. Samuel Byrskog states that “any serious scholar who wishes to interact with a
broader audience recognizes that the mode of inquiry and the mode of presentation are two
different, but related, things. Although the former constitutes the basic informative nucleus of the
latter, the smooth outline of a lecture, an article or a book rarely reflects all the complexities and
irregularities of historical inquiry.”4 For this reason, the writers of the gospels, detailing the life,
death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus would not have been content to leave the history of Jesus
in a state of various subjective, oral eyewitness reports. Also, unlike legends, the writings of
Jesus and the resurrection are filled with details and lack “larger-than-life”5 characters. Finally,
unlike legends, you find astonishing detailed information in the gospel accounts, such as John
20:1-8 where we find the day of the week, the time of day, specific people involved, and Peter
coming in second in a race to the tomb.6 Much of this is irrelevant details, because unlike legend,
it is all “part of what happened.”7 It is there because the story they are telling is not a made up
myth or legend. Peter even writes in 2 Peter 1:16, that they did not use myths to make known the
Lord Jesus Christ but were eyewitnesses.8
3 Moreland, The God Conversation, 88.
4 Samuel Byrskog, Story as History – History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient
Oral History (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 199, ProQuest Ebook Central.
5 Moreland, The God Conversation, 88.
6 Ibid., 89.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
3
Next, unlike legends, the resurrection of Jesus contains uncomfortable and embarrassing
information about the men writing the accounts of the resurrection. Moreland writes that
historians look for “self-incriminating passages” within writings to see if characters in the
writings are cast in a “negative light”, which usually points to them writing factual or truthful
information.9 Writers of legend are inclined to leave out uncomfortable facts that would make the
topic of their writings look bad. One uncomfortable fact in the resurrection story is the first
witnesses to the empty tomb are women. In the ancient world women were not considered
credible witnesses, so selecting them as the first witnesses to the resurrection would not convince
anyone to the validity of the empty tomb. 10 If that is not enough of an embarrassment to the
characters and writers of the resurrection, the disciples are depicted as not even trusting the
testimony of Jesus’s resurrection when the women come and tell them (Mark 16:11; Luke
24:11).11 Darrell Bock states that “this use of the criterion of embarrassment has been an
important argument in making the case that there was an empty tomb and a concrete event
behind resurrection claims.”12 It is unlikely that writers of the resurrection would create a
fictitious event using a set of second-tier and uncredible witnesses, along with the embarrassment
of the actual writers not believing those witnesses, to create a story to justify an already
contentious idea.13
9 Ibid.
10 Paul M. Gould, Travis Dickinson, and R. Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and the Brilliance of the
Gospel (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 113.
11 Ibid.
12 W. David Beck and Michael R. Licona, Raised on the Third Day: Defending the Historicity of the
Resurrection of Jesus (Ashland: Lexham Press, 2020), 170. ProQuest Ebook Central.
13 Ibid., 172.
4
Lastly, the time between the resurrection events and the writings on those events are too
short for the facts in the story to become legend. Moreland states, “if these books and letters
were written within two generations of [Jesus’s] death, it would have been impossible for
legendary features to have crept into the biblical documents.”14 Most New Testament scholars
date Mark’s gospel just before or just after AD 70, the gospels of Matthew and Luke between 80-
90 AD, and John’s gospel around the end of the first century.15 Therefore, the gospels were all
written fairly soon after the death of Jesus. A. N. Sherwin-White, an Oxford historian, Roman
history expert, and member of the respected British Academy, claims that even two generations
are frequently too brief a time to permit legend to change historical fact.16 Also, “with the
exception of the book of Hebrews, all the major books [and letters] of the New Testament make
resurrection a central focus” 17 with the majority of those books and letters having been written
before AD 62 when Paul, the author of most of those books and letters, was martyred.18 Paul
received the account of the resurrection experiences of James, Peter, and John, when he
personally spoke with them.19 Paul also recounts his own experiences firsthand, and knowing that
many of the other 500 witnesses to Jesus’s resurrection were still alive, it is practical to believe
he got firsthand accounts from at least some of them as well.20 He received the creed found in 1
14 Moreland, The God Conversation, 92.
15 R. T. France, “The Gospels as Historical Sources for Jesus,” in Christian Apologetics: An Anthology of
Primary Sources, eds. Khaldoun A. Sweis and Chad V. Meister (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 291.
16 Moreland, The God Conversation, 92-93.
17 Sean McDowell, The Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers
of Jesus (Burlington: Routledge, 2015), 22. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1070470&site=ehost-live&scope=site
18 Moreland, The God Conversation, 94.
19 Gould, Stand Firm: Apologetics and the Brilliance of the Gospel, 116.
20 Ibid.
5
Cor 15:3-7, within five years of Jesus’s death, during his meeting with James and Peter in
Jerusalem.21 With the number of actual eyewitnesses still alive and the creed being written within
five years of Jesus’s death, there is nowhere near enough time for legend to change the facts
behind Jesus’s resurrection and appearances.22
Conclusion
As stated above, legends take time to create and stories can only become legend if there
are no eyewitnesses to refute the story, which requires many generations. Therefore, with the
existence of living witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus, during the time of the writings on the
resurrection, there is not enough time to change facts to into legend. Along with the timeframe
for the writings, the fact that details within the story contain embarrassing facts about the writers
and eyewitnesses, no legend would include them if they were not true because they keep the
characters from being larger-than-life. Lastly, the resurrection story bears no resemblance to
other legends that are usually short on facts and heavy on drama. Thus, the resurrection of Jesus
must be true.
Bibliography
Beck, W. David and Michael R. Licona. Raised on the Third Day: Defending the Historicity of
the Resurrection of Jesus. Ashland: Lexham Press, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.
Byrskog, Samuel. Story as History – History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of
Ancient Oral History. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid., 117.
6
France, R. T. “The Gospels as Historical Sources for Jesus.” In Christian Apologetics: An
Anthology of Primary Sources, edited by Khaldoun A. Sweis and Chad V. Meister, 288-
294. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012.
Gould, Paul M., Travis Dickinson, and R. Keith Loftin. Stand Firm: Apologetics and the
Brilliance of the Gospel. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018.
Licona, Michael R. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. La Vergne:
InterVarsity Press, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.
McDowell, Sean. The Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest
Followers of Jesus. Burlington: Routledge, 2015.
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1070470&site=eho
st-live&scope=site
Moreland, J. P. and Tim Muehlhoff. The God Conversation. Downing Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 2017.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
