Johnny Skeptic

Christians claim that there wasn't enough time for legendary corruption to develop regarding the resurrection of Jesus, but if Jesus died and was never seen again, then it was in fact the Resurrection story that was the legend.

Chris Weimer

...Huh?

Boomeister

I don't think you understand what legend means.
But if I'm reading your post correctly, you are saying that people were able to make up all kinds of stories right after Jesus' death...which is probably true. Many gullible people are willing to believe anything. Rather than legend, you probably mean "lie" or "myth."
If you look at the gospels. You will see that a legend is formed. Mark gives less details, Matthew and Luke add more, and John makes many more spectacular claims. Their is an "evolution" (if you will) of the development of Christianity just in the four known gospels, that's not including rejected non-Canonical gospels and other "heretical" view points.


Boomeister

Toto

I think that JS in the opening post meant to talk about "legendary development" not corruption - the idea that legends grow up around a core of historical facts.

Christian apologists like to argue that the gospels were not written long enough after the events to allow this legendary development to any great extent, so that they are reasonably sure of the historical accuracy.

This is easily refuted - we can see legends of various kinds arising within days or weeks of events in our own time.

Chris Weimer

Days for sure. Like the Elian Gonzales movement in Florida, where even after the rescuers said they saw no signs of dolphins or angels, the belief that he was protected by two dolphins and angels floating above persisted. If anyone here is subscribed to chabad.org, they're always accepting little anecdotes or stories that people can share who encountered the Rebbe. Imagine in two or three years how legendary he'll become.

But as for the Jesus case, we shouldn't focus on the legendary corruption of the Resurrection in the gospels, but on Paul's theology surrounding the Resurrection, which is where Mark and subsequently other gospels took it from.

Johnny Skeptic

Toto suggested that I meant legendary development instead of legendary corruption. From a skeptical viewpoint, yes, but I used legendary corruption because that is what William Lane Craig calls it. My point was that corruption of the Gospel stories from a Christian viewpoint is indicated only if it can first be reasonably established that Jesus rose from the dead. Chris Weimer said that Paul's theology is more important than that in the Gospels. I agree. The problem for Christians is that another author writing in another century cannot reasonably be ruled out. Does anyone know of any external evidence regarding how soon the Resurrection story began to circulate?

rlogan

You are working from the premise that there was a historical Jesus that was crucified, and the stories went from there?

(As opposed to the idea that a disparate spiritual "Christ" mystery religion formed that was consolidated under the "roof" of a retroactive Jesus story.)

Chris Weimer

rlogan - I would stick to working under an historical Jesus who was crucified over a mythical Christ, as the latter would only be important if Doherty or the like were to be found correct, and there's still far too much debate on the subject to give them full credit yet. I for one still believe in an historical Jesus, although I know that the gospels are fiction. My concern is mainly Paul (and oral tradition, which is very important).