The Supposed Disingenuousness of the Jesus Legend in Popular Media
This is responding to an article "The Disingenuousness of the Jesus Legend in Popular Media" By Emma Louie.
It can be found here, but I think you need to sign in to read it (but it is free):
The article sets out its stall in the first paragraph.
Mom, is Jesus like Santa Clause?” Perplexed by her fifteen-year-old daughter’s question, Sarah a young Christian did not know how to answer as she thoughtfully placed the popular Christmas Blu-ray movie in the shopping cart along side the diet sodas and popcorn. Zoe repeated the question with the persistence of adolescent curiosity. When Sarah did not respond for the second time, Zoe added, “Well, Santa Clause isn’t real.” Just what was an appropriate response to Zoe’s question, in an age when much of what teenagers and young adults know about Jesus comes from sources other than the Christian church. The fact that Jesus rose physically from the dead is not merely a challenging concept for the novice Christian to address with clarity.
Firstly, this is apologetics. This not an attempt to show Jesus was raised from the dead. It is not trying to persuade a neutral party that Christianity is true, this is about one Christian reassuring others that they are right. Apologetics is all about preaching to the converted.
And that brings us the the second point - it assumes Jesus was raised from the dead. It is quite open about it. "The fact that Jesus rose physically from the dead..."
If you start from "The fact that Jesus rose physically from the dead..." then it is trivially easy to show that any claim that the resurrection was merely legend is wrong.
Frankly it is kind of pathetic that this was even published, but it is in Fidei et Veritatis: The Liberty University Journal of Graduate Research, volume 1, issue 1. Did it make it to a second issue? Well it has a website. Over the last ten years it has 14 articles. That is articles, not journals...
It is also easy to show that claims in the article are wrong. Here it claims that the Jesus Seminar deny Jesus existed.
The legend theory, based on the hypothesis that the resurrection of Jesus is simply an untruth that has been enhanced and embellished down through the centuries by the disciples, early Christians and the church is continuously propagated by the Jesus Seminar in present times. The organization members and supporters deny that the historical Jesus of Nazareth even existed.
That is simply not true., and really shows a profound ignorance of Biblical scholarship.
What About The Arguments?
I have been quite negative so far; here is a positive. Louie states clearly what is she is arguing for.
For transparency, let us address specifically what the Resurrection as a miracle-claim means? An assertion, originally made by the earliest Christians, who avowed that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, not in a “heavenly and exalted status”, but as a bodily physical person that was once dead and then became alive again. For, Jesus was personally brought back from the state of death in his corporal earthly body in the Resurrection.
This is important because evidence for a resurrection in a new heavenly body is not going to cut. If we could prove the disciples saw a bright light that they - rightly or wrongly - took to be the resurrected Jesus in his new body, that would refute Louie.
Additionally, the Romans firmly ruled over and punished the lower class, slaves, soldiers, the aggressively rebellious and individuals accused of treason with a brutal death by crucifixion, which was also common knowledge among the population. The disciples during Jesus’ time would have been acutely aware of the dangerous environment in which the Resurrection occurred, as well as, the general atmosphere surrounding Christianity from the ruling class. Subsequently, it would not have been an easy undertaking or one to be taken unconscientiously, for followers of Jesus to misrepresent the circumstances surrounding his death, burial and resurrection.
She makes it sound like a choice. But suppose they honestly believed Jesus was resurrected, but were wrong. Or they saw the raised Jesus in a new body. In either situation, they would be convinced Jesus was resurrected, and surely that would be reason enough to preach the resurrection despite the dangers.
Without question, canonical Gospels of the New Testament and the Letters of Paul are the most reliable eyewitness document recording the events that took place during Jesus’ life, death and resurrection.
They are the ONLY documents recording the events of Jesus life, so as well as being most reliable, they are also the least reliable! Seems quite disingenuous then to dress them up like this.
According to Licona, “Paul and the oral traditions embedded thought-out the New Testament provide the most promising support” of the Resurrection.
Well, duh! But that is a long, long way from them being persuasive... Unless you have already decided they are true.
Notable changes in the disciples of Jesus Christ. For they maintained until the end that Jesus was resurrected in body. No evidence has surface that disputes this miracle-claim, even with all of them dying as martyr except possibly John.
Suppose a disciple did change his mind? Do you really think one of the early Christians would have recorded that? And the Christian church would have preserved that story for centuries? Of course not.
Furthermore, the stories about the disciples being martyred are all suspect.
The tomb was empty and the grave clothes were discarded. For the Jesus’ corpse was never found by the Romans.
Or so the gospels say, and if we assume the gospels are true... But if you assume the gospels are true, then of course Jesus was resurrected - it says so in the gospels!
Women testified to seeing Jesus first after the Resurrection, which defied Jewish customs of the time, because women were not allowed to witness any major legal events.51
What? I think she means women were not allowed to act as witnesses; I am not aware of anything stopping them watching a trial, and cannot imagine how that is relevant if it is the case. She cites reference 51, but the paper only has 19 references (and none are numbered). Has she just plucked this claim out of thin air?
Mark invented the women seeing the empty tomb because he wanted witnesses who never told anyone.
Numerous and varied appearances of the resurrected Jesus, which lasted for forty days from scripture.
And if we just assume the Bible is true...
Fifty-day interval between the Resurrection and the Pentecost (Acts 2) in Jerusalem, because according to Luke 24 and Acts 1 the disciples waited on the Holy Spirit.
I have no idea how that can be counted as evidence of the bodily resurrection.
I am going to skip a few as they all just assume the Bible is true.
The early oral tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, as noted by Habermas avows that the creed that was practiced.
But the creed does not say a bodily resurrection. It fits just as well with Jesus resurrected in a new heavenly body. Or the disciples mistakenly thinking that.
For they are numerous, even if secondary sources that mention Jesus cannot testify to the eyewitness aspect of his activities, they can testify to his existence.
She is supposed to be arguing for the bodily resurrection. Evidence that Jesus exists is not going to cut here.
However, when the life of Jesus is portrayed with the same expertness as a film produced about Saint Nicholas, aka, Santa Clause, it takes advantage of the belief system already embedded in the teenagers and young adults construct. Thus, revealing the disingenuousness of the media’s role in fostering the legend theory.
I find the irony here remarkable.
She is whining that these nasty people are tapping into people's pre-established beliefs, and yet that it exactly what she is doing. Her paper is firmly based on the assumption Jesus was resurrected, that the Bible is true!
Comments
Post a Comment