Skip to content

Course 16 · Lesson 7.2

Legend and the development of belief

11 minute read

Lessons in this course

Course 16 outline

Module 1: How Historians Reason

  1. Sources and evidence: primary, secondary, early and late
  2. Criteria of authenticity and their limits
  3. What historical probability means
  4. Where history stops and theology begins

Module 2: Jesus in the Ancient World

  1. The three quests for the historical Jesus
  2. Josephus and the Jewish sources
  3. Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius on the Christians
  4. What outside sources can and cannot prove

Module 3: The Gospels as Historical Sources

  1. Dating the Gospels
  2. Authorship, anonymity and church tradition
  3. The Synoptic problem and John
  4. Eyewitness testimony, memory and reliability
  5. The Gospels as ancient biography

Module 4: The Death of Jesus

  1. How the Romans practiced crucifixion
  2. The evidence that Jesus died on a cross
  3. Burial and the empty tomb accounts

Module 5: The Earliest Testimony

  1. What the first Christians actually claimed
  2. Paul and the tradition in 1 Corinthians 15
  3. The appearance accounts in the Gospels and Acts
  4. Jewish and Greco-Roman expectations about resurrection

Module 6: Martyrdom and Its Limits

  1. Early persecution and the martyrdom traditions
  2. Late legends and early evidence about the apostles
  3. What martyrdom shows about sincerity and what it does not show about truth

Module 7: Alternative Explanations

  1. Hallucination and visionary experience
  2. Legend and the development of belief
  3. Conspiracy, the swoon theory and the wrong tomb
  4. Comparing explanations by explanatory power

Module 8: Building and Testing a Case

  1. Assembling the evidence into a case
  2. Background beliefs and the question of miracles
  3. Stating the limits of the case honestly

All courses

Program / Course 16: Historical Defense / Lesson 7.2

What you will learn

  • State the legend theory of the resurrection and its strongest supporting observations.
  • Describe the evidence that stories about the resurrection did develop and grow.
  • Explain how the early date of Paul’s creed limits the theory.
  • Evaluate the theory against the other explanations.

The big idea

The legend theory holds that the resurrection story grew gradually: Jesus died, his followers continued to feel his presence and to speak of his vindication, and over decades the idea of a bodily resurrection with an empty tomb and meetings with Jesus developed and became fixed in the Gospels. The theory fits a real pattern, since the Gospel stories do grow in detail over time. Its weakness is chronology. The core claim that Jesus was raised and appeared to named persons is attested in a tradition within a few years of the crucifixion, which leaves little time for a slow legend to form. The question is how much was legend and how much was memory.

Key terms

Legend
A story that grows over time through retelling, adding details, with a base that may be historical or invented.
Myth
In scholarly use, a story that expresses a community’s deepest beliefs, often about gods or origins, whether or not based on events. It is not a synonym for false.
Gospel of Peter
A second century text, known only in part, that tells of the resurrection with a guard, a giant risen Christ and a talking cross. It shows what a developed legend looks like.
Exaltation theory
The proposal that the earliest Christians believed that God had exalted Jesus to heaven, without a physical raising, and that the bodily resurrection stories came later.
Redaction
The shaping of earlier material by an editor or author. Redaction criticism studies the changes the evangelists made.
Sherwin-White
A. N. Sherwin-White, a Roman historian who argued that the two generations between events and records in ancient history were too short for legend to overwhelm the historical core.

Background

All historians accept that legends grew around famous ancient figures. Alexander the Great and Apollonius of Tyana attracted fantastic tales. Christians themselves recognize later legends, such as those about the childhood of Jesus in the apocryphal gospels. It is therefore reasonable to ask whether the resurrection narratives are part of the same process.

The legend theory was developed in the nineteenth century and remains widely held in various forms. It is typically combined with other explanations: an initial visionary experience that was elaborated, or a belief in the vindication of Jesus that was gradually made physical. The task here is to state it fairly and test it.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: The evidence of growth

There is real evidence that the stories grew. Mark, the earliest Gospel, tells of the empty tomb and an announcement but no appearance. Matthew adds appearances to the women and the eleven, and a guard at the tomb. Luke adds the Emmaus story and a risen Jesus who eats fish. John adds the story of Thomas. The Gospel of Peter, later, has a talking cross and a giant Christ. Critics see a clear trend toward more physical and elaborate stories.

In the same way, the earliest titles for Jesus may have developed over time, and some scholars hold that the belief in resurrection followed an earlier belief in exaltation. Bart Ehrman and others argue for this development.

Step 2: How the theory is built

The theory proposes the following sequence. After the death, the disciples experienced a sense of Jesus’ presence and a conviction that God had vindicated him. They expressed this in the language of resurrection, which was available in Jewish thought. As the story was told, the idea of a physical rising and an empty tomb was added to emphasize the reality. Women, associated with burial customs, became the first witnesses. The Gospels, written decades later, record the developed stories.

Each step is plausible when taken alone. The theory points out that similar developments occurred with other figures, and that people accept legends without deceit.

Step 3: The chronological objection

The main objection is time. The creed Paul quotes places the death, burial, resurrection and appearances to named persons within a few years of the crucifixion, and Paul reports meeting Peter and James within about three years of his own conversion. Sherwin-White argued from his study of Roman historians that even two generations is too short for legend to replace the historical core, as the example of Herodotus’s history suggests. The claim of the resurrection, defenders say, appears full-grown from the start.

Critics reply that Sherwin-White’s comparison was with writers of history, not with religious tradition, and that stories can grow in a few years, especially in communities in crisis. They also note that Paul’s creed does not include the empty tomb or the details that make the legend theory interesting. The legend may have grown on the base of a simple claim that Jesus had been raised.

Step 4: The question of the core

The best forms of the theory therefore do not claim that everything was legend. They agree that something started the movement, such as visions, and apply the legend theory to the details: the guard, the angels, the physical meals. This is a more modest claim and fits the evidence of growth in the Gospels.

But a modest legend theory leaves the central question unanswered. What was the core experience? A legend theory needs to be combined with an account of the origin, such as the vision theory, and it cannot stand alone. Its main value is in dealing with the secondary details.

Step 5: Assessment

Taken as an explanation of the origin of the belief, the legend theory is weak because of the early creed, the Jerusalem setting where claims could be challenged, and the absence of any early alternative account. Taken as an explanation of the growth of the Gospel stories, it is plausible and widely accepted in some form even by conservative scholars, who allow for the shaping of details.

A fair summary is that the theory explains the development of the narratives better than it explains the origin of the belief. A student who sees the difference can discuss the evidence without claiming too much on either side.

  1. What is the evidence that the stories grew over time?
  2. Which part of the resurrection claim appears earliest, and which part appears later?
  3. How long does it take for a legend to develop?
  4. Is the theory an explanation of the origin or of the development?
  5. Who in Jerusalem could have challenged the story?
  6. Does the theory need to be combined with another theory?

Examples

From Mark to Matthew

Mark reports the women finding the tomb empty and fleeing. Matthew adds an earthquake, an angel who rolls back the stone, a guard who faints, and a meeting between Jesus and the women. The comparison of the two accounts is a standard example of narrative growth.

The Gospel of Peter

In the fragment of the Gospel of Peter, the soldiers see two men descend from heaven and three come out of the tomb, with a cross following them that speaks. The tale is a fine example of what unrestrained legend looks like. Compared with it, the canonical accounts are sober.

Alexander the Great

Within a few centuries, fantastic stories about Alexander circulated, including that he explored the sea in a diving bell. The earliest historians were more restrained. The example shows legend growing around a real person while the historical core remained recoverable.

Different perspectives

Critical scholars who hold some form of the theory

They hold that the narratives of the empty tomb and the physical appearances developed from earlier simpler claims, and that the Gospel differences show the process. They vary in how much of the core they accept.

Defenders of the resurrection

They argue that the early creed, the Jerusalem setting and the sobriety of the Gospels tell against extensive legendary development, and that the legend theory cannot explain the origin of the belief.

Catholic and Orthodox

Both traditions hold the narratives to be reliable witness from the apostles, while accepting that the Gospels were shaped by the evangelists. They distinguish this shaping from invention.

Protestant scholars

Conservative scholars allow for editorial shaping in the Gospels and reject the claim that the core was invented. Some liberal Protestants accept a larger role for legend and treat the resurrection as a symbol of the church’s faith.

Historians of ancient religion

They point out that legends do grow in religious movements, sometimes quickly, and that the pace of development varies. They caution that analogies from other cases must be tested and cannot decide this one.

Why it matters

The legend theory is the most common objection raised by people who have read some history. It deserves a precise answer. A student who knows what it explains and where it fails will not dismiss it as nonsense, nor accept it as a complete refutation, and can recognize which parts of the Gospel stories are most likely to have been shaped.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: The Gospels were written so long after that the story must be legend.

Correction: The Gospels were written within a generation or two. The earliest creed is much earlier. Legends can grow, but the time available matters.

Misunderstanding: Any story that develops over time is therefore false.

Correction: Development in details is compatible with a historical core. The question is the core.

Misunderstanding: The theory shows that the empty tomb was invented.

Correction: It suggests that it might have been. Whether it was depends on weighing the evidence of the sources, which is debated.

Misunderstanding: Defenders of the resurrection must deny any legendary development.

Correction: Many accept that details were shaped. Their claim is about the core.

Knowledge check

What evidence shows that the resurrection stories developed over time?

Mark has an empty tomb without appearances, Matthew adds a guard and appearances, Luke adds Emmaus and eating fish, John adds Thomas, and the Gospel of Peter adds a talking cross. The trend towards fuller and more physical narratives is widely observed, and even conservative scholars accept some shaping of details.

How does Paul’s creed limit the legend theory?

The creed places the claim that Christ was raised and appeared to named persons within a few years of the crucifixion, and Paul knew the persons involved. This leaves little time for a slow legend to create the core belief. The theory is therefore stronger as an account of later details than of the origin.

What is Sherwin-White’s argument, and how is it criticized?

He argued that two generations is too short a time for legend to overwhelm the historical core in Roman history. Critics reply that he compared historians, not religious communities, and that stories can change quickly in a movement under pressure. The argument is suggestive but does not decide the case.

Why does the legend theory usually need another theory alongside it?

It explains how stories grow but not how the movement began. Something must have started the belief that Jesus was raised, such as visions. The legend theory then explains the development of the narratives from that beginning. Alone, it leaves the core experience unexplained.

Think it through

  1. How quickly have you seen a story change as it was passed around a group?
  2. Which details in the Gospel stories seem to you most likely to be added later?
  3. Does admitting some development weaken the claim that the core is historical?
  4. What would you expect an early legend to look like?

Independent assignment

Tracing the growth

In your own notebook, write 300 to 500 words. Compare the account of the empty tomb in Mark with that in Matthew. List what Matthew adds and offer two explanations for each addition, one legendary and one not. Say which you prefer and why. Do not send this to anyone.

Further study