The Resurrection as Myth: A Rational Look at Christianity’s Central Claim

The Resurrection of Jesus stands as the linchpin of Christian theology. Without it, the religion’s salvific framework falls apart. As Paul famously writes in 1 Corinthians 15:14, 

“If Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith is in vain.” 

For believers, this is a miraculous and literal event; for many scholars, however, it is better understood as a mythological narrative — one that follows well-worn patterns from the ancient world.

Resurrection and the Pattern of Dying-Rising Gods

The Resurrection story did not emerge in a vacuum. As Jonathan Z. Smith, a historian of religion at the University of Chicago, points out in Drudgery Divine (1990), the ancient Mediterranean world was replete with stories of dying and rising gods. While Smith was critical of oversimplified comparisons, he acknowledged that early Christians developed their theology in dialogue with prevailing mythic motifs.

“Early Christians didn’t invent the category,” Smith wrote, “but reinterpreted existing mythological forms within their unique theological framework.”

The work of Tryggve Mettinger, a Swedish biblical scholar and professor at Lund University, further supports this idea. In The Riddle of Resurrection: “Dying and Rising Gods” in the Ancient Near East (2001), Mettinger concludes that there were indeed several pre-Christian myths featuring gods who die and return to life, and that these myths were known in the Eastern Mediterranean where Christianity arose.

He writes: “There is reason to believe that the tradition of dying and rising gods existed prior to Christianity and could have shaped how early Christians interpreted Jesus’ death.”

Gospel Discrepancies and Legendary Development

A close reading of the Gospels reveals numerous contradictions in the Resurrection accounts. Who arrived at the tomb — Mary Magdalene alone, or with other women? Was it dawn or still dark? Did they see one angel, two angels, or a young man? Did Jesus appear first in Jerusalem or Galilee?

New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman addresses these inconsistencies at length in Jesus, Interrupted (2009), observing that “the accounts cannot all be historically accurate, since they are at odds with one another in numerous and significant ways.” He argues that the stories reflect theological agendas rather than historical memory.

Ehrman, a former evangelical turned agnostic scholar, contends: “What we have in the Gospels are later attempts by Christian communities to make theological sense of what they believed happened, not dispassionate reports by eyewitnesses.”

Visions, Grief, and Cognitive Science

Some scholars have suggested that psychological phenomena, rather than miraculous events, may account for the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus. In The Resurrection of the Messiah (2013), theologian Christopher Bryan notes that grief, trauma, and religious expectation can produce powerful visionary experiences — experiences which in the ancient world were easily interpreted as divine revelations.

The anthropologist Pascal Boyer, in Religion Explained (2001), emphasizes how human cognition tends to interpret ambiguous events as intentional and supernatural, especially in emotionally charged contexts. This cognitive bias helps explain why stories of resurrection and divine appearances are so persistent across cultures and history.

Hume’s Razor: Miracles and the Burden of Proof

Philosopher David Hume remains central to the philosophical critique of miraculous claims. In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), Hume argues that “no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the falsehood of that testimony would be more miraculous than the miracle it tries to establish.”

In simpler terms: when faced with extraordinary claims (like bodily resurrection), we should first exhaust natural explanations — hallucination, embellishment, legend — before accepting the supernatural.

Contemporary philosopher Michael Martin echoes this point in The Case Against Christianity (1991), stating that the Resurrection claim fails to meet minimal historical standards: “The available evidence for the Resurrection is not only poor and contradictory, but also shows signs of theological embellishment over time.”

Resurrection as Theology, Not History

Some Christian scholars reject a literal resurrection while still affirming its theological meaning. John Shelby Spong, in Resurrection: Myth or Reality? (1994), insists that “something transformative happened” to the disciples, but it was not a physical rising from the grave. Rather, it was “an experience of God that empowered a broken community.”

This view aligns with that of Gerd Lüdemann, a New Testament historian who concluded: “The Resurrection... cannot be a historical event in any real sense, and we are left only with the visions and faith experiences of early believers” (The Resurrection of Jesus, 1994).

Conclusion: A Myth with Meaning

Seen in the context of myth, theology, and psychology, the Resurrection resembles other ancient legends rather than a unique, verifiable event. Its appeal lies not in its historicity, but in its enduring symbolism — rebirth, hope, and triumph over despair.

Like many stories from antiquity, the Resurrection speaks to deep human yearnings. But that does not make it true. 

Previous

Next