I’ve recently been reading a biography on C.S. Lewis. Hailed as a defender of Christianity, Lewis didn’t always side with the Christians. The book discusses his conversion process, explaining that Lewis recognized the similarities between the story of Christ and other myths and was therefore led to question the veracity of the myth of Jesus Christ. In other words, “Why is the story of Jesus Christ any more special than these other myths? Why should I believe it more than any of the others?” he asked.
It’s not a new question. I myself have heard it numerous times. People notice the similarities in myths and legends and (particularly in the case of Jesus Christ) use this as evidence that they must not be true.
This has got me thinking. I feel there is stronger evidence FOR Jesus Christ than there is AGAINST Him. Let me explain. No. There is too much. Let me sum up.
Isn’t it possible that each of these myths stem from the same source? In other words, why do their similarities provide evidence against a single true myth? It seems to me these myths are different versions of retelling upon retelling, sort of like a children’s game of “Telephone” that crosses time and culture. Which is more probable:
1) Multiple cultures in different locations, at different times, create myths so closely related
2) One story that ACTUALLY HAPPENED, of which prophecies and tellings were repeated for thousands of years, possibly by different prophets in different cultures (consider Book of Mormon), is slowly changed over time dependent on culture and location.
You might point out that for #2 above, Christ came AFTER the myths in other cultures originated. Keep in mind that prophets and authors of holy writ have been writing about a Savior-to-come for millennia.
You can imagine true prophets teaching about a god coming among his own people, to offer himself as a sacrifice. Inevitably, these people fall into apostasy. This isn’t to say they completely stop talking about the prophecies. But without proper authority from God to keep doctrines pure, things that should not have been forgotten…were lost. History became legend, legend became myth. This happens even today, when there is a prophet on the earth. “I heard that such-and-such a prophet said that when they find out we were alive in the days of Gordon B. Hinckley, a hush will fall over the halls of heaven as everyone kneels in awe.” Who KNOWS where this false quote that smacks of apostasy originated? It's just been passed on and on and on.
When people use these varying mythologies as evidence, I feel they are falling victim to the following classic blunder described by Sherlock Holmes: “Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” (Only slightly less well known is this: Never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line).
Imagine someone is on trial for a crime. Say a burglary. Suppose there are eye-witnesses that independently place the same person at the scene at the same time. Now, I’m no expert, but that seems like a pile of very strong evidence. I think the best (and probably the only) way the accused could clear his name is through an alibi or if another eyewitness’s account cast reasonable doubt on the other accounts. In other words, someone who could say, “I was there and I saw something that not only doesn’t support but contradicts the other statements.”
Now consider the case of Jesus Christ. We have multiple eyewitnesses who have given their sworn statements that place Jesus Christ at the scene (so to speak). I’m talking about the four gospels in the New Testament. More, if you consider the witnesses of Paul, not to mention the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, both of which have given their sworn statements that Christ existed and exists in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
I think the best (and probably the only) evidence that could cast REASONABLE doubt on the subject would be if someone were to come forth and testify that they were also at the scene (each of them) and saw no such person. “I was there with Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc. and saw no such person as they claim to have seen. I was also there through the entirety of the Book of Mormon and at each of Joseph Smith’s visions and saw no such person.”
Now, this isn’t to say people haven’t found evidence against Jesus Christ. People have found evidence to question this and that about the different accounts. They question authorship, associations, etc. I won’t go into all those theories here. However, it seems to me that such evidence is circumstantial at best. What is circumstantial evidence? It means that further inferences are needed to come to conclusions. Also, it implies that other explanations regarding the evidence are possible.
However, all this being said, I find the dialogue in Matthew 16 between Jesus Christ and St. Peter profound. While others are saying perhaps Jesus is just another myth or legend, Christ teaches us how we should really find out what’s what:
When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?”
And they said, “Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.”
He saith unto them, “But whom say ye that I am?”
And Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered and said unto him, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”
Oh. And C.S. Lewis? He came to this conclusion:
"The story of Christ is simply a true myth; a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference, that it really happened, and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God's Myth where the others are men's myths"
