Lord or Legend -Part I – Jesus, History, and Legend-Making

Before you read this post, answer this question for yourself. If you were a person who thought that the story about Jesus was just a legend and not historically accurate, what reason would you give for that opinion?

The first section of the book "Lord or Legend" looks at the main reasons scholars say that the story of Jesus in the Gospels is just a legend. Their ideas are as follows:

1. The Gospels say Jesus performed miracles or supernatural feats. Some people assume that supernatural events do not occur and therefore conclude that any writings that talk about them must be myths or legends.
2. Some people believe that influence of Greek or Hellenistic culture on Judiaism caused them to create the legend about Jesus.
3. Since the letters of Paul were written prior to the gospels and have little historical information about Jesus, people say Paul did not view Jesus as a historical figure.
4. The similarity of the account of Jesus other myths or legends common at the time leads to the claim that it was also a legend
5. People feel that since information about Jesus was originally primarily circulated by word of mouth it is therefore unreliable.

 In future posts, we will look at what the authors of the book we are reviewing say about each one of these points. Was your answer to the orginal question similiar to one of these points? How do you feel about these points, which one seems to be the strongest argument?