Concerning the underdog example. Here are my problems: 1) there are historical examples of underdogs annihilating superior armies (I think), so there’s no reason on the surface why such a story would be difficult to believe.
The 4 Gospels–as well as *other *ancient, non-Scriptural texts–attest to the historical reality of the Resurrection.
Let us compare the Gospels with two particular mythic writings from around that time to see for ourselves the stylistic differences…
It may be worthwhile to take a quick look, for purposes of comparison at the
closest thing we have around the time of the Gospels to an attempt at a
realistic fantasy. This is the story of Apollonius of Tyana, written about A.D.
250 by Flavius Philostratus…There is some evidence that a neo-Pythagorean
sage named Apollonius may really have lived, and thus Philostratus’ work is a
real example of what some have thought the Gospels to be: a fictionalized account of
the life of a real sage and teacher, introducing miraculous elements to build up
the prestige of the central figure. It thus gives us
a good look at what a real
example of a fictionalized biography would look like, written at a time and
place not too far removed from those in which the Gospels were written.
The first thing we notice is the fairy-tale atmosphere. There is a rather nice
little vampire story, which inspired a minor poem by Keats entitled Lamia. There
are animal stories about, for instance, snakes in India big enough to drag off and eat an elephant. The sage wanders from country to country and wherever he
goes he is likely to be entertained by the king or emperor, who holds long
conversations with him and sends him on his way with camels and precious stones…
The point is that this is what you get when the imagination goes to work. **Once
the boundaries of fact are crossed we wander into fairyland. **And very nice too,
for amusement or recreation.
But the Gospels are set firmly in the real
Palestine of the first century, and the little details are not picturesque
inventions but the real details that only an eyewitness or a skilled realistic
novelist can give. (Thinking About Religion, p. 75-76)
(2) A second problem is that there was not enough time for myth to develop. The
original demythologizers pinned their case onto a late second-century date for
the writing of the Gospels; **several generations have to pass before the added
mythological elements can be mistakenly believed to be facts. **Eyewitnesses would
be around before that to discredit the new, mythic versions. We know of other
cases where myths and legends of miracles developed around a religious
founder—for example, Buddha, Lao-tzu and Muhammad. In each case, many
generations passed before the myth surfaced.
…
Julius Muller put the anti-myth argument this way:
One cannot imagine how such a series of legends could arise in an historical
age, obtain universal respect, and supplant the historical recollection of the
true character [Jesus]…if eyewitnesses were still at hand who could be
questioned respecting the truth of the recorded marvels. Hence, legendary
fiction, as it likes not the clear present time but prefers the mysterious gloom
of gray antiquity, is wont to seek a remoteness of age, along with that of
space, and to remove its boldest and most rare and wonderful creations into a
very remote and unknown land. (The Theory of Myths in Its Application to the
Gospel History Examined and Confuted [London, 1844], p. 26)
[SIGN1]Muller challenged his nineteenth-century contemporaries to produce a single
example anywhere in history of a great myth or legend arising around a
historical figure and being generally believed within thirty years after that
figure’s death. No one has ever answered him.[/SIGN1]
(3) The myth theory has two layers. The first layer is the historical Jesus, who
was not divine, did not claim divinity, performed no miracles, and did not rise
from the dead. The second, later, mythologized layer is the Gospels as we have
them, with a Jesus who claimed to be divine, performed miracles and rose from
the dead. The problem with this theory is simply that there is not the slightest
bit of any real evidence whatever for the existence of any such first layer. The
two-layer cake theory has the first layer made entirely of air—and hot air at
that.
source:
scribd.com/doc/15629349/Peter-Kreeft-Essays-on-Apologetics-Part-1
Maybe the word I’d use is…
