In the gospel accounts Jesus is recorded multiple times predicting his own death and resurrection:

He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. Mark 8:31. (see also Mark 9:31, Mark 14:22-42).

The accusation is often made that these were inventions of the early Church written into the story after the event; that these were fictitious sayings added to the text to further the growth of the new Christian movement. Michael Licona raises a number of arguments against this claim in his book, The Resurrection of Jesus.

1) Some of the texts contain elements that suggest an early (pre-Pauline) date of origin. The first half of Mark 9:31 is a play of words in Aramaic which suggests a source that pre-dates Mark, and in the Lukan account of the last supper he mirrors language that Paul picks up in 1 Corinthians 11, where Paul claims to have received this information from someone else. Certainly an early date of origin rules out later involvement.

2) Whilst the Gospel accounts are very similar, there are enough differences to suggest that there are multiple sources at play; the texts are multiply attested and so are unlikely to be an invention of the early church.

3) The accounts are, in places, embarrassing for the early church. Immediately after Jesus’ first prediction in Mark 8:31, Peter declares that Jesus must be wrong! Jesus has to rebuke Peter and wards him off with the words “Get behind me Satan!” If the early Church was seeking to invent a myth then surely they would not have portrayed one of their key leaders in such a negative light?

4) It is curious that Jesus does not predict his ascension in these instances. If the early Church was attempting to fabricate a new narrative, then surely they would have included the whole story? Conspicuous by its absence is also any explanation of what the resurrection meant for the people – there is no theologising which one might expect if these were an invention.

5) During these predictions, Jesus often refers to himself as the Son of Man. This designation isn’t used in the New Testament outside of the Gospel accounts. Given that the Epistles were written earlier, it would be odd for the early Church to create a new title for Jesus and add it to the Gospels if they weren’t already using it. The fact that it is unique to the Gospel accounts is evidence for its authenticity.

6) The predictions themselves are actually plausible – the Jewish leaders hated Jesus; it would not have taken supernatural ability to predict that they wanted Jesus dead. In fact even the disciples knew this: they were scared to go back to Bethany (in John 11:8) because it was near Jerusalem where there had been a previous attempt on Jesus’ life!

Perhaps the most persuasive argument against the historicity of Jesus’ predictions is the fact that the disciples weren’t waiting in eager anticipation outside the tomb on Sunday morning – why did they not expect the resurrection? If they’d heard Jesus say these things then why did they not believe them?

The best answer to this is that the disciples simply didn’t understand what was happening. Mark says as much in Mark 9:32, and Luke records that it was only after the events that their eyes were opened to the scripture to understand fully (Luke 24:45); their concept of the Messiah was one who would usher in God’s kingdom visibly, in the present.

Jesus’ predictions of his death and resurrection are historically valid – there isn’t sufficient grounds to dispute them. What’s clear is that until the tomb was found empty on Easter Sunday, no one really understood what he meant.