WHERE WE ARE
Kreeft's chain of reasoning that constitutes his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory consists of four sub-arguments. In Part 13 of this series, I have shown that each of the first three sub-arguments in that chain of reasoning was a BAD argument. In Part 14 of this series, I have shown that the fourth sub-argument was also a BAD argument. Thus, it is clear that Kreeft's Objection #5 against the Myth Theory FAILS, just like each one of his previous four objections against the Myth Theory FAILED:
It is now time to examine Kreeft's Objection #6 against the Myth Theory.
KREEFT'S SUMMARY OF OBJECTION #6
Based on Kreeft's own summary of his Objection #6 it appears that this objection FAILS because it has the same serious defect as all of the previous objections: it focuses on the Gospels instead of on the preaching and teaching of the apostles.
Here are the two claims that Kreeft presents as the summary of Objection #6:
- The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses.
- The Gospels we have today are the same Gospels originally written.
Even if we assume that both of these claims are true, that does NOT show that the Myth Theory is false. These claims, if true, would enhance the credibility of the Gospels, but the Myth Theory is NOT about the Gospels. The Myth Theory is about the preaching and teaching of the apostles. So, if Kreeft's summary of his Objection #6 is accurate, then his Objection #6 FAILS.
However, Kreeft's own summary of his Objection #6 is inaccurate, because he makes another key claim in his presentation of this objection, a claim that is actually RELEVANT to the Myth Theory:
- The Gospels were written by the disciples.
Kreeft's use of the phrase "the disciples" implies that he is talking about the eleven disciples who were part of the inner circle of followers of Jesus (i.e. the twelve disciples minus Judas Iscariot).
If Kreeft could establish that the Gospels were all written by different members of the eleven disciples, then the Gospels would presumably represent the teaching of the original disciples of Jesus, which would make the content of the Gospels directly relevant to the Myth Theory.
Thus my focus for the rest of this post will be exclusively on this part of Objection #6: the claim that each of the Gospels was written by a different member of the eleven disciples.
KREEFT'S KEY CLAIM IN OBJECTION #6 IS CLEARLY FALSE
No New Testament scholar believes that the Gospel of Luke was written by one of the eleven disciples. Furthermore, Kreeft makes no attempt to argue that the author of the Gospel of Luke was written by one of the eleven disciples. None of the eleven disciples was named "Luke". We may confidently reject the idea that this Gospel was written by one of the eleven disciples.
No New Testament scholar believes that the Gospel of Mark was written by one of the eleven disciples. Furthermore, Kreeft makes no attempt to argue that the author of the Gospel of Mark was written by one of the eleven disciples. None of the eleven disciples was named "Mark". We may confidently reject the idea that this Gospel was written by one of the eleven disciples.
Thus, it is clear that at least two of the four Gospels were NOT written by one of the eleven disciples. Therefore, Kreeft's key claim, the only claim in Objection #6 that is relevant to the Myth Theory, is clearly FALSE. Thus, Objection #6 FAILS, just like every one of the previous five objections FAILED.
Furthermore, although the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John were traditionally ascribed to Jesus's disciples named Matthew and John, most NT scholars doubt or reject this traditional view. Kreeft is clearly ignorant about NT scholarship and is in no position to argue against serious NT scholars who reject the traditional authorship of these two Gospels. So, Kreeft's key claim is probably FALSE even in the cases of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John.
KREEFT'S SPECIFIC POINTS ABOUT THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE GOSPELS
POINT 1. The style of writing in the four Gospels is simple and alive.
This is only weak evidence, not proof, that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. Because the eleven disciples were not the only eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus, this point, even if true, does not show that ANY of the Gospels was written by one of the eleven disciples.
Furthermore, this point applies to the Gospel of Mark and to the Gospel of Luke, which we know were NOT written by any of the eleven disciples. Thus, this point is clearly an UNRELIABLE indicator for determining whether a Gospel was written by one of the eleven disciples.
POINT 2. The Gospel of Luke was written before 70 CE.
This is only weak evidence, not proof, that the Gospel of Luke was written by an eyewitness. Even if that were true, that would not show that the Gospel of Luke was written by one of the eleven disciples.
Furthermore, this point tells us NOTHING about who wrote the Gospel of Matthew or who wrote the Gospel of John.
POINT 3. The Gospels show intimate knowledge of Jerusalem prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.
POINT 4. Jesus's prophecies about the destruction of Jerusalem show the Gospels were written before 70CE.
POINT 5. Stories of Jesus's weaknesses and of his disciples faults bespeak Gospel accuracy.
POINT 6. The Gospels make no attempt to suppress apparent discrepancies between each other.
POINT 7. The Gospels do not contain anachronisms.
My criticisms of Kreeft's Point 1 above apply also to his Points 3 through 7. So, NONE of Kreeft's specific points so far show that ANY Gospel was written by one of the eleven disciples.
POINT 8. The disciples must have left some writings, engaged as they were in giving lessons to and counseling believers who were geographically distant.
Since the eleven disciples were probably illiterate, it is unlikely they would have left any writings. They also believed that Jesus would soon return to Earth, so they would have little concern about preserving their teachings for future generations. Also, most of the first Christians were illiterate, so there would be little obvious benefit from putting their teachings into writing. Finally, Jesus did not leave any writings for his followers, so the disciples might well have followed Jesus's example, and taught and preached without leaving any writings of their teachings.
We have very little knowledge about what the eleven disciples did and said, especially after Jesus died. So, Kreeft's claims about the activities of the eleven disciples are DUBIOUS.
Furthermore, this point applies to the Gospel of Mark and to the Gospel of Luke, which we know were NOT written by any of the eleven disciples. Thus, this point is clearly an UNRELIABLE indicator for determining whether a Gospel was written by one of the eleven disciples.
POINT 9. There were many eyewitnesses who were still alive when the Gospels were written who could testify whether they came from their purported authors or not.
This point assumes that the Gospels were all written before 70 CE, a conclusion that most NT scholars reject.
Kreeft is apparently ignorant of the fact that the traditional titles of the Gospels (e.g. "The Gospel according to Matthew") that specify the traditional authors were not assigned until long after the Gospels were written, at which point any eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus would have already died.
Since Luke and Mark were not part of the eleven disciples, the traditional authors of the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Mark, if accepted as correct, show that at least two of the four Gospels were NOT written by one of the eleven disciples.
POINT 10. Various extra-biblical writers testified to the traditional authors of the Gospels.
NT scholars are aware of these extra-biblical writers and what they say about the authorship of the Gospels. But scholars view those writers as unreliable and have good reasons for these doubts. Kreeft is either ignorant of the reasons and evidence that NT scholars give against the traditional authors of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John, or he simply ignores their reasons and evidence to keep his readers in the dark.
Since Luke and Mark were not part of the eleven disciples, the traditional authors of the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Mark, if accepted as correct, show that at least two of the four Gospels were NOT written by one of the eleven disciples.
POINT 11. Only one apocryphal gospel is ever quoted by any known author during the first three hundred years after Christ.
The term "apocryphal" basically means "inauthentic". In making this claim, Kreeft ASSUMES that all four of the canonical Gospels were authentic. In this context, that presumably means that the four canonical Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or that each of the four canonical Gospels was written by one of the eleven disciples. But those are the very questions at issue! So, Kreeft is committing the FALLACY OF BEGGING THE QUESTION by simply ASSUMING the very thing that he is supposed to be PROVING.
POINT 11 gives us no reason whatsoever to believe that ANY of the Gospels was written by one of the eleven disciples.
EVALUATION OF OBJECTION #6
Based on Kreeft's summary of his Objection #6, this objection makes two key claims:
- The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses.
- The Gospels we have today are the same Gospels originally written.
Even if we assume that both of these claims are true, that does NOT show that the Myth Theory is false. So, if Kreeft's summary of his Objection #6 is accurate, then his Objection #6 FAILS.
However, Kreeft's own summary of his Objection #6 is inaccurate, because he makes another key claim in his presentation of this objection, a claim that is actually RELEVANT to the Myth Theory:
- The Gospels were written by the disciples.
It is clearly and obviously the case that the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke were NOT written by any of the eleven disciples, so it is clearly and obviously the case that the one and ONLY relevant claim made by Kreeft in Objection #6 is FALSE. Therefore, Kreeft's Objection #6 against the Myth Theory FAILS, just like every single one of his previous five objections FAILED:
No comments:
Post a Comment