William Craig's Objections to the Swoon Theory FAIL

THREE OBJECTIONS TO THE SWOON THEORY FROM WILLIAM CRAIG

In his book The Son Rises (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1981; hereafter: TSR), the Christian apologist William Craig raises three objections against the Swoon Theory:

Craig’s Objection #1: Jesus’ Physical Injuries
Craig’s Objection #2: The Deceptive Jesus Objection
Craig’s Objection #3: The Sickly Jesus Objection

Craig’s Objection #3 is the same objection as Objection #5 by the Christian apologists Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics, which I have previously shown was a FAILURE:

https://thinkingcriticallyabout.podbean.com/e/chapter-3-objections-to-the-swoon-theory-based-on-john

Craig’s Objection #1 (Jesus’ Physical Injuries) is probably the most important objection that has been raised by Christian apologists against the Swoon Theory, but I have recently shown that this objection also FAILS:

https://thinkingcriticallyabout.podbean.com/e/chapter-6-three-objections-to-the-swoon-theory-by-william-craig

That leaves one more objection from The Son Rises to analyze and evaluate: Craig’s Objection #2 (The Deceptive Jesus Objection).  Here is my careful analysis of that objection:

https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2025/02/careful-argument-analysis-of-william-craigs-deceptive-jesus-objection-to-the-swoon-theory/

DRAFT CHAPTERS from: Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus

I have completed a DRAFT (10 chapters) of my upcoming book: 

Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus
Volume 1: The Resuscitation of the Swoon Theory

I am making DRAFT versions of the first six chapters of my book available to you:

https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2025/02/draft-chapters-from-thinking-critically-about-the-resurrection-of-jesus/

Defending the MYTH THEORY - INDEX

In this series of fifteen posts, I have shown that every single one of Peter Kreeft's six objections against the Myth Theory FAILS:

Kreeft has FAILED to refute the Myth Theory.  Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus requires that he refute four skeptical theories, one of which is the Myth Theory.  Since Kreeft FAILED to refute the Myth Theory, his case for the resurrection of Jesus also FAILS.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 1: What is the Myth Theory?

In Part 1, I show that we should understand the Myth Theory in terms of the following definition:

The Myth Theory is true IF AND ONLY IF: (a) the apostles created the story that Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday morning less than 48 hours after Jesus had been crucified, and (b) their intention was for others to take this story to be a myth, not a literal account of an actual historical event.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 2: The Style of the Gospels (Objection #1)

In Part 2, I show that Kreeft's argument for Objection #1 against the Myth Theory involves an INVALID inference and thus that Objection #1 FAILS.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 3: Not Enough Time for Myth to Develop (Objection #2)

In Part 3, I show that Objection #2 FAILS for at least two reasons, each of which by itself gives us sufficient reason to reject Kreeft's argument for Objection #2.  

First, premise (A1) is FALSE, making Kreeft's argument UNSOUND.  Second, the inference from the premise (E) to the ultimate conclusion (F) is INVALID and ILLOGICAL, because the Myth Theory, as characterized by Kreeft, is about the preaching and stories of the apostles and their intentions concerning what they said about the alleged crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus; it is NOT about the Gospels or the authors of the Gospels, nor about the intentions of the authors of the Gospels.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 4: The Myth Theory has Two Layers (Objection #3)

In Part 4, I showed that the inference from premise (B) to the conclusion (C) is INVALID and ILLOGICAL, so the argument constituting Objection #3 FAILS because a key inference in the argument is INVALID:

B. It is NOT the case that the authors of the Gospels invented the following elements in their accounts of the life and death of Jesus: portraying Jesus as (a) a divine person, (b) claiming to be divine, (c) performing miracles, and (d) rising from the dead.

Therefore:

C. The Myth Theory is FALSE. 

I also claimed that this argument is probably UNSOUND because the three premises supporting premise (B) of Objection # 3 are all DUBIOUS.  Thus, it is likely that at least one of those three premises is FALSE.

Premise (1) is one of those three premises supporting premise (B):

1. The Gospels (i.e. the four Gospels in the New Testament) portray Jesus as (a) a divine person, (b) claiming to be divine, (c) performing miracles, and (d) rising from the dead.

In order to show that premise (1) of Objection # 3 is DUBIOUS, I review the "Scriptural Data" provided by Kreeft in support of the divinity of Jesus and in support of Jesus claiming to be divine, from the end of Chapter 7 of his book Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Kreeft makes twenty-one points on this issue, each supported by various passages from the New Testament.

In Part 4, I argue that we can set aside fifteen of Kreeft's twenty-one points because (a) some are not supported by any Gospel passage, (b) some are only supported by Gospel passages from the Gospel of John, and (c) some clearly apply to people who are NOT divine and thus fall short of giving a sufficient reason for concluding that a person is God.

We are left with just six points from Kreeft's list of twenty-one points to consider:

2. The title "Son of God" ("Son of" implies "of the same nature as.")...

6. Omnipresent...

7. Omnipotent...

12. Rightly worshiped...

18. The Father testifies to him...

21. Is Lord over the Law...

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 5: Kreeft's Scriptural Data on Six Points about Jesus being God

In Part 5, I showed that three of Kreeft's six remaining points FAIL (point #6, point #7, and point #21), and that another point depends on point #2 (if point #2 FAILS, then so does point #18).  

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 6: Kreeft's Two Best Points about Jesus being God

In Part 6, I showed that Kreeft's point #2 FAILS to provide solid and adequate support for premise (1), and so does point #18, which is also based on the questionable assumption that the title "son of God" in Matthew implied that Jesus was God.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 7:  Portraying Jesus as Being Rightly Worshiped

In Part 7, I showed that Kreeft's final remaining point (Point #12 about Jesus being rightly worshiped) FAILS to adequately support premise (1) of Objection #3.  Thus, I concluded that Kreeft's twenty-one points of "Scriptural Data" about the deity of Jesus FAIL to provide solid and adequate support for premise (1), and that premise (1) is therefore DUBIOUS.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 8: Evaluation of Premise (A)

Premise (A) is another premise supporting premise (B) in Objection #3:

A. IF the authors of the Gospels invented the following four elements in their accounts of the life and death of Jesus: portraying Jesus as (a) a divine person, (b) claiming to be divine, (c) performing miracles, and (d) rising from the dead, THEN we would find evidence of an earlier account of the life and death of Jesus that did NOT include those four elements.

In Part 8, I argued that premise (A) of Objection #3 is DUBIOUS.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 9: Evaluation of Premise (2)

Premise (2) is another premise supporting premise (B) in Objection #3:

2. There is no evidence whatever of an earlier account (prior to the Gospels) of the life and death of Jesus that did NOT portray Jesus as (a) a divine person, (b) claiming to be divine, (c) performing miracles, and (d) rising from the dead.

In Part 9, I argued that premise (2) is FALSE.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 10: Women Were the First Witnesses (Objection #4)

In Part #10, I analyzed Kreeft's chain of reasoning that constitutes his Objection #4 against the Myth Theory. 

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 11: Evaluation of Kreeft's Objection #4

In Part #11, I showed that there were significant or serious problems with four out of five of the sub-arguments in Kreeft's chain of reasoning for Objection #4, and I concluded that Kreeft's Objection #4 against the Myth Theory FAILS.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 12: The NT Distinguishes Myth from Fact (Objection #5)

In Part #12, I analyzed and clarified Kreeft's argument for his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 13: Evaluation of Kreeft's Objection #5

In Part #13, I showed that the first sub-argument in the chain of reasoning in Objection #5 is a BAD argument, and that the second sub-argument is a BAD argument, and that the third sub-argument in this chain of reasoning is a BAD argument.  Since at least three out of four of the sub-arguments in Kreeft's reasoning are BAD arguments, it is clear that his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory FAILS.  

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 14: Evaluation of Objection #5 Completed

In Part 14, 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.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 15: The Gospels were Written by Eyewitnesses (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.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 15: The Gospels were Written by Eyewitnesses (Objection #6)

 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:

We have seen that the first five objections that Peter Kreeft has raised against the Myth Theory have all FAILED.  So, it seems likely that his sixth and final objection will also FAIL.

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:

I have also stepped through each of Kreeft's eleven specific points about the authorship of the Gospels, and we saw that NONE of these points show that ANY of the Gospels was written by one of the eleven disciples.  So, there can be no doubt that Kreeft's Objection #6 is a complete and utter FAILURE.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 14: Evaluation of Objection #5 Completed

 WHERE WE ARE

In Part #12 of this series, I analyzed and clarified Kreeft's argument for his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory:

A. The author of 2nd Peter specifically distinguishes between myth and fact and repudiates the mythic interpretation of the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Therefore:

1. The New Testament specifically distinguishes between myth and fact and repudiates the mythic interpretation of the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Therefore:

2. IF the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories, THEN these stories are deliberate lies rather than myths (where the author does not intend for readers to take the stories as literal historical accounts). 

B. But the New Testament authors who tell stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus would not tell deliberate lies about Jesus dying and rising from the dead. 

Therefore:

C. It is NOT the case that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories.

Therefore:

D. The Myth Theory is FALSE.

In Part #13 of this series, I showed that the first sub-argument in the above chain of reasoning is a BAD argument, and that the second sub-argument is a BAD argument, and that the third sub-argument in this chain of reasoning is a BAD argument.  Since at least three out of four of the sub-arguments in Kreeft's reasoning are BAD arguments, it is clear that his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory FAILS.  

It is now time to evaluate the fourth and final sub-argument in this chain of reasoning for Objection #5. 

EVALUATION OF THE FOURTH SUB-ARGUMENT IN OBJECTION #5

Here is the fourth sub-argument in Kreeft's chain of reasoning that constitutes his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory:

C. It is NOT the case that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories.

Therefore:

D. The Myth Theory is FALSE.

First of all, Kreeft has clearly FAILED to show that premise (C) is true, so the premise of this argument remains DUBIOUS. 

My initial evaluation of the inference from (C) to (D) is that this is a VALID inference but that it also commits the FALLACY OF CIRCULAR REASONING.  This will take a bit of explanation.

It seems, initially, that if it is NOT the case that NT stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories, then this implies that those stories are true historical accounts of actual events.  If the NT stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are true historical accounts of actual events, then Jesus actually physically rose from the dead.  Furthermore, if Jesus actually physically rose from the dead, then it would seem to be the case that the Myth Theory is false.  Here is how, at least at first glance, I would make a logical connection between premise (C) and conclusion (D):

C. It is NOT the case that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories.

Therefore:

E. The New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are true historical accounts of actual events.

Therefore:

F. Jesus actually physically rose from the dead.

Therefore:

D. The Myth Theory is FALSE.

Assuming, for now, that the inferences here are logical and VALID, there is still a problem with this reasoning.  The problem is that premise (F) is supposed to be the ULTIMATE CONCLUSION of Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus.  The logic of his case for the resurrection is to refute four skeptical theories about the alleged resurrection of Jesus in order to prove that Jesus actually physically rose from the dead.  But that logic is turned upside-down here.  Here the resurrection of Jesus is (supposedly) proven as the basis for then refuting one of the skeptical theories.  This is a form of the FALLACY OF CIRCULAR REASONING.  Kreeft cannot use the resurrection of Jesus as the basis for refuting the Myth Theory, and then turn around and use the refutation of the Myth Theory to prove the resurrection.  That is reasoning in a circle.

If Kreeft has a way to directly prove that Jesus actually physically rose from the dead, a proof that does NOT involve refuting various skeptical theories about the resurrection, then there is NO POINT to all of his efforts to refute various skeptical theories.  Kreeft characterized his case for the resurrection as being BASED UPON his refutations of four skeptical theories, but the reasoning I outlined here, reverses that logical order, and makes his refutation of the Myth Theory BASED UPON a direct proof of the resurrection of Jesus.   Combining these two very different approaches requires Kreeft to commit the FALLACY OF CIRCULAR REASONING:

F. Jesus actually physically rose from the dead.

Therefore:

D. The Myth Theory is FALSE.

G. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.

H. The Conspiracy Theory is FALSE.

I. The Swoon Theory is FALSE.

Therefore:

 F. Jesus actually physically rose from the dead.

So, if I have correctly represented the reasoning that is involved in making the logical connection between premise (C) and conclusion (D), then the sub-argument for (D) has at least two serious problems: 

• Premise (C) is DUBIOUS
• This reasoning involves the FALLACY OF CIRCULAR REASONING.

RE-EXAMINATION OF PREMISE (C) 

In considering this final sub-argument, it occurs to me that the phrase "fictional stories" is not as clear as I previously thought.  I now think that this is a complex and perhaps ambiguous phrase, and that it might be about as problematic as the ambigous term "myth".  So, I'm going to attempt to clarify this premise again, to see how a clearer understanding of this premise impacts my evaluation of this final sub-argument.

One idea I had in mind in talking about "fictional stories" is the idea of "false or untrue stories".  If we say that some story is NOT a "false or untrue story" that seems to imply that it is a TRUE story.

But another interpretation of "fictional stories" is the idea of a "made up or invented story".  While "made up or invented stories" are usually also "false or untrue stories" that is not necessarily the case.  A "made up" story might turn out to be true.  

Authors of fictional stories are often inspired by actual events in the lives of actual people, either people who they know personally or people who they read about in newspapers or magazine articles or in books.  So, in some cases, a character in a work of fiction might have the same personality, the same job, and be involved in the same events as an actual living person, or as an actual historical person.  Fiction often imitates reality, so a story can match up well with the life, or some of the experiences of, an actual person and actual events.  In that case, the story, or part of the story, would be true and actual even though the story is "made up" or "invented" and "fictional".

A third sense of the phrase "fictional stories" concerns genre, which is primarily about the intentions of the author about how readers are to view and understand his/her story.  An author writes a "fictional story" if the author intends for readers to view and understand his/her story as being fictional, as being made up or invented, and NOT as being an accurate historical account of actual people and actual events.  This is closely related to the concept of "myth" as I understand this concept.  The creator of a myth intends his/her readers to view and understand the story that is a myth as being a myth, as being a made-up or invented story about gods or angels or spirits or some other supernatural beings or forces.  This third sense of "fictional stories" seems to be the most relevant for clarification of premise (C):

C. It is NOT the case that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories.

A revised and clarified version of (C):

C1. It is NOT the case that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are intended by the authors of the stories to be viewed and understood by readers as being made-up or invented stories.

From (C1), we can infer a relevant conclusion:

C1. It is NOT the case that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are intended by the authors of the stories to be viewed and understood by readers as being made-up or invented stories.

Therefore:

J. It is NOT the case that the stories in the Gospels about the death and resurrection of Jesus are intended by the authors of the stories to be viewed and understood by readers as being made-up or invented stories.  

Therefore:

D. The Myth Theory is FALSE.

This seems like a more reasonable and plausible argument than the chain of reasoning that I constructed previously to try to logically connect premise (C) to the conclusion (D).  Based on the Principle of Charity, this appears to be a better interpretation of Kreeft's reasoning in the fourth and final sub-argument constituting Objection #5.

The inference from (C1) to (J) appears to be logical and VALID.  However, the inference from (J) to (D) is ILLOGICAL and INVALID. Thus, this final sub-argument is a BAD argument, and Objection #5 FAILS.

There are two problems with the inference from (J) to (D).  First, the intentions of the authors of the Gospels for their readers to view and understand their stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus NOT as being made-up or invented stories, does NOT imply that those stories are in fact NOT made-up or invented, nor does this imply that the stories are accurate historical accounts of actual events.  The authors of the Gospels might be naively and unintentionally passing on myths and legends, mistakenly thinking they were passing on accurate historical information about the death and alleged resurrection of Jesus.  Or they may just be passing on false or inaccurate information and not realize that their stories contain false and inaccurate information.

The second problem with the inference from (J) to (D) is the same problem we have seen with every one of the preceding objections by Kreeft against the Myth Theory.  Premise (J) is about the Gospels and the intentions of the authors of the Gospels.  But Kreeft's characterization of the Myth Theory implies that the Myth Theory is NOT about the Gospels, but is about the preaching and teaching of the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus ("the apostles") and about their intentions concerning their stories about the death and alleged resurrection of Jesus.  

Because the Myth Theory is NOT about the Gospels, premise (J) is simply IRRELEVANT to the conclusion (D), and thus the inference in this fourth and final sub-argument is ILLOGICAL and INVALID.  Thus, Kreeft's Objection #5 FAILS.

CONCLUSION ABOUT OBJECTION #5

Kreeft's chain of reasoning that constitutes his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory consists of four sub-arguments.  I have shown that each of the four sub-arguments in that chain of reasoning is 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.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 13: Evaluation of Kreeft's Objection #5

 WHERE WE ARE

In Part #12 of this series, I analyzed and clarified Kreeft's argument for his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory:

A. The author of 2nd Peter specifically distinguishes between myth and fact and repudiates the mythic interpretation of the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Therefore:

1. The New Testament specifically distinguishes between myth and fact and repudiates the mythic interpretation of the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Therefore:

2. IF the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories, THEN these stories are deliberate lies rather than myths (where the author does not intend for readers to take the stories as literal historical accounts). 

B. But the New Testament authors who tell stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus would not tell deliberate lies about Jesus dying and rising from the dead. 

Therefore:

C. It is NOT the case that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories.

Therefore:

D. The Myth Theory is FALSE. 

It is now time to evaluate this chain of reasoning for Objection #5. 

EVALUATION OF THE FIRST SUB-ARGUMENT IN OBJECTION #5

Here is the first sub-argument in Kreeft's chain of reasoning constituting his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory:

A. The author of 2nd Peter specifically distinguishes between myth and fact and repudiates the mythic interpretation of the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Therefore:

1. The New Testament specifically distinguishes between myth and fact and repudiates the mythic interpretation of the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus.

 The inference from premise (A) to premise (1) is ILLOGICAL and INVALID.  The first sub-argument in the chain of reasoning constituting Objection #5 is a BAD argument, and thus Objection #5 FAILS right out of the starting gate.

This argument commits the FALLACY OF COMPOSITION:

The problem here is that the characteristics of a PART of something are often NOT characteristics of the WHOLE something.  The New Testament is composed of several different pieces of writing that were produced by a number of different authors.  Therefore, we cannot simply assume that the beliefs of one author who wrote one part of the New Testament are exactly the same as the beliefs of other authors who wrote other parts of the New Testament.  

The fact that the author of the letter known as "2nd Peter" distinguished between myth and fact, does NOT show that any other author of other parts of the New Testament distinguished between myth and fact.  What is true of one author of one part of the NT might well NOT be true of other authors of other parts of the NT. 

What really matters in this case, is whether the authors of the GOSPELS distinguished between myth and fact and whether the authors of the GOSPELS repudiated the mythic theory of the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus.  

We don't know who the author of "2nd Peter" was, although it was probably NOT written by the apostle Peter.  In any case, nobody thinks that the author of "2nd Peter" was the author of any of the Gospels.  So, the fact that the author of "2nd Peter" distinguished between myth and fact is IRRELEVANT to whether the authors of the Gospels distinguished between myth and fact.  Therefore, the inference from (A) to (1) is INVALID and FALLACIOUS, thus we should reject this first sub-argument in Objection #5.  Therefore, Objection #5 FAILS.

EVALUATION OF THE SECOND SUB-ARGUMENT IN OBJECTION #5

Here is the second sub-argument in Kreeft's chain of reasoning constituting his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory:

1. The New Testament specifically distinguishes between myth and fact and repudiates the mythic interpretation of the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Therefore:

2. IF the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories, THEN these stories are deliberate lies rather than myths (where the author does not intend for readers to take the stories as literal historical accounts). 

We saw above that Kreeft's argument for premise (1) was ILLOGICAL and INVALID, so premise (1) remains DUBIOUS.  Showing that one bit of writing by one unknown author "distinguishes between myth and fact" doesn't tell us whether any of the authors of the Gospels distinguished between myth and fact.  So, premise (1) might well be FALSE. 

How about the inference from premise (1) to premise (2)?  I take it that premise (1) implies that the authors of the Gospel stories distinguished between myth and fact and that they denied that their stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus were myths (where the author does not intend readers to take the stories as literal historical accounts).  This would mean that the authors of the Gospels intended their readers to take their stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus as literal historical accounts.

Does it follow from this that IF the Gospel stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus were fictional (i.e. UNTRUE) that the authors of the Gospels were deliberately lying to their readers about the death and resurrection of Jesus?  I don't think this follows.  It is possible that the author of a Gospel believed the stories he wrote about the death and resurrection of Jesus were accurate literal historical accounts of those events but was mistaken on this point, and the stories were actually fictional, that is, the stories were UNTRUE.  If this could be the case with one author of one Gospel, then it could also be the case with other authors of other Gospels.

The fact that someone recognizes the difference between myth and fact does NOT MEAN that he or she is good at determining whether a particular story is myth or fact.  Therefore, the authors of the Gospels might have written fictional (i.e UNTRUE) stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus, but mistakenly believed those stories were accurate literal historical accounts.  Thus, premise (1) could be true even though premise (2) was false.  The inference from (1) to (2) is INVALID.  Thus, the second sub-argument in the chain of reasoning for Objection #5 is clearly a BAD argument because it consists of an INVALID inference from a DUBIOUS premise. Therefore, Objection #5 against the Myth Theory FAILS.

EVALUATION OF THE THIRD SUB-ARGUMENT IN OBJECTION #5

Here is the third sub-argument in Kreeft's chain of reasoning constituting his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory:

2. IF the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories, THEN these stories are deliberate lies rather than myths (where the author does not intend for readers to take the stories as literal historical accounts). 

B. But the New Testament authors who tell stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus would not tell deliberate lies about Jesus dying and rising from the dead. 

Therefore:

C. It is NOT the case that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories.

Premise (2) is DUBIOUS, because Kreeft's sub-argument for (2) was clearly a BAD argument. The logic of this third sub-argument is VALID, because (C) follows logically from premises (2) and (B).

However, premise (B), like premise (2) is DUBIOUS. I suspect that one reason why Kreeft did not make this assumption explicitly, is that making this an explicit claim would then create an expectation that he would back up this claim with evidence, and that would be difficult for him to do.

The problem is that we know very little about the authors of the Gospels.  The Gospel of Mark was probably written by someone named "Mark", but we know very little about Mark.  The Gospel of Luke was probably written by someone named "Luke", but we know very little about Luke. The Gospel of Matthew was probably NOT written by the apostle Matthew, according to most mainstream NT scholars, but we don't know who did write this Gospel, and so we know very little about the author of the Gospel of Matthew.  The Gospel of John was probably NOT written by the apostle John, but we don't know who did write this Gospel, and so we know very little about the author of the Gospel of John.

Because we know very little about the authors of the Gospels, it would be difficult for Kreeft to make a strong case that none of the authors of the Gospels would tell deliberate lies about Jesus dying and rising from the dead.  We don't know about the lives and characters of these people, so we cannot be sure that they were completely honest and trustworthy people.

MATTHEW AND LUKE DISAGREE WHEN THEY DON'T FOLLOW MARK

One problem with the accuracy and reliability of Matthew and Luke is that they tend to agree with each other when they are following the Gospel of Mark, but when they go beyond Mark, they tend to contradict each other.  There are no stories about the birth of Jesus in Mark, but Matthew and Luke both have stories about the birth of Jesus, and those stories contradict each other.  Most NT scholars view the stories about the birth of Jesus as MYTHS or LEGENDS, not as accurate historical accounts.

At the end of the Gospel of Mark, there are no stories about appearances of the risen Jesus.  But at the end of Matthew and Luke, there are stories about appearances of the risen Jesus, but those stories clearly contradict each other.  Matthew has Jesus head out of Jerusalem to Galilee on the first Easter Sunday, and the first appearance of the risen Jesus to his male disciples takes place in Galilee a week or more after Jesus was crucified.  But Luke has both Jesus and his disciples hanging out in Jerusalem, and according to Luke, the first appearances of the risen Jesus to his male disciples occur on Easter Sunday in Jerusalem.  So, the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke tend to agree with each other when they are following the Gospel of Mark, but they tend to contradict each other when they are not following the Gospel of Mark.  That is a good reason to doubt the reliability of Matthew and Luke.

Furthermore, because the author of the Gospel of Matthew and the author of the Gospel of Luke used the Gospel of Mark as one of their main sources of information about the life and death of Jesus, we can observe how they made use of passages from Mark in writing their own Gospels.  

According to the Gospel of Mark, Jesus leaves Jerusalem and heads back to Galilee on the first Easter Sunday, and it is implied that the first time the disciples would see the risen Jesus is in Galilee, which would require that they walk for a number of days from Jerusalem to meet with Jesus in Galilee.  But Luke, who had a copy of the Gospel of Mark, ignores this, and makes a big change to Mark's story, claiming that Jesus first appeared to his male disciples in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday, and instructed his disciples to REMAIN IN JERUSALEM.  

Luke clearly and deliberately contradicts the Gospel of Mark. This is evidence that the author of Luke either (a) was happy to LIE about when and where the first appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples happened, or (b) believed that the Gospel of Mark (one of his main sources of information about Jesus) was completely wrong about these important events.  Either way, the credibility of the author of Luke is seriously damaged.

THE USE OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK BY THE AUTHOR OF MATTHEW

Observing the use of the Gospel of Mark by the author of the Gospel of Matthew provides good reason to doubt the honesty and reliability of the author of Matthew. 

• In Mark 11: On his way from Bethany to Jerusalem, Jesus curses a fig tree, and the next morning the disciples see that the tree has "withered away" (Mark 11:15-21).
• In Matthew 21: On his way from Bethany to Jerusalem, Jesus curses a fig tree, and it "withered at once".  (Matthew 21:18-20)

Why did the author of Matthew revise the story about Jesus cursing the fig tree? It seems likely that this change was made in order to make the story more dramatic and more impressive.  The fig tree is instantly impacted by Jesus' curse, instead of taking 24 hours to be impacted.  If this is the case, then the author of Matthew was willing to sacrifice historical accuracy for the sake of making this story more dramatic and more impressive than the story is in the Gospel of Mark.  This is a reason to doubt the honesty and reliability of the author of the Gospel of Matthew.  

There are a number of examples where the author of the Gospel of Matthew revises stories from the Gospel of Mark indicating either a lack of concern about historical accuracy or indicating that the author of Matthew views the Gospel of Mark as being an inaccurate and unreliable, while still depending on the Gospel of Mark as one of his main sources of information about Jesus.

• In Mark 5: After crossing the sea of Galilee, Jesus heals a demon-possessed man. (Mark 5:1–20)
• In Matthew 8: After crossing the sea of Galilee, Jesus heals two demon-possessed men. (Matthew 8:28–34)

After crossing the sea of Galilee with his disicples and calming a great storm on the sea, Jesus gets out of the boat and then casts demons out of a demon-possessed man into a herd of pigs, according to the Gospel of Mark.  But Matthew changes the story so that Jesus casts demons out of TWO men into a herd of pigs.

Why does the author of the Gospel of Matthew revise the story in the Gospel of Mark about Jesus healing the demon-possessed man?  It seems likely that Matthew doubles the number of successful exorcisms by Jesus to make the story more dramatic and more impressive.  If so, then the author of Matthew was willing to sacrifice historical accuracy for the sake of making this story more dramatic and more impressive than the story as told in the Gospel of Mark.  This is a reason to doubt the honesty and reliability of the author of the Gospel of Matthew. 

• Mark 10: While leaving the city of Jericho, Jesus heals one blind man. (Mark 10:46–52)
• Matthew 20: While leaving the city of Jericho, Jesus heals two blind men. (Matthew 20:29–34)

As Jesus and his disciples are leaving the city of Jericho, Jesus heals a blind man, according to the Gospel of Mark.  But Matthew changes the story so that Jesus heals TWO blind men as he is leaving the city of Jericho.

Why does the author of the Gospel of Matthew revise the story in the Gospel of Mark about Jesus healing the blind man in Jericho?  It seems likely that Matthew doubles the number of healings of blind men by Jesus to make the story more dramatic and more impressive.  If so, then the author of Matthew was willing to sacrifice historical accuracy for the sake of making this story more dramatic and more impressive than the story as told in the Gospel of Mark.  This is a reason to doubt the honesty and reliability of the author of the Gospel of Matthew. 

• Mark 11: Jesus enters Jerusalem riding on one donkey. (Mark 11:1-11)
• Matthew 21: Jesus enters Jerusalem riding on two donkeys. (Matthew 21:1-11)

Jesus makes a grand entrance into Jerusalem, riding on a donkey, according to the Gospel of Mark.  But Matthew revises this story so that Jesus is (somehow) riding on TWO donkeys as he enters Jerusalem.

Why does the author of the Gospel of Matthew revise the story in the Gospel of Mark about Jesus riding on a donkey as he enters Jerusalem?  It seems likely that Matthew doubles the number of donkeys ridden by Jesus to make the story conform to an Old Testament prophecy.  The author of Matthew thought that 

Zechariah 9:9 predicted that the messiah would enter Jerusalem riding on TWO donkeys.  So, the author of Matthew changes Mark's story so that it conforms to this "prophecy" from Zechariah.  

Unfortunately, the passage in Zechariah is only talking about ONE donkey, so Matthew's revision of Mark's story was completely unnecessary.  If the author of Matthew revised Mark's story about Jesus entering Jerusalem riding on a donkey in order to make the story conform to the "prophecy" from Zechariah, then the author of Matthew was willing to sacrifice historical accuracy for a theological and apologetic purpose: making this story into the fulfillment of a prophecy about the messiah. This is a reason to doubt the honesty and reliability of the author of the Gospel of Matthew. 

Furthermore, if the author of Matthew honestly believed:

• that the fig tree was instantly impacted by Jesus' curse, and
• that Jesus healed two demon-possessed men on the shore of Galilee, and
• that Jesus healed two blind men in Jericho, and
• that Jesus rode two donkeys when he entered Jerusalem,

then the author of Matthew apparently does NOT view the Gospel of Mark as being an accurate and reliable source of information about Jesus.  But the Gospel of Mark is one of his main sources of information about Jesus, so if the author of Matthew honestly believed that the Gospel of Mark had all of these errors, it appears that the author of Matthew was happy to use an inaccurate and unreliable source as one of his main sources of information about Jesus. 

The Gospel of Matthew adds a number of dubious events and elements to the account of Jesus' trials, death, burial, and resurrection, in comparison with the accounts found in the Gospel of Mark. This is evidence that the author of Matthew was willing to sacrifice historical accuracy in order to pump up the drama and to make theological or apologetic points:

The Arrest of Jesus in Mark 14 vs. Matthew 26

When Jesus is arrested, the author of Matthew adds the following to the account found in the Gospel of Mark:

52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 

53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 

54 But how then would the scriptures be fulfilled, which say it must happen in this way?”      (Matthew 26:52-54, NRSV)

Matthew has Jesus boast about his extraordinary power and authority as God's chosen King of Israel.  This pumps up the drama and also makes a theological point that Matthew wanted to emphasize.  Again, historical accuracy appears to be sacrificed by the author of Matthew for the sake of drama and theological points.

The Trial of Jesus in Mark 15 vs. Matthew 27

When Jesus is tried by Pilate, the author of Matthew adds the following to the account found in the Gospel of Mark:

19 While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, “Have nothing to do with that innocent man, for today I have suffered a great deal because of a dream about him.”

[and also:]

24 So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” 

25 Then the people as a whole answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!”                  (Matthew 27:19 & 24-25, NRSV)

Matthew appears to be working hard to shift the blame for the crucifixion of Jesus from Pilate and the Romans to the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem and to the Jewish people who were gathered in Jerusalem when Jesus was tried and executed, providing serious ammunition for future proponents of anti-semitism.  It appears that the author of Matthew revised the account of Jesus' trial found in the Gospel of Mark in order to influence Christian believers to be more accepting of Romans and to blame Jewish leaders and Jewish people in general for the violent death of Jesus.  Those ideological points were apparently more important to the author of Matthew than providing an historically accurate account of Jesus' trial.

The Death of Jesus in Mark 15 vs. Matthew 27

When Jesus dies on the cross, the author of Matthew adds these events and details to the account found in the Gospel of Mark:

51 ... The earth shook, and the rocks were split. 

52 The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 

53 After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.           (Matthew 27:51-53, NRSV)

There is no earthquake in the account of Jesus' death found in the Gospel of Mark. The tombs of Jewish saints in Jerusalem do not miraculously open up in the Gospel of Mark.   Jewish saints buried in Jerusalem do not rise from the dead when Jesus dies in the Gospel of Mark.  Resurrected Jewish saints do not come out of their graves and roam around in Jerusalem on the first Easter Sunday.  

Why would the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke not bother to mention these amazing events, if these amazing events actually took place?  It appears that the author of Matthew has invented (or at least passed on) mythical elements related to the death and alleged resurrection of Jesus.  Drama and amazing miracle stories appear to be invented (or perhaps just passed along) by the author of Matthew, because drama and theological points are more important to the author of Matthew than historical accuracy.

The Burial of Jesus in Mark 15 vs. Matthew 27

When Jesus is buried, the author of Matthew adds these events to the account found in the Gospel of Mark:

62 The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate 

63 and said, “Sir, we remember what that impostor said while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 

64 Therefore command the tomb to be made secure until the third day; otherwise his disciples may go and steal him away, and tell the people, ‘He has been raised from the dead,’ and the last deception would be worse than the first.” 

65 Pilate said to them, “You have a guard of soldiers; go, make it as secure as you can.” 

66 So they went with the guard and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone.     (Matthew 27:62-66, NRSV)

Most NT scholars believe this story about guards being stationed at the tomb of Jesus is an "apologetic legend".  There is no mention of any guards at the tomb in the Gospel of Mark.  There is no mention of any guards at the tomb in the Gospel of Luke.  There is no mention of any guards at the tomb in the Gospel of John. Only the Gospel of Matthew has this story about guards being placed at the tomb of Jesus.  So, this appears to be yet another addition that the author of Matthew makes to Mark's account which was added for dramatic and theological reasons.  This is more evidence that the author of Matthew cares more about drama and theological points than about providing accurate historical information.

The Resurrection of Jesus in Mark 16 vs. Matthew 28

When Jesus allegedly rises from the dead on the morning of the first Easter Sunday, the author of Matthew adds the following events and details to Mark's story about this:

2 And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 

3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 

4 For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men.

[and]

8 So they [the women who visited the tomb] left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 

9 Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. 

10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”        (Matthew 28:2-4 & 8-10)

There is no earthquake in Mark's story.  There is no angel descending from heaven in Mark's story.  There is a "young man" dressed in white sitting inside the tomb, but no angel sitting on the stone that had been rolled away from the entrance to the tomb, and there was nobody whose "appearance was like lightning".  Finally, there were no guards at the tomb terrified by an angel, just like there are no guards at the tomb in the Gospel of Luke, and no guards at the tomb in the Gospel of John. These appear to be fictional elements added to the story found in the Gospel of Mark by the author of Matthew in order to pump up the drama and to make theological or apologetic points.  This is additional evidence that the author of Matthew cared more about creating a dramatic and compelling story than about providing an accurate historical account of events.

In the Gospel of Mark, the women do NOT run to tell the disciples what they saw at the tomb, and the women do NOT meet the risen Jesus as they leave the tomb.  In the Gospel of Luke, there is also no mention of the women meeting the risen Jesus when they leave the tomb.  Again, these details contradict the story in the Gospel of Mark, and appear to have been added to pump up the drama and to make an apologetic point (i.e. the women who visited the tomb saw the risen Jesus).  

Mark and Luke had every reason to include the appearance of the risen Jesus to the women if they believed that had actually happened, but they don't include this event, so it appears that the author of Matthew invented details for the sake of drama and theological points, and thus placed a low priority on providing an accurate historical account of events surrounding the death and alleged resurrection of Jesus.

I have pointed out eleven passages where the author of Matthew revises or adds new details or events to the stories he found in the Gospel of Mark, revisions and additions that appear to have been made for the sake of making a story more dramatic, more impressive, or to make a theological or apologetic point.  In each case the author of Matthew was certainly aware that he was revising the stories found in the Gospel of Mark.  It is very likely that in at least two or three of these cases, the author of Matthew was deliberately lying about the event in question.  Since a number of these passages relate to the trial, death, burial, or resurrection of Jesus, it is likely that in at least one case, the author of Matthew was deliberately lying about an event related to the death or resurrection of Jesus.  

Based on the above comparison of stories found in the Gospel of Mark, with the versions of those stories composed by the author of Matthew, premise (B) in the third sub-argument in Kreeft's reasoning for Objection #5 is probably false:

2. IF the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories, THEN these stories are deliberate lies rather than myths (where the author does not intend for readers to take the stories as literal historical accounts). 

B. But the New Testament authors who tell stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus would not tell deliberate lies about Jesus dying and rising from the dead. 

Therefore:

C. It is NOT the case that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories.

Premise (D) is DUBIOUS because (a) we know very little about the authors of the Gospels, and (b) when Matthew and Luke are not following the Gospel of Mark, they tend to contradict each other, and (c) Matthew's changes to the stories from the Gospel of Mark show that the author of Matthew was more concerned about enhancing the drama of those stories or making a theological point than about providing an accurate historical account. 

Since Kreeft's sub-argument for premise (2) was a BAD argument, premise (2) is DUBIOUS, and now we have good reason to doubt premise (D) as well.  Because both premises of the third sub-argument are DUBIOUS, we should reject this argument, and that means that Objection #5 FAILS.

In the next post of this series, I will examine the fourth and final sub-argument in Kreeft's chain of reasoning constituting his Objection #5.  However, since at least three out of four sub-arguments in Kreeft's chain of reasoning in Objection #5 are BAD arguments, it is already clear that his Objection #5 FAILS, just like the previous four Objections all have FAILED.