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.”
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.
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.