Tuesday, February 22, 2022

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

WHERE WE ARE

In Part 1 of this series, we saw that according to Kreeft, the Myth Theory is about the messages and stories given by the apostles about the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.  Here is a clear definition of the Myth Theory that is based on Kreeft's characterizations of that theory:

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.

In Part 2 of this series, we saw that Kreeft's first objection against the Myth Theory involves some UNSTATED inferences:

1. The style of the Gospels is radically and clearly different from the style of all myths.

Therefore:

A. The authors of the Gospels did NOT intend for readers to take their stories about the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus to be myths, but rather they intended readers to take these stories as literal accounts of actual historical events.

Therefore: 

B2. The Gospel accounts of the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are NOT written in the GENRE of myth, but rather are written in the GENRE of history and biography

Therefore:

C. The Myth Theory is FALSE. 

Kreeft has provided a reasonable argument for premise (B2), but the inference from (B2) to (C) is INVALID and ILLOGICAL for at least two reasons.  First, works that are historical sometimes provide highly unreliable accounts of events and contain many false historical claims.  Second, the Myth Theory, as characterized by Kreeft, is not about the Gospels or the authors of the Gospels but is, rather, about the apostles and their preaching and stories about the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.  So, premise (B2) is irrelevant to an evaluation of the Myth Theory.

Because Kreeft's argument for Objection #1 against the Myth Theory involves an INVALID inference Objection #1 FAILS:


It is now time to consider Kreeft's second objection against the Myth Theory.


OBJECTION #2: NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR MYTH TO DEVELOP 

Here is the opening paragraph of Kreeft's second objection against the Myth Theory:

(2) A second problem is that there was not enough time for myth to develop. The original demythologizers pinned their case onto a late second-century date for the writing of the Gospels; several generations have to pass before the added mythological elements can be mistakenly believed to be facts. Eyewitnesses would be around before that to discredit the new, mythic versions. We know of other cases where myths and legends of miracles developed around a religious founder—for example, Buddha, Lao-tzu and Muhammad. In each case, many generations passed before the myth surfaced.

(HCA, p.190-191) 

The key claim by Kreeft in this opening paragraph is this one:

...several generations have to pass before the added mythological elements can be mistakenly believed to be facts.

Another important clue about Kreeft's argument is the second sentence of the above paragraph:

The original demythologizers pinned their case onto a late second-century date for the writing of the Gospels...

Once again, Kreeft is focusing his attention on the Gospels and the authors of the Gospels rather than on the apostles.  This is why his first objection against the Myth Theory FAILED.

As is often the case, Kreeft FAILS to make clear the conclusion of his argument.  But it must be a conclusion about "the writing of the Gospels" and it is based upon his claim about "mythological elements" requiring "several generations" to pass before they can be "mistakenly believed to be facts".

Here is my interpretation of Kreeft's argument constituting his Objection #2:

1. Several generations have to pass before mythological elements added to stories about a historical person or a historical event can be mistakenly believed to be historical facts by the original readers of the stories.

A. Several generations did NOT pass between the crucifixion of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels (and the reading of the Gospels by the original readers of the Gospels).

B. Jesus was a historical person, and the crucifixion of Jesus was a historical event.

Therefore:

C. IF the authors of the Gospels added mythological elements about Jesus rising from the dead to their stories about the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, THEN those mythological elements in those stories would NOT have been mistakenly believed to be facts by the original readers of the Gospels.

Note that most of this argument was left UNSTATED by Kreeft.  This is another example of the UNCLARITY and SLOPPINESS of Kreeft's thinking.  Kreeft almost never provides a clearly stated argument, and thus we are constantly forced to clarify his reasoning and to fill in the missing gaps in his arguments.

Claim (C) above is an UNSTATED conclusion of Kreeft's reasoning, but it does not directly address the question at issue, which is about the Myth Theory.

What Kreeft is suggesting, but not clearly stating, is that the Gospels found in the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) do NOT contain mythological elements in their accounts of the alleged crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.  So, we need to spell out the rest of Kreeft's UNSTATED thinking to finish his argument:

C. IF the authors of the Gospels added mythological elements about Jesus rising from the dead to their stories about the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, THEN those mythological elements in those stories would NOT have been mistakenly believed to be historical facts by the original readers of the Gospels.

D. The original readers of the Gospels believed the Gospel accounts of the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus to be accurate historical accounts containing historical facts about those events without any added mythological elements. 

Therefore:

E. It is NOT the case that the authors of the Gospels added mythological elements about Jesus rising from the dead to their stories about the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.  

Therefore:

F. The Myth Theory is FALSE. 


WHAT DOES "SEVERAL GENERATIONS" MEAN?

The phrase "several generations" in premise (1) is VAGUE and UNCLEAR.  How many generations counts as "several" That quantification is vague.  How many years constitutes one "generation"?  That term is also unclear. 

"Several generations" might mean any of the following:

  • at least three generations
  • at least four generations
  • at least five generations 
  • at least six generations

There is a big difference between "at least three generations" and "at least six generations", but the vague term "several" could mean either of those things.

The more generations that are implied by the term "several generations" the LESS PLAUSIBLE Kreeft's key premise becomes.  The following version of Kreeft's claim seems somewhat plausible:

1A. At least three generations have to pass before mythological elements added to stories about a historical person or a historical event can be mistakenly believed to be historical facts by the original readers of the stories.

This version of Kreeft's claim is less plausible:

1B. At least four generations have to pass before mythological elements added to stories about a historical person or a historical event can be mistakenly believed to be historical facts by the original readers of the stories.

This version of Kreeft's claim is implausible:

1C. At least five generations have to pass before mythological elements added to stories about a historical person or a historical event can be mistakenly believed to be historical facts by the original readers of the stories.

This version of the claim is very improbable:

1D. At least six generations have to pass before mythological elements added to stories about a historical person or a historical event can be mistakenly believed to be historical facts by the original readers of the stories.

It makes a big difference which of these interpretations we adopt, both in terms of the implications of this key premise and in terms of the plausibility of this key premise.

I suspect that Kreeft is VAUGE on this point because he does not have enough knowledge or evidence to establish a precise number of generations that it takes "before mythological elements" in stories "can be mistakenly believed to be facts."  If that is correct, then it is unlikely that Kreeft could prove any of these claims.

In any case, Kreeft's key premise about "several generations" could be understood in ANY of the four above ways, so the meaning of this key premise is definitely UNCLEAR.

How much time does it take for ONE "generation" to pass? Again, the idea of a "generation" is UNCLEAR because it could have any of the following meanings:

  • a generation constitutes about fifteen years
  • a generation constitutes about twenty years
  • a generation constitutes about twenty-five years
  • a generation constitutes about thirty years
The typical number of years between familial generations varies over the centuries and between different countries and cultures:



Given the ambiguity of the word "several" in combination with the ambiguity of the word "generation", we end up with a wide range of different possible lengths of time.  If "several" means "at least three" and a "generation" is considered to pass in just fifteen years, then Kreeft's key premise is talking about a period of about forty-five years.  But if "several" means "at least six" and a "generation" is considered to pass in thirty years, then Kreeft's key premise is talking about a period of about 180 years!  

So, the double ambiguity of the phrase "several generations" makes it UNCLEAR whether Kreeft's key premise is talking about a period of about forty-five years, a period of about 180 years, or some other period of time that is somewhere between those two extremes.

Why does Kreeft believe that "several generations" must pass before mythological elements added to stories about a historical person or a historical event can be "mistakenly believed to be facts"?  A primary reason is that eyewitnesses would still be alive to refute the added mythological elements:

Eyewitnesses would be around before that to discredit the new, mythic versions.   (HCA, p.191) 

But eyewitnesses don't live 180 years beyond an event that they experienced as a teenager or adult.  They don't live 100 years beyond an event that they experienced as a teenager or adult. 

Since Kreeft's key claim is so UNCLEAR and AMBIGUOUS and can refer to a time period anywhere from 45 years to 180 years, how can we pin down the meaning of his key claim?  Well, we can at least narrow down the range of possible meanings by eliminating the extreme ends of the range.  Clearly, the extreme claim that it takes 180 years before legendary elements can be mistaken for historical facts can be eliminated, because eyewitnesses don't live for 180 years after seeing an event.  Even the claim that 100 years must pass before legendary elements can be mistaken for historical facts is NOT plausible, because most eyewitnesses (who are in their teens or twenties) of event X will be dead seventy or eighty years after the event.

So, this claim is clearly implausible unless we eliminate interpretations of it that require more than 80 years to pass before legendary elements can be mistaken for historical facts. For example, three generations of thirty years each = 90 years, so we can eliminate all interpretations involving thirty-year generations:

  • a generation constitutes about fifteen years
  • a generation constitutes about twenty years
  • a generation constitutes about twenty-five years
  • a generation constitutes about thirty years

Also, six generations of fifteen years each = 90 years, so we can eliminate all interpretations involving six generations:

  • at least three generations
  • at least four generations
  • at least five generations 
  • at least six generations

There is a further problem for Kreeft's claim, a problem that will shrink the range of plausible interpretations of his claim further.  People in the USA in the 21st century often live to be 80 years old, but this was NOT the case in first-century Palestine.  If we can determine the average age of death (for adults) in first-century Palestine, and roughly the distribution of the age at which adults in that time and place died, then we can determine a more accurate time frame, for when most of the supposed eyewitnesses to the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus would have died off.


HOW LONG DID PEOPLE LIVE IN FIRST-CENTURY PALESTINE?

There is an interesting website called "Following Jesus", and on that website, there is an article introducing the life of Jesus in historical context ("the context of a life").  In that article, there is a section about "family life" in first-century Palestine, and we find this comment at the end of that section:


If the life expectancy for a Jewish male in Jewish Palestine (in the first century) was only 29 years, then we would expect there to be few eyewitnesses to the crucifixion, or burial, or resurrection of Jesus thirty years after those events.  But that would mean that all of the Gospels, including the earliest (i.e. Mark) would be subject to the doubt that their accounts of the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus contained mythological elements that, because of the deaths of most of the eyewitnesses by that time, might well be mistaken for historical facts.

However, Kreeft's argument is not that easily defeated.  Although the 29-year life expectancy figure might well be correct, it is misleading.  In ancient times, infant mortality and childhood mortality were serious problems, and because so many people died as infants or children, the average life expectancy at birth was lowered very significantly. For example, if two children are born, and one dies before it reaches 1 year of age, and the other child grows up and lives to be 60 years old, then the AVERAGE of the lifespans of those two people will be only 30 years.

In other words, people who lived in ancient times could live to be sixty, or seventy, or eighty years old, but the AVERAGE life expectancy at birth would still be very low (20 to 30 years) because so many people died as infants and as children.

A much better statistic, for our purposes here, is life expectancy at age 15 (or at age 20).  People who reached the age of 15 (or 20) had escaped from the dangers of infection and disease that took the lives of a large portion of infants and children.  The prospects for living a long life were much better for a 15-year-old than for a newborn baby.

I don't have data on the life expectancy of a 15-year-old Jewish male living in first-century Palestine.  However, I do have information on the life expectancy of 15-year-old persons from three similar groups of people (who lived without the benefits of modern medicine):

  • Classical Greece: 39 years
  • Classical Rome: 51 years
  • Medieval England: 47 years*

[I will put the relevant data and references in a section at the end of this post.]

* This is the life expectancy at age 20, but this is likely to be close to the life expectancy at age 15 because the most serious threat of death occurs in infancy and childhood. 

Given that the life expectancies of these three groups are not widely divergent, it seems reasonable to take the average of these four life expectancies as a basis for estimating the life expectancy of a 15-year-old person in first-century Jewish Palestine:

39 years + 51 years + 47 years =   137 years

137 years / 3 groups =    45.67 years (average)

Since this is just a rough estimate, we should round up to 46 years.

So, it is reasonable to assume that the life expectancy of a 15-year-old Jewish male in first-century Jewish Palestine was NOT 29 years but was significantly greater: around 46 years.

Now, this does NOT mean that nearly all Jewish males in Jewish Palestine in the first century died between age 45 and 50.  Some died in their twenties, some in their thirties, some in their forties, some in their fifties, some in their sixties, a few in their seventies, and a few in their eighties.  A tiny number lived into their nineties.  

I would expect there to be something like a bell curve for age of death (of the group of people who were age 15 through age 19 in a particular year) with the apex of the bell being around 46 years of age.  But there would be significant numbers of those people who would die in their thirties, and who would die in their fifties.  So, it is not immediately obvious how long it would take for most of the members of a group of witnesses to an event to die off.  

We need to know the approximate ages of the witnesses at the time of the historical event, and we also need to know not just the AVERAGE age of those people at their deaths, but also the likely distribution of their deaths in the years and decades before and after their AVERAGE age of death.

I found a chart of the distribution of the ages of people in classical Rome. We can use this chart to estimate the distribution of deaths around the AVERAGE age of death (expected for 15 year-olds) as 46:

You can see that in the Roman Empire, only a tiny minority of people survived to their eighties, and only about 1% of the population was in their seventies, compared to 17% of the population being in their twenties, and 15% of the population being in their thirties.

Starting at age 10 each age category ("5" means ages 5 though 9, "10" means ages 10 through 14, etc.) reduces by about 1 % as we move to older and older age categories:

The 15-year category of people (ages 15 to 19) comprises 10% of the population, while the 65-year category of people (ages 65 to 69) constitutes only 1% of the population.  That indicates that about 90% of people in the 15-year category will die before they reach the 65-year category.  This gives us a good baseline for figuring out how much time it takes for 90% of a group of witnesses to an event to die off in first-century Jewish Palestine.

For example, if Jesus' disciples were between age 15 and age 19 when Jesus was crucified (about 30 CE), then we would reasonably expect that about 90% of them would be dead before they made it into the category of people age 65 to age 69 fifty years later (about 80 CE):  

Fifty years after an event witnessed by a group of first-century Jewish males who were age 15 to age 19  in Jewish Palestine, it would be reasonable to expect that about 90% of those witnesses to the event would be dead. 

If 90% of the witnesses to an event have died, then it might well be the case that mythological elements could be incorporated into accounts of the historical event and that people would generally mistake those mythological elements for historical facts about the event.  

Therefore, because of the lower life expectancy of people living in first-century Palestine (compared with the life expectancy of people in modern countries in the 21st century), Kreeft's claim about the need for "several generations" to pass before mythological elements in an account of a historical event could be mistaken for historical facts about that event must be interpreted to refer to no more than about a fifty-year period of time.  Otherwise, Kreeft's key claim would be IMPLAUSIBLE, subject to significant doubt, and not be an adequate basis to PROVE anything.

We can now eliminate more of the possible interpretations of Kreeft's UNCLEAR phrase "several generations".  Any interpretation of this phrase that refers to a period of time longer than fifty years can be eliminated because that interpretation would make Kreeft's key claim FALSE or IMPLAUSIBLE.  

Five generations where a generation consists of about fifteen years refers to a period of seventy-five years (5 generations x 15 years/generation = 75 years).  So, we can eliminate the interpretation of "several" as meaning "at least five":

  • at least three generations
  • at least four generations
  • at least five generations 
  • at least six generations

Four generations where a generation consists of about fifteen years refers to a period of sixty years (4 generations x 15 years/generation = 60 years).  So, we can eliminate the interpretation of "several" as meaning "at least four":

  • at least three generations
  • at least four generations
  • at least five generations 
  • at least six generations

That leaves us with only ONE possible interpretation of "several":  "at least three".

Three generations where a generation consists of about twenty-five years refers to a period of seventy-five years (3 generations x 25 years/generation = 75 years), so we can eliminate the interpretation of "generation" that refers to a span of about twenty-five years:

  • a generation constitutes about fifteen years
  • a generation constitutes about twenty years
  • a generation constitutes about twenty-five years
  • a generation constitutes about thirty years

Three generations where a generation consists of about twenty years refers to a period of sixty years (3 generations x 20 years/generation = 60 years), so we can eliminate the interpretation of "generation" that refers to a span of about twenty years:

  • a generation constitutes about fifteen years
  • a generation constitutes about twenty years
  • a generation constitutes about twenty-five years
  • a generation constitutes about thirty years

That leaves us with only ONE interpretation of the UNCLEAR phrase "several generations":

at least three generations, where a generation constitutes about fifteen years

Here is the ONLY interpretation of Kreeft's claim that is at least somewhat plausible:

1A. At least three generations (consisting of about fifteen years each) would have to pass in first-century Palestine before mythological elements added to stories about a historical person or a historical event could be mistakenly believed to be historical facts.

Because this is the only interpretation of Kreeft's key claim that is even somewhat plausible, we can settle on this interpretation, and proceed to evaluate Kreeft's argument on the basis of this interpretation.


CLARIFICATION OF KREEFT'S ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #2

1A. At least three generations (consisting of about fifteen years each) would have to pass in first-century Palestine before mythological elements added to stories about an historical person or an historical event could be mistakenly believed to be historical facts.

A1. Three generations (consisting of about fifteen years each) did NOT pass between the crucifixion of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels  (and the reading of the Gospels by the original readers of the Gospels).

B. Jesus was a historical person, and the crucifixion of Jesus was a historical event.

Therefore:

C. IF the authors of the Gospels added mythological elements about Jesus rising from the dead to their stories about the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, THEN those mythological elements in those stories would NOT have been mistakenly believed to be historical facts by the original readers of the Gospels.

Note that because we have revised the first premise to clarify it, we had to also revise premise (A), so that it would remain relevant to the first premise so that the logical connection between these premises would not be broken.

I still have doubts about the first premise, even though we have interpreted it so that it makes the weakest claim of all the possible interpretations of Kreeft's key claim.  However, premise (A1) is clearly FALSE or highly improbable, so that is the most obvious problem with this argument, at least in terms of evaluation of the truth of the premises.

The Gospel of Mark was probably written about 70 CE, which is about forty years after Jesus was crucified (in about 30 CE).  So, the Gospel of Mark was written inside the forty-five-year window spelled out by premise (1A).  However, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were probably written between 80 CE and 90 CE.  In that case, they were written outside the forty-five-year window spelled out by premise (1A).  Thus, premise (A1) is FALSE.  

That means that when the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written, and when they were first read after being written, they might well have included mythological elements in their stories about the alleged crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, and the original readers of those Gospels might well have mistakenly believed those mythological elements to be historical facts. Matthew and Luke were probably written between fifty and sixty years after the crucifixion of Jesus (in about 30 CE). So, we would reasonably expect 90% or more of the eyewitnesses to have died by that point in time. 

It is important to note that there are NO STORIES in Mark about any appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples.  The Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke, on the other hand, do contain stories about appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples.  So, Matthew and Luke are critical to Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus.  But premise (1A) FAILS to show that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke are free from mythological elements in their accounts of the alleged crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.  

The Gospel of John is the least historically reliable of the four NT Gospels, so it would also FAIL to provide any solid and reliable evidence about the events surrounding the alleged crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.  But the Gospel of John was probably written between 90 CE and 100 CE, so it was written about sixty to seventy years after the crucifixion of Jesus, which is well outside the forty-five-year window that Kreeft's key premise specifies.  So, premise (1A) FAILS to show that the Gospel of John is free from mythological elements in its account of the alleged crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. 

The three Gospels that contain stories about appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples were all written outside of the forty-five-year window specified by premise (1A), and thus all three of those Gospels are subject to the reasonable doubt that their accounts of the alleged crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus contain mythological elements.  

Mark is the ONLY Gospel that was written inside the forty-five-year window specified by premise (1A), but that Gospel contains NO STORIES about appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples.  Therefore, the argument FAILS to support premise (C), and premise (C) is DUBIOUS.

Premise (C) is a key premise in the argument supporting premise (E), so Kreeft's argument also FAILS to support premise (E), because (C) is DUBIOUS.  Premise (E) is the only reason given by Objection #2 in support of the ultimate conclusion, so Kreeft's argument for Objection #2 FAILS.  Kreeft has again FAILED to prove that the Myth Theory is FALSE.


ANOTHER FATAL FLAW IN KREEFT'S ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #2 

We are justified in rejecting Kreeft's argument for Objection #2 against the Myth Theory, because premise (A1) is FALSE, and thus the argument is UNSOUND.  

However, there is at least one other problem with this argument that is also sufficient by itself to sink this argument.  The final inference in the argument is INVALID and ILLOGICAL:

E. It is NOT the case that the authors of the Gospels added mythological elements about Jesus rising from the dead to their stories about the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.  

Therefore:

F. The Myth Theory is FALSE. 

The conclusion (F) DOES NOT FOLLOW from the premise (E).  The problem is that premise (E) is about the Gospels and the authors of the Gospels.  But the Myth Theory is NOT about the Gospels nor is it about the authors of the Gospels.  

The Myth Theory is defined, in accordance with Kreeft's own characterization of that theory, in terms of the preaching and stories of the apostles (i.e. the eleven disciples of Jesus) and the intentions of the apostles concerning what they said about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.  

Here is how we have defined the Myth Theory, in keeping with Kreeft's own characterization of this theory:

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.

Kreeft's conclusion (E) is NOT RELEVANT to an evaluation of the Myth Theory if we understand the content of the Myth Theory in accordance with how Kreeft characterizes that theory.  Because (E) is not relevant to the Myth Theory, as Kreeft characterized that theory, his argument FAILS to show that the Myth Theory is false.

We rightly rejected Kreeft's Objection #1 because it was NOT RELEVANT to the Myth Theory, and we also rightly reject Kreeft's Objection #2, because it is NOT RELEVANT to the Myth Theory.


EVALUATION OF OBJECTION #2

Kreeft's argument constituting his Objection #2 FAILS to refute the Myth Theory.

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:

Premise (A1) is FALSE, making Kreeft's argument UNSOUND.

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.  The Myth Theory is NOT about the Gospels or the authors of the Gospels, nor about the intentions of the authors of the Gospels.


HOW OLD WERE THE ELEVEN DISCIPLES WHEN JESUS WAS CRUCIFIED?

We don't know how old the twelve disciples were when Jesus was crucified.

However, there are indications that the disciples were in their teens when they became disciples of Jesus.  So, it might well be the case that the eleven disciples were between 15 years old and 19 years old when Jesus was crucified.

Peter is the only disciple who the Gospels indicate was married.  But Jewish males typically married between age 16 and age 20, so if the other disciples (besides Peter) were unmarried when Jesus was crucified, they were probably less than 20 years old when Jesus was crucified.  

Peter was probably close in age to the other disciples, especially his friends and fellow fishermen James and John, and his brother Andrew.  Peter may have been in his early twenties, but the eldest disciple among teenagers.  This hypothesis fits with the fact that Peter was viewed as a leader and a spokesperson among the other disciples, especially in the early church, after the death of Jesus.

In any case, it is probable that the twelve disciples were at least 15 years old when Jesus was crucified, and if they were older, that just means that they would be likely to die sooner, and thus that the number of eyewitnesses to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus would have diminished earlier than the fifty-year span that we have settled on as indicating the point in time that about 90% of the witnesses to an event would have died.

In fact, according to Christian apologists, nearly all of the apostles (i.e. the remaining eleven disciples of "the twelve") were killed for preaching and promoting the Christian faith.  

Peter Kreeft agrees with this view when he raises objections against the Conspiracy Theory (the theory that the resurrection of Jesus was a hoax perpetrated by Jesus' disciples):

The disciples' character argues strongly against such a conspiracy on the part of all of them, with no dissenters. ...They preached a resurrected Christ and they lived a resurrected Christ.  They willingly died for their "conspiracy".  Nothing proves sincerity like martyrdom.  (HCA, p.185)

What advantage did the "conspirators" derive from their lie? They were hated, scorned, persecuted, excommunicated, imprisoned, tortured, exiled, crucified, boiled alive, roasted, beheaded, disemboweled and fed to lions--hardly a catalog of perks!    (HCA, p. 185-186)

But if most or nearly all of the apostles were killed for promoting the Christian faith, then they died earlier and younger than they would have if they had NOT been killed for their faith.  

This implies that the life expectancy of the eleven apostles at age 15 was LESS THAN the general life expectancy of 15-year-old Jewish males who lived in Jewish Palestine in the first century.  So, if the life expectancy of 15-year old Jewish males who lived in Jewish Palestine in the first century was 46 years, it might well be the case that the life expectancy of the subset of those Jewish males who devoted their adult lives to promoting the Christian faith was significantly LESS THAN 46 years, perhaps only 30 to 40 years.

If most or nearly all of the eleven disciples were killed for promoting the Christian faith, then most or nearly all of the eleven disciples might well have been dead by the time the first Gospel was written.  The Gospel of Mark was written about 40 years after the crucifixion of Jesus.  If the disciples were teenagers (ages 15 to 19) when Jesus was crucified (about 30 CE), and if their total life expectancy was only about 40 years, then most or nearly all of them would probably have died before Mark was written (about 70 CE).  They would have been 35 to 39 years old in about 50 CE, and 45 to 49 years old in about 60 CE. 

If the eleven disciples were in their twenties (ages 20 to 29) when Jesus was crucified (about 30 CE), and if their total life expectancy was only 40 years (because they would devote their adult lives to promoting the Christian faith), then probably all or nearly all of them would have been dead before the Gospel of Mark was written (about 70 CE).  They would have been in their forties in the year 50 CE, and any survivors would have been in their fifties in the year 60 CE.

==============================

Life Expectancy in Classical Greece

Life Expectancy in Classical Rome



Life Expectancy in Medieval England



Monday, February 21, 2022

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

 WHERE WE ARE

In Chapter 8 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft attempted to prove that Jesus rose from the dead by disproving all four of these skeptical theories: the Hallucination Theory, the Conspiracy Theory, the Swoon Theory, and the Myth Theory.  However, all of Kreeft's objections against the Hallucination Theory FAIL, and all of his objections against the Conspiracy Theory FAIL, and all of his objections against the Swoon Theory FAIL.  So, Kreeft FAILED to disprove three of the four skeptical theories.  Thus, Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus FAILS.

Since every single one of the objections raised by Kreeft against those three skeptical theories has FAILED, it is unlikely that any of his objections against the Myth Theory will be strong and solid and that he will successfully disprove the Myth Theory.  However, it is unfair to simply assume that Kreeft will FAIL again.  To be fair to Kreeft, we must consider each of his six objections against the Myth Theory, to see if, contrary to our reasonable expectations, one or more of those objections disproves the Myth Theory.

In Part 1 of this series I showed 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.

Note that this definition is focused on stories told by the apostles and the intentions of the apostles concerning their stories about Jesus rising from the dead.  The phrase "the apostles" in this definition refers to the eleven disciples who remained disciples after the crucifixion of Jesus (the members of the inner circle of disciples of Jesus who were known as "the twelve" minus Judas Iscariot, who allegedly betrayed Jesus).  


OBJECTION #1: THE STYLE OF THE GOSPELS

According to Kreeft, the style of writing in the Gospels indicates that they are not presenting myths:

(1) The style of the Gospels is radically and clearly different from the style of all the myths. Any literary scholar who knows and appreciates myths can verify this. There are no overblown, spectacular, childishly exaggerated events.

(HCA, p.189) 

Kreeft continues along this vein for five paragraphs, then quotes a paragraph from the Christian apologist William Craig, and then quotes four paragraphs from the Christian apologist Richard Purtill.  I see no reason, however, to go into all the details supporting Kreeft's key claim about the style of the Gospels:

The style of the Gospels is radically and clearly different from the style of all myths.

Let's assume that Kreeft makes a solid case for this claim. Let's assume that this key claim is true.  So what?  What this means is that the authors of the Gospels did NOT intend for their readers to take their stories about the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus to be myths.  What this means is that the authors of the Gospels intended their readers to take these stories as literal accounts of actual historical events. 


KREEFT'S UNSTATED INFERENCES IN OBJECTION #1

Here is Kreeft's reasoning, with his UNSTATED inference made explicit:

1. The style of the Gospels is radically and clearly different from the style of all myths.

Therefore:

A. The authors of the Gospels did NOT intend for readers to take their stories about the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus to be myths, but rather they intended readers to take these stories as literal accounts of actual historical events.

The style of the Gospels is an indication of how the authors of the Gospels intended their readers to view and understand the stories in the Gospels.  However, it is not clear how this is relevant to the main question at issue, which is: 

Is the Myth Theory true or false?  

Kreeft must have a more specific claim in mind that he infers from the alleged intentions of the authors of the Gospels:

A. The authors of the Gospels did NOT intend for readers to take their stories about the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus to be myths, but rather they intended readers to take these stories as literal accounts of actual historical events.

 Therefore: 

B. The Gospel accounts of the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are NOT myths.

Therefore:

C. The Myth Theory is FALSE. 

Kreeft is arguing that the Gospels are NOT myths, and from that intermediate conclusion, he infers the ultimate conclusion that the Myth Theory is FALSE.

Because we have made Kreeft's UNSTATED inferences explicit, this argument now actually addresses the main question at issue, which is about whether the Myth Theory is true or false.

Before we can evaluate this argument for Objection #1, we need to clarify premise (B).  What does it mean to say that a story or account of an event is a "myth"?  

Kreeft does not provide a definition of "myth", but he does describe a view of the Gospels that he is opposing in this objection:

...what some have thought the Gospels to be: a fictionalized account of the life of a real sage and teacher, introducing miraculous elements to build up the prestige of the central figure.  (HCA, p.190, emphasis added)

The key phrases here are "a fictionalized account" and "introducing miraculous elements".  I take it that "introducing" miraculous elements means adding made-up or FICTIONAL miracles or supernatural events to a story or an account or adding miracles or supernatural events to a story or an account without having significant factual evidence that supports the claim that those miracles or supernatural events actually took place

Alternatively, "myth" can refer to a genre of literature.  In that sense, "myth" contrasts with "history" or "biography".  Kreeft would presumably hold the Gospels to be works of history and biography as opposed to being works written in the genre of myth.

So, it seems that there are at least two different ways to interpret premise (B).  One way is focused on the idea of fiction:

B1. The Gospel accounts of the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are not FICTIONAL accounts: (a) the events described actually took place, and (b) there are no FICTIONAL elements in those accounts.

The other way to interpret premise (B) is focused on the literary genre of the Gospels: 

 B2. The Gospel accounts of the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are NOT written in the GENRE of myth, but rather are written in the GENRE of history and biography


EVALUATION OF THE INFERENCE FROM (A) TO (B)  

Because it is not immediately obvious which interpretation of premise (B) is correct, we should consider both interpretations, and evaluate Kreeft's argument for Objection #1 in terms of each interpretation of premise (B).

Let's consider the inference from (A) to (B1):

A. The authors of the Gospels did NOT intend for readers to take their stories about the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus to be myths, but rather they intended readers to take these stories as literal accounts of actual historical events.

 Therefore: 

B1. The Gospel accounts of the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are not FICTIONAL accounts: (a) the events described actually took place, and (b) there are no FICTIONAL elements in those accounts.

On this interpretation, the inference from (A) to (B1) is INVALID and ILLOGICAL.  (B1) does NOT follow from (A) because the authors of the Gospels could be either DECEIVERS or DECEIVED about the alleged death, burial, or resurrection of Jesus.  

If the author of a Gospel intended to DECEIVE the readers of that Gospel by presenting made-up stories (or stories with made-up elements) about Jesus in a way that the readers would be fooled into thinking they were reading accurate literal accounts of actual historical events, then the author of that Gospel might well write in a style that influenced the readers of that Gospel to mistakenly think they were reading accurate literal accounts of actual historical events. In that case (A) would be true, but (B1) would be false.  Thus, (B1) does NOT follow from (A).

Alternatively, if the author of a Gospel was DECEIVED by others about the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, and sincerely believed stories about Jesus that contained miraculous or supernatural events, and if the author of that Gospel passed on UNRELIABLE third or fourth-hand hearsay about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus while naively and mistakenly believing those stories to be true and accurate, then premise (A) would be true, but premise (B1) would be false.  Thus, (B1) does NOT follow from (A).

It is clear that the inference from (A) to (B1) is INVALID and ILLOGICAL. Therefore, on this interpretation, Kreeft's argument for Objection #1 FAILS.

What about the other interpretation of premise (B)? Let's evaluate the inference from (A) to (B2):

A. The authors of the Gospels did NOT intend for readers to take their stories about the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus to be myths, but rather they intended readers to take these stories as literal accounts of actual historical events.

 Therefore: 

B2. The Gospel accounts of the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are NOT written in the GENRE of myth, but rather are written in the GENRE of history and biography

This inference seems reasonable.  GENRE is concerned with the intentions of authors about how readers should understand their book or literary work.  If the intention of the author of a Gospel was for readers to take that work to be historical and biographical, and for readers to NOT take that work to be in the GENRE of myth, then that is a good reason to conclude that the work is NOT in the GENRE of myth and that it falls into the GENRE of history and biography.

Because on interpretation (B1), Kreeft's argument contains an INVALID inference from (A) to (B1), and his Objection #1 FAILS, and because on interpretation (B2) the inference from (A) to (B2) is reasonable and logical,  we should be charitable towards Kreeft and select (B2) as the best interpretation of premise (B).  That gives his argument at least a fighting chance of success.


EVALUATION OF THE INFERENCE FROM (B2) to (C)

Here is the final inference in Kreeft's argument for Objection #1 against the Myth Theory, given that (B2) is the best interpretation of premise (B):

B2. The Gospel accounts of the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are NOT written in the GENRE of myth, but rather are written in the GENRE of history and biography

Therefore:

C. The Myth Theory is FALSE. 

The inference from (B2) to (C) is INVALID and ILLOGICAL, so Kreeft's argument constituting his Objection #1 against the Myth Theory FAILS.

There are at least two serious problems with this inference.  The first serious problem is that historical works and biographical works can contain FALSE historical claims and can contain FALSE elements or details in accounts of actual historical events.  No work of history is 100% true and accurate, and some works of history are HIGHLY UNRELIABLE and contain many accounts of events that did not occur or many accounts of actual historical events that contain FALSE elements or FICTIONAL details. Just because you read a historical claim in a history textbook or work of history does NOT mean that the claim is true and accurate.  

Thus, the assumption that the Gospels are works of history and biography does NOT imply that they provide reliable and accurate accounts of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.  The stories in the Gospels could still be FALSE, either because they describe events that did not happen, or because some stories about actual events include FALSE details or FICTIONAL elements. 

The second serious problem is that the Myth Theory, as characterized by Kreeftis NOT about the Gospels and NOT about the intentions of the authors of the Gospels, so premise (B2) is IRRELEVANT to an evaluation of the Myth Theory.  Here is how we have defined the Myth Theory, based on Kreeft's own characterization of this theory:

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.

This definition makes no mention of the "Gospels" and makes no mention of the intentions of the authors of the Gospels.  According to Kreeft, the Myth Theory is about the apostles, the messages and stories of the apostles, and the intentions of the apostles concerning any stories they told about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.  The Myth Theory is NOT about the authors of the Gospels, nor about the stories found in the Gospels, nor about the intentions of the authors of the Gospels. 

The Gospel of Mark was NOT written by an apostle.  The Gospel of Luke was NOT written by an apostle. Most NT scholars believe that the Gospel of Matthew was NOT written by an apostle.  Most NT scholars believe that the Gospel of John was NOT written by an apostle.  Given that most NT scholars believe that the Gospels were not written by apostles, the stories and intentions of the authors of the Gospels might well be different from the stories and intentions of the apostles.

The Myth Theory says NOTHING about the contents of the Gospels, NOTHING about the authors of the Gospels, and NOTHING about the intentions of the authors of the Gospels concerning stories about the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.  The Myth Theory makes claims about the contents of messages and stories of the apostles, and about the intentions of the apostles concerning the messages or stories they gave about the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.

Kreeft's argument for Objection #1 says NOTHING about the contents of the messages or stories given by the apostles, and it says NOTHING about the intentions of the apostles concerning any messages or stories they gave about the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.  Thus, Objection #1 is IRRELEVANT to an evaluation of the Myth Theory.  Therefore, Objection #1 FAILS.  This objection does NOT refute or disprove the Myth Theory


EVALUATION OF KREEFT'S OBJECTION #1 

Kreeft provides a reasonable argument in support of premise (B2), but the inference from (B2) to (C) is INVALID and ILLOGICAL:

B2. The Gospel accounts of the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are NOT written in the GENRE of myth, but rather are written in the GENRE of history and biography

Therefore:

C. The Myth Theory is FALSE. 

This inference is INVALID for at least two reasons.  First, works of history and biography are sometimes HIGHLY UNRELIABLE and can contain many false historical claims, and false elements or details. Second, the Myth Theory is about the preaching and stories given by the apostles about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus and about the intentions of the apostles concerning their stories and sermons on those subjects. It is NOT a theory about the Gospels nor about the intentions of the authors of the Gospels. So, premise (B2) is irrelevant to the conclusion that the Myth Theory is false.  Therefore, Kreeft's argument for Objection #1 against the Myth Theory is INVALID, and Objection #1 FAILS to disprove the Myth Theory.

Friday, February 18, 2022

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

THE CONTEXT

In Chapter 8 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft and his co-author Ronald Tacelli make a case for the resurrection of Jesus:

There are five possible theories: Christianity, hallucination, myth, conspiracy and swoon.

1. Jesus died. Jesus rose. [ Christianity ]
2. Jesus died. Jesus didn't rise—apostles deceived. [Hallucination]
3. Jesus died. Jesus didn't rise—apostles myth-makers [ Myth ]
4. Jesus died. Jesus didn't rise—apostles deceivers [ Conspiracy ]
5. Jesus didn't die. [ Swoon ] 

[...]

Thus either (1) the resurrection really happened, (2) the apostles were deceived by a hallucination, (3) the apostles created a myth, not meaning it literally, (4) the apostles were deceivers who conspired to foist on the world the most famous and successful lie in history, or (5) Jesus only swooned and was resuscitated, not resurrected. 

[...] 

 If we can refute all other theories (2-5), we will have proved the truth of the resurrection (1).

(HCA, p. 182)

Kreeft attempts to refute each of the four skeptical theories so that the only theory that remains as an option is the theory that "the resurrection [of Jesus] really happened".  


THE FAILURE OF KREEFT'S CASE FOR THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS

However, Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus FAILS because (a) he FAILS to refute any of the four skeptical theories and because (b) there are other skeptical theories (besides these four) that he does not even attempt to refute. 

Kreeft raised nine objections against the Swoon Theory, but I have argued that every one of those nine objections FAILS, and thus that Kreeft FAILED to refute the Swoon Theory:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2020/02/15/defending-the-swoon-theory-index/

Kreeft raised seven objections against the Conspiracy Theory, but I have argued that every one of those seven objections FAILS, and thus that Kreeft FAILED to refute the Conspiracy Theory:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2019/06/01/defending-the-conspiracy-theory-index/

Kreeft raised thirteen objections (actually, fourteen by my count) against the Hallucination Theory, but I have argued that every single one of those objections FAILS, and thus that Kreeft FAILED to refute the Hallucination Theory:

https://tcaict.blogspot.com/2022/02/defending-hallucination-theory-summary.html

I have also argued that there are many other skeptical theories besides the four that Kreeft focuses his attention upon:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2020/02/18/the-complete-failure-of-peter-kreefts-case-for-the-resurrection-part-1-three-serious-problems/

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2020/02/22/the-complete-failure-of-peter-kreefts-case-for-the-resurrection-part-2-many-skeptical-theories/

So, it is very clear that Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus FAILS.

Because every single one of Kreeft's objections against the Swoon Theory, the Conspiracy Theory, and the Hallucination Theory have FAILED, it seems very unlikely that his objections against the Myth Theory are strong and solid and that Kreeft has successfully refuted the Myth Theory.  However, we should not simply assume that all of Kreeft's objections against the Myth Theory FAIL.  We need to examine each objection, clarify and evaluate each objection, in order to determine whether or not Kreeft has refuted the Myth Theory.


WHAT IS THE MYTH THEORY?

Peter Kreeft gives a couple of characterizations of the Myth Theory when he lays out the general logic of his case for the resurrection of Jesus. 


DEFINITION #1 OF THE "MYTH THEORY"

Here is Kreeft's first attempt at defining the Myth Theory:

3. Jesus died. Jesus didn't rise—apostles myth-makers [ Myth ]

(HCA, p. 182) 

We can formulate a definition based on this characterization by Kreeft: 

DEFINITION #1:

The Myth Theory is true IF AND ONLY IF: the apostles were myth makers. 

This definition FAILS because it does not specify the CONTENT of the myth(s) that the apostles allegedly created.  So, if the apostles created a myth about a fire-breathing dragon hoarding gold in the Temple in Jerusalem, then the Myth Theory would be true.  But such a myth has NOTHING to do with the resurrection of Jesus, so it is IRRELEVANT to the question at issue (i.e. Did Jesus rise from the dead?). 


AN INITIAL REVISION OF DEFINITION #1

We need to specify the CONTENT of the myth for the definition to be RELEVANT:

DEFINITION #1A:

The Myth Theory is true IF AND ONLY IF: the apostles created the myth that Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday morning less than 48 hours after Jesus had been crucified.

 This definition FAILS because it is UNCLEAR whether the apostles intended to deceive others into believing that Jesus literally rose from the dead on the first Easter Sunday.  If that was their intention, then this is a definition of the Conspiracy Theory, NOT a definition of the Myth Theory.  


ANOTHER REVISION TO DEFINITION #1

We need to specify the intentions of the apostles in order to distinguish the Myth Theory from the Conspiracy Theory:

DEFINITION #1B:

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.

This is a much clearer and more plausible definition of the Myth Theory than what Kreeft provided in his initial characterization of the Myth Theory.


DEFINITION #2 OF THE "MYTH THEORY"

Kreeft gives a second characterization of the Myth Theory

Thus either (1) the resurrection really happened, (2) the apostles were deceived by a hallucination, (3) the apostles created a myth, not meaning it literally, (4) the apostles were deceivers who conspired to foist on the world the most famous and successful lie in history, or (5) Jesus only swooned and was resuscitated, not resurrected. 

(HCA, p. 182) 

We can formulate a definition based on this characterization by Kreeft: 

DEFINITION #2:

The Myth Theory is true IF AND ONLY IF: the apostles created a story, and their intention was for others to take this story to be a myth, not a literal account of an actual historical event.

This definition FAILS, just like Definition #1 FAILED, because it does not specify the CONTENT of the myth that was allegedly created by the apostles.  


A REVISION OF DEFINITION #2

We need to add a specification of the CONTENT of the myth, and this brings us back to a previous definition:

DEFINITION #1B:

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.

So, Definition #1B is basically a COMBINATION of Kreeft's first two characterizations of the Myth Theory, plus clarification of the CONTENT of the myth allegedly created by the apostles.


CONCLUSION ABOUT THE MEANING OF "THE MYTH THEORY"

Therefore, I will evaluate each of Kreeft's six objections against the Myth Theory in relation to this definition:

DEFINITION #1B:

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.

Furthermore, I take it that the phrase "the apostles" here refers to the eleven disciples (from the inner circle of the twelve disciples minus Judas Iscariot, who allegedly betrayed 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: Kr...