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:
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.
We can formulate a definition based on this characterization by Kreeft:(HCA, p. 182)
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).
No comments:
Post a Comment