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):
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.
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 Kreeft, is 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment