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



No comments:

Post a Comment

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...