Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 13: Evaluation of Kreeft's Objection #5

 WHERE WE ARE

In Part #12 of this series, I analyzed and clarified Kreeft's argument for his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory:

A. The author of 2nd Peter specifically distinguishes between myth and fact and repudiates the mythic interpretation of the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Therefore:

1. The New Testament specifically distinguishes between myth and fact and repudiates the mythic interpretation of the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Therefore:

2. IF the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories, THEN these stories are deliberate lies rather than myths (where the author does not intend for readers to take the stories as literal historical accounts). 

B. But the New Testament authors who tell stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus would not tell deliberate lies about Jesus dying and rising from the dead. 

Therefore:

C. It is NOT the case that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories.

Therefore:

D. The Myth Theory is FALSE. 

It is now time to evaluate this chain of reasoning for Objection #5. 

EVALUATION OF THE FIRST SUB-ARGUMENT IN OBJECTION #5

Here is the first sub-argument in Kreeft's chain of reasoning constituting his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory:

A. The author of 2nd Peter specifically distinguishes between myth and fact and repudiates the mythic interpretation of the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Therefore:

1. The New Testament specifically distinguishes between myth and fact and repudiates the mythic interpretation of the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus.

 The inference from premise (A) to premise (1) is ILLOGICAL and INVALID.  The first sub-argument in the chain of reasoning constituting Objection #5 is a BAD argument, and thus Objection #5 FAILS right out of the starting gate.

This argument commits the FALLACY OF COMPOSITION:

The problem here is that the characteristics of a PART of something are often NOT characteristics of the WHOLE something.  The New Testament is composed of several different pieces of writing that were produced by a number of different authors.  Therefore, we cannot simply assume that the beliefs of one author who wrote one part of the New Testament are exactly the same as the beliefs of other authors who wrote other parts of the New Testament.  

The fact that the author of the letter known as "2nd Peter" distinguished between myth and fact, does NOT show that any other author of other parts of the New Testament distinguished between myth and fact.  What is true of one author of one part of the NT might well NOT be true of other authors of other parts of the NT. 

What really matters in this case, is whether the authors of the GOSPELS distinguished between myth and fact and whether the authors of the GOSPELS repudiated the mythic theory of the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus.  

We don't know who the author of "2nd Peter" was, although it was probably NOT written by the apostle Peter.  In any case, nobody thinks that the author of "2nd Peter" was the author of any of the Gospels.  So, the fact that the author of "2nd Peter" distinguished between myth and fact is IRRELEVANT to whether the authors of the Gospels distinguished between myth and fact.  Therefore, the inference from (A) to (1) is INVALID and FALLACIOUS, thus we should reject this first sub-argument in Objection #5.  Therefore, Objection #5 FAILS.

EVALUATION OF THE SECOND SUB-ARGUMENT IN OBJECTION #5

Here is the second sub-argument in Kreeft's chain of reasoning constituting his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory:

1. The New Testament specifically distinguishes between myth and fact and repudiates the mythic interpretation of the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Therefore:

2. IF the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories, THEN these stories are deliberate lies rather than myths (where the author does not intend for readers to take the stories as literal historical accounts). 

We saw above that Kreeft's argument for premise (1) was ILLOGICAL and INVALID, so premise (1) remains DUBIOUS.  Showing that one bit of writing by one unknown author "distinguishes between myth and fact" doesn't tell us whether any of the authors of the Gospels distinguished between myth and fact.  So, premise (1) might well be FALSE. 

How about the inference from premise (1) to premise (2)?  I take it that premise (1) implies that the authors of the Gospel stories distinguished between myth and fact and that they denied that their stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus were myths (where the author does not intend readers to take the stories as literal historical accounts).  This would mean that the authors of the Gospels intended their readers to take their stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus as literal historical accounts.

Does it follow from this that IF the Gospel stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus were fictional (i.e. UNTRUE) that the authors of the Gospels were deliberately lying to their readers about the death and resurrection of Jesus?  I don't think this follows.  It is possible that the author of a Gospel believed the stories he wrote about the death and resurrection of Jesus were accurate literal historical accounts of those events but was mistaken on this point, and the stories were actually fictional, that is, the stories were UNTRUE.  If this could be the case with one author of one Gospel, then it could also be the case with other authors of other Gospels.

The fact that someone recognizes the difference between myth and fact does NOT MEAN that he or she is good at determining whether a particular story is myth or fact.  Therefore, the authors of the Gospels might have written fictional (i.e UNTRUE) stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus, but mistakenly believed those stories were accurate literal historical accounts.  Thus, premise (1) could be true even though premise (2) was false.  The inference from (1) to (2) is INVALID.  Thus, the second sub-argument in the chain of reasoning for Objection #5 is clearly a BAD argument because it consists of an INVALID inference from a DUBIOUS premise. Therefore, Objection #5 against the Myth Theory FAILS.

EVALUATION OF THE THIRD SUB-ARGUMENT IN OBJECTION #5

Here is the third sub-argument in Kreeft's chain of reasoning constituting his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory:

2. IF the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories, THEN these stories are deliberate lies rather than myths (where the author does not intend for readers to take the stories as literal historical accounts). 

B. But the New Testament authors who tell stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus would not tell deliberate lies about Jesus dying and rising from the dead. 

Therefore:

C. It is NOT the case that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories.

Premise (2) is DUBIOUS, because Kreeft's sub-argument for (2) was clearly a BAD argument. The logic of this third sub-argument is VALID, because (C) follows logically from premises (2) and (B).

However, premise (B), like premise (2) is DUBIOUS. I suspect that one reason why Kreeft did not make this assumption explicitly, is that making this an explicit claim would then create an expectation that he would back up this claim with evidence, and that would be difficult for him to do.

The problem is that we know very little about the authors of the Gospels.  The Gospel of Mark was probably written by someone named "Mark", but we know very little about Mark.  The Gospel of Luke was probably written by someone named "Luke", but we know very little about Luke. The Gospel of Matthew was probably NOT written by the apostle Matthew, according to most mainstream NT scholars, but we don't know who did write this Gospel, and so we know very little about the author of the Gospel of Matthew.  The Gospel of John was probably NOT written by the apostle John, but we don't know who did write this Gospel, and so we know very little about the author of the Gospel of John.

Because we know very little about the authors of the Gospels, it would be difficult for Kreeft to make a strong case that none of the authors of the Gospels would tell deliberate lies about Jesus dying and rising from the dead.  We don't know about the lives and characters of these people, so we cannot be sure that they were completely honest and trustworthy people.

MATTHEW AND LUKE DISAGREE WHEN THEY DON'T FOLLOW MARK

One problem with the accuracy and reliability of Matthew and Luke is that they tend to agree with each other when they are following the Gospel of Mark, but when they go beyond Mark, they tend to contradict each other.  There are no stories about the birth of Jesus in Mark, but Matthew and Luke both have stories about the birth of Jesus, and those stories contradict each other.  Most NT scholars view the stories about the birth of Jesus as MYTHS or LEGENDS, not as accurate historical accounts.

At the end of the Gospel of Mark, there are no stories about appearances of the risen Jesus.  But at the end of Matthew and Luke, there are stories about appearances of the risen Jesus, but those stories clearly contradict each other.  Matthew has Jesus head out of Jerusalem to Galilee on the first Easter Sunday, and the first appearance of the risen Jesus to his male disciples takes place in Galilee a week or more after Jesus was crucified.  But Luke has both Jesus and his disciples hanging out in Jerusalem, and according to Luke, the first appearances of the risen Jesus to his male disciples occur on Easter Sunday in Jerusalem.  So, the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke tend to agree with each other when they are following the Gospel of Mark, but they tend to contradict each other when they are not following the Gospel of Mark.  That is a good reason to doubt the reliability of Matthew and Luke.

Furthermore, because the author of the Gospel of Matthew and the author of the Gospel of Luke used the Gospel of Mark as one of their main sources of information about the life and death of Jesus, we can observe how they made use of passages from Mark in writing their own Gospels.  

According to the Gospel of Mark, Jesus leaves Jerusalem and heads back to Galilee on the first Easter Sunday, and it is implied that the first time the disciples would see the risen Jesus is in Galilee, which would require that they walk for a number of days from Jerusalem to meet with Jesus in Galilee.  But Luke, who had a copy of the Gospel of Mark, ignores this, and makes a big change to Mark's story, claiming that Jesus first appeared to his male disciples in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday, and instructed his disciples to REMAIN IN JERUSALEM.  

Luke clearly and deliberately contradicts the Gospel of Mark. This is evidence that the author of Luke either (a) was happy to LIE about when and where the first appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples happened, or (b) believed that the Gospel of Mark (one of his main sources of information about Jesus) was completely wrong about these important events.  Either way, the credibility of the author of Luke is seriously damaged.

THE USE OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK BY THE AUTHOR OF MATTHEW

Observing the use of the Gospel of Mark by the author of the Gospel of Matthew provides good reason to doubt the honesty and reliability of the author of Matthew. 

• In Mark 11: On his way from Bethany to Jerusalem, Jesus curses a fig tree, and the next morning the disciples see that the tree has "withered away" (Mark 11:15-21).
• In Matthew 21: On his way from Bethany to Jerusalem, Jesus curses a fig tree, and it "withered at once".  (Matthew 21:18-20)

Why did the author of Matthew revise the story about Jesus cursing the fig tree? It seems likely that this change was made in order to make the story more dramatic and more impressive.  The fig tree is instantly impacted by Jesus' curse, instead of taking 24 hours to be impacted.  If this is the case, then the author of Matthew was willing to sacrifice historical accuracy for the sake of making this story more dramatic and more impressive than the story is in the Gospel of Mark.  This is a reason to doubt the honesty and reliability of the author of the Gospel of Matthew.  

There are a number of examples where the author of the Gospel of Matthew revises stories from the Gospel of Mark indicating either a lack of concern about historical accuracy or indicating that the author of Matthew views the Gospel of Mark as being an inaccurate and unreliable, while still depending on the Gospel of Mark as one of his main sources of information about Jesus.

• In Mark 5: After crossing the sea of Galilee, Jesus heals a demon-possessed man. (Mark 5:1–20)
• In Matthew 8: After crossing the sea of Galilee, Jesus heals two demon-possessed men. (Matthew 8:28–34)

After crossing the sea of Galilee with his disicples and calming a great storm on the sea, Jesus gets out of the boat and then casts demons out of a demon-possessed man into a herd of pigs, according to the Gospel of Mark.  But Matthew changes the story so that Jesus casts demons out of TWO men into a herd of pigs.

Why does the author of the Gospel of Matthew revise the story in the Gospel of Mark about Jesus healing the demon-possessed man?  It seems likely that Matthew doubles the number of successful exorcisms by Jesus to make the story more dramatic and more impressive.  If so, then the author of Matthew was willing to sacrifice historical accuracy for the sake of making this story more dramatic and more impressive than the story as told in the Gospel of Mark.  This is a reason to doubt the honesty and reliability of the author of the Gospel of Matthew. 

• Mark 10: While leaving the city of Jericho, Jesus heals one blind man. (Mark 10:46–52)
• Matthew 20: While leaving the city of Jericho, Jesus heals two blind men. (Matthew 20:29–34)

As Jesus and his disciples are leaving the city of Jericho, Jesus heals a blind man, according to the Gospel of Mark.  But Matthew changes the story so that Jesus heals TWO blind men as he is leaving the city of Jericho.

Why does the author of the Gospel of Matthew revise the story in the Gospel of Mark about Jesus healing the blind man in Jericho?  It seems likely that Matthew doubles the number of healings of blind men by Jesus to make the story more dramatic and more impressive.  If so, then the author of Matthew was willing to sacrifice historical accuracy for the sake of making this story more dramatic and more impressive than the story as told in the Gospel of Mark.  This is a reason to doubt the honesty and reliability of the author of the Gospel of Matthew. 

• Mark 11: Jesus enters Jerusalem riding on one donkey. (Mark 11:1-11)
• Matthew 21: Jesus enters Jerusalem riding on two donkeys. (Matthew 21:1-11)

Jesus makes a grand entrance into Jerusalem, riding on a donkey, according to the Gospel of Mark.  But Matthew revises this story so that Jesus is (somehow) riding on TWO donkeys as he enters Jerusalem.

Why does the author of the Gospel of Matthew revise the story in the Gospel of Mark about Jesus riding on a donkey as he enters Jerusalem?  It seems likely that Matthew doubles the number of donkeys ridden by Jesus to make the story conform to an Old Testament prophecy.  The author of Matthew thought that 

Zechariah 9:9 predicted that the messiah would enter Jerusalem riding on TWO donkeys.  So, the author of Matthew changes Mark's story so that it conforms to this "prophecy" from Zechariah.  

Unfortunately, the passage in Zechariah is only talking about ONE donkey, so Matthew's revision of Mark's story was completely unnecessary.  If the author of Matthew revised Mark's story about Jesus entering Jerusalem riding on a donkey in order to make the story conform to the "prophecy" from Zechariah, then the author of Matthew was willing to sacrifice historical accuracy for a theological and apologetic purpose: making this story into the fulfillment of a prophecy about the messiah. This is a reason to doubt the honesty and reliability of the author of the Gospel of Matthew. 

Furthermore, if the author of Matthew honestly believed:

• that the fig tree was instantly impacted by Jesus' curse, and
• that Jesus healed two demon-possessed men on the shore of Galilee, and
• that Jesus healed two blind men in Jericho, and
• that Jesus rode two donkeys when he entered Jerusalem,

then the author of Matthew apparently does NOT view the Gospel of Mark as being an accurate and reliable source of information about Jesus.  But the Gospel of Mark is one of his main sources of information about Jesus, so if the author of Matthew honestly believed that the Gospel of Mark had all of these errors, it appears that the author of Matthew was happy to use an inaccurate and unreliable source as one of his main sources of information about Jesus. 

The Gospel of Matthew adds a number of dubious events and elements to the account of Jesus' trials, death, burial, and resurrection, in comparison with the accounts found in the Gospel of Mark. This is evidence that the author of Matthew was willing to sacrifice historical accuracy in order to pump up the drama and to make theological or apologetic points:

The Arrest of Jesus in Mark 14 vs. Matthew 26

When Jesus is arrested, the author of Matthew adds the following to the account found in the Gospel of Mark:

52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 

53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 

54 But how then would the scriptures be fulfilled, which say it must happen in this way?”      (Matthew 26:52-54, NRSV)

Matthew has Jesus boast about his extraordinary power and authority as God's chosen King of Israel.  This pumps up the drama and also makes a theological point that Matthew wanted to emphasize.  Again, historical accuracy appears to be sacrificed by the author of Matthew for the sake of drama and theological points.

The Trial of Jesus in Mark 15 vs. Matthew 27

When Jesus is tried by Pilate, the author of Matthew adds the following to the account found in the Gospel of Mark:

19 While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, “Have nothing to do with that innocent man, for today I have suffered a great deal because of a dream about him.”

[and also:]

24 So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” 

25 Then the people as a whole answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!”                  (Matthew 27:19 & 24-25, NRSV)

Matthew appears to be working hard to shift the blame for the crucifixion of Jesus from Pilate and the Romans to the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem and to the Jewish people who were gathered in Jerusalem when Jesus was tried and executed, providing serious ammunition for future proponents of anti-semitism.  It appears that the author of Matthew revised the account of Jesus' trial found in the Gospel of Mark in order to influence Christian believers to be more accepting of Romans and to blame Jewish leaders and Jewish people in general for the violent death of Jesus.  Those ideological points were apparently more important to the author of Matthew than providing an historically accurate account of Jesus' trial.

The Death of Jesus in Mark 15 vs. Matthew 27

When Jesus dies on the cross, the author of Matthew adds these events and details to the account found in the Gospel of Mark:

51 ... The earth shook, and the rocks were split. 

52 The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 

53 After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.           (Matthew 27:51-53, NRSV)

There is no earthquake in the account of Jesus' death found in the Gospel of Mark. The tombs of Jewish saints in Jerusalem do not miraculously open up in the Gospel of Mark.   Jewish saints buried in Jerusalem do not rise from the dead when Jesus dies in the Gospel of Mark.  Resurrected Jewish saints do not come out of their graves and roam around in Jerusalem on the first Easter Sunday.  

Why would the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke not bother to mention these amazing events, if these amazing events actually took place?  It appears that the author of Matthew has invented (or at least passed on) mythical elements related to the death and alleged resurrection of Jesus.  Drama and amazing miracle stories appear to be invented (or perhaps just passed along) by the author of Matthew, because drama and theological points are more important to the author of Matthew than historical accuracy.

The Burial of Jesus in Mark 15 vs. Matthew 27

When Jesus is buried, the author of Matthew adds these events to the account found in the Gospel of Mark:

62 The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate 

63 and said, “Sir, we remember what that impostor said while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 

64 Therefore command the tomb to be made secure until the third day; otherwise his disciples may go and steal him away, and tell the people, ‘He has been raised from the dead,’ and the last deception would be worse than the first.” 

65 Pilate said to them, “You have a guard of soldiers; go, make it as secure as you can.” 

66 So they went with the guard and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone.     (Matthew 27:62-66, NRSV)

Most NT scholars believe this story about guards being stationed at the tomb of Jesus is an "apologetic legend".  There is no mention of any guards at the tomb in the Gospel of Mark.  There is no mention of any guards at the tomb in the Gospel of Luke.  There is no mention of any guards at the tomb in the Gospel of John. Only the Gospel of Matthew has this story about guards being placed at the tomb of Jesus.  So, this appears to be yet another addition that the author of Matthew makes to Mark's account which was added for dramatic and theological reasons.  This is more evidence that the author of Matthew cares more about drama and theological points than about providing accurate historical information.

The Resurrection of Jesus in Mark 16 vs. Matthew 28

When Jesus allegedly rises from the dead on the morning of the first Easter Sunday, the author of Matthew adds the following events and details to Mark's story about this:

2 And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 

3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 

4 For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men.

[and]

8 So they [the women who visited the tomb] left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 

9 Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. 

10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”        (Matthew 28:2-4 & 8-10)

There is no earthquake in Mark's story.  There is no angel descending from heaven in Mark's story.  There is a "young man" dressed in white sitting inside the tomb, but no angel sitting on the stone that had been rolled away from the entrance to the tomb, and there was nobody whose "appearance was like lightning".  Finally, there were no guards at the tomb terrified by an angel, just like there are no guards at the tomb in the Gospel of Luke, and no guards at the tomb in the Gospel of John. These appear to be fictional elements added to the story found in the Gospel of Mark by the author of Matthew in order to pump up the drama and to make theological or apologetic points.  This is additional evidence that the author of Matthew cared more about creating a dramatic and compelling story than about providing an accurate historical account of events.

In the Gospel of Mark, the women do NOT run to tell the disciples what they saw at the tomb, and the women do NOT meet the risen Jesus as they leave the tomb.  In the Gospel of Luke, there is also no mention of the women meeting the risen Jesus when they leave the tomb.  Again, these details contradict the story in the Gospel of Mark, and appear to have been added to pump up the drama and to make an apologetic point (i.e. the women who visited the tomb saw the risen Jesus).  

Mark and Luke had every reason to include the appearance of the risen Jesus to the women if they believed that had actually happened, but they don't include this event, so it appears that the author of Matthew invented details for the sake of drama and theological points, and thus placed a low priority on providing an accurate historical account of events surrounding the death and alleged resurrection of Jesus.

I have pointed out eleven passages where the author of Matthew revises or adds new details or events to the stories he found in the Gospel of Mark, revisions and additions that appear to have been made for the sake of making a story more dramatic, more impressive, or to make a theological or apologetic point.  In each case the author of Matthew was certainly aware that he was revising the stories found in the Gospel of Mark.  It is very likely that in at least two or three of these cases, the author of Matthew was deliberately lying about the event in question.  Since a number of these passages relate to the trial, death, burial, or resurrection of Jesus, it is likely that in at least one case, the author of Matthew was deliberately lying about an event related to the death or resurrection of Jesus.  

Based on the above comparison of stories found in the Gospel of Mark, with the versions of those stories composed by the author of Matthew, premise (B) in the third sub-argument in Kreeft's reasoning for Objection #5 is probably false:

2. IF the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories, THEN these stories are deliberate lies rather than myths (where the author does not intend for readers to take the stories as literal historical accounts). 

B. But the New Testament authors who tell stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus would not tell deliberate lies about Jesus dying and rising from the dead. 

Therefore:

C. It is NOT the case that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories.

Premise (D) is DUBIOUS because (a) we know very little about the authors of the Gospels, and (b) when Matthew and Luke are not following the Gospel of Mark, they tend to contradict each other, and (c) Matthew's changes to the stories from the Gospel of Mark show that the author of Matthew was more concerned about enhancing the drama of those stories or making a theological point than about providing an accurate historical account. 

Since Kreeft's sub-argument for premise (2) was a BAD argument, premise (2) is DUBIOUS, and now we have good reason to doubt premise (D) as well.  Because both premises of the third sub-argument are DUBIOUS, we should reject this argument, and that means that Objection #5 FAILS.

In the next post of this series, I will examine the fourth and final sub-argument in Kreeft's chain of reasoning constituting his Objection #5.  However, since at least three out of four sub-arguments in Kreeft's chain of reasoning in Objection #5 are BAD arguments, it is already clear that his Objection #5 FAILS, just like the previous four Objections all have FAILED.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 12: The NT Distinguishes Myth from Fact (Objection #5)

WHERE WE ARE

In Part #10 of this series, I analyzed and clarified Kreeft's argument for his Objection #4 against the Myth Theory.

In Part #11 of this series, I showed that there were significant or serious problems with four out of five of the sub-arguments in Kreeft's chain of reasoning for Objection #4, and I concluded that Kreeft's Objection #4 against the Myth Theory FAILS:

It is now time to examine Kreeft's fifth objection against the Myth Theory.

OBJECTION #5: THE NEW TESTAMENT DISTINGUISHES MYTH FROM FACT

Here is Kreeft's presentation of his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory:

The New Testament could not be myth misinterpreted and confused with fact because it specifically distinguishes the two and repudiates the mythic interpretation (2 Peter 1:16). Since it explicitly says it is not myth, if it is myth it is a deliberate lie rather than myth. The dilemma still stands. It is either truth or lie, whether deliberate (conspiracy) or non-deliberate (hallucination). There is no escape from the horns of this dilemma.

(Handbook of Christian Apologetics, p.192-193) 

 The first sentence states a key claim in this argument:

1. The New Testament specifically distinguishes between myth and fact and repudiates the mythic interpretation of the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The reference to 2nd Peter in parentheses is given as proof of premise (1):

 A. The author of 2nd Peter specifically distinguishes between myth and fact and repudiates the mythic interpretation of the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus.

From premise (1) Kreeft draws this confused sub-conclusion:

 ...if it is myth it is a deliberate lie rather than myth. 

The word "it" is an unclear reference.  The context suggests that "it" refers to New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus. 

This statement by Kreeft is illogical because it has this form:

IF X is a myth, then X is not a myth. 

In order to make sense of this sentence, we need to see that Kreeft is using the word "myth" in two different senses:

IF X is a myth (in sense 1), THEN X is not a myth (in sense 2).

The second sense of "myth" lines up with the meaning of "myth" in the Myth Theory.  Specifically, the second sense of "myth" is a fictional story that the author or speaker does NOT intend for the readers or audience to take as being a literal historical account.  So, in the second sense of "myth" the author or speaker is not attempting to DECEIVE the readers or audience.  

I believe that the meaning of "myth" in the first sense (in the first part of the above claim) is more general: a fictional story.  In other words, the first sense of "myth" does not imply either that the author/speaker is trying to DECEIVE the readers/audience nor does it imply that the author/speaker has no intention to DECEIVE the readers/audience.  It leaves the question of deceptive intent open.

Here, then, is how I would make sense of Kreeft's confusing sentence:

2. IF the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories, THEN these stories are deliberate lies rather than myths (where the author does not intend for readers to take the stories as literal historical accounts). 

Clearly, Kreeft thinks it is absurd or highly improbable that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are deliberate lies. But Kreeft doesn't explicitly assert this belief.  In order for his argument to be logically valid, this assumption needs to be stated explicitly:

B. But the New Testament authors who tell stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus would not tell deliberate lies about Jesus dying and rising from the dead. 

With the addition of premise (B), Kreeft can infer the following sub-conclusion:

 C. It is NOT the case that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories.

As usual, Kreeft FAILS to state the final conclusion of his argument, but because the whole point of the argument is to "refute" the Myth Theory, we already know his final conclusion:

D. The Myth Theory is FALSE. 

Here is my understanding of Kreeft's chain of reasoning constituting his Objection #5:

A. The author of 2nd Peter specifically distinguishes between myth and fact and repudiates the mythic interpretation of the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Therefore:

1. The New Testament specifically distinguishes between myth and fact and repudiates the mythic interpretation of the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Therefore:

2. IF the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories, THEN these stories are deliberate lies rather than myths (where the author does not intend for readers to take the stories as literal historical accounts). 

B. But the New Testament authors who tell stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus would not tell deliberate lies about Jesus dying and rising from the dead. 

Therefore:

C. It is NOT the case that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories.

Therefore:

D. The Myth Theory is FALSE. 

 

In the next post in this series, I will evaluate Kreeft's Objection #5 against the Myth Theory.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 11: Evaluation of Kreeft's Objection #4

WHERE WE ARE

In Part #10 of this series, I analyzed Kreeft's chain of reasoning that constitutes his Objection #4 against the Myth Theory.  Here is my understanding of Kreeft's argument:

1. In first-century Judaism, women had a low social status and no legal right to serve as witnesses.

A. In first-century Judaism, men had a higher social status than women and a legal right to serve as witnesses.

Therefore:

B. In first-century Judaism, men were considered to be significantly more reliable than women as witnesses of events.

Therefore:

2. IF the stories in the Gospels about the tomb of Jesus being discovered to be empty were a legend or myth invented by the writers of the Gospels, THEN the writers of the Gospels would NOT write that the tomb of Jesus was discovered to be empty by women rather than by men.

C. But the writers of the Gospels DID write that the tomb of Jesus was discovered to be empty by women rather than by men.

Therefore:

D. The stories in the Gospels about the tomb of Jesus being discovered to be empty by women are NOT a legend or myth invented by the writers of the Gospels.

Therefore:

F. The writers of the Gospels were simply reporting what they saw and did not invent legends or myths about Jesus.

Therefore:

 E. The Myth Theory is FALSE. 

EVALUATION OF THE FIRST SUB-ARGUMENT IN OBJECTION #4

Here is the first sub-argument in Kreeft's Objection #4 against the Myth Theory:

1. In first-century Judaism, women had a low social status and no legal right to serve as witnesses.

A. In first-century Judaism, men had a higher social status than women and a legal right to serve as witnesses.

Therefore:

B. In first-century Judaism, men were considered to be significantly more reliable than women as witnesses of events.

The premises (1) and (A) are plausible; they are correct as far as I know.  The inference to (B) is NOT VALID.  This is not a VALID DEDUCTIVE inference.  It could be that this is just a straightforward example of domination.  The men who held the power in first-century Judaism might simply have excluded women from serving as witnesses in order to maintain their power and domination over women.  They might not have felt any need to rationalize this unfair treatment of women by claiming that women were UNRELIABLE as witnesses.  So, it is possible for premises (1) and (A) to be true, and yet for (B) to be FALSE.  Since this is a logical possibility, the inference to (B) is not a VALID DEDUCTIVE inference.

However, Kreeft might reasonably argue that this inference should not be taken to be a deductive inference.  The truth of these premises, he might say, makes the conclusion (B) very likely to be true, but does not make the truth of (B) certain.  That seems like a reasonable reply in defense of this first sub-argument.  So, I will accept this first sub-argument as being a good argument, so long as we understand the argument only makes (B) very likely (at best).

EVALUATION OF THE SECOND SUB-ARGUMENT IN OBJECTION #4

Here is the next sub-argument in Kreeft's Objection #4 against the Myth Theory:

B. In first-century Judaism, men were considered to be significantly more reliable than women as witnesses of events.

Therefore:

2. IF the stories in the Gospels about the tomb of Jesus being discovered to be empty were a legend or myth invented by the writers of the Gospels, THEN the writers of the Gospels would NOT write that the tomb of Jesus was discovered to be empty by women rather than by men.

Once again, this is NOT a VALID DEDUCTIVE inference.  Premise (2) does not follow from premise (B).  There is, at the very least, a missing premise here about the MOTIVATIONS of the writers of the Gospels:

G. The writers of the Gospels were strongly motivated to convince their readers of the truth and accuracy of the stories that they presented in their Gospels.

Given such a motivation, the writers of the Gospels would, other things being equal, prefer telling stories about miraculous or supernatural events where MEN are witnesses of the event rather than WOMEN, in order to convince their readers (who were prejudiced against the reliability of women as witnesses) of the truth and accuracy of those stories about miraculous or supernatural events.

Nevertheless, even with this additional premise about the MOTIVATIONS of the writers of the Gospels, the inference to premise (2) is still NOT a DEDUCTIVELY VALID inference.  One problem here is that the writers of the Gospels have more than just ONE motivation.  Because they have multiple motivations, some other motivation might well override their motivation to convince their readers of the truth and accuracy of the stories they present in the Gospels.

In the Gospel of Mark, the male disciples abandon Jesus, and only some of the women who followed Jesus were present at his crucifixion and burial.  The twelve male disciples apparently flee north to Galilee, while a number of women who followed Jesus remain in Jerusalem.  Given this context, it makes sense for the discovery of the empty tomb to be made by some of the women who followed Jesus.  So, the writer of Mark might have chosen to make women the discoverers of the empty tomb, because, in his view, many of the men had abandoned Jesus and fled to Galilee.  It is more logical to have the women discover the empty tomb, and it also emphasizes the idea that Jesus' male disciples abandoned him when he was arrested and condemned to be crucified.

Because the Gospel of Mark was the first Gospel to be written, and because the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke used Mark as a primary source of information about the life and death of Jesus, the writers of Luke and Matthew might have chosen to stick with the way that Mark told the story of the discovery of the empty tomb, because changing the discoverers from women to men would (a) show that they did not trust the accuracy and reliability of the Gospel of Mark (which was one of their main sources), and (b) likely lead many Christian believers to reject or doubt the accuracy and reliability of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke because they contradict the existing and generally accepted Gospel of Mark on the important question of who discovered the empty tomb.

So, the writer of the Gospel of Mark could have invented the legend or myth of the discovery of the empty tomb and chosen to have this discovery made by women, because that was more logical given that his story has the eleven male disciples abandon Jesus and flee to Galilee, and because that emphasizes the idea that the eleven male disciples abandoned Jesus in his hour of need.  Then the writers of Matthew and Luke, who used Mark as one of their main sources of information about the life and death of Jesus, might well have felt constrained to follow along with Mark's version of this story, rather than blatantly contradict Mark, in order to avoid creating doubt and suspicion about the accuracy and reliability of their own Gospels.

Given this plausible scenario, premises (B) and (G) could be true even though the sub-conclusion (2) was FALSE.  In other words, the story of the discovery of the empty tomb could be a legend or myth invented by the writer of Mark, even though women were viewed in first-century Judaism as significantly less reliable than men as witnesses and even though the writers of the Gospels were strongly motivated to convince their readers of the truth and accuracy of the stories they presented in their Gospels.

Not only is it that case that the inference from (B) and (G) to (2) is an INVALID DEDUCTIVE inference, but it is also simply a BAD or WEAK inference.  There is a plausible scenario (not just a logically possible scenario) in which the premises would be TRUE but the conclusion would be FALSE.  Thus, the second sub-argument in Objection #4 is a BAD argument that we should reject. Therefore, Objection #4 against the Myth Theory FAILS, just like the previous three objections by Kreeft against the Myth Theory FAILED.

EVALUATION OF THE THIRD SUB-ARGUMENT IN OBJECTION #4

2. IF the stories in the Gospels about the tomb of Jesus being discovered to be empty were a legend or myth invented by the writers of the Gospels, THEN the writers of the Gospels would NOT write that the tomb of Jesus was discovered to be empty by women rather than by men.

C. But the writers of the Gospels DID write that the tomb of Jesus was discovered to be empty by women rather than by men.

Therefore:

D. The stories in the Gospels about the tomb of Jesus being discovered to be empty by women are NOT a legend or myth invented by the writers of the Gospels.

Because Kreeft's argument in support of premise (2) was a BAD argument, we already have reason to believe that premise (2) is DUBIOUS.  Strictly speaking, premise (2) is FALSE, because it is logically possible for it to be the case that "the stories in the Gospels about the tomb of Jesus being discovered to be empty were an invented legend or myth" and yet for it to be the case that "the writers of the Gospels would write that the tomb of Jesus was discovered to be empty by women rather than by men."

However, Kreeft might reply that premise (2) should not be interpreted as making the strong claim that the empty tomb story being an invented legend LOGICALLY IMPLIES that it is CERTAIN that the writers of the Gospels would NOT write that the tomb of Jesus was discovered to be empty by women rather than men.  Kreeft might claim that the empty tomb story being an invented legend just makes it VERY UNLIKELY that the writers of the Gospels would write that the tomb of Jesus was discovered to be empty by women rather than by men.  

This is a reasonable reply to the objection that premise (2) is, strictly speaking, FALSE.  However, because we have seen that there is a plausible scenario in which the antecedent of (2) is true but the consequent is false, even the weaker claim that the empty tomb story is an invented legend just makes it VERY UNLIKELY that the writers of the Gospels would write that the tomb of Jesus was discovered by women rather than by men is DUBIOUS.  Therefore, although we should accept the proposed interpretation of premise (2) which makes a weaker claim, that weaker claim is still DUBIOUS.

I accept premise (C) as being true, or true for the most part, because it is correct concerning Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but is DUBIOUS in the case of the Gospel of John.  But that is sufficient for the purposes of Kreeft's objection.

Given that premise (2) should be interpreted as making a weaker claim, the inference from premise (2) and premise (C) to (D) is no longer a DEDUCTIVELY VALID inference.  It is logically possible for both (2) and (C) to be true, and yet for the sub-conclusion (D) to be false.  At most, this argument would show that (D) is VERY LIKELY to be true.  But we have noted that (2) itself is DUBIOUS, so there are now two significant weaknesses in this sub-argument: Premise (2) is DUBIOUS, and the truth of premise (2) would only make (D) very likely.  The combination of two such weaknesses makes this sub-argument INADEQUATE to PROVE anything, and inadequate even to show that (D) is very likely.

Suppose that there is a 70% chance that (2) is true.  Suppose that IF (2) were true, there would be an 80% chance that (D) would be true.  This is generous because we are assuming that it is likely that (2) is true, even though this premise is DUBIOUS, and we are assuming that if (2) were true that would make it very likely that (D) would be true.  But the truth of (D) depends on BOTH of these conditions, and in this scenario there is a 30% chance that (2) is false, and if (2) is true there is still a 20% chance that (D) would be false. We need to multiply the two probabilities to determine the probability of the conclusion (D):  

.7 x .8 = .56   

The probability of (D) being true on these assumptions is about .6,  and the probability of (D) being false is about .4. So, there are about 4 chances in 10 that (D) is false, based on these assumptions.  Thus, this sub-argument clearly falls short of PROVING that the conclusion (D) is true.  Therefore, Kreeft's argument for Objection #4 falls short of proving that the Myth Theory is false.  In other words, Kreeft's argument for Objection #4 FAILS.

But we are only partway through the argument at this point, and there are other serious problems and errors in the rest of the argument for Objection #4.

EVALUATION OF THE FOURTH SUB-ARGUMENT IN OBJECTION #4

Here is the fourth sub-argument in Objection #4:

D. The stories in the Gospels about the tomb of Jesus being discovered to be empty by women are NOT a legend or myth invented by the writers of the Gospels.

Therefore:

F. The writers of the Gospels were simply reporting what they saw and did not invent legends or myths about Jesus.

Kreeft's argument for Objection #4 is a chain of reasoning, and like a physical chain, the argument is only as strong as the weakest link in the chain.  We have already pointed out problems and weaknesses in the second and third sub-arguments in Kreeft's chain of reasoning. There is also a very serious problem with the fourth sub-argument in Objection #4.

The inference from (D) to (F) commits the fallacy of HASTY GENERALIZATION.  So, this argument is a BAD argument.  The inference from (D) to (F) is clearly INVALID if taken to be a deductive inference.  But even taking this inference to be inductive does not save the argument.  The Gospels include many stories containing many elements and they include many sayings or teachings of Jesus.  So, showing that one particular story in a Gospel is not a legend or myth does not show that ALL of the other stories and elements in those stories are accurate historical reports.  The presence of just ONE true story in a Gospel does NOT prove that ALL of the stories in that Gospel are true and accurate historical accounts.

Furthermore, (D) only states that this story about some women discovering the tomb of Jesus to be empty was NOT an invented legend or myth.  This negative claim does NOT imply the positive claim that the writers of the Gospels were "reporting what they saw".  Most mainstream NT scholars conclude that the Gospels were NOT written by eyewitnesses of the events they describe.  The authors of the Gospels passed along stories about Jesus and sayings of Jesus that they obtained from earlier written sources and oral traditions.  They were writing decades after the events in question.  If we assume that the writers of the Gospels did not themselves invent this story about the discovery of the empty tomb, it is still probably the case that none of them were eyewitnesses to any part of the events described in that story.

For the above reasons, the inference from (D) to (F) is not just INVALID, it is unreasonable.  So, the fourth sub-argument in Objection #4 is a BAD argument, and we should reject this argument.  Therefore, Objection #4 FAILS, because the fourth sub-argument in Kreeft's chain of reasoning is a BAD argument.

EVALUATION OF THE FIFTH SUB-ARGUMENT IN OBJECTION #4

Here is the fifth sub-argument in the chain of reasoning constituting Kreeft's Objection #4:

F. The writers of the Gospels were simply reporting what they saw and did not invent legends or myths about Jesus.

Therefore:

 E. The Myth Theory is FALSE.

Because of the problems with the previous sub-arguments, Kreeft has FAILED to show that (F) is true.  So, premise (F) remains DUBIOUS.

The fifth sub-argument contains a serious error in its reasoning.  This is the same error that caused each of Kreeft's previous three objections to FAIL.  The inference from (F) to (E) is ILLOGICAL and INVALID.  Even if we assume that the writers of the Gospels were simply reporting what they saw and did not invent legends or myths about Jesus, it does not follow that the Gospels are accurate and reliable accounts of the life and death of Jesus.  There still could be false and inaccurate stories and elements in the Gospels even if the writers did not invent any legends or myths about Jesus.

Most importantly, the Myth Theory is NOT ABOUT THE GOSPELS.  The Myth Theory is about the preaching and teaching of the eleven apostles about the death and resurrection of Jesus, and it is about the intentions of the eleven apostles concerning that preaching and teaching.  Here is a definition of the "Myth Theory" based on Kreeft's own characterization 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. 

Mark was NOT one of the eleven apostles. Luke was NOT one of the eleven apostles.  Matthew is the name of one of the eleven apostles, but most mainstream NT scholars don't believe that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew the apostle.  John is the name of one of the eleven apostles, but most mainstream NT scholars don't believe that the Gospel of John was written by John the apostle.  

At most, only two of the eleven apostles wrote Gospels (Matthew and John), but it is unlikely, based on the scholarly study of the Gospels, that ANY of the Gospels were written by one of the eleven apostles.  Thus, the stories contained in the Gospels might well not accurately represent what the eleven apostles preached and taught about the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the intentions of the authors of the Gospels concerning their stories about the death and alleged resurrection of Jesus might well be different from the intentions of the eleven apostles concerning their stories about the death and alleged resurrection of Jesus.  Therefore, the contents of the Gospels are not relevant to determining whether the Myth Theory is true or false.

The final sub-argument in Kreeft's chain of reasoning constituting Objection #4 is ILLOGICAL and INVALID, and the premise of this sub-argument is DUBIOUS, so this fifth sub-argument should be rejected, and thus Kreeft's Objection #4 against the Myth Theory FAILS.

EVALUATION OF KREEFT'S OBJECTION #4

Kreeft's reasoning in support of Objection #4 is a chain of reasoning consisting of five sub-arguments. The strength of the argument can be no greater than the strength of the weakest link in the chain of reasoning.  Because there are a number of weak or broken links in this chain, the argument for Objection #4 FAILS.  

The first sub-argument is OK, so long as we understand that it shows at most that premise (B) is very likely, and does not prove that (B) is true.

The second sub-argument has a serious problem because the inference from (B) and (G) to sub-conclusion (2) is a BAD or WEAK inference. This problem is sufficient by itself to show that Objection #4 FAILS.

The third sub-argument provides some support for the sub-conclusion (D), but since the premise (2) is DUBIOUS, and since the truth of (2) would only make it very likely that (D) is true, this argument falls significantly short of proving (D), and might well only show that (D) is probably true and thus that there is a significant chance (perhaps 4 chances in 10) that (D) is FALSE.  Thus, the problems with the third sub-argument are sufficient to conclude that Objection #4 FAILS.

The fourth sub-argument in Objection #4 has a very serious problem.  The inference from (D) to (F) commits the fallacy of HASTY GENERALIZATION, so not only is that inference INVALID, it is also a WEAK or BAD inference, in addition to the fact that premise (D) is DUBIOUS.  So, these problems with the fourth sub-argument provide good reason to conclude that Objection #4 FAILS.

The fifth sub-argument contains the final inference in the chain of reasoning that constitutes Kreeft's Objection #4.  This inference is ILLOGICAL and INVALID, because the premise is about the content of the Gospels, but the conclusion is NOT about the Gospels but is rather about the preaching and teaching of the eleven apostles.  So, the conclusion (E) does NOT follow from premise (F).  This serious problem with the final inference in Kreeft's chain of reasoning gives us a good reason to conclude that Objection #4 FAILS.

Because of there being significant or serious problems with four out of five of the sub-arguments that constitute Kreeft's Objection #4, it is very clear that this argument should be rejected. Therefore, Objection #4 against the Myth Theory FAILS.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 10: Women Were the First Witnesses (Objection #4)

 WHERE WE ARE

In Part 4 of this series, I showed that Kreeft's Objection #3 against the Myth Theory FAILS because the argument constituting that objection is INVALID and ILLOGICAL.  Specifically, the final inference from premise (B) to the conclusion (C) is INVALID:

B. It is NOT the case that the authors of the Gospels invented the following elements in their accounts of the life and death of Jesus: portraying Jesus as (a) a divine person, (b) claiming to be divine, (c) performing miracles, and (d) rising from the dead.

Therefore:

C. The Myth Theory is FALSE. 

Then I began to argue that Kreeft's Objection #3 also FAILS because all three premises given in support of premise (B) are FALSE or DUBIOUS:

1. The Gospels (i.e. the four Gospels in the New Testament) portray Jesus as (a) a divine person, (b) claiming to be divine, (c) performing miracles, and (d) rising from the dead.

A. IF the authors of the Gospels invented the following four elements in their accounts of the life and death of Jesus: portraying Jesus as (a) a divine person, (b) claiming to be divine, (c) performing miracles, and (d) rising from the dead, THEN we would find evidence of an earlier account of the life and death of Jesus that did NOT include those four elements.

 2. There is no evidence whatever of an earlier account (prior to the Gospels) of the life and death of Jesus that did NOT portray Jesus as (a) a divine person, (b) claiming to be divine, (c) performing miracles, and (d) rising from the dead.

Therefore:

B. It is NOT the case that the authors of the Gospels invented the following elements in their accounts of the life and death of Jesus: portraying Jesus as (a) a divine person, (b) claiming to be divine, (c) performing miracles, and (d) rising from the dead.

In Part 4 of this series, Part 5 of this series, Part 6 of this series,  and Part 7 of this series, I showed that Kreeft's twenty-one points of "Scriptural Data" about the deity of Jesus FAILS to provide solid and adequate support for premise (1), and that premise (1) is therefore DUBIOUS.

In Part 8 of this series, I argued that premise (A) is also DUBIOUS.

In Part 9 of this series, I argued that premise (2) is FALSE.

I concluded that Kreeft's argument constituting his Objection #3 against the Myth Theory is clearly UNSOUND, because it is based on premises that are DUBIOUS or FALSE, and because the main inference in the argument is ILLOGICAL and INVALID.  Therefore, Objection #3 FAILS:

It is now time to examine and evaluate Kreeft's fourth objection against the Myth Theory.

OBJECTION #4: WOMEN WERE THE FIRST WITNESSES

Peter Kreeft presents his Objection #4 against the Myth Theory in one modest paragraph, consisting of just four sentences:

A little detail, seldom noticed, is significant in distinguishing the Gospels from myth: the first witnesses of the resurrection were women.  In first-century Judaism, women had low social status and no legal right to serve as witnesses.  If the empty tomb were an invented legend, its inventors surely would not have had it discovered by women, whose testimony was considered worthless.  If, on the other hand, the writers were simply reporting what they saw, they would have to tell the truth, however socially and legally inconvenient.   

(Handbook of Christian Apologetics, p.192)

The key sentence in this paragraph is this one:

If the empty tomb were an invented legend, its inventors surely would not have had it discovered by women, whose testimony was considered worthless. 

This sentence shows that the argument is not really based on the claim that "the first witnesses of the resurrection were women."  This is a good thing for Kreeft, because NOBODY witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, according to the Gospels.  Jesus' body was placed inside a stone tomb on Friday evening, and sometime before sunrise on Sunday (or perhaps right around sunrise), Jesus allegedly came back to life.  But NOBODY saw that happen, according to the Gospels.  Some Gospels claim that some people saw Jesus alive on that Sunday, but that was AFTER Jesus came back to life.  If being a witness "of the resurrection" of Jesus means seeing Jesus rise from the dead, then NOBODY was a witness of the resurrection of Jesus.

Suppose that being a witness "of the resurrection" of Jesus just means seeing the risen Jesus sometime after he came back to life.  In that case, there is still a problem: the women who visit Jesus' tomb on Sunday do NOT see the risen Jesus that morning, according to the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke.  So, women were NOT "the first witnesses of the resurrection" according to Mark and Luke, if that means seeing the risen Jesus after he came back to life.

Furthermore, according to the Gospel of John, only ONE woman saw the risen Jesus on Sunday near the empty tomb. John does not say that a group of women went to the tomb, nor that a group of women saw the risen Jesus.  So, the Gospel of John does not claim that "the first witnesses of the resurrection were women"; it only claims that the first witness (singular) of the resurrection of Jesus was a woman (singular).  

Only in the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 28:8-10) does the risen Jesus appear to a group of women who visit the tomb on Sunday morning. So, if witnessing "the resurrection of Jesus" means seeing the risen Jesus after he came back to life, then ONLY the Gospel of Matthew supports the claim that "the first witnesses of the resurrection were women."

It is better for Kreeft's argument to just toss this DUBIOUS claim aside, and to focus on the key claim (quoted above) that the tomb of Jesus was discovered to be empty by women.  This claim is at least supported by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, although not by the Gospel of John.

 The first part of Kreeft's reasoning is fairly easy to re-construct: 

1. In first-century Judaism, women had a low social status and no legal right to serve as witnesses.

A. In first-century Judaism, men had a higher social status than women and a legal right to serve as witnesses.

Therefore:

B. In first-century Judaism, men were considered to be significantly more reliable than women as witnesses of events.

Therefore:

2. IF the stories in the Gospels about the tomb of Jesus being discovered to be empty were a legend or myth invented by the writers of the Gospels, THEN the writers of the Gospels would NOT write that the tomb of Jesus was discovered to be empty by women rather than by men.

C. But the writers of the Gospels DID write that the tomb of Jesus was discovered to be empty by women rather than by men.

Therefore:

D. The stories in the Gospels about the tomb of Jesus being discovered to be empty by women are NOT a legend or myth invented by the writers of the Gospels.

This argument at least has some initial plausibility.  

However, the rest of Kreeft's reasoning is less obvious and more problematic.  As usual, Kreeft FAILS to specify the conclusion of his argument, but we know what that conclusion must be, based on the purpose of this argument as an objection against the Myth Theory:

E. The Myth Theory is FALSE.

But an inference from (D) directly to (E) appears to be ILLOGICAL. So, there needs to be some additional reasoning and/or assumptions in order to get from the sub-conclusion (D) to the ultimate conclusion (E).

The reasoning and/or assumptions needed to bridge the logical gap between (D) and (E) are presumably hinted at in the final sentence of Kreeft's ONE paragraph presentation of this objection:

If, on the other hand, the writers were simply reporting what they saw, they would have to tell the truth, however socially and legally inconvenient.  

(Handbook of Christian Apologetics, p.192) 

Who are "the writers" here?  Kreeft is talking about the authors of the Gospels.  Kreeft appears to be attempting to argue for the sub-conclusion that the authors of the Gospels were "simply reporting what they saw" and not inventing legends or myths about Jesus:

F. The writers of the Gospels were simply reporting what they saw and did not invent legends or myths about Jesus.

This sub-conclusion works as an intermediate step that helps Kreeft to get from premise (D) to the ultimate conclusion that the Myth Theory is FALSE:

D. The stories in the Gospels about the tomb of Jesus being discovered to be empty by women are NOT a legend or myth invented by the writers of the Gospels.

Therefore:

F. The writers of the Gospels were simply reporting what they saw and did not invent legends or myths about Jesus.

Therefore:

 E. The Myth Theory is FALSE.