Friday, March 25, 2022

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 seriesPart 5 of this seriesPart 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.

 

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...