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.
No comments:
Post a Comment