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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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,
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)
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.”
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
Dear Mr. Bowen,
ReplyDeleteI had more time to read your older writings from the Secular Outpost and I have some questions about an argument you develop and defend in several posts and comments. In one of your comments you present this argument as follows:
“Not only can we argue that God lacks a good reason to raise Jesus from the dead, we can also argue that God has a good reason NOT to raise Jesus from the dead.
In my view it is clear that Jesus was a false prophet, in that Jesus promoted worship of, and obedience to, a false god: JEHOVAH. If God raised Jesus from the dead, God would be putting a seal of approval on the religious teachings and practices of Jesus; God would be giving his blessing to a false prophet and to worship of, and obedience to, a false god.
This would be a great deception by God, but God is by definition an eternally perfectly morally good person, so God would never engage in such a great deception. Thus, God had a very powerful moral reason and motivation to NOT raise Jesus from the dead. ”
1. Why do you say that Jehovah is a false god?
In religion class I was taught that Yahweh (or Jehovah) is the personal name of God in Hebrew. This is how God, and not a god, is referred to in the OT. Now, God is portrayed in the OT as behaving in ways that seem immoral and, based on this, we can argue that the OT conception of God is likely to be mistaken. If Jesus subscribed to this mistaken conception of God and taught others that this is the right way to understand God, then God would probably not want to raise Jesus from the dead. In other words, you can reach the same conclusion that “God had a very powerful moral reason and motivation to NOT raise Jesus from the dead” by referring in your argument to two different conceptions of the same being, rather than to two different beings.
2. Did Jesus likely subscribed to the OT conception of God?
Here are some things you wrote about what Jesus believed:
a) “My assumption is that the Jewish understanding of Jehovah in first century Palestine was shaped primarily by the content of the books of Moses, and secondarily by the content of other books in the OT. If that assumption is wrong, then I think most NT and Jesus scholars are in the dark about what Jesus believed. In the 21st century Jesus scholars emphasize and assume the Jewishness of Jesus, and much of the Jewishness of Jesus consists in how his thinking was shaped by the Jewish scriptures.”
b) “I have read and studied the gospels for many years, and I agree with modern Jesus scholars that Jesus was very Jewish, and much of his Jewishness consists in his familiarity with the OT, and with how much the OT shaped his thinking. The fact that Jesus doesn't talk specifically about the conquests of the promised land is not significant. He was familiar with the OT. Jesus celebrated Passover, and he understood that Passover was a reference to the story of the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt and eventually into Palestine.”
However, Jesus also promoted love and peace and he healed the sick. If Jesus believed God did the violent and seemingly immoral things the OT says He did, then doesn’t it make more sense for Jesus to have behaved differently? Why would a person who believes that God behaves in the way the OT says He does be a promoter of love and peace and a healer of the sick?
My questions continue in the next comment.
Thank you for reading some of my posts over at The Secular Outpost, and thank you for your thoughtful questions. I will be busy with some personal business for a week or so, so I might not be able to respond right away. If I don't respond this week, please come back after a week or two to see my response to your questions.
DeleteAll right.
Delete"Why would a person who believes that God behaves in the way the O.T. says He does be a promoter of love and peace and a healer of the sick?"
DeleteGreat question! Why does any Jew or Christian who worships a god who commanded the slaughter of civilians including elderly and mothers and teenagers and children and babies behave in a kind or loving manner? Because humans are irrational and hypocritical! People have behaved in such irrational and hypocritical ways all around the world for thousands of years. Jesus was a human being who was raised by irrational and hypocritical parents in a culture of irrational and hypocritical leaders who admired irrational and hypocritical "heroes" like Moses and Joshua. So there is no mystery as to how Jesus became another irrational and hypocritical person.
3. Do you think that the concept of Divine deception can be used to argue against miracle claims in which the allegedly miraculous events take place in a context specific to a particular church?
ReplyDeleteIn the book Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna, the authors argue that most of what Christians do in present-day churches is rooted, not in the NT, but in pagan culture and rituals that have suppressed the way in which the church was intended to be – the head of a fully functioning body in which all believers play an active role – and turned it into something similar to a business organization, with a lot of the focus being shifted to the practices involving pagan elements (priests and preachers, pews, steeples, choirs, icons, statues, “dressing up” for church, and so forth).
Now, I was raised in the East-Orthodox Church that has incorporated most of the pagan elements mentioned in the book. Orthodox Christians make all sorts of miracle claims, some of which refer to events that take place in a context specific to this church. For example, a widespread miracle claim among Orthodox Christians is The Holy Fire, which is described as a miracle that occurs every year at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (an Orthodox church), on the day preceding Orthodox Easter.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Fire#cite_note-:0-1
However, if the Orthodox Church is tainted or corrupted by the pagan elements it has incorporated, then it seems to me that it is unlikely for God to want to perform miracles that are best understood as a seal of approval on the religious practices of this particular church. If God really is performing the Holy Fire miracle, then He seems to be deceiving the Orthodox Christians by making them believe their church’s practices are in agreement with the NT principles and teachings, when in fact they have moved away from them. Do you agree with this?
Thank you.
Yes. The logic you use as an objection to the "god" who is allegedly performing the holy fire miracles is the same logic I use to object to any "god" who would raise Jesus from the dead.
DeleteNote, however, it depends on how much you think God cares about correct theology. If a perfectly good and all-knowing deity would not care much about whether humans have correct theological beliefs, then such a deity might perform miracles which seem to support false theological beliefs. However, if one takes this position to allow God to perform miracles that seem to support false theological beliefs, then the same could apply to the resurrection of Jesus. On this view God might have performed the miracle of raising Jesus even if Jesus was a false prophet who promoted worship of a false god.
I think that even if a Theist considers that God does not care much about whether humans have correct theological beliefs, it remains the case that miracles leading people to believe falsehoods imply that God engages in deception.
DeleteFYI: The Internet Infidels is starting up a new blog site to replace The Secular Outpost. The new site is called The Secular Frontier. I plan to continue writing skeptical blog posts over at The Secular Frontier, starting later this month or in May: https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/
ReplyDeleteThank you for letting me know.
Delete"Why do you say that Jehovah is a false god?"
ReplyDeleteMy conclusion that Jehovah is a false god follows from using the same logic that is used by Christians and Jews when they say that some other deity is a false god. Worship of Zeus, for example, is the worship of a false god because Zeus is a morally flawed person, but God, by definition, is a perfectly good person. Therefore, Zeus is NOT God. Thus, Zeus is a false god.
The exact SAME reasoning applies to Jehovah. Jehovah is a morally flawed person, but God is a perfectly good person. Therefore, Jehovah is NOT God. Thus, Jehovah is a false god.
"...I was taught that Yahweh (or Jehovah) was the personal name of God in Hebrew."
ReplyDeleteThe same claim could be made about the worship of Zeus "I was taught that Zeus was the personal name of God in Greek."
We would respond this way: "You were taught a falsehood. Zeus is clearly a morally flawed person, so Zeus cannot possibly be God. The name Zeus is the name of a morally flawed person who was a false god and who was wrongly worshipped by Greeks."
The SAME logic applies to worship of Jehovah by Hebrews.
Jehovah like Zeus is understood primarily in terms of his words and actions. But we cannot see or hear or touch Zeus or Jehovah. So the words and actions of Zeus and Jehovah are not known through ordinary experience, but are known through stories. Jehovah created Adam and Eve and kicked them out of the garden because they disobeyed his command not to eat the fruit of one tree. Jehovah told Noah to build an ark and to gather pairs of animals, and then Jehovah caused a huge flood to kill nearly all life on earth, etc. The OT stories are what defines Jehovah.
ReplyDelete