Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 4: The Myth Theory has Two Layers (Objection #3)

 WHERE WE ARE

Kreeft's argument for his Objection #2 involves some UNSTATED assumptions and inferences.  A number of assumptions and inferences are required in order to get from Kreeft's explicit premise to his desired conclusion.  Here is my  clarified version of Kreeft's argument for his Objection #2 against the Myth Theory:

1A. At least three generations (consisting of about fifteen years each) would have to pass in first-century Palestine before mythological elements added to stories about a historical person or a historical event could be mistakenly believed to be historical facts.

A1. Three generations (consisting of about fifteen years each) did NOT pass between the crucifixion of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels  (and the reading of the Gospels by the original readers of the Gospels).

B. Jesus was a historical person, and the crucifixion of Jesus was a historical event.

Therefore:

C. IF the authors of the Gospels added mythological elements about Jesus rising from the dead to their stories about the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, THEN those mythological elements in those stories would NOT have been mistakenly believed to be historical facts by the original readers of the Gospels.

D. The original readers of the Gospels believed the Gospel accounts of the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus to be accurate historical accounts containing historical facts about those events without any added mythological elements. 

Therefore:

E. It is NOT the case that the authors of the Gospels added mythological elements about Jesus rising from the dead to their stories about the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.  

Therefore:

F. The Myth Theory is FALSE. 

In Part 3 of this series, I showed that Kreeft's argument constituting his Objection #2 FAILS to refute the Myth Theory:

Objection #2 FAILS for at least two reasons, each of which by itself gives us sufficient reason to reject Kreeft's argument for Objection #2.  

First, premise (A1) is FALSE, making Kreeft's argument UNSOUND.  Second, the inference from the premise (E) to the ultimate conclusion (F) is INVALID and ILLOGICAL, because the Myth Theory, as characterized by Kreeft, is about the preaching and stories of the apostles and their intentions concerning what they said about the alleged crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus; it is NOT about the Gospels or the authors of the Gospels, nor about the intentions of the authors of the Gospels.

It is now time to consider Kreeft's third objection against the Myth Theory.

OBJECTION #3: THE MYTH THEORY HAS TWO LAYERS

Here is the opening paragraph of Kreeft's argument constituting his Objection #3 against the Myth Theory:

The myth theory has two layers. The first layer is the historical Jesus, who was not divine, did not claim divinity, performed no miracles, and did not rise from the dead. The second, later, mythologized layer is the Gospels as we have them, with a Jesus who claimed to be divine, performed miracles and rose from the dead.  The problem with this theory is simply that there is not the slightest bit of any real evidence whatever for the existence of any such first layer.

(HCA, p.191-192) 

Notice that Kreeft says NOTHING here about the apostles or their intentions.  The focus is, instead, on the content of the Gospels (i.e. the four Gospels found in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John).  So, it appears that, as with Kreeft's first two objections, his third objection will focus on the Gospels, and will thus FAIL because it is IRRELEVANT to the question of whether the Myth Theory is true or false.

Kreeft is confused when he states that the Myth Theory "has two layers".  The "layers" are concerned with historical reality NOT with the theory itself.  The core idea of the Myth Theory is that the story of Jesus' resurrection is FICTIONAL; Jesus did not actually rise from the dead. Thus, the Myth Theory distinguishes between what actually happened to Jesus and the FICTIONAL stories that were told about Jesus. Those are the "two layers": fact vs. fiction.  The theory itself does not have two layers.  The theory implies that some stories about Jesus are FICTION (or contain fictional elements), and that requires that one make a distinction between what some stories say happened to Jesus and what actually happened to Jesus.

Here is a key claim by Kreeft from the above-quoted paragraph: 

...the Gospels as we have them, with a Jesus who claimed to be divine, performed miracles and rose from the dead. 

These aspects of the stories in the Gospels are contrasted with what many skeptics take to be the historical reality (also from the above paragraph): 

...the historical Jesus, who was not divine, did not claim divinity, performed no miracles, and did not rise from the dead.

Kreeft sums up his third objection to the Myth Theory this way (as quoted above):

The problem with this theory is simply that there is not the slightest bit of any real evidence whatever for the existence of any such first layer.

What Kreeft means by "the existence of any such first layer" is the existence of an alternative story or account of the life and death of Jesus, an account that does not involve the four key aspects that Kreeft identified in the Gospels.  It becomes clear that this is what Kreeft means by "the existence of any such first layer" when he quotes reasoning on this point from the Christian apologist William Craig (from Craig's book Apologetics, Chapter 6):

The Gospels are a miraculous story, and we have no other story handed down to us than that contained in the Gospels.  ...No relic of a non-miraculous story exists.  That the original story should be lost and replaced by another goes beyond any known example of corruption... (HCA, p.192, emphasis added)

In other words, there is no evidence of an earlier story or account of the life and death of Jesus which does NOT portray Jesus as being divine, claiming to be divine, performing miracles, and rising from the dead.  

The above three key statements in the opening paragraph of Kreeft's presentation of his Objection #3 are enough to figure out the argument that Kreeft has in mind for his third objection:

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.

Therefore:

C. The Myth Theory is FALSE. 

THE ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #3 IS INVALID

This argument FAILS because, just like Kreeft's first two objections, Objection #3 focuses on the content of the Gospels and the authors of the Gospels, but the Myth Theory, according to Kreeft's characterization of it, is about the preaching and stories of the apostles, and the intentions of the apostles concerning their preaching and stories about the alleged death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.  The Myth Theory is NOT about the contents of the Gospels nor about the authors of the Gospels.  Thus, the conclusion (C) does NOT follow from premise (B), and the inference from (B) to (C) is INVALID and ILLOGICAL.  Therefore, Kreeft's Objection #3 against the Myth Theory FAILS, just like his first two objections FAILED.

THE ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #3 IS PROBABLY UNSOUND

Furthermore, each of the three premises in the argument for (B) is DUBIOUS, so Kreeft has also failed to show that premise (B) is true, and the argument for Objection #3 is probably UNSOUND. Since each of the three premises supporting (B) is DUBIOUS, it is likely that at least one of those three premises is FALSE. So, we ought to reject this argument for Objection #3, because it is probably based on at least one FALSE premise.

PREMISE (1) IS DUBIOUS

Here once again is premise (1) of the argument for Kreeft's Objection #3:

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.

Clearly, all four Gospels portray Jesus as (c) performing miracles, and (d) rising from the dead.  So, the question is whether the other two elements are also found in all four Gospels.  Do the four Gospels all portray Jesus as (a) a divine person, and as (b) claiming to be divine?  

It seems clear that the Gospel of John portrays Jesus as being God incarnate, and the Gospel of John also portrays Jesus as claiming to be divine.  That much of this claim appears to be correct.

But what about Matthew, Mark, and Luke?  Do these three Gospels all portray Jesus as (a) a divine person, and as (b) claiming to be divine? If not, then premise (1) is FALSE, and the argument for Objection #3 is UNSOUND and should be rejected.  

The first thing to note is that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke never clearly state that "Jesus is God."  They also never clearly state that "Jesus is the creator of the universe."  They also never clearly state that "Jesus is omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good, and eternal."  In short, there is no clear and decisive statement by the authors of any of these three Gospels that Jesus is divine.  If any author of one of these three Gospels believed that Jesus was God, they only indicated this belief in an unclear and roundabout manner.

The second thing to note is that in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus never clearly states that "I am God."  Jesus also never clearly states that "I am the creator of the universe."  He also never clearly states that "I am omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good, and eternal."  In short, there is no clear and decisive statement by Jesus in any of these three Gospels where Jesus claims divinity.  If Jesus believed himself to be God, he only indicated this belief in an unclear and roundabout manner.

NARROWING DOWN THE RELEVANT DATA

There is a lot of material about Jesus and what Jesus said in the combined pages of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  But we can narrow down the relevant passages by reviewing Kreeft's case for the divinity of Jesus in Chapter 7 of his Handbook of Christian Apologetics.  More specifically, we can focus on the Gospel passages referenced by Kreeft in support of the twenty-one points that he makes in the section at the end of Chapter 7 called "Some Scriptural Data for Christ's Claim to Divinity" (on pages 173 and 174). 

Four of the twenty-one points can be immediately set aside because Kreeft provides no Gospel passages in support of them:

1. The early creedal formula "Jesus is Lord [kyrios]"... 

4. Absolutely, universally supreme...

8. Immutable...

14. Called "King of kings and Lord of lords"...   (HCA, p.173)

Another eight of the twenty-one points can be set aside because Kreeft provides passages from only one Gospel to support those points: the Gospel of John.  I have already conceded that the Gospel of John portrays Jesus as divine and as claiming to be divine, so there is no need to examine any of these eight points:

3. The New Testament calls him "God"...

5. Eternally preexistent... 

9. Creates (only God can create)... 

10. Sinless, perfect...

13. Speaks the unique, forbidden divine name...

15. One with the Father...

17. Sends the Holy Spirit...

19. Gives eternal life...   (HCA, p.173)

Three more of the twenty-one points can be quickly dismissed because they share the same serious problem. These points apply to other non-divine people, so they are clearly NOT sufficient reasons for concluding that a person is divine: 

11. Has authority to forgive sins...

16. Performs miracles...

20. Foreknows the future...   (HCA, p.173-174)

The apostles had the authority to forgive sins according to Jesus (John 20:19-23), and the apostles performed miracles according to Jesus and the New Testament (John 14:11-12, Acts 5:12-16, 2 Corinthians 12:12, Acts 19:11), but nobody claims that the apostles were divine.  Kreeft does not believe that any of the apostles were God incarnate, so these two characteristics are insufficient to show that a person is divine.

Prophets in the Old Testament foreknew the future, according to Jesus and the Bible.  The Gospel of Matthew claims that several specific events and details of the life of Jesus were predicted, and thus foreknown, by Old Testament prophets (e.g. Matthew 1:21-23, 2:4-6, 2:14-15, 2:16-18, 2:22-23, 4:13-15,13:13-15).  Does Kreeft think that the Gospel of Matthew was mistaken on this point?  Obviously not.  So, Kreeft believes that Old Testament prophets sometimes foreknew the future.  Does Kreeft believe that these Old Testament prophets were divine, that each prophet was an incarnation of God? Clearly not.  So, foreknowing the future is NOT a sufficient reason to conclude that a person is divine.

So far, we have quickly set aside or dismissed fifteen of Kreeft's twenty-one points concerning "Scriptural Data" in support of the deity of Jesus and Jesus' "Claim to Divinity". We are left with just six points from Kreeft's list to consider:

2. The title "Son of God" ("Son of" implies "of the same nature as.")...

6. Omnipresent...

7. Omnipotent...

12. Rightly worshiped...

18. The Father testifies to him...

21. Is Lord over the Law...

In my view, only two of these points are worthy of serious consideration (points #2 and #12), but in the next part of this series, I will discuss the other four points to indicate why they FAIL to show that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke portray Jesus as being divine, and as claiming to be God.

TO BE CONTINUED...