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.
Then I began to argue that Kreeft's Objection #3 also FAILS because all three premises given in support of premise (B) are 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.
It is now time to consider and evaluate premise (2) of Kreeft's argument for Objection #3 against the Myth Theory.
EVALUATION OF PREMISE (2) OF OBJECTION #3
Here, once again, is premise (2) of Kreeft's argument for Objection #3:
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.
This claim is not just DUBIOUS, it is FALSE. There is in fact at least SOME EVIDENCE of an earlier account (prior to the Gospels) of the life and death of Jesus that did NOT portray Jesus in terms of all four of the supernatural elements mentioned in premise (2).
FIRST, I have shown that Kreeft has FAILED to prove his claims that Matthew, Mark, and Luke portray Jesus as (a) a divine person, and/or as (b) claiming to be divine. So, it might well be the case that these claims about Matthew, Mark, and Luke are FALSE.
Suppose that it is FALSE that the Gospel of Mark portrayed Jesus as being divine and as claiming to be divine. If that is the case, as it seems to be, and assuming there was, in fact, an actual historical Jesus, then presumably the author of Mark did not simply invent all of the stories about Jesus and all of the teachings of Jesus that we find in the Gospel of Mark. It is likely, on these assumptions, that the author of Mark made use of various oral traditions that passed on stories about Jesus and teachings of Jesus.
Furthermore, it is likely on these assumptions, that the stories and teachings that Mark drew from ALSO did NOT portray Jesus as (a) a divine person, and/or as (b) claiming to be divine. So, the very existence of the Gospel of Mark is EVIDENCE that there were previous oral traditions about Jesus circulating among the followers of Jesus in Mark's community that did NOT portray Jesus as (a) a divine person, and/or as (b) claiming to be divine.
SECOND, the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke both made use of the Gospel of Mark as a source for their Gospels. So, if Mark does not portray Jesus as being divine or as claiming to be divine, then both Matthew and Luke are based on a prior account of the life and death of Jesus that did NOT portray Jesus as (a) a divine person, and as (b) claiming to be divine. So, since it appears that Mark is lacking those two supernatural elements, the fact that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a primary source of information about Jesus, is EVIDENCE that those two Gospels used an earlier account of the life and death of Jesus that did NOT portray Jesus as (a) a divine person, and as (b) claiming to be divine.
THIRD, the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke also appear to have made use of another written source about the life of Jesus, a source that NT scholars call "Q". When Matthew and Luke have passages that closely resemble each other but that are not derived from the Gospel of Mark, that is taken as a strong indication that they are making use of another written document (or collection of documents) that NT scholars refer to as "Q".
The contents of Q, however, do NOT portray Jesus as (a) a divine person, or as (b) claiming to be divine, and they do not portray Jesus as (d) rising from the dead. Although there are no existing manuscripts containing the contents ascribed to "Q", many NT scholars are convinced by careful and close analysis of passages in Matthew and Luke that closely resemble each other (and that were not derived from Mark), that there was at one time a written document (or set of documents) in addition to the Gospel of Mark, that was used as a source for the writing of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke.
Here is a brief description, from the point of view of some NT scholars, of the contents of Q:
("The Search for a No-Frills Jesus" by By Charlotte Allen, The Atlantic, Dec. 1996)
Obviously, the view that some of the earliest followers of Jesus did not believe that Jesus was "the son of God who rose from the dead" is a controversial view that is not widely accepted among NT scholars. Nevertheless, the contents that scholars have identified as coming from Q do indicate "a Jesus with little supernatural baggage", so the widely accepted hypothesis that a written document or set of written documents (in addition to the Gospel of Mark) were used by both the author of Matthew and the author of Luke as an important source of information about Jesus is EVIDENCE of the existence 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, and (d) rising from the dead. (Q does refer to a couple of alleged miracles performed by Jesus).
FOURTH, some scholars believe that the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas was composed earlier than, or about the same time as, the Gospels of the NT:
Scholars generally fall into one of two main camps: an "early camp" favoring a date for the "core" of between the years 50 and 100, before or approximately contemporary with the composition of the canonical gospels; and a more common "late camp" favoring a date in the 2nd century, after composition of the canonical gospels.
("Gospel of Thomas" in Wikipedia)
The Gospel of Thomas however, lacks some of the supernatural elements of the canonical Gospels:
The text contains a possible allusion to the death of Jesus in logion 65 (Parable of the Wicked Tenants, paralleled in the Synoptic Gospels), but does not mention his crucifixion, his resurrection, or the final judgement; nor does it mention a messianic understanding of Jesus.
("Gospel of Thomas" in Wikipedia)
Because the date of composition of the Gospel of Thomas is controversial and uncertain, this Gospel is not PROOF that there was an earlier account (prior to the canonical Gospels) of the life and death of Jesus that did NOT portray Jesus as (a) a divine person, (b) claiming to be divine, and (d) rising from the dead. However, some scholars assign an early date to the "core" of this Gospel, and if they are right, then the Gospel of Thomas would show that there was an earlier account of the life of Jesus that lacked some of the supernatural elements in the canonical Gospels. Thus, the Gospel of Thomas is EVIDENCE for the existence of such an account of the life of Jesus.
CONCLUSION ABOUT PREMISE (2) OF THE ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #3
Kreeft is simply WRONG on this point. I am not able to prove the existence 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, and I am not able to prove the existence of an earlier account (prior to the Gospels) of the life and death of Jesus that did NOT portray Jesus as (d) rising from the dead, but there is clearly SOME AVAILABLE EVIDENCE that supports these claims. Premise (2) is FALSE.
CONCLUSION ABOUT THE ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (B)
Premise (B) is the key premise in Kreeft's argument constituting his Objection #3 against the Myth Theory. The sub-argument for premise (B) is UNSOUND, because premise (2) is FALSE, and premises (1) and (A) are both DUBIOUS. Thus, Kreeft has FAILED to show that premise (B) is true, and premise (B) itself remains DUBIOUS.
CONCLUSION ABOUT OBJECTION #3
Kreef's argument for Objection #3 is INVALID because the inference from premise (B) to conclusion (C) is ILLOGICAL and INVALID. Kreeft's argument for Objection #3 is also UNSOUND, because it is based on the FALSE premise (2) and on the DUBIOUS premises (1) and (A). Therefore, Kreeft's Objection #3 against the Myth Theory FAILS.
No comments:
Post a Comment