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:

Kreeft has FAILED to refute the Myth Theory.  Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus requires that he refute four skeptical theories, one of which is the Myth Theory.  Since Kreeft FAILED to refute the Myth Theory, his case for the resurrection of Jesus also FAILS.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 1: What is the Myth Theory?

In Part 1, I show that we should understand the Myth Theory in terms of the following definition:

The Myth Theory is true IF AND ONLY IF: (a) the apostles created the story that Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday morning less than 48 hours after Jesus had been crucified, and (b) their intention was for others to take this story to be a myth, not a literal account of an actual historical event.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 2: The Style of the Gospels (Objection #1)

In Part 2, I show that Kreeft's argument for Objection #1 against the Myth Theory involves an INVALID inference and thus that Objection #1 FAILS.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 3: Not Enough Time for Myth to Develop (Objection #2)

In Part 3, I show that 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.

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

In Part 4, I showed that the inference from premise (B) to the conclusion (C) is INVALID and ILLOGICAL, so the argument constituting Objection #3 FAILS because a key inference in the argument 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. 

I also claimed that this argument is probably UNSOUND because the three premises supporting premise (B) of Objection # 3 are all DUBIOUS.  Thus, it is likely that at least one of those three premises is FALSE.

Premise (1) is one of those three premises supporting premise (B):

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.

In order to show that premise (1) of Objection # 3 is DUBIOUS, I review the "Scriptural Data" provided by Kreeft in support of the divinity of Jesus and in support of Jesus claiming to be divine, from the end of Chapter 7 of his book Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Kreeft makes twenty-one points on this issue, each supported by various passages from the New Testament.

In Part 4, I argue that we can set aside fifteen of Kreeft's twenty-one points because (a) some are not supported by any Gospel passage, (b) some are only supported by Gospel passages from the Gospel of John, and (c) some clearly apply to people who are NOT divine and thus fall short of giving a sufficient reason for concluding that a person is God.

We are left with just six points from Kreeft's list of twenty-one points 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...

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 5: Kreeft's Scriptural Data on Six Points about Jesus being God

In Part 5, I showed that three of Kreeft's six remaining points FAIL (point #6, point #7, and point #21), and that another point depends on point #2 (if point #2 FAILS, then so does point #18).  

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 6: Kreeft's Two Best Points about Jesus being God

In Part 6, I showed that Kreeft's point #2 FAILS to provide solid and adequate support for premise (1), and so does point #18, which is also based on the questionable assumption that the title "son of God" in Matthew implied that Jesus was God.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 7:  Portraying Jesus as Being Rightly Worshiped

In Part 7, I showed that Kreeft's final remaining point (Point #12 about Jesus being rightly worshiped) FAILS to adequately support premise (1) of Objection #3.  Thus, I concluded that Kreeft's twenty-one points of "Scriptural Data" about the deity of Jesus FAIL to provide solid and adequate support for premise (1), and that premise (1) is therefore DUBIOUS.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 8: Evaluation of Premise (A)

Premise (A) is another premise supporting premise (B) in Objection #3:

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.

In Part 8, I argued that premise (A) of Objection #3 is DUBIOUS.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 9: Evaluation of Premise (2)

Premise (2) is another premise supporting premise (B) in 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.

In Part 9, I argued that premise (2) is FALSE.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 10: Women Were the First Witnesses (Objection #4)

In Part #10, I analyzed Kreeft's chain of reasoning that constitutes his Objection #4 against the Myth Theory. 

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 11: Evaluation of Kreeft's Objection #4

In Part #11, 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.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 12: The NT Distinguishes Myth from Fact (Objection #5)

In Part #12, I analyzed and clarified Kreeft's argument for his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 13: Evaluation of Kreeft's Objection #5

In Part #13, I showed that the first sub-argument in the chain of reasoning in Objection #5 is a BAD argument, and that the second sub-argument is a BAD argument, and that the third sub-argument in this chain of reasoning is a BAD argument.  Since at least three out of four of the sub-arguments in Kreeft's reasoning are BAD arguments, it is clear that his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory FAILS.  

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 14: Evaluation of Objection #5 Completed

In Part 14, I have shown that the fourth sub-argument was also a BAD argument. Thus, it is clear that Kreeft's Objection #5 against the Myth Theory FAILS.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 15: The Gospels were Written by Eyewitnesses (Objection #6)

Based on Kreeft's summary of his Objection #6, this objection makes two key claims:

• The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses.
• The Gospels we have today are the same Gospels originally written.

Even if we assume that both of these claims are true, that does NOT show that the Myth Theory is false. So, if Kreeft's summary of his Objection #6 is accurate, then his Objection #6 FAILS.  

However, Kreeft's own summary of his Objection #6 is inaccurate, because he makes another key claim in his presentation of this objection, a claim that is actually RELEVANT to the Myth Theory:

• The Gospels were written by the disciples.

It is clearly and obviously the case that the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke were NOT written by any of the eleven disciples, so it is clearly and obviously the case that the one and ONLY relevant claim made by Kreeft in Objection #6 is FALSE.   Therefore, Kreeft's Objection #6 against the Myth Theory FAILS, just like every single one of his previous five objections FAILED.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 15: The Gospels were Written by Eyewitnesses (Objection #6)

 WHERE WE ARE

Kreeft's chain of reasoning that constitutes his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory consists of four sub-arguments.  In Part 13 of this series, I have shown that each of the first three sub-arguments in that chain of reasoning was a BAD argument.  In Part 14 of this series, I have shown that the fourth sub-argument was also a BAD argument. Thus, it is clear that Kreeft's Objection #5 against the Myth Theory FAILS, just like each one of his previous four objections against the Myth Theory FAILED:

We have seen that the first five objections that Peter Kreeft has raised against the Myth Theory have all FAILED.  So, it seems likely that his sixth and final objection will also FAIL.

It is now time to examine Kreeft's Objection #6 against the Myth Theory.

KREEFT'S SUMMARY OF OBJECTION #6

Based on Kreeft's own summary of his Objection #6 it appears that this objection FAILS because it has the same serious defect as all of the previous objections: it focuses on the Gospels instead of on the preaching and teaching of the apostles. 

Here are the two claims that Kreeft presents as the summary of Objection #6:

• The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses.
• The Gospels we have today are the same Gospels originally written.

Even if we assume that both of these claims are true, that does NOT show that the Myth Theory is false.  These claims, if true, would enhance the credibility of the Gospels, but the Myth Theory is NOT about the Gospels. The Myth Theory is about the preaching and teaching of the apostles.  So, if Kreeft's summary of his Objection #6 is accurate, then his Objection #6 FAILS.  

However, Kreeft's own summary of his Objection #6 is inaccurate, because he makes another key claim in his presentation of this objection, a claim that is actually RELEVANT to the Myth Theory:

• The Gospels were written by the disciples.

Kreeft's use of the phrase "the disciples" implies that he is talking about the eleven disciples who were part of the inner circle of followers of Jesus (i.e. the twelve disciples minus Judas Iscariot).  

If Kreeft could establish that the Gospels were all written by different members of the eleven disciples, then the Gospels would presumably represent the teaching of the original disciples of Jesus, which would make the content of the Gospels directly relevant to the Myth Theory.

Thus my focus for the rest of this post will be exclusively on this part of Objection #6: the claim that each of the Gospels was written by a different member of the eleven disciples.

KREEFT'S KEY CLAIM IN OBJECTION #6 IS CLEARLY FALSE

No New Testament scholar believes that the Gospel of Luke was written by one of the eleven disciples.  Furthermore, Kreeft makes no attempt to argue that the author of the Gospel of Luke was written by one of the eleven disciples. None of the eleven disciples was named "Luke".  We may confidently reject the idea that this Gospel was written by one of the eleven disciples.

No New Testament scholar believes that the Gospel of Mark was written by one of the eleven disciples.  Furthermore, Kreeft makes no attempt to argue that the author of the Gospel of Mark was written by one of the eleven disciples. None of the eleven disciples was named "Mark".  We may confidently reject the idea that this Gospel was written by one of the eleven disciples.

Thus, it is clear that at least two of the four Gospels were NOT written by one of the eleven disciples.  Therefore, Kreeft's key claim, the only claim in Objection #6 that is relevant to the Myth Theory, is clearly FALSE.  Thus, Objection #6 FAILS, just like every one of the previous five objections FAILED.

Furthermore, although the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John were traditionally ascribed to Jesus's disciples named Matthew and John, most NT scholars doubt or reject this traditional view. Kreeft is clearly ignorant about NT scholarship and is in no position to argue against serious NT scholars who reject the traditional authorship of these two Gospels.  So, Kreeft's key claim is probably FALSE even in the cases of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John.

KREEFT'S SPECIFIC POINTS ABOUT THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE GOSPELS 

POINT 1. The style of writing in the four Gospels is simple and alive.

This is only weak evidence, not proof, that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses.  Because the eleven disciples were not the only eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus, this point, even if true, does not show that ANY of the Gospels was written by one of the eleven disciples. 

Furthermore, this point applies to the Gospel of Mark and to the Gospel of Luke, which we know were NOT written by any of the eleven disciples.  Thus, this point is clearly an UNRELIABLE indicator for determining whether a Gospel was written by one of the eleven disciples.

POINT 2. The Gospel of Luke was written before 70 CE.

This is only weak evidence, not proof, that the Gospel of Luke was written by an eyewitness.  Even if that were true, that would not show that the Gospel of Luke was written by one of the eleven disciples.  

Furthermore, this point tells us NOTHING about who wrote the Gospel of Matthew or who wrote the Gospel of John.

POINT 3. The Gospels show intimate knowledge of Jerusalem prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

POINT 4. Jesus's prophecies about the destruction of Jerusalem show the Gospels were written before 70CE.

POINT 5. Stories of Jesus's weaknesses and of his disciples faults bespeak  Gospel accuracy.

POINT 6. The Gospels make no attempt to suppress apparent discrepancies between each other.

POINT 7. The Gospels do not contain anachronisms.

My criticisms of Kreeft's Point 1 above apply also to his Points 3 through 7.  So, NONE of Kreeft's specific points so far show that ANY Gospel was written by one of the eleven disciples.

POINT 8. The disciples must have left some writings, engaged as they were in giving lessons to and counseling believers who were geographically distant.

Since the eleven disciples were probably illiterate, it is unlikely they would have left any writings.  They also believed that Jesus would soon return to Earth, so they would have little concern about preserving their teachings for future generations.  Also, most of the first Christians were illiterate, so there would be little obvious benefit from putting their teachings into writing. Finally, Jesus did not leave any writings for his followers, so the disciples might well have followed Jesus's example, and taught and preached without leaving any writings of their teachings.

We have very little knowledge about what the eleven disciples did and said, especially after Jesus died.  So, Kreeft's claims about the activities of the eleven disciples are DUBIOUS.

Furthermore, this point applies to the Gospel of Mark and to the Gospel of Luke, which we know were NOT written by any of the eleven disciples.  Thus, this point is clearly an UNRELIABLE indicator for determining whether a Gospel was written by one of the eleven disciples.

POINT 9. There were many eyewitnesses who were still alive when the Gospels were written who could testify whether they came from their purported authors or not.

This point assumes that the Gospels were all written before 70 CE, a conclusion that most NT scholars reject.

Kreeft is apparently ignorant of the fact that the traditional titles of the Gospels (e.g. "The Gospel according to Matthew") that specify the traditional authors were not assigned until long after the Gospels were written, at which point any eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus would have already died.

Since Luke and Mark were not part of the eleven disciples, the traditional authors of the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Mark, if accepted as correct, show that at least two of the four Gospels were NOT written by one of the eleven disciples.

POINT 10.  Various extra-biblical writers testified to the traditional authors of the Gospels.

NT scholars are aware of these extra-biblical writers and what they say about the authorship of the Gospels. But scholars view those writers as unreliable and have good reasons for these doubts. Kreeft is either ignorant of the reasons and evidence that NT scholars give against the traditional authors of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John, or he simply ignores their reasons and evidence to keep his readers in the dark.

Since Luke and Mark were not part of the eleven disciples, the traditional authors of the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Mark, if accepted as correct, show that at least two of the four Gospels were NOT written by one of the eleven disciples.

POINT 11. Only one apocryphal gospel is ever quoted by any known author during the first three hundred years after Christ.

The term "apocryphal" basically means "inauthentic".  In making this claim, Kreeft ASSUMES that all four of the canonical Gospels were authentic.  In this context, that presumably means that the four canonical Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or that each of the four canonical Gospels was written by one of the eleven disciples.  But those are the very questions at issue!  So, Kreeft is committing the FALLACY OF BEGGING THE QUESTION by simply ASSUMING the very thing that he is supposed to be PROVING.  

POINT 11 gives us no reason whatsoever to believe that ANY of the Gospels was written by one of the eleven disciples.

EVALUATION OF OBJECTION #6

Based on Kreeft's summary of his Objection #6, this objection makes two key claims:

• The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses.
• The Gospels we have today are the same Gospels originally written.

Even if we assume that both of these claims are true, that does NOT show that the Myth Theory is false. So, if Kreeft's summary of his Objection #6 is accurate, then his Objection #6 FAILS.  

However, Kreeft's own summary of his Objection #6 is inaccurate, because he makes another key claim in his presentation of this objection, a claim that is actually RELEVANT to the Myth Theory:

• The Gospels were written by the disciples.

It is clearly and obviously the case that the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke were NOT written by any of the eleven disciples, so it is clearly and obviously the case that the one and ONLY relevant claim made by Kreeft in Objection #6 is FALSE.   Therefore, Kreeft's Objection #6 against the Myth Theory FAILS, just like every single one of his previous five objections FAILED:

I have also stepped through each of Kreeft's eleven specific points about the authorship of the Gospels, and we saw that NONE of these points show that ANY of the Gospels was written by one of the eleven disciples.  So, there can be no doubt that Kreeft's Objection #6 is a complete and utter FAILURE.

Defending the MYTH THEORY - Part 14: Evaluation of Objection #5 Completed

 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.

In Part #13 of this series, I showed that the first sub-argument in the above chain of reasoning is a BAD argument, and that the second sub-argument is a BAD argument, and that the third sub-argument in this chain of reasoning is a BAD argument.  Since at least three out of four of the sub-arguments in Kreeft's reasoning are BAD arguments, it is clear that his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory FAILS.  

It is now time to evaluate the fourth and final sub-argument in this chain of reasoning for Objection #5. 

EVALUATION OF THE FOURTH SUB-ARGUMENT IN OBJECTION #5

Here is the fourth sub-argument in Kreeft's chain of reasoning that constitutes his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory:

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.

First of all, Kreeft has clearly FAILED to show that premise (C) is true, so the premise of this argument remains DUBIOUS. 

My initial evaluation of the inference from (C) to (D) is that this is a VALID inference but that it also commits the FALLACY OF CIRCULAR REASONING.  This will take a bit of explanation.

It seems, initially, that if it is NOT the case that NT stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories, then this implies that those stories are true historical accounts of actual events.  If the NT stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are true historical accounts of actual events, then Jesus actually physically rose from the dead.  Furthermore, if Jesus actually physically rose from the dead, then it would seem to be the case that the Myth Theory is false.  Here is how, at least at first glance, I would make a logical connection between premise (C) and conclusion (D):

C. It is NOT the case that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories.

Therefore:

E. The New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are true historical accounts of actual events.

Therefore:

F. Jesus actually physically rose from the dead.

Therefore:

D. The Myth Theory is FALSE.

Assuming, for now, that the inferences here are logical and VALID, there is still a problem with this reasoning.  The problem is that premise (F) is supposed to be the ULTIMATE CONCLUSION of Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus.  The logic of his case for the resurrection is to refute four skeptical theories about the alleged resurrection of Jesus in order to prove that Jesus actually physically rose from the dead.  But that logic is turned upside-down here.  Here the resurrection of Jesus is (supposedly) proven as the basis for then refuting one of the skeptical theories.  This is a form of the FALLACY OF CIRCULAR REASONING.  Kreeft cannot use the resurrection of Jesus as the basis for refuting the Myth Theory, and then turn around and use the refutation of the Myth Theory to prove the resurrection.  That is reasoning in a circle.

If Kreeft has a way to directly prove that Jesus actually physically rose from the dead, a proof that does NOT involve refuting various skeptical theories about the resurrection, then there is NO POINT to all of his efforts to refute various skeptical theories.  Kreeft characterized his case for the resurrection as being BASED UPON his refutations of four skeptical theories, but the reasoning I outlined here, reverses that logical order, and makes his refutation of the Myth Theory BASED UPON a direct proof of the resurrection of Jesus.   Combining these two very different approaches requires Kreeft to commit the FALLACY OF CIRCULAR REASONING:

F. Jesus actually physically rose from the dead.

Therefore:

D. The Myth Theory is FALSE.

G. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.

H. The Conspiracy Theory is FALSE.

I. The Swoon Theory is FALSE.

Therefore:

 F. Jesus actually physically rose from the dead.

So, if I have correctly represented the reasoning that is involved in making the logical connection between premise (C) and conclusion (D), then the sub-argument for (D) has at least two serious problems: 

• Premise (C) is DUBIOUS
• This reasoning involves the FALLACY OF CIRCULAR REASONING.

RE-EXAMINATION OF PREMISE (C) 

In considering this final sub-argument, it occurs to me that the phrase "fictional stories" is not as clear as I previously thought.  I now think that this is a complex and perhaps ambiguous phrase, and that it might be about as problematic as the ambigous term "myth".  So, I'm going to attempt to clarify this premise again, to see how a clearer understanding of this premise impacts my evaluation of this final sub-argument.

One idea I had in mind in talking about "fictional stories" is the idea of "false or untrue stories".  If we say that some story is NOT a "false or untrue story" that seems to imply that it is a TRUE story.

But another interpretation of "fictional stories" is the idea of a "made up or invented story".  While "made up or invented stories" are usually also "false or untrue stories" that is not necessarily the case.  A "made up" story might turn out to be true.  

Authors of fictional stories are often inspired by actual events in the lives of actual people, either people who they know personally or people who they read about in newspapers or magazine articles or in books.  So, in some cases, a character in a work of fiction might have the same personality, the same job, and be involved in the same events as an actual living person, or as an actual historical person.  Fiction often imitates reality, so a story can match up well with the life, or some of the experiences of, an actual person and actual events.  In that case, the story, or part of the story, would be true and actual even though the story is "made up" or "invented" and "fictional".

A third sense of the phrase "fictional stories" concerns genre, which is primarily about the intentions of the author about how readers are to view and understand his/her story.  An author writes a "fictional story" if the author intends for readers to view and understand his/her story as being fictional, as being made up or invented, and NOT as being an accurate historical account of actual people and actual events.  This is closely related to the concept of "myth" as I understand this concept.  The creator of a myth intends his/her readers to view and understand the story that is a myth as being a myth, as being a made-up or invented story about gods or angels or spirits or some other supernatural beings or forces.  This third sense of "fictional stories" seems to be the most relevant for clarification of premise (C):

C. It is NOT the case that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are fictional stories.

A revised and clarified version of (C):

C1. It is NOT the case that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are intended by the authors of the stories to be viewed and understood by readers as being made-up or invented stories.

From (C1), we can infer a relevant conclusion:

C1. It is NOT the case that the New Testament stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus are intended by the authors of the stories to be viewed and understood by readers as being made-up or invented stories.

Therefore:

J. It is NOT the case that the stories in the Gospels about the death and resurrection of Jesus are intended by the authors of the stories to be viewed and understood by readers as being made-up or invented stories.  

Therefore:

D. The Myth Theory is FALSE.

This seems like a more reasonable and plausible argument than the chain of reasoning that I constructed previously to try to logically connect premise (C) to the conclusion (D).  Based on the Principle of Charity, this appears to be a better interpretation of Kreeft's reasoning in the fourth and final sub-argument constituting Objection #5.

The inference from (C1) to (J) appears to be logical and VALID.  However, the inference from (J) to (D) is ILLOGICAL and INVALID. Thus, this final sub-argument is a BAD argument, and Objection #5 FAILS.

There are two problems with the inference from (J) to (D).  First, the intentions of the authors of the Gospels for their readers to view and understand their stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus NOT as being made-up or invented stories, does NOT imply that those stories are in fact NOT made-up or invented, nor does this imply that the stories are accurate historical accounts of actual events.  The authors of the Gospels might be naively and unintentionally passing on myths and legends, mistakenly thinking they were passing on accurate historical information about the death and alleged resurrection of Jesus.  Or they may just be passing on false or inaccurate information and not realize that their stories contain false and inaccurate information.

The second problem with the inference from (J) to (D) is the same problem we have seen with every one of the preceding objections by Kreeft against the Myth Theory.  Premise (J) is about the Gospels and the intentions of the authors of the Gospels.  But Kreeft's characterization of the Myth Theory implies that the Myth Theory is NOT about the Gospels, but is about the preaching and teaching of the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus ("the apostles") and about their intentions concerning their stories about the death and alleged resurrection of Jesus.  

Because the Myth Theory is NOT about the Gospels, premise (J) is simply IRRELEVANT to the conclusion (D), and thus the inference in this fourth and final sub-argument is ILLOGICAL and INVALID.  Thus, Kreeft's Objection #5 FAILS.

CONCLUSION ABOUT OBJECTION #5

Kreeft's chain of reasoning that constitutes his Objection #5 against the Myth Theory consists of four sub-arguments.  I have shown that each of the four sub-arguments in that chain of reasoning is a BAD argument.  Thus, it is clear that Kreeft's Objection #5 against the Myth Theory FAILS, just like each one of his previous four objections against the Myth Theory FAILED.