Based on Pocket handbook of Christian apologetics (2003) by Peter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli. This is a course taught at LTCi, Siliguri.

1. The Bible:
Myth or
Mystery
Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics
Chapter 10
Peter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli

2. The Bible, miracles and all the
resurrection stand close
together - if one falls they all fall.
For example people might say
their reasons for not believing in
the resurrection:
1. Miracles don’t happen
2. The Bible is myth, not history
The logic of arguing against
miracles, resurrection and the
bible must be in the right order -
otherwise the reasoning is
backward

3. To argue against miracles
and the resurrection
because the Bible is myth
is not the right way to
reason.
Instead the argument
should go like this:
If the resurrection really
did happen then miracles
are possible and therefore
the miracle stories in the
Bible can be [are?] history,
not myth.

4. To argue against miracles
and the resurrection
because the Bible is myth
is not the right way to
reason.
Instead the argument
should go like this:
If the resurrection really
did happen then miracles
are possible and therefore
the miracle stories in the
Bible can be [are?] history,
not myth.

5. If an unbeliever suggests
that the Bible is a myth
because it contains
unbelievable miracle stories
like the resurrection. This is
circular reasoning. It is
arguing that the
resurrection is a myth
because the Bible is a
myth, and the Bible is a
myth because it contains
mythical stories like the
resurrection.

6. The role of Scripture in Apologetics
There are 2 extremes - the
fundamentalist extreme and
the modernist extreme.
The fundamentalist extreme
[ position]
Most who are fundamentalist
(and also many who are called
evangelicals) will only start
their apologetics from
Scripture - the authors argue
against this on 3 grounds:

7. 1. They think it is necessary to
start by convincing you of the
authority of Scripture because
they think that natural human
reason alone, apart from
Scripture, is not strong enough
or good enough to direct
unbelievers to belief.
2. Therefore, they think the only
right order in apologetics is to
first prove the authority of
Scripture - then you can move
onto other apologetic issues
with this weapon in hand

8. 3. Special standards must be
used to understand and interpret
Scripture, since, unlike all other
books it is not just man’s words
about God but God’s words
about man.
Kreeft also notes the first
Christians for many centuries
did their apologetics without the
NT being defined (no canon was
formed until ??). Added to which
belief in a Creator God (and the
possibility salvation) have come
through rational arguments.

9. One might say it is hard to
start by proving the authority
of Scripture - it is easier to
start with the existence of
God, the divinity of Christ etc.
The arguments are often put in
a different order. So it is not,
1. Scripture is infallible
2. Therefore Christ is infallible
3. Therefore Christ is divine

10. A more convincing order is,
1. Scripture is reliable as
historical record, as data
2. Christ’s claims to divinity are
found in Scripture
3. Then comes the argument
for the truth of these claims -
as we studied previously.
We can confront someone with
the claims of Christ before
talking to them about
Scripture.

11. We might also ask if a
nonbeliever would feel they
should automatically give
Scripture special treatment
or assumptions - probably
they would want to be
convinced that it deserves
special treatment as the
WOG without this being
presupposed.

12. The modernist extreme - if
fundamentalists worship
Scripture then modernists
trash it. However both sides
use the same special
standards in judging the
Bible, standards they do not
apply to other books.

13. Fundamentalists interpret
everything they possibly can
as literally as possible and
insist on a believing attitude
from the start. Modernists
interpret as much as possible
(esp. Miracles and morally
unpopular ideas) non-literally
and start with an unbelieving
skeptical attitude to the Bible.

14. Kreeft says that modernists tend
towards eisegesis - reading
things into the text - cf
exegesis, reading things out of
it. This means it has a worldview
of naturalism, denying miracles
and the supernatural - all of this
is then read into the text - in this
they impose something alien
upon the text.
Fundamentalists read into the
text their own version of
supernaturalism, something
which it already contains.

15. Kreeft says unbelievers
say:
1. Christianity is what the
NT teaches
2. Christianity is false
Christians say,
1. Christianity is what the
NT teaches
2. Christianity is true

16. Modernist theologians want
peace with both sides of the
argument - so they say,
1. Christianity is not what the
NT teaches at face value but
what has been selected by
modernists - the love ethic
with out miracles
2. This refined version of
Christianity is true

17. Kreeft reminds us of Gal 1:8
But even if we or an angel from
heaven should preach a gospel
other than the one we preached to
you, let them be under God’s
curse!
The Bible, WOG on paper - should
lead us to Christ, WOG in flesh.
If we look again at Christ we said
we had a choice - Lord, liar, lunatic
- this was based on what we said
the Bible claimed Christ said - but
what if Christ did not claim this, if
the Bible (NT texts) is lying?

18. Kreeft suggests theologians
who have tried to make the
Bible out to e a myth, have
caused more people to lose
their faith than any atheistic
arguments of the 20th
century - this has taken
place by the historical-
critical method and higher
criticism. In effect they have
changed wine to water and
faith to myth. Kreeft says the
data makes such a change
impossible:

19. 1. If a neutral, scientific approach is used on NT texts
(as with other historical documents) then the texts
prove remarkably reliable. Repeatedly the Bible has
been attacked, debunked, demythologised and
demeaned - yet it remains living and powerful!

20. 2. The state of the manuscripts is good
- we have 500 copies earlier than
500AD, for the Iliad we have only 50
copies produced within 500 years of
its origin. For Tacitus writing the annals
f Rome there is only 1 copy written
within 500 years of the original.
One could question if it is the
recording of miracles which makes
people question the NT documents,
not their historical validity - not science
but prejudice.

21. “The manuscripts that we
have, in addition to being old,
are also mutually reinforcing
and consistent. There are very
few discrepancies and no really
important ones. And all later
discoveries of manuscripts,
such as the Dead Sea Scrolls,
have confirmed rather than
refuted previously existing
manuscripts in every important
case. There is simply no other
ancient text in nearly as good a
shape.”

22. 3. If Jesus' divinity is a myth invented by later
generations("the early Christian community," = "the
inventors of the myth"), then there must have been at
least 2-3 generations between the original
eyewitnesses of the historical Jesus and the universal
belief in the new, mythic, divinized Jesus; otherwise,
the myth could never have been believed as fact
because it would have been refuted by eyewitnesses
of the real Jesus. Both disciples and enemies would
have had reasons to oppose this new myth.

23. There is no evidence of anyone
opposing the so-called myth of the
divine Jesus in the name of an earlier
merely human Jesus. The early
"demythologizers" explicitly claimed
that the New Testament texts had to
have been written after A.D. 150 for the
myth to have taken hold. But no
competent scholar today denies the
first-century dating of virtually all of the
NT-certainly Paul's letters, which clearly
affirm and presuppose Jesus' divinity
and the fact that this doctrine was
already universal Christian orthodoxy.

24. 4. If a mythic "layer" had been
added later onto an originally
merely human Jesus, we should
find some evidence, at least
indirectly and second-hand, of
this earlier layer. We find instead
an absolute and total absence of
any such evidence anywhere,
either internal (in the NT texts
themselves) or external,
anywhere else, in Christian, anti-
Christian, or non-Christian
sources.

25. 5. The Gospel style is not the style
of myth, but of real, though
unscientific, eyewitness description.
Anyone sensitive to literary styles
can compare the Gospels to any of
the mythic religious literature of the
time, and the differences will appear
remarkable and unmistakable- e.g.,
intertestamental apocalyptic
literature of Jews and Gentiles,
pagan mythic fantasies like Ovid's
Metamorphoses or Flavius
Philostratus's story of the wonder-
worker Apollonius of Tyana (AD220).

26. If the events in the Gospels did not
really happen, then the authors invented
modern realistic fantasy 19 centuries
ago. The Gospels are full of little details,
both of external observation and internal
feelings, that are found only in
eyewitness descriptions or modern
realistic fiction. They also include many
little details of life in first-century Israel
that could not have been known by
someone not living in that time and
place (e.g. Jn 12:3). And there are no
second-century anachronisms, either in
language or content.

27. 6. The claim of Jesus to be God
makes sense of his trial and
crucifixion. The Jewish sensitivity
to blasphemy was unique; no one
else would so fanatically insist on
death as punishment for claiming
divinity. In the Roman world, the
attitude toward the gods was "the
more, the merrier."
Jesus had no political ambitions. -
politics cannot explain his
crucifixion. He disappointed the
political expectations of friends
and enemies.

28. The main reason why most Jews
rejected his claim to be the Messiah
was that he did not liberate them
from Roman political oppression.
Why then was he crucified? The
political excuse that he was
Caesar's rival was a lie trumped up
to justify his execution, since
Roman law did not recognize
blasphemy as grounds for
execution and the Jews had no
legal power to enforce their own
religious laws of capital punishment
under Roman rule.

29. Why then was he
crucified? The political
excuse that he was
Caesar's rival was a lie
trumped up to justify his
execution, since Roman
law did not recognize
blasphemy as grounds
for execution and the
Jews had no legal power
to enforce their own
religious laws of capital
punishment under
Roman rule.

30. 7. There are 4 Gospels, not just one -
written by 4 different writers, at 4
different times, probably for 4 different
audiences and for 4 somewhat
different purposes and emphases. So
a lot of cross-checking is possible. By
a textual triangulation, we can fix the
facts with far greater assurance here
than with any other ancient
personage or series of events. The
only inconsistencies are in chronology
(only Luke's Gospel claims to be in
order) and accidentals like numbers
(e.g. did the women see one angel or
two at the empty tomb?).

31. 8. If the divine Jesus of the
Gospels is a myth, who invented
it? Whether it was his first
disciples or some later
generation, no possible motive
can account for this invention.
For until the Edict of Milan in
A.D. 313, Christians were
subject to persecution, often
tortured and martyred, and
hated and oppressed for their
beliefs. No one invents an
elaborate practical joke in order
to be crucified, stoned or
beheaded.

32. 9. First-century Jews and Christians
were not prone to believe in myths.
They were already more
"demythologized" than any other
people. The orthodox were adamantly,
even cantankerously and intolerantly,
opposed to the polytheistic myths of
paganism and to any ecumenical
syncretism. Nor would anyone be less
likely to confuse myth and fact than a
Jew. Peter declares that the Gospel
story is historical fact, not "cleverly
devised myths" 2 Pet 1:16

33. 10. Finally, if you read the
Gospels with an open mind and
heart, you may well conclude,
along with Dostoevsky and
Kierkegaard, that no mere man
could possibly have invented
this story.