2000 years from now, Evan Fales VII will use the same criteria as the present Evan Fales to decide that Abraham Lincoln never existed because he fits a mythic hero archaetype. Yes, Fales' chapter is one of those wacky-sack diatribes that claims that we ought to read the Gospels (and particularly for the essay, Matthew 12:39-40) as some sort of myth, not in terms of history, and its the sort of reasoning that we find everywhere in the land of Wild Skepticism from Alvin Boyd Kuhn to Acharya S to Lloyd M. Graham.

Since Fales' edifice crumbles under a few points reaffirming intent of historicity in Matthew, that's all we'll need to do.

• Generally, the technique and argument of Fales here falls under the analyses provided here and here
• Fales' attempt to drag the Gospels out of the genre of ancient biography is a particular failure. His only arguments against the classification are not informed by the classic and definitive study of Burridge; he also points to bioi of Aesop, Pythagoras, and Apollonius [310], though it is not clear why he thinks these change anything. Perhaps Fales supposes that the presence of miraculous events renders these bioi into the myuth category, but it is hardly clear that ie, Damis intended his reports to be taken as anything but credible history concerning the life of his hero. Fales' only other argument is a vague reference to variety within Judaism, which does not in any sense show that there was some otherwise unattested category-genre of "myth-biography".
• Likewise short-shrifted is the understanding of Matt. 12:39-40 which we note here. Fales merely dismisses this understanding as "grasping at straws" (while apparently, wholesale invention of a genre of mythic bioi is not!) because, even though Jesus was indeed addressing scribes and Pharisees, Fales asks, "can one seriously suppose him to have relied on such arcane, obscure, and probably contentious halachic (legal) technicalities in this context?" Yes, one can, and Fales does not explain why one can not. The matter is neither obscure nor arcane, in terms of what an educated Jew would understand; contentious it may have been, but that is beside the point, since it would still assume values offered by two or more sides. The explanation also does cover "three nights," Fales notwithstanding; his bare dismissal is thus inadequate, and is mere posturing.

In place of a straightforward reading that respects the clear genre of Matthew, Fales offers a wild eisegetical ride in which Matt. 12:39-40 is a myth-form transmitting a message about order and chaos, which he also sees as interconnected with Matt. 26. It is odd that Fales rejects the above understanding as "arcane" while also requiring a dozen pages or more to explain why we ought to read Matt. 12:39-40 the way he does instead. Is Fales seriously arguing that our reading would be more "arcane" and "obscure" to Matthew's readers than his would be?

Little more needs to be said. Fales' familiarity with the relevant Biblical scholarship is dismal; his lack of knowledge of Burridge's study of the bioi genre (and his false claim that Talbert said that the Gospels were in the genre of myth (! -- 336); his acceptance of the "rulers of the age" in 1 Cor. 2:6-8 as heavenly beings (debunked here; his acceptance of standard canards about the trial of Jesus (debunked here) make it clear that Fales' level of familiarity with the literature is selective at best and deceptive at worst, and that, along with the likeness of his presentation to that of lunatics like Kuhn, Acharya S, and Graham, mean that there is no reason to provide any more detailed response.