WHERE WE ARE
Here is Peter Kreeft's argument for his Objection #13 against the Hallucination Theory:
1. The Hallucination Theory explains only the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus.
2. The Hallucination Theory does not explain the empty tomb, the rolled-away stone, or the inability of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem to produce the corpse of Jesus.
3. The only theory that explains all these data (i.e. the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus, the empty tomb, the rolled-away stone, and the inability of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem to produce the corpse of Jesus) is the theory that Jesus actually physically rose from the dead.
Therefore:
A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.
In Part 40 of this series, I showed that this argument is INVALID, and that premise (1) is FALSE. Thus, the argument constituting Objection #13 is UNSOUND and should be rejected.
In Part 41 of this series, we saw that premise (2) assumes that "the empty tomb" and "the rolled-away stone" are FACTS. In Part 42 of this series, I showed that "the empty tomb" and "the rolled-away stone" are NOT FACTS, so premise (2) should be rejected, and thus Kreeft's argument for Objection #13 is UNSOUND and should be rejected. Therefore, Objection #13 FAILS, just like every single one of the previous dozen objections by Kreeft against the Hallucination Theory has FAILED.
PREMISE (3) OF OBJECTION #13
It is now time to evaluate premise (3) of Kreeft's argument for Objection #13:
3. The only theory that explains all these data (i.e. the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus, the empty tomb, the rolled-away stone, and the inability of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem to produce the corpse of Jesus) is the theory that Jesus actually physically rose from the dead.
In order for premise (3) to be true, the theory that Jesus actually physically rose from the dead must explain at least four things:
- the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus
- the empty tomb
- the rolled-away stone
- the inability of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem to produce the corpse of Jesus
DOES THE THEORY THAT JESUS PHYSICALLY ROSE FROM THE DEAD EXPLAIN THE APPEARANCES OF THE RISEN JESUS?
The Resurrection Theory does provide an explanation for why some of Jesus' followers had experiences that they would describe as seeing the risen Jesus. However, the explanation is partial, not entirely satisfactory, and is an inferior explanation in comparison to the Hallucination Theory, at least in terms of some significant aspects of the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus.
First, the evidence from the Gospels indicates that Jesus did NOT appear to his eleven disciples in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday. Rather, it is likely that the first appearances of the risen Jesus to his eleven disciples took place in Galilee a week or more after Jesus was crucified. If Jesus had actually physically risen from the dead on Easter Sunday, then we would have expected him to visit his disciples in Jerusalem before heading back to Galilee.
On the other hand, if the appearances of the risen Jesus to his eleven disciples were hallucinations or dreams, it is likely that it would have taken some time for this experience to occur, and this was more likely to occur in Galilee, where the eleven disciples were from and where they had been following Jesus for most of the time. So, the Hallucination Theory fits better with the fact that the first appearances of the risen Jesus to the eleven disciples took place in Galilee a week or more after Jesus was crucified.
Second, the appearances of Jesus in the days and weeks after his crucifixion were limited to his friends, family, and followers. If Jesus had physically risen from the dead, then we would expect him to also have been seen by people who were not friends, family, or followers.
On the other hand, if the appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples were hallucinations or dreams, it is likely that he would have only appeared to friends, family, or followers, and not to others. Friends, family, and followers had a closer emotional connection with Jesus and had more frequent experiences of seeing and hearing Jesus. So, the Hallucination Theory fits better with the fact that the appearances of the risen Jesus were limited to his friends, family, and followers in the days and weeks following his crucifixion.
Third, in some of the appearances of the risen Jesus, Jesus was not immediately recognized. If Jesus had actually physically risen from the dead, then we would have expected him to be immediately recognized when seen by friends, family, or by his followers.
On the other hand, it is commonplace in dreams for a person who appears in a dream to not look like that person normally looks, and yet for the dreamer to be able to somehow identify that person anyway. So, the Hallucination Theory fits better with this odd phenomenon of appearances of the risen Jesus not being immediately identified as being Jesus.
Finally, in some of the appearances of the risen Jesus, Jesus is able to violate laws of physics: he vanishes into thin air, walks through solid doors, and he rises up into the clouds. The resurrection of Jesus from the dead does NOT explain this strange phenomenon. Just because Jesus died and came back to life does NOT mean that Jesus can violate the laws of physics at will. Coming back to life does NOT necessarily turn someone into a wizard or superhuman being with supernatural powers. If Jesus had physically risen from the dead we would have expected his body to continue to be subject to the laws of physics.
Lazarus was raised from the dead by Jesus, according to the Gospel of John, but there is no indication that Lazarus developed magical or supernatural powers. Lazarus had to be unbound from his graveclothes, according to the Gospel of John, so he presumably did not have the supernatural power of being able to simply pass through those pieces of cloth.
One could explain the supernatural abilities of the risen Jesus by asserting that Jesus had a new body with supernatural powers, or that after the resurrection Jesus became omnipotent (or began to exercise his omnipotence). But these are in themselves EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS that are IN ADDITION to the extraordinary claim that Jesus died and came back to life again. So, if in order to explain the apparent supernatural powers of the risen Jesus we have to add these further EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS, then the combination of this additional extraordinary claim with the original extraordinary claim makes the hypothesis not only more complicated but much more improbable.
On the other hand, it is common in both dreams and hallucinations for people to seem to violate the laws of physics. One of the most common dreams that people have is to dream of flying like a bird. But human beings cannot fly like a bird. That is not physically possible. In a dream or a hallucination, people can vanish into thin air, pass through a door, or fly up into the clouds. Such dreams and hallucinations occur frequently. So, the Hallucination Theory fits better with the phenomenon of appearances of the risen Jesus in which Jesus seems to violate the laws of physics.
Although the Resurrection Theory does provide some explanation for the appearances of the risen Jesus, there are various aspects of those appearances that the Hallucination Theory explains better.
Furthermore, if the Resurrection Theory does NOT explain the rolled-away stone, then it also does NOT explain the appearances of the risen Jesus, because if a large stone was placed to close up the entrance to the tomb where Jesus was buried, and if that large stone was not moved from the entrance of the tomb, then presumably Jesus would have been trapped inside of the tomb, and he would not have appeared to anyone, including his eleven disciples. I will argue below that the Resurrection Theory does NOT explain the rolled-away stone, so it appears that the Resurrection Theory does NOT actually explain (i.e. predict) the appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples.
THE RESURRECTION THEORY DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE ROLLED-AWAY STONE
According to Christian apologists, not only was there a stone blocking the entrance of the tomb of Jesus, but it was too large for one person to move. Here is what Kreeft says about the stone:
Roman guards would not fall asleep on the job [i.e. guarding Jesus' tomb]. like that; if they did, they would lose their lives. And even if they did fall asleep, the crowd and the effort and the noise it would have taken to move an enormous boulder would have wakened them.
(Handbook of Christian Apologetics, p.184)
Josh McDowell makes a similar comment in making his case for the resurrection:
A two-ton stone was somehow moved from the tomb entrance while a Roman guard stood watch.
(The Resurrection Factor, p. 74)
If it would have taken a great effort by a crowd of people to move the "enormous boulder" away from the entrance of the tomb, then presumably one man by himself would not be able to move the stone away from the entrance of the tomb. So, the Resurrection Theory does NOT imply that Jesus would have appeared to his disciples in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday, nor does it imply that Jesus would have appeared to his disciples in Galilee a week or more after the crucifixion. What the Resurrection Theory implies is that Jesus would have been stuck in the tomb because an "enormous boulder" at the entrance of the tomb would have prevented him from leaving the tomb.
In order to explain the appearances of the risen Jesus to his eleven disciples, one must add further assumptions to the Resurrection Theory. One must add the assumption that an earthquake happened on Easter Sunday and that the earthquake caused the large stone to roll away from the tomb, or one must add the assumption that an angel came down from heaven and used supernatural powers to move the large stone, or one must add the assumption that the risen Jesus had supernatural powers that he used to move the "enormous boulder" away from the entrance of the tomb, or one must add the assumption that the body of the risen Jesus had supernatural powers so that Jesus could simply pass through the large solid stone that blocked the entrance of the tomb. Such an additional assumption significantly reduces the probability of the original theory that simply asserts that the dead Jesus came back to life (in the tomb) on Easter Sunday.
The Resurrection Theory does NOT by itself explain the rolled-away stone, so premise (3) is FALSE, and therefore Kreeft's argument for Objection #13 against the Hallucination Theory is UNSOUND and should be rejected. And since the Resurrection Theory does NOT explain the rolled-away stone, it also does NOT explain the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples. So, premise (3) is FALSE, and therefore Kreeft's argument for Objection #13 against the Hallucination Theory is UNSOUND and should be rejected.
However, my reasoning here is based on Kreeft's assumptions that (a) Jesus was buried in a stone tomb, and (b) an "enormous boulder" was placed to close off the tomb where Jesus body had been buried, and (c) it would take a significant effort by a crowd of people to move the stone away from the entrance of the tomb. I myself do not accept any of those claims. I doubt that Jesus was buried in a stone tomb, and even if he was, I doubt that an "enormous boulder" that was so large that one person could not move the stone was placed to close off the tomb where Jesus was buried.
So, Kreeft does have the option here to deny these historical claims, and in that case, the Resurrection Theory could explain the rolled-away stone, because the risen Jesus could have left his grave without any assistance and without any supernatural powers, if his grave was just a shallow dirt grave, or if his body was placed into a stone tomb but no stone was placed to shut off the entrance of the tomb, or if a stone of modest size had been placed to shut off the entrance of the tomb.
But if Kreeft gives up the claim that Jesus was buried in a stone tomb, then this would destroy the credibility or significance of the empty tomb stories. And if Kreeft gives up the claim that an "enormous boulder" was placed to close off the tomb where Jesus was buried, then this would seriously damage the credibility and significance of the empty tomb stories.
But if Kreeft gives up his historical claims about the burial of Jesus, then that significantly weakens his case for the resurrection of Jesus. So, Kreeft is caught in a dilemma. Either he can continue to maintain his historical claims about the burial of Jesus (Jesus was buried in a stone tomb with an "enormous boulder" in place to shut the tomb), in which case the Resurrection Theory does NOT explain the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples, OR he can give up those historical claims, and then his case for the resurrection will be significantly weakened.
PREMISE (3) ASSUMES DUBIOUS HISTORICAL CLAIMS TO BE FACTS
It is DUBIOUS that the Resurrection Theory explains the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus, and that it explains the rolled-away stone, and this makes premise (3) DUBIOUS.
There is another good reason to reject premise (3). Like premise (2), premise (3) assumes that the following historical claims are FACTS:
HC1: Jesus' body was buried in a stone tomb at the end of the day when he was crucified.
HC2: A large stone was rolled to block the entrance of the stone tomb where Jesus' body had just been placed.
HC3: On Sunday morning, about 36 hours after Jesus' body was placed into a stone tomb, the large stone that was previously blocking the entrance of the tomb was discovered to be rolled away from the entrance of the tomb.HC4: On Sunday morning, about 36 hours after Jesus' body was placed into a stone tomb, the tomb was discovered to be empty (i.e. Jesus' body was no longer present in the tomb).HC5: In the days and weeks following the crucifixion of Jesus, the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem were unable to produce the corpse of Jesus for public display.
However, I have argued that NONE of these historical claims is a FACT. So, just as we should reject premise (2) because it assumes that these claims are all FACTS, so we should reject premise (3) because it assumes that these claims are all FACTS.
EVALUATION OF OBJECTION #13
The argument that Kreeft gives for Objection #13 is a complete and utter FAILURE. Premise (1) is FALSE. The logic of the argument is INVALID. Premises (2) and (3) should both be rejected because they both assume that various historical claims are FACTS when in reality NONE of those historical claims is a FACT. Premise (3) is also DUBIOUS because it is DUBIOUS that the Resurrection Theory explains the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus and the rolled-away stone.
The argument constituting Objection #13 is clearly UNSOUND and should be rejected. Therefore, Objection #13 FAILS, just like every single one of the previous dozen objections by Kreeft against the Hallucination Theory has FAILED.
No comments:
Post a Comment