WHERE WE ARE
Over at The Secular Outpost, I have written a series of posts about Peter Kreeft's objections to the Hallucination Theory found in Chapter 8 of his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). Kreeft thinks that he can prove that Jesus rose from the dead by refuting four skeptical theories:
- The Conspiracy Theory
- The Hallucination Theory
- The Swoon Theory
- The Myth Theory
Hallucinations usually last a few seconds or minutes; rarely hours. This one hung around for forty days (Acts 1:3). (HCA, p.187)
Thus:1. Hallucinations usually last a few seconds or minutes; rarely hours.
Therefore:A. It is extremely unlikely that hallucinations of Jesus lasted for forty days.B. If the Hallucination Theory were true, then hallucinations of Jesus lasted for 40 days.
C. It is extremely unlikely that the Hallucination Theory is true.
PREMISE (B) IS FALSE
There are at least two serious problems with this argument.
First of all, premise (B) is FALSE, and so this argument is UNSOUND.
Someone who believes the Hallucination Theory or who takes this theory seriously is probably a skeptical person. Skeptics usually do NOT believe that the Gospels and Acts are 100% accurate and reliable historical accounts. Skeptics usually believe that the Gospels and Acts are UNRELIABLE historical accounts. So, the fact that the book of Acts claims that followers of Jesus experienced alleged appearances of the risen Jesus for 40 days, does NOT show that this was what actually happened, at least not to a skeptical person who views the Gospels and Acts as UNRELIABLE.
So, one can accept the Hallucination Theory but reject the claim that various followers of Jesus experienced alleged appearances of the risen Jesus for 40 days. Thus, the Hallucination Theory does NOT imply that hallucinations of Jesus occurred to various people for a period of 40 days. Thus, premise (B) is FALSE.
[NOTE: A possible reply in response to the charge that premise (B) is FALSE is that although premise (B) is strictly speaking FALSE, the argument could be modified to claim that the combination of the Hallucination Theory with the belief that experiences of alleged appearances of Jesus lasted for 40 days does IMPLY that "hallucinations of Jesus lasted for 40 days". I will argue that this response does not work later in this post, but for now, let's stick to evaluating the argument as stated above.]
THE LOGIC OF THIS ARGUMENT IS INVALID
Second, there is an obvious EQUIVOCATION here on the phrase "hallucinations of Jesus lasted for 40 days", so this argument is also INVALID.
In premise (A) the phrase "hallucinations of Jesus lasted for 40 days" clearly means this:
some particular hallucinations experienced by particular individuals each had a continuous duration of 40 days from the start of a particular hallucination being experienced by a particular individual until the end of that same hallucination by that same individual
However, it is OBVIOUS that the phrase "hallucinations of Jesus lasted for 40 days" has a different meaning in premise (B):
some particular hallucinations experienced by particular individuals took place at the beginning of a 40-day period of time, and other particular hallucinations experienced by particular individuals took place later on in that 40-day period of time, and some particular hallucinations experienced by particular individuals took place at the end of that 40-day period of time
A POSSIBLE MODIFICATION OF THE ARGUMENT CONSTITUTING OBJECTION #4
1. Hallucinations usually last a few seconds or minutes; rarely hours.
A. It is extremely unlikely that hallucinations of Jesus lasted for forty days.
B1. If the Hallucination Theory were true and it was the case that experiences of alleged appearances of Jesus lasted for 40 days, then hallucinations of Jesus lasted for 40 days.
D. It is the case that experiences of alleged appearances of Jesus lasted for 40 days.
Therefore:
C. It is extremely unlikely that the Hallucination Theory is true.
Someone who accepts the Hallucination Theory could be persuaded by presentation of historical evidence that experiences of alleged appearances of Jesus lasted for 40 days. If so, then because this person accepts the Hallucination Theory he or she would have to interpret those experiences of alleged appearances of Jesus to be hallucinations, but in that case he or she must logically conclude that hallucinations of Jesus lasted for 40 days.
The first thing to note about this modified version of Kreeft's argument is that it still includes the ambiguous phrase "hallucinations of Jesus lasted for 40 days" and it still commits the fallacy of EQUIVOCATION, and so it is still an INVALID argument.
Setting aside the BAD reasoning in this modified argument, I would object that premise (B1) is FALSE, and so this modification of Kreeft's argument doesn't get around the problem of being based on a FALSE premise.
There is no possibility of making a solid or persuasive case for the historical claim that some followers of Jesus in the weeks following his crucifixion experienced hallucinations that lasted for 40 days, that is, where a particular individual begins to experience a hallucination of Jesus and where the experiencing of that same hallucination by that same individual continues without a break for a period of 40 days.
Since there is no hope of making a solid or persuasive for that claim, presumably the historical claim that Kreeft would attempt to support with evidence from the NT would be the claim that various different followers of Jesus had experiences of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus, and that some of these people had this experience at the beginning of a 40-day period, others had this experience later on in the 40-day period, and yet others had this experience at the end of the 40-day period.
Would someone who accepts the Hallucination Theory and who was persuaded of this historical claim be logically forced to conclude that hallucinations of Jesus were experienced by various people over a 40-day period (some at the beginning of the period, some later on, and some at the end of the period)? I don't think so. The Hallucination Theory does NOT assert that EVERY experience of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus must be a hallucination. At most, this theory requires that some early experience(s) of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus were hallucinations and that those early hallucinatory experiences of the risen Jesus were the primary cause of the early Christian belief that Jesus had physically risen from the dead. This is compatible with the claim that various other experiences of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus took place that were NOT hallucinations and that those other experiences did not play a significant role in causing the belief in the resurrection of Jesus to be embraced by the earliest Christians.
It could be the case, for example, that Peter and John had hallucinations of the risen Jesus, and that this experience gave them the conviction that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, and that they began to preach about Jesus being the risen savior of mankind. After that point, people might have had experiences of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus for a period of 40 days, but those experiences might have been from dreams, or hypnotic trances, or visions, or those might have been cases of mistaken identity, where someone who looks like Jesus is seen and the person who saw them mistakenly believed that they had seen the risen Jesus. The precise nature of those other experiences is NOT relevant to the Hallucination Theory, because those other experiences of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus might not have played a significant role in causing the initial belief the Jesus movement that Jesus had physically risen from the dead.
Furthermore, Kreeft's understanding of the Hallucination Theory is clearly too narrow. In order for his case for the resurrection to have any hope of success, he must interpret the various skeptical theories as broadly as possible, so that they include ALL, or nearly all, logical possibilities. Otherwise, he leaves many alternative skeptical theories untouched, and his case for the resurrection FAILS. So, Kreeft must also include other kinds of NON-VERIDICAL EXPERIENCES under the umbrella of the "Hallucination Theory".
If, for example, Peter had a DREAM about the risen Jesus, and if that dream convinced Peter that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, and if Peter's strong conviction that Jesus physically rose from the dead was the primary cause for this belief being accepted by other followers of Jesus, then it was a DREAM that explains the early Christian belief in the resurrection, NOT a hallucination. But if a DREAM was the initial cause of this belief, then the Hallucination Theory, understood broadly, would still be true.
The problem here is that the name of the theory is misleading. A better name for this theory would be the "Non-Veridical Experiences Theory". That would encompass the skeptical possibility that some early followers of Jesus had DREAMED of the risen Jesus, and that it was such dream experiences that caused the people in the Jesus movement to accept the belief that Jesus had physically risen from the dead.
Mr. Bowen, in the comments section from part 17 of your Defending the Hallucination Theory series I asked you two questions. One about how likely you think the Hallucination Theory and the Resurrection Hypothesis are, and one about the creedal statement from 1 Corinthians Chapter 15. You answered both questions and then I wrote another comment that has been pending for a few days. I fear that the comment will not be posted because the Secular Outpost blog is shutting down. This is why I’ve decided to post it on your blog as well.
ReplyDeleteMy comment:
First, allow me to thank you for the very long and informative answer you provided to my first question. It also helped me clarify some other concerns I had with the skeptical theories.
Second, if you are willing to “provide a rough estimate of the probabilities of the individual four main skeptical theories” then I would certainly like to know what these estimated probabilities are. I am quite taken with the Non-Veridical Experiences Theory.
Third, concerning my second question, you wrote that “If we ignore Paul's claim to have received this Gospel information from divine revelation, and suppose that this summary of the Gospel was a widespread creed or a widely used Christian saying that Paul learned from some other Christian believers, then there is still the question of the dating of the creed/saying. It is UNCLEAR where and when Paul learned this Christian creed/saying. So, it is possible that Paul learned it as late as 52 CE, in time to use it in his preaching to the Corinthians.”
The Christian apologetics website BeliefMap defends the view that most historians consider the creedal statement as dating back to 30-35 C.E. with several quotes. For example, a quote from the work of Gerd Ludemann says that “the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years”; James Dunn writes that “this information was communicated to Paul as part of his introductory catechesis. He would have needed to be informed of precedents in order to make sense of what had happened to him”; Michael Goulder points out that it “goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion”, and according to The Oxford Companion to the Bible “The earliest record of these appearances is to be found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, a tradition that Paul ‘received’ after his apostolic call, certainly not later than his visit to Jerusalem in 35 CE, when he saw Cephas (Peter) and James (Gal. 1:18-19).” Also, as reported by Gary Habermas, the view that Paul received the information in question within three years of his conversion is the most popular one.
If it is probable that Paul received the creedal statement when he was in Jerusalem visiting Peter for 15 days, 3 years after his conversion, then the statement should be considered as being earlier than that. Furthermore, there is also the issue that what Paul delivers (as he also received - according to 1 Corinthians 15:3) is in formulaic form. The fact that the statement is in formulaic form seems to be a reason to date it earlier than it should be dated otherwise. At least this is what I understand from the following quote from the work of N.T. Wright: “This is the kind of foundation-story with which a community is not at liberty to tamper. It was probably formulated within the first two or three years after Easter itself, since it was already in formulaic form when Paul ‘received’ it.”
If the above is true and, as you wrote, 20 years is a short time for a fictional story about the 11 remaining disciples to arise and take hold, then it is very unlikely for such a thing to happen in just a few years.
P.S. This is the link to the relevant BeliefMap webpage: https://beliefmap.org/bible/1-corinthians/15-creed/date
This is where my comment from the Secular Outpost ends. I would like to know how likely you think it is that Paul received the creedal statement when he was in Jerusalem.
I have responded to your comment over at The Secular Outpost, so that others would be more likely to see my response.
ReplyDelete