WHERE WE ARE
The core of the argument constituting Peter Kreeft's Objection #6 is as follows:
C. In hallucinations, we never experience someone saying or doing something that is surprising and unexpected for that person to say or do.
2B. IF the Hallucination Theory were true, THEN some of Jesus' followers experienced hallucinations of the risen Jesus in which Jesus said and did things that it was surprising and unexpected for Jesus to say or do.
Therefore:
A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.
The logic of the core argument is VALID, so the main questions at issue about this argument concern the premises:
- Is premise (C) TRUE?
- Is premise (2B) TRUE?
D. Some of Jesus' followers experienced alleged appearances of the risen Jesus in which Jesus said and did things that it was surprising and unexpected for Jesus to say or do. (see Acts 1:4, 9)
Thus:
2B. IF the Hallucination Theory were true, THEN some of Jesus' followers experienced hallucinations of the risen Jesus in which Jesus said and did things that it was surprising and unexpected for Jesus to say or do.
As I mentioned in Part 22 of this series, the historical claim asserted in premise (D) is too subjective and vague to be the basis for a REFUTATION or DISPROOF of anything, because one cannot possibly prove or disprove such a vague and subjective claim. But one can offer reasons for and against (D), so it is subject to rational evaluation, to a limited degree.
Premise (D) is itself supported by a reference to a few verses in the first chapter of Acts:
4 While staying with them, he ordered them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait there for the promise of the Father. “This,” he said, “is what you have heard from me;
5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
9 When he had said this, as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. (Acts 1:4-5 & 8-9)
Kreeft focuses on verse 4 and verse 9. In verse 4 Jesus says something, and in verse 9 Jesus does not say anything. So, presumably it is in verse 4 that Kreeft thinks Jesus says something that was "surprising and unexpected for Jesus to say", and in verse 9 Kreeft thinks that Jesus does something that was "surprising and unexpected for Jesus to...do".
ACTS CHAPTER 1 VERSE 9
But in verse 9 Jesus doesn't actually do anything. Jesus "was lifted up" into the sky by some invisible being or force. One might infer that Jesus was causing himself to rise up into the sky by some supernatural power that he possessed, but the verse does NOT say this.
Since God raised Jesus from the dead, according to Christian belief, it seems more likely (from a Christian point of view) that God was the cause of Jesus rising up into the sky, providing a second astonishing miracle to show God's approval of Jesus' life and teachings. But if God caused Jesus to rise up into the sky, then Jesus was NOT doing something that was "surprising and unexpected"; God was doing something to Jesus.
Furthermore, since God is mysterious, we cannot with any confidence predict what God is going to say or do. But if we cannot confidently predict what God would do to Jesus after Jesus appeared to his followers for several weeks, then how can we confidently judge that God causing Jesus to be "lifted up" into the sky was a "surprising and unexpected" thing for God to do? Nevertheless, what God was doing to Jesus in this situation does NOT seem particularly "surprising and unexpected".
In the Old Testament, God raised the great prophet Elijah up into heaven at the end of Elijah's ministry (2 Kings 2:1-15). Although we could not confidently predict that God would do the same thing to Jesus, any Jewish follower of Jesus who was familiar with OT stories about the prophet Elijah might well have guessed that God would "lift up" Jesus into heaven, like God had done with the prophet Elijah, according to the OT.
The followers of Jesus believed Jesus to be a great prophet, and some Jews who were impressed by Jesus believed that Jesus was in fact Elijah, who had returned from being in heaven with God (Luke 9:18-19). Given that Jesus was believed to be a great prophet like Elijah, and given that some people believed that Jesus was Elijah, it does not seem "surprising and unexpected" that God would "lift up" Jesus into the sky at the end of his ministry, just as God did with Elijah, according to the OT.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Jesus caused himself to rise up into the sky, using some supernatural power that he possessed. Could we then conclude that Jesus had done something that was "surprising and unexpected" for Jesus to do? Is this action "surprising and unexpected" because ordinary people cannot fly or float up into the sky? But according to the Gospels, Jesus had previously performed extraordinary supernatural feats like this on a number of occasions:
- Jesus walked on water. (Mark 6:45-51)
- Jesus fed thousands of people with two fishes and five loaves of bread. (Mark 6:34-44)
- Jesus turned water into wine. (John 2:1-11)
- Jesus raised people from the dead. (Mark 5:21-43 & John 11:38-43)
If the Gospels provide accurate and reliable information about the life and ministry of Jesus, then Jesus performed extraordinary supernatural feats on a number of occasions before he was crucified. If Jesus had performed a number of extraordinary supernatural feats before he was crucified, then it doesn't seem particularly "surprising and unexpected" for Jesus to perform another extraordinary supernatural feat after he was crucified and rose from the dead. So, either the Gospels contain several fictional stories about Jesus performing extraordinary supernatural feats, or else, there seems to be nothing particularly "surprising and unexpected" about Jesus causing himself to rise up into the sky at the end of his ministry.
If the Gospels do contain several fictional stories about Jesus performing extraordinary supernatural feats, then the credibility of the Gospels would be destroyed, and thus Kreeft and other Christian apologists would have no hope of ever proving, or making a strong case for, the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. But if the Gospels stories about Jesus performing several extraordinary supernatural feats are accurate and true, then the view that Jesus causing himself to rise up into the sky was "surprising and unexpected" seems rather dubious. Such a grand supernatural exit by Jesus seems like something that Jesus' disciples would have EXPECTED, if not predicted, Jesus to do.
So, either the Gospels are UNRELIABLE accounts of the life, ministry, and death of Jesus (thus eliminating any hope of proving the resurrection of Jesus), or else premise (D) appears to be FALSE, or at least DUBIOUS, in terms of the idea of Jesus doing something that would be "surprising and unexpected" for Jesus to do.
ACTS CHAPTER 1 VERSES 4 and 5
What about what Jesus SAYS in verses 4 and 5 of Chapter 1 of Acts? Does Jesus say something that is "surprising and unexpected" for Jesus to say?
4 While staying with them, he ordered them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait there for the promise of the Father. “This,” he said, “is what you have heard from me;
5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
First of all, it does NOT seem "surprising and unexpected" for Jesus to be talking about "the Holy Spirit" to his disciples after his crucifixion, because he did so during his ministry before he was crucified:
If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:13, NRSV)
And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. (Luke 12:10, NRSV)
11 When they bring you before the synagogues, the rulers, and the authorities, do not worry about how you are to defend yourselves or what you are to say;
12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that very hour what you ought to say.” (Luke 12:11-12, NRSV)
In the very passage from Acts that Kreeft points us to, Jesus says that "This...is what you have heard from me" indicating that this is NOT something new that he is telling his disciples, but something that Jesus had taught his disciples previously.
Second, the idea that Jesus would "baptize" his disciples "with the Holy Spirit" is an idea that John the Baptist had previously predicted, and some of Jesus' disciples had been disciples of John the Baptist before they became disciples of Jesus, so they would have been aware of this prediction by John the Baptist:
15 As the people were filled with expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Messiah,
16 John answered all of them by saying, “I baptize you with water; but one who is more powerful than I is coming; I am not worthy to untie the thong of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. (Luke 3:15-16)
Not only had Jesus previously taught his disciples about "the Holy Spirit", but a devout Jew who the disciples admired had specifically predicted that Jesus would one day "baptize" his followers "with the Holy Spirit". So, what Jesus says in verses 4 and 5 of Chapter 1 of Acts does not appear to be anything that it is "surprising and unexpected" for Jesus to say.
THE UNRELIABILITY OF ACTS CHAPTER 1
Furthermore, I have been treating the passage from Chapter 1 of Acts as if it was accurate and reliable information about Jesus and his disciples. But people who advocate the Hallucination Theory are, in general, skeptical people. People who believe or take seriously the Hallucination Theory are unlikely to view the Gospels or the book of Acts as being historically reliable. Skeptics generally view the Gospels and Acts as being UNRELIABLE sources of historical information. From a skeptical point of view, the claims about Jesus in Chapter 1 of Acts, are very DUBIOUS claims. So, the reference to verses in Chapter 1 of Acts FAIL to provide significant support for premise (D).
Finally, there are not only many good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of the Gospels and Acts, but there are also good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of Chapter 1 of Acts in particular. Luke and Acts were written by the same author. I have previously argued that the stories about Jerusalem appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples found in Luke and John are probably fictional, because the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew agree that the FIRST appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples took place in Galilee a week or more after Jesus was crucified, while the Gospels of Luke and John tell stories about appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples happening in Jerusalem about 48 hours after the crucifixion of Jesus.
Luke has Jesus tell the disciples to "remain in Jerusalem" (Luke 24:45-49), which directly contradicts the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, where the risen Jesus sends a message to his disciples that he is heading back to Galilee and that they are to leave Jerusalem and head back to Galilee in order to meet Jesus in Galilee (Mark 16:1-7, Matthew 28:1-10). In the book of Acts, Jesus' apostles remain in Jerusalem until Pentacost, meaning that they remain in Jerusalem after the crucifixion for nearly two months. Given that Mark and Matthew are more likely to be correct than Luke and John about whether Jesus' apostles stayed in Jerusalem after the crucifixion, we have good reason to believe that Chapter 1 of Acts is just as fictional as the final chapter of the Gospel of Luke.
It is more likely that the apostles fled Jerusalem and headed back to Galilee as soon as they could after Jesus was arrested, in order to avoid being crucified along with their leader Jesus. It took them several days to walk back to Galilee, and the first experiences of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus took place in Galilee a week or more after the crucifixion. So, we have good reason to doubt the historicity of Chapter 1 of Acts. Therefore, Kreeft has FAILED to provide us with a good reason to believe the historical claims in Chapter 1 of Acts, and we have good reason to believe that Chapter 1 of Acts is fiction or a FALSE story that the author of Luke and Acts heard being told in some Christian community. So, Kreeft has FAILED to provide us with any significant evidence for premise (D), and premise (D) remains DUBIOUS.
PREMISE (2B) DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM PREMISE (D)
Kreeft has FAILED to prove the key premise (2B), because the only reason he offers in support of (2B) is the DUBIOUS claim (D). But not only is (D) a DUBIOUS claim, but even if (D) were true, premise (2B) does NOT FOLLOW from (D). The inference from (D) to (2B) is INVALID.
In order to get from (D) to (2B), Kreeft needs to make at least one other assumption, and the most likely assumption that he was making here is that the Hallucination Theory implies that any alleged experiences of Jesus' followers of the risen Jesus must have been hallucinations:
D. Some of Jesus' followers experienced alleged appearances of the risen Jesus in which Jesus said and did things that it was surprising and unexpected for Jesus to say or do. (see Acts 1:4, 9)
E. IF the Hallucination Theory were true, THEN any experiences of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus had by Jesus' followers must have been hallucinations of the risen Jesus.
Thus:
2B. IF the Hallucination Theory were true, THEN some of Jesus' followers experienced hallucinations of the risen Jesus in which Jesus said and did things that it was surprising and unexpected for Jesus to say or do.
But as I have argued in previous posts, Kreeft's understanding of the Hallucination Theory is mistaken. First of all, only SOME versions of the Hallucination Theory require that SOME of Jesus' followers experienced hallucinations of the risen Jesus. Other versions, such as the view that some of Jesus' followers experienced DREAMS of the risen Jesus, do not require that any of Jesus' followers experienced hallucinations of the risen Jesus.
Second, even versions of the Hallucination Theory that require that some of Jesus' followers had hallucinations of the risen Jesus do NOT require that ALL experiences of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus had by his followers must have been hallucinations. What matters is the specific experiences, perhaps had by some of the apostles, that were primary causes of the early Christian belief in Jesus' physical resurrection were hallucinations of the risen Jesus.
If, for example, Peter had a hallucination of the risen Jesus, and that convinced Peter that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, and if Peter then was able to convince some other apostles of Jesus to believe that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, then it would be the case that Peter's hallucination of the risen Jesus was the primary cause of the early Christian belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus. In that case, others might have had dreams of the risen Jesus, and that would not contradict the version of the Hallucination Theory that requires that the primary cause of the early Christian belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus was a hallucination (or hallucinations) of the risen Jesus.
Thus, premise (E) is simply FALSE. This is a mistaken assumption that Kreeft appears to make about the nature of the Hallucination Theory. Kreeft's reasoning in support of premise (2B) is based on the DUBIOUS premise (D), and the FALSE premise (E), so the argument for (2B) is clearly UNSOUND, and gives us no good reason to believe that (2B) is true. Thus, Kreeft has FAILED to show that the key premise (2B) is true, and this premise remains DUBIOUS.
Finally, since the Hallucination Theory can be TRUE even if NONE of the followers of Jesus ever experienced a hallucination of the risen Jesus (e.g. if they experienced DREAMS of the risen Jesus and this convinced them that Jesus had in fact risen), premise (2B) is simply FALSE.
No comments:
Post a Comment