WHERE WE ARE
In Part 25 of this series, I clarified and analyzed Kreeft's argument constituting his Objection #7 against the Hallucination Theory. Here is the core of that argument:
1A. The disciples did not expect that Jesus would physically rise from the dead.
B. IF the Hallucination Theory were true, THEN the disciples must have expected that Jesus would physically rise from the dead.
Therefore:
A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.
This argument is logically VALID (assuming that the phrase "the disciples" means the same thing in both of the premises). So, the main questions concerning this argument are about the truth of the premises:
- Is premise (1A) TRUE?
- Is premise (B) TRUE?
2A. The disciples did not believe at first that Jesus had physically risen from the dead.
Thus:
1A. The disciples did not expect that Jesus would physically rise from the dead.
This seems like a reasonable inference. If a disciple did not believe at first that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, then that implies that the disciple did NOT expect that Jesus would physically rise from the dead.
However, some disciples may have believed that Jesus would one day in the distant future physically rise from the dead (say, at the end of the world, when all humans would face divine judgment), but these disciples might have had no expectation that Jesus would rise from the dead just a couple of days after he died on the cross. So, we need to clarify the time frame related to the expectation mentioned in premise (1A).
Also, the phrase "the disciples" is VAGUE and needs to be clarified. One might think that the phrase "the disciples" refers to the remaining eleven disciples who were part of the inner circle of "twelve disciples" of Jesus, minus Judas Iscariot who had betrayed Jesus. However, after mentioning "the disciples", Kreeft goes on to list some of them, and in that list, he refers to "the women". There were NO WOMEN in the group of "twelve disciples". Jesus had followers or disciples who were women, but according to the Gospels, the inner circle of "the twelve" consisted of twelve MEN. Because Kreeft specifically mentions "the women", that implies that "the disciples" is a larger more inclusive category than "the eleven" remaining male disciples who were part of "the twelve".
However, if we expand the boundaries of "the disciples" beyond "the eleven", then it becomes UNCLEAR where those boundaries are. Jesus had hundreds or possibly thousands of followers, and we could consider every follower of Jesus to be a "disciple". Furthermore, even if we try to divide up the hundreds or thousands of followers of Jesus into more serious "disciples" and less serious followers, it is far from clear how Kreeft would make this distinction.
As we have seen REPEATEDLY in my analysis and evaluation of the previous objections raised by Kreeft, he is a SLOPPY and UNCLEAR thinker. So, I have no reason to believe that Kreeft has a clear distinction in mind here that he has just neglected to inform us about. Rather, it is much more likely that he simply does not himself know what the phrase "the disciples" means in this argument. He is just being his usual VAGUE, SLOPPY, and UNCLEAR self, and does not have any clear idea of what this phrase actually means.
Thus, although we need to CLARIFY the phrase "the disciples" in order to rationally evaluate Kreeft's argument, I don't think we can successfully figure out what Kreeft INTENDED the phrase "the disciples" to mean, because he probably did not have a clear idea of what this phrase means in the first place. Therefore, I suggest that we ignore Kreeft's mention of "the women" and draw the boundaries of this concept more narrowly, limiting it to "the eleven", the remaining male disciples who had been part of the inner circle of "the twelve disciples". It is mostly "the eleven" that Kreeft is concerned with, and this way we avoid getting into dubious speculations about Kreeft's intentions here, and about how to distinguish between a general follower of Jesus and more serious followers who deserve the title of "disciples".
Here is my clarification of premise (2A) and premise (1A):
2B. All of the eleven disciples doubted at first that Jesus had physically risen from the dead.
Thus:
1B. None of the eleven disciples expected that Jesus would physically rise from the dead a few days or weeks after his death on the cross.
Given this clarification of these premises, the inference here is correct; premise (1B) follows from premise (2B).
Now we need to determine whether (2B) is true. Kreeft's reasoning provides an argument in support of premise (2A):
3A. The disciples thought Jesus was a ghost when they had experiences of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus. (see Luke 24:36-43)
4A. The disciples became convinced that Jesus was not a ghost when they had experiences of an alleged appearance of Jesus in which Jesus ate something to prove to the disciples that he was not a ghost. (see Luke 24:36-43)
Thus:
2A. The disciples did not believe at first that Jesus had physically risen from the dead.
But we have revised premise (2A) in order to clarify it, so now we must also revise (3A) and (4A) in a similar manner so that they will logically connect up with premise (2B):
3B. All of the eleven disciples thought Jesus was a ghost when they had experiences of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus. (see Luke 24:36-43)
4B. All of the eleven disciples became convinced that Jesus was not a ghost when they had experiences of an alleged appearance of Jesus in which Jesus ate something to prove to the disciples that he was not a ghost. (see Luke 24:36-43)
Thus:
2B. All of the eleven disciples doubted at first that Jesus had physically risen from the dead.
This appears to be a VALID inference or at least a reasonable inference, so if premises (3B) and (4B) are true, then we ought to accept premise (2B) as true.
There are two problems, however, with premises (3B) and (4B). First of all, as I have previously argued, the Jerusalem appearance stories in Chapter 24 of Luke are probably FICTIONAL stories. An objective review of the Gospel evidence shows that it is more likely that Mark and Matthew are correct that the first experiences of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples took place in Galilee a week or more after e crucifixion than that Luke and John are correct that these first experiences of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples took place in Jerusalem only two days after the crucifixion. Thus, it is probable that the Jerusalem appearance stories found in Luke and John are FICTION. So, Kreeft has FAILED to give us a good reason to believe that premises (3B) and (4B) are true, and since the story that these premises are based upon is probably FICTION, we have good reason to believe that premises (3B) and (4B) are FALSE, because it is unlikely that a FICTIONAL story would just happen to reflect historical reality by chance.
A second problem is that even if we assume that the Jerusalem appearance stories in Luke describe actual historical events in an accurate way, it is NOT clear that ALL of the eleven disciples "thought Jesus was a ghost" when he first appeared to them, nor is it clear that ALL of the eleven disciples became convinced that Jesus had physically risen from the dead after having an experience in which it seemed to them that Jesus ate some fish in their presence. In other words, the story in Chapter 24 of Luke about a gathering of Jesus' disciples having an experience of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus does NOT imply that premises (3B) and (4B) are TRUE.
Here is the relevant passage from Luke:
33 That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together.
34 They were saying, “The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon!”
35 Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread.
36 While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
37 They were startled and terrified, and thought that they were seeing a ghost.
38 He said to them, “Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?
39 Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.
(Luke 24:33-40, NRSV)
The key verse here is verse 37: "They were startled and terrified, and thought they were seeing a ghost." The main question at issue is this: who are the people that are being referred to by the pronoun "They" in verse 37?
The reference of the pronoun "they" appears to shift around in this passage. In verse 33, the word "they" appears to refer to the two disciples who "returned to Jerusalem" and told other disciples in Jerusalem about experiencing an appearance of the risen Jesus earlier that day. In verse 34 it is not clear who the word "they" refers to. In verses 35 and 36, the word "they" appears to refer once again to the two disciples who "returned to Jerusalem".
But when we get to verse 37, it seems fairly clear that the reference of the word "they" shifts to the entire gathering of disciples, which would include the two disciples that had "returned to Jerusalem" as well as "the eleven" and also "their companions", that is the companions of "the eleven" disciples. Thus, this gathering of followers of Jesus included AT LEAST fifteen people (2 disciples who returned to Jerusalem + 11 disciples + 2 companions).
Since the number of "companions" is not specified, there could potentially be more companions of "the eleven" than "the eleven" themselves. If each of "the eleven" disciples had an average of one companion present, then there would have been eleven companions in addition to the two disciples who had returned to Jerusalem and "the eleven" disciples who had remained in Jerusalem. In that case, the whole group would have consisted of two dozen people (2 who returned to Jerusalem, 11 who were called "the eleven" disciples, and 11 companions of "the eleven" = 24 people).
It is also possible that each of "the eleven" disciples had an average of two companions present at the gathering, and in that case, the total number of people present would have been 35 (2 disciples returning to Jerusalem, 11 disciples who were called "the eleven", and 22 people who were companions of "the eleven").
There were at least 15 people present, and potentially as many as 35 people present. So, with a group of such size, it is UNLIKELY that Luke knew the names of each and every person who was present during this event, and even MORE UNLIKELY that Luke personally interviewed each and every person who was present at this event. Therefore, it is VERY UNLIKELY that Luke KNEW that each and every person present at this event felt "startled and terrified" upon having an experience of an alleged appearance of Jesus. It is also VERY UNLIKELY that Luke KNEW that each and every person present at this event felt "startled and terrified" because he or she believed that he or she was "seeing a ghost".
Because it is VERY UNLIKELY that Luke had such detailed and directly verified information about this particular event (which took place about five decades before the Gospel of Luke was written), the claim that EVERY person present at this event felt "startled and terrified" upon having an experience of an alleged appearance of Jesus is DUBIOUS at best. Also, the claim that EVERY person present at this event felt "startled and terrified" because he or she thought he or she was "seeing a ghost" is DUBIOUS at best.
Furthermore, to interpret the word "They" in verse 37 as implying that EVERY person who was present was "startled and terrified" and felt that way because EVERY person present thought he or she was "seeing a ghost" is itself DUBIOUS. That is an implausible and extreme way of interpreting the pronoun "They" when what is under discussion is a group containing 15 to 35 people.
When we talk about such a group consisting of many people having a specific emotional reaction to an event or circumstance, it is generally understood that NOT EVERYONE would have the same emotional reaction, and so when the word "They" is used about a group containing several people, this is reasonably understood to mean "Most of the people in the group..."
Thus, even if we assume that this story in Chapter 24 of Luke is an accurate description of an actual historical event, it DOES NOT FOLLOW that EVERY single person present at this event felt "startled and terrified" nor that EVERY single person present at this event felt "startled and terrified" because he or she thought he or she was "seeing a ghost". Therefore, even if we assume that this story in Chapter 24 of Luke is an accurate description of an actual historical event, premise (3B) DOES NOT FOLLOW:
3B. All of the eleven disciples thought Jesus was a ghost when they had experiences of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus.
It is entirely compatible with the description of this event in Chapter 24 of Luke that:
MOST of the people present at this event felt "startled and terrified" when they experienced an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus, and the people who were "startled and terrified" felt that way because they thought they were "seeing a ghost", and yet six of "the eleven" disciples did NOT feel "startled and terrified" when they experienced the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus because they were EXPECTING that Jesus would physically rise from the dead within a few days or weeks after his crucifixion.
Therefore, claims (3B) and (4B) DO NOT FOLLOW from the assumption that the story in Chapter 24 of Luke about a Jerusalem appearance of the risen Jesus to his gathered disciples is an accurate description of an actual historical event.
Premises (3B) and (4B) are probably FALSE because the Jerusalem appearance stories in Chapter 24 of the Gospel of Luke are probably FICTIONAL stories. Even if we assume that this story from Chapter 24 of Luke about a Jerusalem appearance of the risen Jesus to his gathered disciples is an accurate description of an actual historical event, it DOES NOT FOLLOW that (3B) and (4B) are TRUE. Thus, premise (3B) and premise (4B) remain DUBIOUS, and Kreeft has FAILED to show that the key premise (2B) is TRUE. Thus, premise (2B) remains DUBIOUS itself.
Finally, there is a very serious problem with premise (2B). If this premise is in fact true, then it provides a POWERFUL reason to doubt that Jesus physically rose from the dead. So, if we reject premise (2B), then the argument constituting Objection #7 FAILS, just like the previous six objections that Kreeft put forward against the Hallucination Theory. On the other hand, if we accept premise (2B) as TRUE, then we have a very good reason to doubt and reject Kreeft's ultimate conclusion that Jesus physically rose from the dead.
Here is the problem. If ALL of "the eleven" disciples who were part of the inner circle of "the twelve" disciples of Jesus "did not believe at first that Jesus had physically risen from the dead", then this implies that the Gospels are historically unreliable accounts of the life, ministry, and death of Jesus. But if the Gospels are historically unreliable, then there is no hope of Kreeft, or anyone else, building a strong case for the physical resurrection of Jesus. One cannot prove such a miracle on the basis of historically unreliable texts.
According to the Gospels, Jesus performed extraordinary supernatural feats on several occasions:
- Jesus walked on water. (Mark 6:45-51)
- Jesus instantly calmed a raging storm. (Mark 5:35-41)
- 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 Jesus had actually performed these amazing supernatural feats, as the Gospels claim, then it is UNLIKELY that ANY of his inner circle of disciples would have had significant doubts about Jesus physically rising from the dead.
Furthermore, if Jesus had actually performed these extraordinary supernatural feats, as the Gospels claim, then it is VERY UNLIKELY that ALL of his inner circle of disciples (ALL of "the eleven") would have had significant doubts about Jesus physically rising from the dead. Therefore, if we assume that premise (2B) is TRUE, then we have a very good reason to conclude that the Gospels are NOT historically reliable. If we assume that (2B) is TRUE, then we have a very good reason to believe that Kreeft cannot build a strong case for the physical resurrection of Jesus.
So we are faced with a dilemma. Either we reject premise (2B) as FALSE and thus conclude that Kreeft's Objection #7 FAILS (like all of his previous six objections), or else we accept the key premise (2B) as TRUE and thus conclude that Kreeft's attempt to prove that Jesus physically rose from the dead is a hopeless effort that is doomed to FAIL.
No comments:
Post a Comment