Defending the Hallucination Theory - Part 41: Evaluation of Objection #13 Continued

 WHERE WE ARE

In Part 40, I analyzed Peter Kreeft's argument for his third Empty-Tomb objection, Objection #13:

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, we discovered that this argument is INVALID, and that premise (1) is clearly FALSE.  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 FAILED.

It is now time to examine the other two premises of the argument constituting Objection #13, Kreeft's third Empty-tomb objection.

IS PREMISE (2) TRUE?

Here, again, is premise (2) of Kreeft's argument for Objection #13:

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.

This is the most plausible premise of the three premises in the argument for Objection #13.  It is plausible because the occurrence of hallucinations or dreams of the risen Jesus doesn't make it seem likely that there would have been a tomb where Jesus was buried that was found to be empty (without the body of Jesus) just a few days after his body was placed in the tomb, nor does that make it seem likely that the stone closing off the tomb would have been rolled away from the entrance of the tomb, nor does it make it seem likely that the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem would be unable to produce the corpse of Jesus shortly after his crucifixion.  That is why this premise seems plausible.

However, none of these three alleged circumstances are FACTS.  The best way to test theories is by examining relevant FACTS, but "the empty tomb" is NOT a FACT, and "the rolled-away stone" is NOT a FACT, and "the inability of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem to produce the corpse of Jesus" shortly after the crucifixion is NOT a FACT. Because the three alleged circumstances are NOT FACTS, this premise seems to make a FALSE ASSUMPTION, namely the assumption that these alleged circumstances are FACTS. If premise (2) makes this assumption, and if this assumption is false, then premise (2) is mistaken and the argument for Objection #13 is UNSOUND and should be rejected.

FACTS VS. CLAIMS THAT ARE PROBABLY TRUE

 One MIGHT be able to justify the claim that "the empty tomb" story is probably historical, and one MIGHT be able to justify the claim that "the rolled-away stone" story is probably historical, and one MIGHT be able to justify the claim that "the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem were unable to produce the corpse of Jesus" shortly after the crucifixion is probably historical.  But using claims that are only "probably historical" makes the whole process of evaluating alternative historical theories into a rather dicey business.  

It might well be the case that there are NO RELEVANT FACTS available that will enable us to compare the strengths and weaknesses of the various theories about what happened to Jesus and his disciples in the days and weeks immediately following the crucifixion of Jesus.  

It might well be the case that the ONLY RELEVANT INFORMATION we have is historical claims that are only "probably true", and that any reasonable comparison of alternative historical theories, in this case, will necessarily involve the use of such somewhat uncertain information.  But if that is the reality, then it would be UNREASONABLE to expect our conclusions and evaluations on this matter to be much more than EDUCATED GUESSES.  The best we could expect is a justifiable conclusion that one of the historical theories is probably true (or probably false).    

Clearly, if we must compare and evaluate various alternative historical theories on the basis of historical claims that are only probably true (to different degrees), then we cannot reasonably expect to arrive at firm and decisive conclusions, such as the conclusion that "The Hallucination Theory is FALSE."

PREMISE (2) ASSUMES THAT "THE EMPTY TOMB" AND "THE ROLLED-AWAY STONE" ARE FACTS

Since Kreeft is clearly attempting to prove that "The Hallucination Theory is FALSE", it is reasonable to interpret premise (2) as ASSUMING that "the empty tomb" and "the rolled-away stone" are FACTS. In order for his argument to be successful, in order for his argument to prove that "The Hallucination Theory is FALSE", the argument NEEDS the assumption that "the empty tomb" and "the rolled-away stone" are FACTS.  If these historical claims are merely probably true, then his argument FAILS.

Kreeft does not bother to spell out what historical claims these phrases represent, so his argument is somewhat UNCLEAR.  However, if one is familiar with the Gospels and with Christian beliefs about Jesus' resurrection, then it is fairly obvious that he has the following historical claims in mind:

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.

The "empty tomb" is a FACT only if (HC1) and (HC4) are FACTS. 

The "rolled-away stone" is a FACT only if (HC1), (HC2), and (HC3) are FACTS.

Furthermore, because Kreeft borrows most of his objections against the Hallucination Theory from Josh McDowell, and because Objection #13 appears to have come from McDowell, and because McDowell claims that "the empty tomb" and "the rolled-away stone" are historical FACTS, this provides another good reason to conclude that premise (2) of Kreeft's argument assumes that these are historical FACTS.

First, McDowell does present basically the same objection in The Resurrection Factor (hereafter: TRF):

The Hallucination Theory in no way accounts for the empty tomb, the broken seal [resulting from the stone being rolled-away from the tomb entrance], the guard units, and especially the actions of the high priests. (TRF, p.86)

McDowell's mention of "the actions of the high priests" refers back to an earlier discussion in The Resurrection Factor about "the empty tomb". In that earlier discussion, McDowell points out that the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem could have destroyed the new belief among the followers of Jesus that Jesus had physically risen from the dead by putting the corpse of Jesus on public display IF Jesus' body was still resting in the stone tomb.  

McDowell quotes Paul Maier to make this point:

"...anyone producing a dead Jesus would have driven a wooden stake through the heart of an incipient Christianity inflamed by His [i.e. Jesus'] supposed resurrection."

"...the Temple establishment, in its embroglio with the Apostles, would simply have aborted the movement by making a brief trip over to the sepulcher of Joseph of Arimathea and unveiling Exhibit A.  They did not do this, because they knew the tomb was empty...."

(TRF, p.65)

So, McDowell's reference to "the actions of the high priests" is a round-about way of pointing to the claim that the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem were unable to produce the dead body of Jesus, in order to refute the preaching of the eleven disciples about the alleged physical resurrection of Jesus.

This objection by McDowell against the Hallucination Theory is the seventh and final objection that McDowell raises against this theory in The Resurrection Factor, just like Objection #13 is the final objection raised by Kreeft against the Hallucination Theory in his Handbook of Christian Apologetics. (Note: I argue that part of what Kreeft says concerning Objection #13 is actually a separate and additional objection, which I label "Objection #14", but Kreeft believes he has presented only thirteen objections.)

McDowell provides a section title to summarize this final objection:

Doesn't match the facts  (TRF, p.86)

This clearly implies that "the empty tomb" and "the rolled-away stone" are considered by McDowell to be FACTS. Finally, at the end of Chapter 5, the chapter where McDowell presents this objection against the Hallucination Theory, McDowell emphasizes that the skeptical theories discussed in that chapter all fail to follow this basic principle:

The explanation must take into account all the known facts surrounding the resurrection events.  (TRF, p.87)

This clearly implies that the Hallucination Theory fails to "take into account" some of "the known facts" surrounding the resurrection events.  This key criticism occurs on the page immediately following McDowell's final objection against the Hallucination Theory, an objection that he titled "Doesn't match the facts".  

Chapter 4 of McDowell's book The Resurrection Factor is called "Facts To Be Reckoned With". In the summary at the end of this chapter McDowell makes this assertion:

Critics who wish to deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ must adequately explain away seven historical facts... (TRF, p.74)

The purpose of Chapter 4 is to present "seven historical facts" that are relevant to evaluating theories about what happened to Jesus after he was crucified.   The second of these "historical facts" is presented in a chapter section called:

 Fact #2--The Empty Tomb   (TRF, p.64)

McDowell specifically calls this an "obvious fact":

Another obvious fact after the resurrection was the empty tomb.  (TRF, p.64)

The third of McDowell's "seven historical facts" concerns the "rolled-away stone":

Fact #3--Large Stone Moved   (TRF, p.66)

In the summary at the end of Chapter 4, here is how McDowell describes this third "historical fact": 

 A two-ton stone was somehow moved from the tomb entrance while a Roman guard stood watch.   (TRF, p.74)

[NOTE: This description shows us that McDowell is an ignorant bible-thumping blowhard who lacks the intelligence to distinguish between speculations and facts. IF there was a tomb in which Jesus' body was buried, and IF there was a stone placed at the entrance of that tomb, NOBODY KNOWS how large that stone was or how much that stone weighs. This is just SPECULATION by McDowell. The whole story about Roman soldiers guarding the tomb of Jesus is found only in the gospel of Matthew, and most NT scholars view that story as an apologetic legend.  This statement by McDowell doesn't pass the SMELL TEST for anyone who is familiar with NT scholarship. This historical claim is clearly NOT A FACT. But this does clearly show the absence of intellectual integrity that Christian apologists like McDowell and Kreeft repeatedly demonstrate in page after page, and in chapter after chapter.]

It is clear that McDowell's final objection to the Hallucination Theory assumes that "the empty tomb" and "the rolled-away stone" both constitute historical FACTS.  Since Kreeft appears to have borrowed this objection from McDowell, it is reasonable to conclude that Kreeft also assumes that these are historical FACTS, and that premise (2) of Kreeft's argument assumes that these are historical FACTS.

So, if "the empty tomb" or "the rolled-away stone" or the claim that "the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem were unable to produce the corpse of Jesus" are NOT FACTS, then premise (2) is mistaken and should be rejected.  

In any case, if these are NOT FACTS, then Kreeft's Objection #13 is doomed to FAIL because historical claims that are only "probably true" won't provide sufficient justification to prove Kreeft's firm and decisive conclusion that "The Hallucination Theory is FALSE."  In order for Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus to be successful, he needs to DISPROVE each of the four skeptical theories, not just show them to be probably false.  

If each of the four skeptical theories has just a 10% chance of being true, then the chance that one of those skeptical theories is true might well be about 40%.  If each of the four skeptical theories has just a 15% chance of being true, then it might well be the case that there is about a 60% chance that one of those skeptical theories is true.  If each of the four skeptical theories has just a 20% chance of being true, then it might well be the case that there is about an 80% chance that one of those skeptical theories is true.  That is why Kreeft needs to PROVE that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE, not just that it is probably false. 

Defending the Hallucination Theory - Part 40: The Third Empty-Tomb Objection (Objection #13)

WHERE WE ARE

In Part 38, I analyzed Peter Kreeft's argument for his Objection #12, his second Empty-Tomb objection against the Hallucination Theory.  Here is the core of the argument for Objection #12, based on my analysis:

E. IF some or all of the eleven disciples had dreamed or hallucinated about the risen Jesus and then began to preach that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, THEN the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem would have stopped the spread of the belief that Jesus had physically risen from the dead by publically producing the dead body of Jesus.

 F. IF the Hallucination Theory were true, THEN some or all of the eleven disciples had dreamed or hallucinated about the risen Jesus and then began to preach that Jesus had physically risen from the dead AND the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem did NOT stop the spread of the belief that Jesus had physically risen from the dead.

Therefore:

 A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE. 

In Part 39, I argued that premise (E) was clearly FALSE because there are at least three different scenarios where the antecedent of (E) would be TRUE, but the consequent of (E) would be FALSE. Each of those scenarios thus constitutes a counterexample to (E). These counterexamples clearly show that the conditional claim asserted in premise (E) is FALSE.  Therefore, this argument is UNSOUND and should be rejected. That means that Objection #12 FAILS, just like every single one of Kreeft's previous eleven objections against the Hallucination Theory FAILED.

It is now time to consider Objection #13.

OBJECTION #13: THE HALLUCINATION THEORY DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE EMPTY TOMB

Kreeft states his Objection #13 in a few brief sentences:

13. A hallucination would explain only the post-resurrection appearances; it would not explain the empty tomb, the rolled-away stone, or the inability to produce the corpse. No theory can explain all these data except a real resurrection.    (HCA, p. 188)

As usual, Kreeft FAILS to state the conclusion of his argument, but in this context the conclusion is clear:

A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE. 

Kreeft's paragraph above can be analyzed as making three claims that function as the premises of the argument for Objection #13: 

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.

KREEFT'S ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #13 IS LOGICALLY INVALID 

It is clear that conclusion (A) DOES NOT FOLLOW from these premises.  

Even if it is true that the Hallucination Theory does not explain those three "data" and the theory that Jesus actually physically rose from the dead does explain those three data, this does NOT show that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE.  At most, this would show that the Resurrection Theory is more likely to be correct than the Hallucination Theory.  Therefore, this argument is clearly INVALID. The conclusion DOES NOT FOLLOW from the premises.  This is NOT a proof that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE.  Thus, Kreeft's argument constituting Objection #13 is INVALID; therefore, Objection #13 FAILS, just like every single one of Kreeft's previous dozen objections against the Hallucination Theory FAILED.

As the Christian apologist William Craig points out, in order to intelligently and rationally evaluate alternative theories, such as the Hallucination Theory vs. the Resurrection Theory, there are MULTIPLE CONSIDERATIONS that should be taken into account in order to determine which theory is better or more likely to be correct.  For this reason, the logic of comparing alternative theories won't work to support a firm and decisive conclusion like "The Hallucination Theory is FALSE".

Here are the considerations or criteria that Craig uses to compare alternative historical theories (Craig uses the term "hypothesis" instead of "theory"):

1. The hypothesis must imply further statements describing present observable data.

2. The hypothesis must have greater explanatory scope than rival hypotheses.

3. The hypothesis must have greater explanatory power than rival hypotheses.

4. The hypothesis must be more plausible than rival hypotheses.

5. The hypothesis must be less ad hoc than rival hypotheses.

6. The hypothesis must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than rival hypotheses. 

7. The hypothesis must so exceed its rivals in fulfilling conditions (2) through (6) that there is little chance of a rival hypothesis exceeding it in meeting these conditions. (see Reasonable Faith, 3rd edition, p.396-399)

 Kreeft's argument is focused on condition (2), the claim that the Resurrection Theory has greater explanatory scope than the Hallucination Theory.  But that is only ONE out of SEVEN considerations that Craig holds that we need to examine in order to rationally evaluate one historical theory (or hypothesis) in comparison to alternative historical theories (or hypotheses).  

Because the premises of Kreeft's argument only cover ONE out of SEVEN important considerations for evaluating a historical theory/hypothesis, the argument FAILS to provide anything close to a justification of the claim that the Resurrection Theory is more likely to be correct than the Hallucination Theory. 

Furthermore, even if Kreeft massively improved and reinforced this argument, so that it covered all SEVEN considerations, the most that such a massively improved argument would show is that the Resurrection Theory is more likely to be correct than the Hallucination Theory.  It would NOT show that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE!

Finally, without going into details on all SEVEN conditions mentioned above, it is reasonable to expect that it is often the case that one theory is better than another theory in some respects and worse than the other theory in other respects, so it is often the case that there is no clear and decisive conclusion that one theory is the best, and that the alternative theories are clearly inferior to that one.  

Another way to make this point is to note that condition (7) above creates a high standard that it is rare for theories to meet. Prior to critically examining lots of relevant details about the Hallucination Theory and the Resurrection Theory it is unlikely that either theory will meet the high standard that is put forward in condition (7), which means that it is unlikely that there will be a clear and decisive "winner" between these two theories.

Without going into all the details on all SEVEN conditions, it is likely that the Resurrection Theory is better than the Hallucination Theory in some respects and that it is worse than the Hallucination Theory in other respects. If that likely outcome of a careful critical investigation is actually the case, then there would be no clear and decisive "winner" between these two rival theories, and it certainly would be UNREASONABLE in that case to conclude that the Hallucination Theory was simply FALSE.  

In any case, since Kreeft's argument only touches on ONE out of the above SEVEN conditions, and since it only touches on TWO out of several alternative historical theories about the death of Jesus, it would clearly be very UNREASONABLE to conclude that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE on such a flimsy and superficial comparison of just ONE aspect of just TWO alternative theories.  Thus, Kreeft's argument constituting Objection #13 is logically INVALID and also clearly provides an insufficient reason for the conclusion that the Resurrection Theory is more likely to be correct than the Hallucination Theory.  Therefore, Objection #13 FAILS, just like every single one of Kreeft's previous dozen objections against the Hallucination Theory FAILED.

   

IS PREMISE (1) TRUE?

Here, again, is premise (1) of Kreeft's argument for Objection #13:

1. The Hallucination Theory explains only the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus.

Obviously, dreams or hallucinations of the risen Jesus had by some of the eleven disciples would explain appearances of the risen Jesus to the disciples who experienced those dreams or hallucinations.  As we have seen previously, dreams or hallucinations could explain not only visual appearances of a risen Jesus, but experiences that seemed to be of talking and eating with the risen Jesus, and experiences that seemed to be of touching the risen Jesus, and even experiences that seemed to be of a group talking or eating with the risen Jesus (e.g. Peter could have had a dream or hallucination in which he and other disciples talked and ate with the risen Jesus).  So, that aspect of premise (1) is correct.

However, Kreeft uses the qualification "only" here.  This implies that the ONLY data explained by the Hallucination Theory is the experiences of the disciples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus. But this is NOT the ONLY data explained by the Hallucination Theory, so this premise is FALSE.

The Hallucination Theory, for example, explains why the disciples left Jerusalem and returned to Galilee.  As I have argued previously, it is more likely that the eleven disciples headed back to Galilee shortly after the crucifixion of Jesus, and that the FIRST experiences of the risen Jesus took place in Galilee a week or more after the crucifixion.  

If Jesus had physically risen from the dead early on the first Easter Sunday, then he probably would have come to see his eleven disciples in Jerusalem on that Sunday, as indicated by the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John.  But those Jerusalem appearance stories are probably FICTIONAL, and it is more likely that Mark and Matthew are correct in placing the FIRST appearances of the risen Jesus to his eleven disciples in Galilee a week or more after the crucifixion of Jesus.

The most likely historical scenario is that the eleven disciples left Jerusalem believing that Jesus was still dead, and NOT believing that Jesus had physically risen from the dead. A week or more later, when they were back in Galilee, they began to experience appearances of the risen Jesus. The Hallucination Theory fits this historical circumstance better than the Resurrection Theory.  A physical resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday would likely have resulted in the eleven disciples being firmly convinced that very Sunday that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, and then they would probably have remained in Jerusalem with Jesus, rather than immediately heading back to Galilee.

There is a closely related problem of why it took nearly two months for the eleven disciples to start preaching about the resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem.  According to the Resurrection Theory Jesus physically rose from the dead in Jerusalem on Sunday, only about 36 hours after he was buried in a stone tomb.  In that case, Jesus probably would have visited his eleven disciples in Jerusalem that Sunday, like the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John claim.  But then the disciples would have become firmly convinced that Jesus had physically risen from the dead on that Sunday, and they probably would have begun preaching about the resurrection of Jesus within a few days.  It is unlikely that they would have waited nearly two months to start preaching about the resurrection of Jesus.

But on the Hallucination Theory, the disciples don't have to start believing in the resurrection on the first Easter Sunday.  They could have headed back to Galilee in defeat, believing that Jesus had died on the cross and that Jesus remained dead. It probably would take a week or a month for dreams or hallucinations to occur to some or most of the eleven disciples.  It is unlikely that they would all immediately have dreams or hallucinations of the risen Jesus, and much more likely that different disciples would experience such dreams or hallucinations at different times on different days.  Furthermore, dreams and hallucinations would probably not immediately convince all eleven disciples that Jesus had physically risen from the dead.  It would likely take a week or more for these experiences to produce a firm conviction of the resurrection among this group of disciples.  

After a month or so of being back in Galilee, hallucinations and dreams of the risen Jesus could have created enough conviction about the resurrection of Jesus to spur the eleven disciples to return to Jerusalem and to begin preaching the resurrection of Jesus there.  So, the Hallucination Theory helps to explain WHY it took nearly two months for the disciples to begin preaching about the resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem.

The Hallucination Theory also fits better with the alleged doubts of the eleven disciples about the resurrection of Jesus.  If Jesus had physically risen from the dead and appeared to his disciples on the first Easter Sunday, then they probably would have become firmly convinced on that very Sunday that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, and they would not have any significant doubts about this conclusion.  

But according to the Gospels, the disciples did have doubts about the resurrection of Jesus, even after he allegedly appeared to them.  The Hallucination Theory fits better with those doubts.  Individuals having separate dreams or hallucinations about the risen Jesus would probably not result in the same sort of immediate and firm conviction that an actual ordinary sensory experience of a physically resurrected Jesus would produce, especially an actual ordinary sensory experience of a physically resurrected Jesus had by a group of disciples at the same time and same place.

Some accounts of alleged appearances of the resurrected Jesus have Jesus doing physically impossible things, such as walking through walls or vanishing into thin air, or flying up into the sky.  The Hallucination Theory provides a better explanation of these "data", than does the Resurrection Theory.  Dreams and hallucinations often involve physically impossible events, such as people being able to fly like birds or vanishing into thin air.  Walking through walls is something that could easily happen in a dream or hallucination.  

The Resurrection Theory by itself does NOT explain these physically impossible events.  Jesus being alive again does NOT imply that Jesus had a body or powers that allowed him to walk through walls or to vanish into thin air or to fly up into the sky.  

One can add the further hypothesis that Jesus' body had been transformed into a new body that had supernatural or extraordinary powers.  But that additional hypothesis makes the Resurrection Theory more complex and much less likely to be true.  No such unlikely supernatural hypothesis is needed by the Hallucination Theory to explain why the risen Jesus could apparently walk through walls or fly up into the sky.  These are natural and common aspects of the experiences people have in dreams and hallucinations.

Some accounts of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus indicate that Jesus was not immediately recognized by the disciple or follower who had this experience.  The Hallucination Theory explains this "data" better than the Resurrection Theory.  According to the Resurrection Theory Jesus' body came back to life after it was placed into a stone tomb.  If this were true, then we would expect that followers and disciples of Jesus would immediately recognize the physically resurrected Jesus.  

But according to some Gospel accounts, the risen Jesus was sometimes not immediately recognized by the disciple or follower of Jesus.  But a dream or hallucination could easily explain this "data" because the appearances of people in dreams and hallucinations can quickly and significantly change (without any constraints from laws of physics), and because it is a common feature of dreams (and perhaps of hallucinations?) that the dreamer can identify a person in a dream as someone they actually know even though in the dream the person does NOT look like that person looks in reality. 

The following questions summarize aspects of the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus that are better explained by the Hallucination Theory than by the Resurrection Theory:

• Why did the eleven disciples depart from Jerusalem and return to Galilee shortly after Jesus was crucified?
• Why did it take nearly two months for the eleven disciples to start preaching in Jerusalem about the resurrection of Jesus? 
• Why was the risen Jesus apparently able to do extraordinary things like walk through walls and fly up into the sky and vanish into thin air? 
• Why did some of the disciples continue to have doubts about the resurrection of Jesus after the first Easter Sunday?
• Why was Jesus not always immediately recognized by his own disciples and followers when they experienced an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus?

Even if you disagree with my view that the Hallucination Theory provides a better explanation of these "data" than the Resurrection Theory, it is still clearly and obviously the case that the Hallucination Theory explains MORE THAN just the bare appearances of the risen Jesus. So, it is clear that premise (1) is FALSE.  Thus, Kreeft's argument for Objection #13 is UNSOUND and should be rejected.  Therefore, Objection #13 FAILS, just like every single one of Kreeft's other dozen objections FAILED.

INITIAL EVALUATION OF THE ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #13

So far, I have shown that Kreeft's argument for Objection #13 is logically INVALID, and that premise (1) of this argument is FALSE.  So, it is already clear that this argument is UNSOUND and thus should be rejected. Therefore, Objection #13 FAILS, just like every single one of Kreeft's previous dozen objections against the Hallucination Theory FAILED.

In the next Part in this series, I will continue to evaluate Kreeft's argument for Objection #13 by focusing on these two remaining questions about Kreeft's third Empty-Tomb objection against the Hallucination Theory:

Is premise (2) true?

Is premise (3) true?

Defending the Hallucination Theory - Part 39: Evaluation of the Second Empty-Tomb Objection (Objection #12)

WHERE WE ARE 

When I clarified and revised Peter Kreeft's Objection #12, I discovered that it really was an objection against the Hallucination Theory, contrary to my previous judgment that it was only an attempt to support "the empty tomb" assumption that Objection #13 is based upon.  

Here is the core argument of Objection #12:

E. IF some or all of the eleven disciples had dreamed or hallucinated about the risen Jesus and then began to preach that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, THEN the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem would have stopped the spread of the belief that Jesus had physically risen from the dead by publically producing the dead body of Jesus.

 F. IF the Hallucination Theory were true, THEN some or all of the eleven disciples had dreamed or hallucinated about the risen Jesus and then began to preach that Jesus had physically risen from the dead AND the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem did NOT stop the spread of the belief that Jesus had physically risen from the dead.

Therefore:

 A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE. 

 

THE LOGIC OF THE CORE ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #12 IS VALID 

I take it that this core argument is a deductively VALID argument, having the following logical form:

IF P, THEN S.

IF H, THEN (P AND NOT-S).

Therefore:

NOT-H

========================

P: Some or all of the eleven disciples had dreamed or hallucinated about the risen Jesus and then began to preach that Jesus had physically risen from the dead.

S: The Jewish leaders in Jerusalem would have stopped the spread of the belief that Jesus had physically risen from the dead by publically producing the dead body of Jesus.

H: The Hallucination Theory is true.

=======================

Suppose that H was the case (i.e. the Hallucination Theory is true).  Then from the second premise, we could infer this:

P AND NOT-S 

From that conclusion by itself we could infer this:

P

And we could also infer this:

NOT-S

We could then use P in combination with the first premise to infer this:

S

But then we could infer a contradiction based on our previous inferences:

S AND NOT-S 

Therefore our supposition of H must be FALSE, and we can infer this:

NOT-H (i.e. it is NOT the case that the Hallucination Theory is TRUE, that is, it is FALSE).

Clearly, the core argument for Objection #12 is deductively VALID, so the main questions to consider here concern the truth of the premises:

• Is premise (E) true?
• Is premise (F) true?

IS PREMISE (F) TRUE?

It seems to me reasonable to conclude that premise (F) is true.  It seems to me that the Hallucination Theory does imply that some or all of the eleven disciples had dreams or hallucinations of the risen Jesus, and that some of them began to preach that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, largely because of those experiences.  It also seems clear to me that the Hallucination Theory implies that nobody, including the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem, was able to put a stop to the spread of Christianity, including the spread of the belief that Jesus had physically risen from the dead.  It is precisely the initial spread of this belief that the Hallucination Theory attempts to explain.

The only way that (F) could be considered to be FALSE, would be if some followers of Jesus other than the eleven disciples experienced dreams or hallucinations of the risen Jesus, and it was those experiences that initiated the belief among Jesus' followers that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, and then some or all of the eleven disciples followed the lead of those people and accepted, or went along with, this new belief among Jesus' followers.  One would also have to conceive of the Hallucination Theory as being broad enough to encompass this possibility.  

Because this scenario is only a remote possibility, and because this would require a very broad conception of the Hallucination Theory, this does not seem like a problem that is sufficient to show that (F) is FALSE.

IS PREMISE (E) TRUE? 

In my analysis of Kreeft's argument for Objection #12, I first clarified Kreeft's one explicit premise, and then I added an unstated assumption/premise in order to infer premise (E):

1A. IF some or all of the eleven disciples had dreamed or hallucinated about the risen Jesus and then began to preach that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, THEN the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem would have stopped the spread of the belief that Jesus had physically risen from the dead by publically producing the dead body of Jesus, UNLESS the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus from the tomb where Jesus' body had been placed after his crucifixion.

D. It is NOT the case that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus from the tomb where Jesus' body had been placed after his crucifixion.

Thus: 

E. IF some or all of the eleven disciples had dreamed or hallucinated about the risen Jesus and then began to preach that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, THEN the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem would have stopped the spread of the belief that Jesus had physically risen from the dead by publically producing the dead body of Jesus.

I take this to be Kreeft's reasoning in support of premise (E).  So, part of a proper evaluation of premise (E) is to determine whether Kreeft's reasoning in support of (E) proves that (E) is true, or provides us with a strong reason for believing that (E) is true.

Premise (D) is based upon Kreeft's attempt to refute the Conspiracy Theory, which, according to Kreeft, asserts that the eleven disciples began to preach that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, which they knew to be a lie.  Their claim that Jesus had physically risen from the dead was an intentional deception that the eleven disciples conspired to promote:

B. Serious problems with the Conspiracy Theory show that this theory is false.

C. IF the Conspiracy Theory is false, THEN it is NOT the case that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus from the tomb where Jesus' body had been placed after his crucifixion.

Thus:

D. It is NOT the case that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus from the tomb where Jesus' body had been placed after his crucifixion. 

Kreeft raises seven objections against the Conspiracy Theory in his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (see pages 184 to 186).  I have previously examined each of those objections and found that ALL seven objections FAIL: 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2019/06/01/defending-the-conspiracy-theory-index/

So, premise (B) is DUBIOUS, and since Kreeft put forward seven different objections against the Conspiracy Theory, it is likely that (B) is FALSE.  

Premise (C) also appears to be FALSE.  

I can think of various scenarios in which the Conspiracy Theory would be FALSE, but where it would also be the case that "the disciples" removed Jesus' body from the tomb.  Such scenarios constitute counterexamples to premise (C).

Scenario #1:

Two disciples of Jesus who were not among the eleven disciples removed the body of Jesus from the tomb but did not tell the eleven disciples what he had done, and the eleven disciples did NOT conspire to lie about Jesus rising from the dead, but rather they all became convinced that Jesus had actually physically risen from the dead, partly because of the empty tomb, but mostly because some of them had dreams or hallucinations of the risen Jesus. 

This scenario is a counterexample to premise (C) if we interpret "the disciples" broadly as including any followers of Jesus, not just the inner circle of the eleven disciples.

Scenario #2:

One of the eleven disciples of Jesus, with the help of a disciple who was not among the eleven disciples, removed the body of Jesus from the tomb but they did not tell the other members of the eleven disciples about this, and the remaining disciples did NOT conspire to lie about Jesus rising from the dead, but rather they all became convinced that Jesus had actually physically risen from the dead, partly because of the empty tomb, but mostly because some of them had dreams or hallucinations of the risen Jesus.

This scenario is a counterexample to premise (C) if we interpret "the disciples" to mean either "any followers of Jesus" or "one or more of the eleven disciples", and not as requiring the involvement of most or all of the eleven disciples.

Scenario #3:

Two of the eleven disciples of Jesus removed the body of Jesus from the tomb but they did not tell the other members of the eleven disciples about this, and the remaining nine disciples did NOT conspire to lie about Jesus rising from the dead, but rather they all became convinced that Jesus had actually physically risen from the dead, partly because of the empty tomb, but mostly because some of them had dreams or hallucinations of the risen Jesus.  Furthermore, the two disciples who removed the body of Jesus from the tomb did not conspire to lie about Jesus rising from the dead with each other, and did not preach or teach others that Jesus had physically risen from the dead.

This scenario is a counterexample to premise (C) if we interpret "the disciples" to mean either "any followers of Jesus" or "one or more of the eleven disciples" or "two or more of the eleven disciples" rather than requiring the involvement of all or most of the eleven disciples.

Scenario #4:

Six of the eleven disciples of Jesus removed the body of Jesus from the tomb on Saturday night (a little more than 24 hours after Jesus' body was placed in the tomb) but they did not tell the other five members of the eleven disciples about this.  The other five members of the eleven disciples did NOT conspire to lie about Jesus rising from the dead, but rather they all became convinced that Jesus had actually physically risen from the dead, partly because of the empty tomb, but mostly because some of them had dreams or hallucinations of the risen Jesus.  

Two of the six who removed the body of Jesus from the tomb also later became convinced that Jesus had actually physically risen from the dead, not because of the empty tomb, but because they, or others among the eleven disciples, had dreams or hallucinations of the risen Jesus.  Furthermore, none of the six disciples of Jesus who removed the body of Jesus from the tomb on Saturday night conspired with each other to lie about Jesus rising from the dead.  The four of the six disciples who did not become convinced that Jesus had physically risen from the dead either quietly left the movement or refrained from preaching and teaching that Jesus had physically risen from the dead.

This scenario is a counterexample to premise (C) if we interpret "the disciples" to mean either "any followers of Jesus" or "one or more of the eleven disciples" or "two or more of the eleven disciples" or "most of the eleven disciples" rather than requiring the involvement of all of the eleven disciples.

What if we interpret "the disciples" very narrowly to mean "all of the eleven disciples"?  In that case, none of the above scenarios involve all of the eleven disciples in the removal of the body of Jesus from the tomb, and so none of the above scenarios would work as a counterexample to premise (C). 

Scenario #5:

All of the eleven disciples were involved with removing the body of Jesus from the tomb on Saturday night (a little more than 24 hours after Jesus' body was placed in the tomb).  The next day, all of the eleven disciples headed back to Galilee, believing that Jesus was still dead.   They arrived back in Galilee several days later, and a week after they had arrived back in Galilee, some of the eleven disciples had dreams or hallucinations of the risen Jesus, and as a result, all of the eleven disciples became convinced that Jesus had physically risen from the dead after they had moved his body.  None of the eleven disciples conspired with each other to lie about Jesus rising from the dead, because they all truly believed that Jesus had actually physically risen from the dead.

This scenario works as a counterexample to (C), even if one insists that the phrase "the disciples" be interpreted very narrowly as meaning "all of the eleven disciples". 

However broadly or narrowly we define the VAGUE phrase "the disciples" we can still come up with a scenario in which it would be the case that "the Conspiracy Theory is false" and yet it would also be the case that "the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus from the tomb where Jesus' body had been placed after his crucifixion."  Therefore, premise (C) is clearly FALSE.

Because premise (B) is probably FALSE, and premise (C) is clearly FALSE, the argument in support of premise (D) is UNSOUND and Kreeft has FAILED to provide a good reason to believe that (D) is true. So premise (D) is itself DUBIOUS.

What about premise (1A), the one premise that Kreeft stated explicitly? If that premise is also DUBIOUS or FALSE, then Kreeft's argument for (E) would clearly be a BAD argument, and premise (E) would itself be DUBIOUS at best, and perhaps even FALSE.

Here, once more, is premise (1A):

1A. IF some or all of the eleven disciples had dreamed or hallucinated about the risen Jesus and then began to preach that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, THEN the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem would have stopped the spread of the belief that Jesus had physically risen from the dead by publically producing the dead body of Jesus, UNLESS the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus from the tomb where Jesus' body had been placed after his crucifixion.

This premise is clearly FALSE.  

Scenario #6:

Suppose that the antecedent of this conditional statement was true: "some or all of the eleven disciples had dreamed or hallucinated about the risen Jesus and then began to preach that Jesus had physically risen from the dead".  Suppose this took place in Galilee about one month after Jesus was crucified. Suppose that none of the eleven disciples had moved the body of Jesus from the tomb where his body was placed after the crucifixion. Suppose that Jesus' body was still in the tomb where it had been placed after his crucifixion.

In this case, the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem would probably not find out about the preaching of the eleven disciples for a couple of weeks or a month after the eleven disciples began to preach, so when the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem found out that the eleven disciples had begun preaching about Jesus rising physically from the dead, it would be six to eight weeks after the crucifixion, and the body of Jesus would be too decomposed to be useful to publically display as a refutation of the claim that Jesus had physically risen from the dead.  So it would NOT be the case that "the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem would have stopped the spread of the belief that Jesus had physically risen from the dead by publically producing the body of Jesus" even though the body of Jesus was still present in the tomb.

Scenario #7:

Suppose that the antecedent of this conditional statement was true: "some or all of the eleven disciples had dreamed or hallucinated about the risen Jesus and then began to preach that Jesus had physically risen from the dead".  Suppose this took place in Galilee about one week after Jesus was crucified. Suppose that none of the eleven disciples had moved the body of Jesus from the tomb where his body was placed after the crucifixion. Suppose, however, that Joseph of Arimathea moved the body of Jesus to another tomb on Saturday night (a little more than 24 hours after the body of Jesus had been placed into the first tomb) without telling the other Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. 

In this case, even assuming that the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem (other than Joseph of Arimathea) heard about the eleven disciples preaching in Galilee that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, and they heard this just a few days after the preaching began, they still would probably not be able to publically produce the body of Jesus in Jerusalem to refute the view that Jesus had risen from the dead, because they would not know where the body of Jesus was located, since Joseph of Arimathea moved it without telling them.  So, it would NOT be the case that "the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem would have stopped the spread of the belief that Jesus had physically risen from the dead by publically producing the body of Jesus" even though the body of Jesus had NOT been moved by any of the eleven disciples.

Scenario #8:

Suppose that the antecedent of this conditional statement was true: "some or all of the eleven disciples had dreamed or hallucinated about the risen Jesus and then began to preach that Jesus had physically risen from the dead".  Suppose this took place in Galilee about one week after Jesus was crucified. Suppose that Jesus' body had not been placed into any tomb, but was instead tossed into a shallow unmarked grave along with a dozen other crucified or dead criminals.  Suppose that the stories of the proper burial of Jesus' body in a stone tomb were legends invented to hide the horribly embarrassing truth that Jesus' body was not given a proper burial.

In this case, the Jewish leaders of Jerusalem might not be able to locate the dead body of Jesus, and even if they could locate the shallow unmarked grave with a dozen dead bodies in it, they might not be able to clearly identify which body in the grave belonged to Jesus.  If they could not locate the shallow unmarked grave, or they could not identify which of the various dead bodies in the grave belonged to Jesus, then it would NOT be the case that "the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem would have stopped the spread of the belief that Jesus had physically risen from the dead by publically producing the body of Jesus" even though none of the eleven disciples had stolen the body of Jesus from a stone tomb (because his body had never been placed into a stone tomb).

I have spelled out three different scenarios (Scenario #6, #7, and #8) in which the antecedent of premise (1A) would be TRUE, but the consequent of (1A) would be FALSE.  Therefore, the conditional statement asserted in premise (1A) is FALSE.

EVALUATION OF THE ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (E)

The argument for premise (E) consists of two premises: premise (1A) and premise (D).  I have previously shown that premise (D) is DUBIOUS and probably FALSE.  And just now I have shown that premise (1A) is FALSE.  So, the argument for premise (E) is clearly UNSOUND and should be rejected.  That means that premise (E) is itself DUBIOUS and possibly FALSE.

EVALUATION OF PREMISE (E)

Once again, here is premise (E):

E. IF some or all of the eleven disciples had dreamed or hallucinated about the risen Jesus and then began to preach that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, THEN the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem would have stopped the spread of the belief that Jesus had physically risen from the dead by publically producing the dead body of Jesus.

Premise (E) is very similar to premise (1A), and is basically a more generalized version of (1A).  Because of that similarity between (E) and (1A), the counterexamples that I gave against (1A) also apply to (E), and thus those counterexamples also show that (E) is FALSE.

In Scenario #6 the preaching of the resurrection by the eleven disciples begins in Galilee about a month after the crucifixion, and the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem don't hear about this preaching until six to eight weeks after the crucifixion, so the body of Jesus is too decomposed to be useful in refuting the claim of the eleven disciples that Jesus had physically risen from the dead.  This scenario works as a counterexample against premise (E).

In Scenario #7 Joseph of Arimathea moves the body of Jesus from the tomb where it was initially placed and does not tell the other Jewish leaders in Jerusalem about this. So, when the other Jewish leaders hear about the eleven disciples preaching that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, they don't know where to find the body of Jesus, so they are not able to put the body of Jesus on public display to refute the claim that he had physically risen from the dead.  This scenario works as a counterexample against premise (E).

In Scenario #8 the body of Jesus was never placed in a stone tomb; the story of the burial of Jesus in a stone tomb was invented later to hide the shameful fact that Jesus' body was not given a proper burial, but was instead tossed into a shallow grave with several other dead criminals.  In this case, the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem might well not be able to locate the shallow grave where Jesus' body was placed, or might well not be able to identify which of the various dead bodies in the grave belonged to Jesus.  This scenario also works as a counterexample against premise (E).

Because there are at least three different scenarios in which the antecedent of (E) would be TRUE while the consequent of (E) would be FALSE, it is clear that the conditional claim asserted by premise (E) is FALSE.

EVALUATION OF OBJECTION #12

Although one of the key premises in the core argument of Objection #12 appears to be TRUE, the other key premise, premise (E), is clearly FALSE.  Thus, the core argument for Objection #12 is UNSOUND and should be rejected.  Therefore, Objection #12 FAILS, just like every single one of the previous eleven objections FAILED:

In the next Part of this series, I will begin to examine Kreeft's third and final Empty- Tomb objection, Objection #13.

Defending the Hallucination Theory - Part 38: The Second Empty-Tomb Objection (Objection #12)

 WHERE WE ARE

In Part 37, I argued that Peter Kreeft's Objection #11 was not actually an objection to the Hallucination Theory, and that even if Objection #11 was correct, it would NOT show that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE.  

The point of Objection #11 is to show that the Hallucination Theory implies "the empty tomb", so Objection #11 provides some support to Objection #13, which is based upon the assumption that the tomb of Jesus was empty when the eleven disciples began to believe that Jesus had physically risen from the dead.  Thus, Objection #11 is actually just a part of Objection #13, and does not constitute a separate objection against the Hallucination Theory. Therefore, Objection #11 FAILS to show that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE, just like all of the previous ten objections.

It is now time to examine Objection #12.

OBJECTION #12: THE DISCIPLES COULD NOT PERSUADE OTHERS (OF JESUS' RESURRECTION) IF THE TOMB WAS NOT EMPTY.

Kreeft states Objection #12 in just one sentence:

12. If the apostles had hallucinated and then spread their hallucinogenic story, the Jews would have stopped it by producing the body—unless the disciples had stolen it, in which case we are back with the conspiracy theory and all its difficulties.       (HCA, p.188)

As usual, Kreeft does not bother to state the conclusion of his argument, but we can provide the conclusion ourselves:

A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.

The phrase "the apostles" needs clarification, as does the phrase "their hallucinogenic story":

1. IF some or all of the eleven disciples had dreamed or hallucinated about the risen Jesus and then began to preach that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, THEN the Jews would have stopped it by producing the body, UNLESS the disciples had stolen it.

The phrase "the Jews" is a bit anti-Semitic in this context and is also VAGUE, so that phrase needs to be revised and clarified.  The phrase "stopped it" is a bit UNCLEAR and thus needs to be revised, and the phrase "the body" is also a bit UNCLEAR.  Thus, further clarifications of this statement are needed in order to make it possible to rationally evaluate this statement and the argument Kreeft is presenting:

1A. IF some or all of the eleven disciples had dreamed or hallucinated about the risen Jesus and then began to preach that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, THEN the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem would have stopped the spread of the belief that Jesus had physically risen from the dead by publically producing the dead body of Jesus, UNLESS the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus from the tomb where Jesus' body had been placed after his crucifixion.

The final phrase in Kreeft's original sentence is this:

...in which case we are back with the conspiracy theory and all its difficulties.

This phrase suggests a couple more claims and an inference:

B. Serious problems with the Conspiracy Theory show that this theory is false.

C. IF the Conspiracy Theory is false, THEN it is NOT the case that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus from the tomb where Jesus' body had been placed after his crucifixion.

Thus:

D. It is NOT the case that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus from the tomb where Jesus' body had been placed after his crucifixion.

The combination of the UNSTATED premise (D) with premise (1A), implies a simpler conditional claim than (1A):

1A. IF some or all of the eleven disciples had dreamed or hallucinated about the risen Jesus and then began to preach that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, THEN the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem would have stopped the spread of the belief that Jesus had physically risen from the dead by publically producing the dead body of Jesus, UNLESS the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus from the tomb where Jesus' body had been placed after his crucifixion.

D. It is NOT the case that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus from the tomb where Jesus' body had been placed after his crucifixion.

Thus: 

E. IF some or all of the eleven disciples had dreamed or hallucinated about the risen Jesus and then began to preach that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, THEN the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem would have stopped the spread of the belief that Jesus had physically risen from the dead by publically producing the dead body of Jesus.

It appears that I was previously mistaken in thinking that Objection #12 was not an objection to the Hallucination Theory and that the point of Objection #12 was, like Objection #11, to show that the Hallucination Theory implies "the empty tomb".  Now that I have clarified Objection #12, it looks like this is in fact an objection against the Hallucination Theory and not just support for "the empty tomb" assumption. 

Premise (E) is a key premise in the core argument for Objection #12, but we also need to make explicit an UNSTATED premise that links the Hallucination Theory to elements in premise (E):

E. IF some or all of the eleven disciples had dreamed or hallucinated about the risen Jesus and then began to preach that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, THEN the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem would have stopped the spread of the belief that Jesus had physically risen from the dead by publically producing the dead body of Jesus.

 F. IF the Hallucination Theory were true, THEN some or all of the eleven disciples had dreamed or hallucinated about the risen Jesus and then began to preach that Jesus had physically risen from the dead AND the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem did NOT stop the spread of the belief that Jesus had physically risen from the dead.

Therefore:

 A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE. 

Now we can diagram the structure of the argument constituting Objection #12: 

In the next Part of this series, I will evaluate the argument for Objection #12.

Defending the Hallucination Theory - Part 37: The First Empty-Tomb Objection (Objection #11)

 WHERE WE ARE

In Part 36 I have already concluded that Peter Kreeft's three Empty-Tomb Objections FAIL to show that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE.  That is because Objection #11 and Objection #12 are NOT actually objections against the Hallucination Theory, and because Objection #13, even if correct, would only provide a reason to favor Kreeft's theory (that Jesus physically rose from the dead) over the Hallucination Theory, but would NOT show that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE.

It is now time to examine Kreeft's Objection #11 against the Hallucination Theory.

OBJECTION #11: THE DISCIPLES COULD NOT BELIEVE IN A HALLUCINATION IF THE TOMB WAS NOT EMPTY.

 Kreeft states his Objection #11 in on brief paragraph:

11. The apostles could not have believed in the "hallucination" if Jesus' corpse had still been in the tomb. This is a very simple and telling point; for if it was a hallucination, where was the corpse? They would have checked for it; if it was there, they could not have believed.

(HCA, p. 187-188) 

As usual, Kreeft FAILS to state the conclusion of his argument.  But since this is supposed to be an argument that disproves the Hallucination Theory, we can supply the conclusion ourselves:

A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.

The last sentence needs to be clarified because of the referring expressions in it:

 ...if it was there, they could not have believed.

The initial phrase in the last sentence ("if it was there") can be clarified by using the parallel phrase in the first sentence ("if Jesus' corpse had still been in the tomb"):

...if Jesus' corpse had still been in the tomb, they could not have believed.

The second phrase in the last sentence ("they could not have believed") can be clarified by using the parallel phrase in the first sentence ("The apostles could not have believed in the 'hallucination'"):

...if Jesus' corps had still been in the tomb, the apostles could not have believed in the "hallucination".

Now that we have clarified the meaning of the last sentence it becomes clear that the first sentence in the paragraph says the same thing as the last sentence in the paragraph:

The apostles could not have believed in the "hallucination" if Jesus' corpse had still been in the tomb.

...if Jesus' corps had still been in the tomb, the apostles could not have believed in the "hallucination".

Clearly, the last sentence in Kreeft's paragraph is REDUNDANT; it simply repeats the claim made in the first sentence. The placement of this claim at both the beginning and end of the paragraph indicates that this is a conclusion that is based on another claim (or claims).  There is a sentence in the paragraph that asks a question: 

...if it was a hallucination, where was the corpse?

But it is not clear that any sort of claim is being made by asking this question.  The only other claim in this paragraph is made in this way:

They would have checked for it;

The word "they" is clearly a reference to "The apostles" and the "it" is clearly a reference to "Jesus' corpse" and the checking would obviously have been done "in the tomb", that is in the tomb where Jesus' body had (allegedly) been put after his crucifixion. So, we now have two inferences of Kreeft's argument:

1. The apostles would have checked for Jesus' corpse in the tomb where Jesus' body had been put after his crucifixion.

Thus:

2. The apostles could not have believed in the "hallucination" if Jesus' corpse had still been in the tomb where Jesus' body had been put after his crucifixion.

Therefore:

A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.

Premise (1) needs some further clarification because it is actually asserting a conditional claim.  It asserts that the apostles would have checked for Jesus' corpse under certain circumstances.  Premise (2) also needs some clarification of the phrase "The apostles" and of the phrase "could not have believed in the 'hallucination'".  So, I will clarify each of these premises for Kreeft, so that it will be possible to rationally evaluate these claims:

1A. IF some or all of the eleven disciples had experienced hallucinations or dreams of the risen Jesus, THEN those disciples would have checked for Jesus' corpse in the tomb where Jesus' body had been put after his crucifixion.

Thus: 

2A. IF some or all of the eleven disciples had experienced hallucinations or dreams of the risen Jesus AND Jesus' corpse was still in the tomb where Jesus' body had been put after his crucifixion, THEN none of those disciples could have believed that Jesus had physically risen from the dead on the basis of a hallucination or dream about the risen Jesus.

Therefore:

A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.

This is a non sequitur.  The conclusion (A) clearly DOES NOT FOLLOW from premise (2A).  

One could add a premise to (2A) in order to create a reduction-to-absurdity argument against the Hallucination Theory:

B. Jesus' corpse was still in the tomb where Jesus' body had been put after his crucifixion.

2A. IF some or all of the eleven disciples had experienced hallucinations or dreams of the risen Jesus AND Jesus' corpse was still in the tomb where Jesus' body had been put after his crucifixion, THEN none of those disciples could have believed that Jesus had physically risen from the dead on the basis of a hallucination or dream about the risen Jesus.

 Therefore:

A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.

Although this is not a formally VALID deductive argument, I believe that the conclusion does follow logically from these premises.  We would need additional premises or inferences concerning the meaning or implications of the Hallucination Theory, but  I think that one could produce a logically VALID argument using these premises.

However, premise (B) contradicts Kreeft's theory that Jesus physically rose from the dead.  Since Kreeft obviously rejects (B) as a FALSE claim, he cannot use (B) as a premise in an argument to PROVE that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE and that the view that Jesus physically rose from the dead is TRUE. It looks like Objection #11 FAILS, just like all of the previous objections FAILED.

However, premise (2A) could be used as the basis for a significant inference:

2A. IF some or all of the eleven disciples had experienced hallucinations or dreams of the risen Jesus AND Jesus' corpse was still in the tomb where Jesus' body had been put after his crucifixion, THEN none of those disciples could have believed that Jesus had physically risen from the dead on the basis of a hallucination or dream about the risen Jesus.

Therefore:

C. IF the Hallucination Theory were TRUE, then it was NOT the case that Jesus' corpse was still in the tomb where Jesus' body had been put after his crucifixion.

This, I believe, is the actual point of Objection #11.  The conclusion is NOT that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE, but rather that the Hallucination Theory implies "the empty tomb".  

That is to say, the Hallucination Theory implies that it was NOT the case that Jesus' corpse was still in the tomb where Jesus' body had been put after his crucifixion.  Somehow or other Jesus' corpse must not have remained in the tomb where his body had been placed.  Otherwise, any of the eleven disciples who had a hallucination or dream about the risen Jesus would have looked into the tomb, found Jesus' corpse there, and that would have ended any inclination of that disciple (or those disciples) to believe that Jesus had in fact physically risen from the dead.

Kreeft is claiming that the Hallucination Theory works only if the corpse of Jesus somehow or other did not remain in the tomb where Jesus body had been put after his crucifixion.  This, however, is NOT an argument showing that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE.  Therefore, Objection #11 is NOT an argument for the conclusion that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE.

The purpose of Objection #11 is to provide support for Objection #13, in that Objection #11 argues that the Hallucination Theory implies "the empty tomb", and Objection #13 is based on the assumption of "the empty tomb".

Because Objection #11 is NOT an argument for the conclusion that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE, even if this argument is correct, it would still FAIL to show that the Hallucination Theory is FALSE.  Therefore, Objection #11 FAILS, just like every one of the previous ten objections FAILED: