WHERE WE ARE
In Part 28 of this series I clarified and analyzed the argument constituting Kreeft's Objection #8 (Hallucinations do not eat). Here is the core argument for Objection #8:
2A. On at least two occasions, some of Jesus' disciples had experiences in which it seemed to them that the risen Jesus ate something.
B. IF the Hallucination Theory were true, THEN none of Jesus' disciples had any experiences in which it seemed to them that the risen Jesus ate something.
Therefore:
A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.
In Part 29 I showed that the key premise (2A) is DUBIOUS and that the key premise (B) is FALSE. Thus, this core argument is UNSOUND, and Kreeft's Objection #8 FAILS, just like all of the previous seven objections FAILED:
It is now time to examine Kreeft's Objection #9 against the Hallucination Theory.
OBJECTION #9: THE DISCIPLES TOUCHED JESUS
As usual, Kreeft presents the argument constituting Objection #9 very briefly, making this argument VERY UNCLEAR. This is the only objection that Kreeft states in a SINGLE SHORT SENTENCE:
9. The disciples touched him (Mt 28:9; Lk 24:39; Jn 20:27). (HCA, p. 187)
As usual, Kreeft FAILS to state the conclusion of his argument. So, we can help him by providing at least that missing piece of his argument:
1. Some of Jesus' disciples touched the risen Jesus.
Therefore:
A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.
This argument is not a formally valid deductive argument, because there is no mention of the Hallucination Theory in the premise, but the conclusion is ABOUT the Hallucination Theory.
However, it is fairly clear that the conclusion (A) follows logically from the premise (1). If some people touched the risen Jesus, then obviously there was a risen Jesus for them to touch. If there was a risen Jesus to touch, then Jesus really did rise from the dead and the Hallucination Theory is FALSE.
But this means that premise (1) BEGS THE QUESTION, something that Kreeft is in the habit of doing in his arguments against the Hallucination Theory. Thus, premise (1) must either be revised or be rejected. It is UNFAIR and ILLOGICAL for Kreeft to simply assume that Jesus rose from the dead in the premise of an argument given to try to resolve the issue "DID JESUS RISE FROM THE DEAD?".
Here is a re-statement of Kreeft's argument that avoids the FALLACY OF BEGGING THE QUESTION:
1A. Some of Jesus' disciples had experiences in which it seemed to them that they touched the risen Jesus.
Therefore:
A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.
This argument no longer begs the question, but it is now a non sequitur. The conclusion DOES NOT FOLLOW from this premise.
Because Kreeft only gave us one question-begging statement, his argument is VERY UNCLEAR. He provides no explanation whatsoever as to WHY an experience of the disciples in which it seems to them that they touched the risen Jesus would show that the Hallucination Theory is false.
I thought that Kreeft probably borrowed this objection from Josh McDowell like he borrowed most of his other objections from McDowell, and I wondered if Kreeft once again messed up McDowell's argument by leaving out a crucial premise. So, I took a look at The Resurrection Factor (1981 edition) to see if McDowell had provided a clearer version of this objection and if McDowell provided some reason WHY premise (1A) is relevant to an evaluation of the Hallucination Theory.
I found that there is no mention of the disciples touching Jesus in McDowell's objections against the Hallucination Theory in The Resurrection Factor (see pages 82-86).
I also took a look at McDowell's objections against the Hallucination Theory in Evidence that Demands a Verdict (1979 edition). In the section that covers McDowell's "A False Response" objection (see pages 250-251), there are three quotes from three different Christian apologists (Wilbur Smith, W.J. Sparrow-Simpson, and Thomas Thrornburn) that mention that the risen Jesus was supposedly touched by some of his disciples.
However, in none of those quotations is there a claim that the alleged touching of the risen Jesus disproves the Hallucination Theory. Furthermore, in none of those quotations is there any explanation of WHY the alleged touching of the risen Jesus would disprove or disconfirm the Hallucination Theory. Therefore, it appears that Kreeft did borrow Objection #9 from Josh McDowell (from Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p.250-251), but that Kreeft did NOT mess up McDowell's objection; it was already messed up as presented by McDowell. Kreeft was just blindly following in the footsteps of McDowell.
OBJECTION #9 FAILS FOR THE SAME REASON OBJECTION #8 FAILS
The problem with Objection #9 is very similar to the problem with Objection #8. A disciple of Jesus could have DREAMED that the risen Jesus ate something, and so obviously a disciple of Jesus could have HALLUCINATED that the risen Jesus ate something. The fact that someone had an experience that seemed to them to be an experience of the risen Jesus eating something in NO WAY shows that this experience was an ordinary sensory experience, as opposed to being a DREAM or a HALLUCINATION. Objection #8 FAILED because it is obvious that a disciple of Jesus could have HALLUCINATED that the risen Jesus ate something.
Similarly, a disciple of Jesus could DREAM that he or she touched the risen Jesus. So, obviously, a disciple of Jesus could HALLUCINATE that he or she touched the risen Jesus. The fact that someone had an experience that seemed to them to be an experience of touching the risen Jesus in NO WAY shows that this experience was an ordinary sensory experience as opposed to being a DREAM or HALLUCINATION.
This is a freaking OBVIOUS point, but I have only found ONE Christian apologist who grasps this point. Peter Kreeft doesn't get this. Josh McDowell doesn't get this. Norman Geisler doesn't get this. John Ankerberg and John Weldon don't get this. Hank Hanegraaff doesn't get this. Gary Habermas doesn't get this. William Craig doesn't get this. I don't know what kind of Kool-Aid these Christian apologists are drinking, but it makes them unable to understand really OBVIOUS points.
Jonathan Kendall is the ONLY Christian apologist that I have come across who understands this obvious point:
It should be noted that establishing the physicality of the resurrection would not rule out their [post-resurrection appearances] being explainable as hallucinations. Zusne and Jones relate, regarding the content of hallucinations:
Hallucinations may be visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, haptic, or organic. Visual hallucinations range from simple light phenomena to the seeing of life-sized, life-like persons engaged in various activities. ...
("Hallucinations and the Risen Jesus" in Defending the Resurrection, edited by James Patrick Holding, p.318)
NOTE: "haptic" means relating to or based on the sense of touch.
Although Kreeft's argument is incredibly UNCLEAR and leaves the most crucial part of his argument UNSTATED, the most likely assumption that Kreeft was making here is this one:
(B) IF someone has an experience in which it seems to him or her that he or she physically touched another person, THEN that experience cannot be a DREAM or HALLUCINATION.
This assumption seems to help Kreeft to make use of premise (1A) in an argument against the Hallucination Theory. However, premise (B) is clearly FALSE. People can experience DREAMS or HALLUCINATIONS in which it seems to them that they are touching another person. For some mysterious reason, Christian apologists FAIL to understand this simple and obvious point.
ONE MORE UNSTATED PREMISE
There is at least one more premise needed to construct a formally valid deductive argument. Kreeft needs a premise that talks about the Hallucination Theory. Here is one that would fit with (1A) and (B):
(C) IF the Hallucination Theory were true, THEN any experience had by a disciple of Jesus about the risen Jesus must be either a DREAM or a HALLUCINATION.
So, here is my best guess at the reasoning that was going through Kreeft's Kool-Aid-drenched brain when he wrote his Objection #9:
1A. Some of Jesus' disciples had experiences in which it seemed to them that they touched the risen Jesus.
(B) IF someone has an experience in which it seems to him or her that he or she physically touched another person, THEN that experience cannot be a DREAM or HALLUCINATION.
(C) IF the Hallucination Theory were true, THEN any experience had by a disciple of Jesus about the risen Jesus must be either a DREAM or a HALLUCINATION.
Therefore:
A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.
Premise (C) is FALSE. Although we can imagine a particular version of the Hallucination Theory that would involve the very broad claim that ANY experience had by a disciple of Jesus about the risen Jesus must be a dream or hallucination, this would be an extreme form of the theory, so there are other versions of the Hallucination Theory that would NOT make such a broad claim.
The alleged experiences of the risen Jesus that really matter are the ones that CAUSED the early Christian belief in Jesus' physical resurrection to become established. Experiences of followers of Jesus that did NOT play a crucial role in establishing this belief among early Christians are largely IRRELEVANT to any reasonable version of the Hallucination Theory. So, the scope of alleged experiences of the risen Jesus that are of concern to the Hallucination Theory is much more restricted than "any experience had by a disciple of Jesus about the risen Jesus". Thus, premise (C) is FALSE.
EVALUATION OF PREMISE (1A)
I have evaluated the premise that Kreeft actually asserted, and rejected that premise because it OBVIOUSLY commits the FALLACY OF BEGGING THE QUESTION. However, I have also revised that premise so that it no longer BEGS THE QUESTION. Here is the improved version of Kreeft's one-and-only STATED claim in this argument:
1A. Some of Jesus' disciples had experiences in which it seemed to them that they touched the risen Jesus.
Is premise (1A) true? Kreeft points us to three gospel passages in support of premise (1A):
9. The disciples touched him (Mt 28:9; Lk 24:39; Jn 20:27). (HCA, p. 187)
Let's start with Luke Chapter 24, verse 39:
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 24:36-40, NRSV)
The first thing to note is that this passage does NOT say that any of the disciples actually touched Jesus. It only says that Jesus suggested that they could touch him. Kreeft either didn't bother to actually READ this passage before pointing us to it, or else he is a sloppy and careless reader.
A second serious problem with this passage is that, as I have previously argued, this story is probably FICTIONAL, because it clearly contradicts both the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew. Mark and Matthew agree that the FIRST appearance of the risen Jesus to his male disciples took place in Galilee a week or more after the crucifixion. Thus, the Jerusalem appearance stories in Luke and John are probably FICTIONAL stories.
Since Kreeft apparently does not bother to READ passages before providing them as "evidence" for his claims, we should also examine for ourselves the passage from John that he references:
26 A week later his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”
27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.”
28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.”
(John 20:26-29, NRSV)
Look at that. This passage does NOT say that Thomas physically touched Jesus. In fact, it strongly suggests that Thomas did NOT physically touch Jesus, because of what Jesus says to Thomas at the end of the story:
29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.”
(John 20:29, NRSV, emphasis added)
Jesus indicates that Thomas "believed" that Jesus had risen from the dead because of having SEEN the risen Jesus. If TOUCHING Jesus' hands and side is what finally convinced Thomas to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead, then Jesus would have said "because you have TOUCHED me" instead of "because you have SEEN me". So, Kreeft has NOT given us a passage that states that Thomas physically touched Jesus; rather, he has given us a passage that strongly suggests that Thomas did NOT physically touch Jesus! If only Kreeft would READ the Gospel passages that he references before giving them as "evidence" he would have realized this passage doesn't support his claim and saved us the bother of having to read it for ourselves.
A second serious problem with this passage is that it is from one of the Jerusalem appearance stories in the very UNRELIABLE Gospel of John. As I have previously argued, the Jerusalem appearance stories in Luke and John are probably FICTIONAL stories. Furthermore, the Gospel of John is viewed as an UNRELIABLE source of information about Jesus by scholars who study the historical Jesus. So, this passage from Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John provides no significant support for premise (1A).
Here is the passage from Chapter 28 of the Gospel of Matthew that Kreeft provides as "evidence" for premise (1A):
1 After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.
2 And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.
3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow.
4 For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men.
5 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified.
6 He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay.
7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’ This is my message for you.”
8 So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.
9 Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him.
10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”
(Matthew 28:1-10, NRSV, emaphasis added)
This is the ONLY passage provided by Kreeft in which the passage actually states that someone physically touched the risen Jesus. So, the main question at issue is whether this passage from Matthew Chapter 28 should be viewed as historically reliable and accurate information about an actual event.
The mention of guards at the tomb in verse 4 is generally viewed by NT scholars as an apologetic legend (a made-up story told to counteract the skeptical view that the disciples stole Jesus' body from the tomb). No other Gospel mentions any guards being stationed at the tomb of Jesus. So, that is a good reason to doubt the historical reliability of this passage in Matthew. That is strike number one against Matthew's account.
A second serious historical problem with this passage is that it clearly contradicts the Gospel of Mark, which is the earliest of the four Gospels. According to Mark, after the women are told to tell Jesus' male disciples that Jesus will meet them in Galilee, the women say nothing to the male disciples:
5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.
6 But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him.
7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.”
8 So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
(Mark 16:5-8, NRSV, emphasis added)
Because Mark was the first Gospel to be written, we should give preference to Mark's account of this event over Matthew's account, other things being equal. One of these two accounts is mistaken, and it is more likely that Matthew's account is wrong than that Mark's account is wrong. So, this is strike number two for Matthew's account: the women probably did NOT run "to tell the disciples" (Matthew 28:8) the message they were given.
Furthermore, Mark says NOTHING about the women who visited the tomb meeting up with Jesus after being given the message to take to the male disciples of Jesus. Why would Mark leave out such an important detail? Presumably, the author of Mark had never heard the story about the women who visited the tomb seeing Jesus when they left the tomb. But that is a strong indication that this story was either invented by Matthew or was invented by Christian storytellers after Mark wrote his gospel.
Also, Matthew's story about Jesus meeting up with the women when they leave the tomb doesn't make any sense. Jesus had presumably told the angel to give the women the message to tell his male disciples to meet him in Galilee. Jesus, as the divine Son of God, would have KNOWN that the angel had in fact given this message to the women when they were at the tomb. So, there is NO POINT in repeating the same message to the women. Finally, it looks like the author of Matthew borrowed the words of the angel and stuck them into the mouth of Jesus. This looks like a literary or storyteller amendment to a previous story that lacked the meeting of the risen Jesus with the women (e.g. repeating a message a second time to emphasize the message).
Finally, the account of the women visiting the tomb in the Gospel of Luke is similar to Mark in that there is NOTHING in the story about the women meeting the risen Jesus when they leave the tomb. They only meet "two men in dazzling clothes" who are clearly NOT Jesus, because the men (angels?) talk about Jesus in the third person:
5 “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen.
6 Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee,
7 that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.”
(Luke 24:5-7, NRSV)
The absence in Mark and Luke of such a significant meeting between the women who visited the tomb and the risen Jesus is evidence that either the author of Matthew invented this meeting between the women and the risen Jesus, or that this was a legend invented by Christian storytellers that was either unknown to, or rejected as being untrue by, Mark and Luke. This is strike number three against the historical reliability of this passage from Matthew. Thus, we have good reason to doubt the historical reliability of this account in Matthew 28 of an alleged event in which some women had experiences which they took to be experiences of seeing and touching the risen Jesus.
As usual, Kreeft has FAILED to show his key historical claim in this argument to be true. Premise (1A) remains DUBIOUS.
EVALUATION OF OBJECTION #9 (THE DISCIPLES TOUCHED JESUS)
Kreeft's argument constituting Objection #9 is VERY UNCLEAR because he states the "argument" in a single brief statement, which is obviously a QUESTION-BEGGING claim. However, in spite of the absence of any serious effort by Kreeft to present a clear argument, I have made my best guess at what his reasoning consists of, and this is the argument I believe he would have given to us, if he had made a serious effort to construct a CLEAR argument:
1A. Some of Jesus' disciples had experiences in which it seemed to them that they touched the risen Jesus.
(B) IF someone has an experience in which it seems to him or her that he or she physically touched another person, THEN that experience cannot be a DREAM or HALLUCINATION.
(C) IF the Hallucination Theory were true, THEN any experience had by a disciple of Jesus about the risen Jesus must be either a DREAM or a HALLUCINATION.
Therefore:
A. The Hallucination Theory is FALSE.
Premise (B) is FALSE. Premise (C) is FALSE. So, this argument is UNSOUND, and should be rejected.
Kreeft FAILS to provide any good reason to believe the historical premise (1A), so that premise remains DUBIOUS. This argument is clearly UNSOUND, and so Kreeft's Objection #9 FAILS, just like every one of the previous eight objections has FAILED.
Given that every single objection raised by Kreeft so far has FAILED, and given that the remaining objections don't appear to be any better than the first nine objections, it is UNLIKELY that any of the remaining objections will turn out to be a strong and solid objection against the Hallucination Theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment