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.
No comments:
Post a Comment