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.
No comments:
Post a Comment