NOTHING ABOUT JESUS IS A FACT
"The empty tomb" is NOT a FACT, because NOTHING about the life, ministry, and death of Jesus is a FACT. Jesus might not have existed at all. Jesus might be a fictional character, and the Gospels might just be pure legends or pure fiction or a combination of legend and fiction.
Consider the view of a New Testament scholar who was a distinguished leader in biblical scholarship for over three decades (Robert Funk):
There is nothing in the Christian story, so far as I can see, that is immune from doubt. The crucifixion of Jesus is not entirely beyond question....We do not know for a fact that he was buried. His body may have been left to rot on the cross, to become carrion for dogs and crows. ...And very few scholars believe that the birth stories [in the Gospels] are anything other than attempts to claim that Jesus was a remarkable person. Even the existence of Jesus has been challenged more than once and not without some justification. We should begin by admitting that all of these myths and legends may rest on nothing other than the fertile imagination of early believers. (Robert W. Funk, Honest to Jesus, p.219-220)
Robert Funk does not believe that Jesus is a fictional character; he believes that there was an actual historical Jesus:
What do we know about this shadowy figure...? The short answer is we don't know a great deal. But there are a few assorted facts to which most critical scholars subscribe.
We do not know much about the persons who played a role in Jesus' story. ...Beyond these few shadowy faces [John the Baptist, Simon Peter, James and John Zebedee, King Herod the Great, Herod Antipas, Pontius Pilate, Mary of Magdala], we have very little hard information. Nevertheless, there is substantial evidence that a person by the name of Jesus once existed. (Honest to Jesus, p.32-33)
Notice that Funk does NOT claim that it is a FACT that Jesus was an actual historical person. Funk recognizes that there are serious scholars who have argued that Jesus was NOT an actual historical person, and he recognizes that because there are some reasons for doubt about the existence of Jesus, we cannot be certain even of this most basic assumption about Jesus.
If we cannot be certain that Jesus was an actual historical person, then NOTHING else about the life of Jesus is a FACT. All we can do is attempt to determine whether there is "substantial evidence" that Jesus existed, or "substantial evidence" that Jesus was crucified, or whether there is "substantial evidence" that Jesus was buried in a stone tomb.
At best a Christian apologist will only be able to show that it is probably true that Jesus existed, and probably true that Jesus was crucified, and probably true that Jesus was buried in a stone tomb. Such modest conclusions are NOT sufficient for Kreeft to be able to prove that the Hallucination Theory is false. So, his case for the resurrection is doomed to FAIL.
There are serious and knowledgable scholars who have argued that Jesus was NOT an actual historical person:
G.A. Wells: The Jesus Myth (1999), The Jesus Legend (1996), Who Was Jesus? (1989), Did Jesus Exist? (1986, 2nd edition)
Earl Doherty: The Jesus Puzzle (1999)
Robert Price: Deconstructing Jesus (2000), The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011)
Richard Carrier: On the Historicity of Jesus (2014)
NT scholars often dismiss this skeptical view of Jesus as absurd and unworthy of serious consideration. However, one NT scholar has attempted to make a serious case for the claim that Jesus was an actual historical person, but one of the main arguments in that book is a complete and utter FAILURE. (See my critique of Bart Ehrman's first main argument for the existence of Jesus: Did Jesus Exist? Ehrman’s Complete Failure – Part 4 )
This is a powerful indication that NT scholars have dismissed this skeptical viewpoint on the basis of PREJUDICE and BIAS rather than on the basis of solid evidence and reasoning. Because one of the few attempts by an NT scholar to prove that Jesus was an actual historical person puts forward as one of the main arguments for this claim an argument that is a complete and utter FAILURE, it is reasonable to keep an open mind on this question and to give serious consideration to the view that there was no actual historical Jesus. As the NT scholar Robert Funk concluded, even the existence of Jesus is NOT a FACT.
THE EMPTY TOMB HAS NOT BEEN PROVED
Here are the historical claims implied by "the empty tomb" and that premise (2) of Kreeft's Objection #13 assumes to be FACTS:
HC1: Jesus' body was buried in a stone tomb at the end of the day when he was crucified.
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).
If these are NOT FACTS, then premise (2) should be rejected, and the argument for Objection #13 would be UNSOUND, and Objection #13 would thus FAIL (Although, we have already seen that it FAILS for other reasons, because premise (1) is FALSE, and because the logic of the argument is INVALID.)
Even the conservative Jesus scholar Gerald O'Collins, who believes and argues that Jesus physically rose from the dead, admits that one cannot PROVE that Jesus rose from the dead:
Beyond question, scrutinizing the historical evidence wich supports belief in the resurrection of Jesus has its value. This exercise can feed into a cumulative case for such a belief.... But limiting ourselves to a scrutiny of the evidence might unwittingly cater to some silent expectation that belief in the resurrection is overwhelmingly rational. (Easter Faith, p.49)
Clearly, O'Collins does not think that a "cumulative case" for the resurrection will be sufficient to make belief in the resurrection "overwhelmingly rational". In other words, it is UNREASONABLE to expect that anyone will be able to PROVE that Jesus physically rose from the dead because the available evidence is not sufficient to conclusively or overwhelmingly establish such a conclusion.
O'Collins knows ten times more about the NT and the scholarly study of the life and death of Jesus than Kreeft or McDowell could ever hope to know, so they ought to take his view on this seriously. Their attempts to PROVE that Jesus rose from the dead are doomed to FAILURE.
O'Collins goes on to give a reason in support of his modestly skeptical view:
If the (historical) evidence were sufficient to establish or conclusively confirm resurrection belief, such belief would be utterly convincing to all those willing to weigh the evidence and draw the obvious conclusions from it. Yet this would be a return to Panneberg's position (outlined above) and to its obvious rebuttal. If Pannenberg is correct, those best able to evaluate the evidence (i.e. historians) should be much more prominent among the ranks of those who agree with the conclusion that Jesus was raised from the dead. (Easter Faith, p.49-50)
If the available evidence PROVED that Jesus physically rose from the dead, then we would expect there to be very few historians, NT scholars, and Jesus scholars who doubted or rejected the claim that Jesus physically rose from the dead. But there are significant numbers of historians, NT scholars, and Jesus scholars who doubt or reject this claim.
This argument by O'Collins may also be applied to more specific historical claims, such as (HC1) and (HC4). If these historical claims were FACTS, then we would expect that historians, NT scholars, and Jesus scholars would agree with these historical claims, and agree that they are KNOWN to be true. But there are many historians, NT scholars, and Jesus scholars who doubt or even reject (HC1) or (HC4). Thus, it is very unlikely that these historical claims are FACTS.
Peter Carnley makes this very point in his response to Gerald O'Collin's discussion of the current state of scholarly investigation into the resurrection of Jesus:
James Dunn's suggestion that the story of the empty tomb may be of assistance in securing the belief that the appearances were objective rather than subjective psychogenic visions depends, of course, on the degree of credence to be accorded to it. Unfortunately, the ambiguous nature of the evidence of the empty tomb, which gives rise to the current debate about whether it is to be regarded as historically accurate or factual or simply legendary, does not inspire a geat deal of confidence at this point.
[...]
Indeed, the very diversity of viewpoint amongst contemporary theologians on this point is a clear indication of the fact that nobody really knows with any certainty whether the empty tomb story is historically factual or legendary. ...We cannot, therefore, follow James Dunn's suggestion that the empty tomb somehow resolves the question of the ambiguity of the appearances so as to decide with any degree of certainty whether they were objective or subjective visions.
("Response" in The Resurrection, 1997, edited by Stephen Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O'Collins)
A number of scholars have expressed doubt about the historicity of the story of the discovery of the empty tomb or have argued against it. Here are some scholars who point out that there has been a significant portion of scholars who doubt or argue against the historicity of the empty tomb stories:
Scholars are coming increasingly to the conclusion that the empty tomb tradition is an interpretation of the event--a way of saying "Jesus is Risen!"--rather than a description of an aspect of the event itself. (Norman Perrin, Resurrection Narratives, p.82-83)
...the majority of critical biblical exegetes...conclude that the stories about the tomb are legendary elaborations of the message of the resurrection... (Hans Kung, Credo, p.104-105)
Concerning the empty-tomb tradition, at least in Germany Bultmann's judgment that this story was a late Hellenistic legend was widely accepted. When in 1952 Hans von Campenhausen defended the historicity of the empty tomb, he was virtually alone against the common sense of historical scholarship in biblical exegesis. (Wolfhart Pannenberg in Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? edited by Terry Miethe, p.125)
I agree with Professor Habermas's list of twelve facts relating to the Easter events that are admitted by most scholars, with the exception (as he himself says) of the empty-tomb tradition, which I do, however, consider as historical in its core. (Wolfhart Pannenberg in Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? edited by Terry Miethe, p.129)
Obviously, the scholars who doubt or reject the claim that Jesus was an actual historical person also doubt or reject the empty tomb story. Here are some scholars who believe that Jesus was an actual historical person but who doubt or reject (HC1) and/or (HC4):
Gunther Bornkamm: Jesus of Nazareth (1960), p.182-183, and footnote 5 on p.213.
Reginald Fuller: "The Resurrection of Jesus Christ" in Biblical Research 4 (1960), p.8-24.
Geoffrey Lampe: The Resurrection edited by William Purcell (1966), p.97.
Rudolf Bultmann: The History of the Synoptic Tradition (1968), p. 284-290.
Willi Marxsen: "The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical and Theological Problem" in The Significance of the Message of the Resurrection for Faith in Jesus Christ edited by C.F.D. Moule (1968), p.24-25.
Theodore Weeden: Mark - Traditions in Conflict (1971), p.45-51 and p.101-117.
John Crossan: "Empty Tomb and Absent Lord (Mark 16:1-8)" in The Passion in Mark edited by W.H. Kelber (1976), p. 135-152.
The Historical Jesus (1991), p.375 & p.392-394.
Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (1994), p.152-158.
Paul and Linda Badham: Immortality or Exctinction? (1982).
"The Meaning of the Resurrection of Jesus" by Paul Badham in The Resurrection of Jesus Christ edited by Paul Avis (1993), p.32.
Yarbro Collins: "The Empty Tomb and Resurrection according to Mark" in The Beginning of the Gospel: Problems of Mark in Context (1992), p.119-148).
Barnabas Lindars: "The Resurrection and the Empty Tomb" in The Resurrection of Jesus Christ edited by Paul Avis (1993), p.128-132.
Sarah Coakley: "Is the Resurrection a Historical Event?" in The Resurrection of Jesus Christ edited by Paul Avis (1993), p.97-100.
Gerd Ludemann: The Resurrection of Jesus (1994), p. 116-118, and p.121.
Jesus after Two Thousand Years (2001), p.110.
Robert Funk: Honest to Jesus (1996), p.220-223 & p.232-236.
Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz: The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (1996), p.499-503.
Michael Goulder: "The Baseless Fabric of a Vision" in Resurrection Reconsidered edited by Gavin D'Costa (1996), p.56-58.
The Jesus Seminar: The Acts of Jesus (1998), p.159-161.
The Resurrection of Jesus edited by Bernard Scott (2008), p.45-48.
Marcus Borg: The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright (1999), p.137 and footnote 16 on p.268-269.
Roy Hoover: "A Contest between Orthodoxy and Veracity" in Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? edited by Paul Copan & Ronald Tacelli (2000) p.131-133.
Bart Ehrman: How Jesus Became God (2014), Chapter 4.
Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz were professors of New Testament at the University of Heidelberg (Merz is now on the faculty of the University of Utrecht, in the Netherlands), they co-authored The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, which was published in German in 1996 and translated and published in English in 1998. This is a widely used textbook that has been translated into six languages.
Chapter 15 covers the scholarly investigation of the alleged resurrection of Jesus. That chapter includes a section on "The Dispute over the empty tomb" (pages 499-503). They review seven arguments used to support the historicity of the empty-tomb story, and then give their overall conclusion:
The empty tomb cannot be either demonstrated or refuted with historical-critical methods. We must reckon with two possibilities:
The resurrection faith called forth by Easter appearances led to a search for the tomb of Jesus. An unused tomb near Golgotha was interpreted at a secondary stage as the tomb of Jesus--no one knew where Jesus had really been buried. The New Testament tradition about the empty tomb then attached itself to this tomb.
However, possibly people did know about Jesus' tomb, Joseph of Arimathea had buried him in an unused tomb (perhaps his own). The women found this tomb empty on Easter morning. They kept quiet because they did not want to be accused of grave robbery. The account of Easter appearances first gave the enigmatic 'empty tomb' an interpretation. The interpretation was then put on the lips of the 'angel' by the tomb.
(The Historical Jesus, p.502)
These two NT professors, who teach others about the scholarly study of the historical Jesus, after examining the various relevant evidence and arguments concluded that the empty-tomb story "cannot be demonstrated or refuted with historical-critical methods." In other words, they very clearly determined that the historical claim (HC4) is NOT a FACT.
In the collection of essays called Resurrection Reconsidered (1996) edited by Gavin D'Costa, the first essay provides an overview of scholarly study about the resurrection of Jesus: "The Resurrection in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship". That essay was written by a leading British NT scholar named John Barclay:
John Martyn Gurney Barclay, FBA (born 1958) is a British biblical scholar, historian of early Christianity, and academic. He is the current holder of the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at Durham University in Durham, England and is largely considered one of today's most influential New Testament scholars.
[...]
Barclay's early career was spent at the University of Glasgow, where he was a lecturer from 1984 to 1996, senior lecturer from 1996 to 2000, and professor from 2000 to 2003. In 2003, he was named the successor to James D.G. Dunn as the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at Durham University.
Barclay has been the President of the British New Testament Society. He is the former editor of the academic journal New Testament Studies (Cambridge University Press).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._G._Barclay
In that essay Barclay lays out four different views of the resurrection held by different NT scholars:
1. A few at the conservative end of the spectrum attempt to harmonize all the material into a single historical account. Most scholars, however, consider this goal impossible...
2. Those who desist from harmonization do not necessarily doubt the historical value of all aspects of these stories. A number of scholars hold that both the appearances and the story of the empty tomb contain a reliable historical core, even if both traditions have been subject to literary embellishments.
3. Moving further down the spectrum of historicity, others consider the story of the empty tomb entirely legendary, but would uphold the veracity of the appearances of the risen Christ, which are taken to provide some basis for the historicity of the resurrection.
4. At the radical end of the scale are those who deny the historicity of the empty tomb accounts and offer entirely naturalistic explanations of the appearances. On this view belief in the resurrection cannot be supported by any historical evidence and is either to be retained as a bare assertion of faith or rejected wholesale.
(Resurrection Reconsidered, p.19-20)
Notice that two of the four groups of scholars reject the empty-tomb stories as unhistorical legends, and that there are just a "few at the conservative end of the spectrum" (the first group) who attempt to harmonize the various NT stories about the resurrection of Jesus, and that "Most scholars" reject such harmonization and thus fall into one of the other three categories.
Furthermore, as one might expect, different scholars hold their views with different degrees of conviction:
Obviously there are degrees of certainty among individual scholars in holding their respective positions on this scale...
(Resurrection Reconsidered, p.20)
That suggests that at least some of the scholars in the second group who believe that the empty tomb story contains "a reliable historical core" probably do NOT claim to be certain about this conclusion. In other words, it seems likely that some scholars who believe there is "a reliable historical core" to the empty-tomb stories, do NOT think that the empty tomb is an established FACT.
So, two of the four groups of scholars identified by John Barclay doubt or reject the empty-tomb stories as UNHISTORICAL LEGENDS, and it is also probably the case that at least some of the scholars in the second group who believe that there is "a reliable historical core" to the empty-tomb stories do NOT judge the historical claims based on those stories to be FACTS.
I am aware of some NT scholars who, although they believe the empty tomb stories to have "a reliable historical core", do NOT claim to KNOW that these stories are historical or true, and thus do NOT believe the historical claims based on those stories to be FACTS. I have already given one example of such an NT scholar: Gerald O'Collins (see his book Easter Faith, p.49-50).
Another leading NT scholar who believes and argues for there being "a reliable historical core" to the empty tomb stories is Raymond Brown. But Brown does NOT assert that he KNOWS that the historical claims based on the empty-tomb stories are true, nor does he claim that it is a FACT that the tomb was found empty on the first Easter Sunday:
It is therefore reasonably certain that either the tomb was not known, or that, if known, it was empty.
(4) The tradition that the tomb was known and was empty is considerably older than the Gospel narratives that have been built around the discovery of the empty tomb. It deserves preference to the poorly supported hypothesis that the place of Jesus' burial was unknown.
(The Viginal Conception & Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, 1973, p. 126)
Raymond Brown argues that the hypothesis that the tomb of Jesus was discovered to be empty "deserves preference" over the hypothesis that "the place of Jesus' burial was unknown." Clearly, Brown is NOT claiming to KNOW that the tomb of Jesus was discovered to be empty, nor is he claiming that this is a historical FACT. His conclusion is NOT one of certainty, but merely that the available evidence supports the hypothesis of the discovery of the empty tomb better than the alternative hypothesis that the location of Jesus' burial was unknown to the earliest followers of Jesus.
Gerald O'Collins and Raymond Brown are two excellent scholars who defend the historicity of the empty tomb, but they do NOT assert that the historical claims based on the empty tomb stories are KNOWN to be true, nor that those claims are FACTS. In essence, they only claim that it is probably true that the tomb of Jesus was discovered to be empty.
Thus, there are two different groups of NT scholars who reject the empty tomb stories as UNHISTORICAL LEGENDS, and there are some NT scholars (like O'Collins and Brown) among those who argue for the historicity of the empty tomb, but who do NOT claim to KNOW that the tomb of Jesus was discovered to be empty, and who do NOT claim that this is a historical FACT.
Another leading NT scholar who argues in support of the historicity of the discovery of the empty tomb is James Dunn. In The Evidence for Jesus, Dunn puts forward four arguments for the empty tomb, and then he asserts his conclusion in favor of the historicity of this event:
The testimony is of course fragmentary. A jury would require a good deal more before it could reach a verdict 'beyond reasonable doubt'. But if we have to draw conclusions on the basis of the evidence available to us, I have to say quite forcefully: the probability is that the tomb was empty.
(The Evidence for Jesus, p.68)
Dunn says that the evidence is NOT sufficient to reach a conclusion that is "beyond reasonable doubt", and his own conclusion is NOT one of certainty, but rather that "the evidence available to us" shows "the probability" that the tomb was empty. Clearly, Dunn does NOT believe that the discovery of the empty tomb is something that he KNOWS happened, nor does he believe that it is a historical FACT.
So, I know of at least three excellent NT scholars who defend the historicity of the empty tomb, but who do NOT believe that this conclusion is KNOWN, and who do NOT believe this is a historical FACT: Gerald O'Collins, Raymond Brown, and James Dunn. I suspect there are very few well-established NT scholars who have ever claimed to KNOW that the discovery of the empty tomb happened or that this is a historical FACT.
CONCLUSION
No specific events or details about the life or death of Jesus are FACTS, because even the existence of Jesus as an actual historical person is NOT a FACT.
The historical claims based on the burial and empty-tomb stories are NOT FACTS, because many experts (historians, NT scholars, Jesus scholars) doubt or reject those historical claims.
The historical claim based on the empty-tomb stories is NOT a FACT, because even some of the best NT scholars who defend the historicity of the discovery of the empty tomb do NOT believe that this historical claim is a FACT.
For these reasons (and others), it is clear that (HC1) and (HC4) are NOT FACTS, and thus premise (2) of Kreeft's argument for Objection #13 should be rejected, and therefore Objection #13 FAILS, just like every single one of the previous dozen objections raised by Kreeft against the Hallucination Theory has FAILED.
