In Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Christian philosophers Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli make a case for the resurrection of Jesus, and they claim to PROVE that Jesus rose from the dead.

Here is a summary of their case:

1. IF Kreeft and Tacelli refuted the four alternative (skeptical) theories, THEN Kreeft and Tacelli have proved that the Christian Theory of the resurrection of Jesus is true.

2. Kreeft and Tacelli refuted (in Chapter 8 of HCA) the four alternative (skeptical) theories.

THEREFORE:

3. Kreeft and Tacelli have proved that the Christian Theory of the resurrection of Jesus is true.

This argument FAILS for two simple reasons: premise (1) is FALSE, and premise (2) is FALSE. So, their argument is UNSOUND because it is based on false premises. In this post, I will only discuss premise (1) and one obvious reason why it is false.

ONE OBVIOUS REASON WHY PREMISE (1) IS FALSE

There are many reasons that show premise (1) to be false. Some of those reasons are subtle or complex reasons that may not be immediately obvious. However, at least one of those reasons is fairly obvious:

Other Christian philosophers and Christian apologists have criticized skeptical theories about Jesus’ alleged resurrection that Kreeft and Tecelli don’t mention and that are NOT encompassed by the four (alternative) skeptical theories that they claim to have refuted.

Because other Christian philosophers and apologists recognize that there are other skeptical theories about Jesus’ alleged resurrection besides the four skeptical theories that Kreeft and Tacelli attack, it is clear that there are more than just those four skeptical theories about the alleged resurrection of Jesus.

Because there are other skeptical theories about the resurrection of Jesus, refuting the four skeptical theories does NOT refute all of the available relevant skeptical theories. That leaves open the possibility that one of those other skeptical theories is true. Thus, premise (1) of Kreeft and Tacelli’s case for the resurrection is FALSE. Therefore, their case for the resurrection of Jesus FAILS.

Because this point is fairly obvious to anyone who reads what other Christian philosophers and apologists, besides Kreeft and Tacelli, have to say about the alleged resurrection of Jesus, it is fairly obvious that Kreeft and Tacelli’s case for the resurrection FAILS. This is NOT rocket science! One simply has to read a few other books or articles by other Christian philosophers or apologists to learn that there are more than just four skeptical theories about the alleged resurrection of Jesus.

A quick glance at some books by other Christian philosophers and apologists reveals that there are at least SEVEN OTHER SKEPTICAL THEORIES besides the four that Kreeft and Tacelli examine:

• WRONG TOMB THEORY
• SOMEONE ELSE MOVED THE BODY THEORY
• UNKNOWN TOMB THEORY
• LEGEND THEORY
• DELUSIONS THEORY
• OBJECTIVE VISIONS THEORY
• SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION THEORY

If these seven skeptical theories are indeed alternative skeptical theories that are not encompassed by the four skeptical theories that Kreeft and Tacelli examine, then there are at least eleven different skeptical theories that a Christian apologist must refute in order for a case for the resurrection, using Kreeft and Tacelli’s logic, to be successful. Refuting only four out of eleven skeptical theories clearly FAILS to refute all eleven of these skeptical theories.

THE FOUR SKEPTICAL THEORIES EXAMINED BY KREEFT AND TACELLI

In order to determine whether some or all of the above seven skeptical theories are in fact alternatives to the four theories that Kreeft and Tacelli examine, we first need to understand the content of the four skeptical theories that they examine.

Here are the four skeptical theories (with brief characterizations) that Kreeft and Tacelli attempt to disprove:

Hallucination: “the apostles were deceived by a hallucination”

Myth: “the apostles created a myth, not meaning it literally”

Conspiracy: “the apostles were deceivers who conspired to foist on the world the most famous and successful lie in history”

Swoon: “Jesus only swooned and was resuscitated, not resurrected”

(HCA, p.182)

THREE DIFFERENT TOMB THEORIES

Kreeft and Tacelli don’t mention any of these “Tomb” theories:

• Wrong Tomb Theory
• Someone Else Moved the Body Theory
• Unknown Tomb Theory

The Christian philosophers William Craig and Gary Habermas (along with N.T. expert Michael Licona) both raise objections against the “Wrong Tomb Theory” (Craig – The Son Rises, 1981, p.40-42, and Habermas – The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 2004, p.97-99). Also, the Christian apologist Josh McDowell raises objections against this theory (McDowell – The Resurrection Factor, 1981, p.78-80).

The Wrong Tomb Theory claims that some of the women followers of Jesus saw the stone tomb where Jesus’ body was buried on Friday after his crucifixion, and then on Sunday morning when they returned to the tomb, they found it was empty. But this was because they had mistakenly returned to the wrong tomb. Their discovery of the empty tomb led to the disciples concluding that Jesus had risen from the dead.

Kreeft and Tacelli make no mention of this skeptical Wrong Tomb Theory, so they don’t make any effort to disprove the Wrong Tomb Theory. Thus, even if they did disprove the Hallucination Theory, the Myth Theory, the Conspiracy Theory, and the Swoon Theory, they leave the Wrong Tomb Theory untouched. Their examination of their four skeptical theories leaves open the possibility that the Wrong Tomb Theory is true, so their case for the resurrection of Jesus FAILS.

The Christian apologist Josh McDowell criticizes the Body Moved by Authorities Theory (The Resurrection Factor, 1981, p.95-97):

Another similar theory is that the Roman or Jewish authorities took the body [from the stone tomb] and put it in safekeeping so there could be no deception by anyone alleging a resurrection from the dead.

(The Resurrection Factor, p.95)

Craig mentions a specific instance of this theory where a Jewish authority, namely Joseph of Arimathea, moved the body of Jesus from the tomb where it had been placed on Friday evening (Reasonable Faith, 3rd edition, 2008, p.376-377).

Habermas and Licona also mention this theory, but describe it in a broader way than McDowell:

Fraud 2: “Somone other than the disciples stole the body.”

(The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, p.95)

McDowell’s description of this skeptical theory limits the possible movers of Jesus’ body to “Roman or Jewish authorities”, while Habermas and Licona describe the theory as asserting that ANYONE other than the disciples moved the body of Jesus.

In any case, Kreeft and Tacelli make no mention of this skeptical theory, and they make no effort to disprove this skeptical theory about the alleged resurrection of Jesus. Thus, even if Kreeft and Tacelli did manage to refute the four skeptical theories that they examined, that would still leave open the possibility that this alternative skeptical theory is true, that someone other than the disciples of Jesus moved his body from the tomb, and the belief of the disciples that God had raised Jesus from the dead was based on the discovery of the empty tomb. Therefore, premise (1) is FALSE, and the case of Kreeft and Tacelli for the resurrection of Jesus FAILS.

There is a third skeptical theory related to the alleged tomb of Jesus. This theory was criticized by Josh McDowell:

One of the earliest theories presented to explain everything away is that the tomb [where Jesus was allegedly buried] was unknown.

(The Resurrection Factor, 1981, p.77)

McDowell fails to explain how this theory works, but we can make a reasonable guess as to how this theory works. It seems that this theory is similar to the Wrong Tomb Theory, in that the basic, but unstated, idea of the Unknown Tomb Theory is that the disciples became convinced that a particular empty tomb was the tomb where the body of Jesus had been buried after the crucifixion. The emptiness of this tomb persuaded them that Jesus had risen from the dead.

On the Wrong Tomb Theory, some women who were followers of Jesus discovered a stone tomb to be empty on Sunday morning, and they believed that Jesus’ body had been buried in that same tomb on Friday evening, but the women were confused and mistaken, and the empty tomb they discovered was NOT the same tomb where Jesus’ body had been placed on Friday. The discovery of the empty tomb by these women persuaded the disciples that God had raised Jesus from the dead.

However, according to the Unknown Tomb Theory NONE of Jesus’ followers, not even any of the women who followed him, knew where Jesus’ body had been buried. So, because none of Jesus’ disciples knew where his body had been placed, it would be possible for them to mistakenly conclude that some particular empty tomb was the place where Jesus had been buried on Friday evening. The Unkown Tomb Theory, as skimpily described by McDowell, does not state HOW or WHY the disciples became convinced that a particular empty tomb had been the location where Jesus’ body had been buried. But there are various possible ways this could have happened.

Something found in an empty tomb (such as grave clothes or blood stains) might have been taken as proof that Jesus had previously been buried in that tomb. Or someone could have had a vision or hallucination of Jesus or of angels while standing near a specific empty tomb, and that vision or hallucination was taken as proof that Jesus had previously been buried in that particular tomb. Or someone could have lied to the disciples, telling them that this particular empty tomb was where Jesus had been buried on Friday evening. Or someone, like Joseph of Arimathea, could have told the disciples that Jesus had been buried in that tomb on Friday evening, and Joseph could have sincerely believed that to be the case, but was in fact confused and mistaken, and Jesus’ body was actually still present in some other nearby tomb.

If the location of where Jesus’ body had been buried was UNKOWN, then that opens the door to various possible scenarios where Jesus’ disciples would have become sincerely but mistakenly convinced that a particular empty tomb was a tomb where Jesus’ body had been placed on Friday evening. This conclusion could have been the basis for the disciples forming the belief that God had raised Jesus from the dead.

Once again, Kreeft and Tacelli make no mention of the Unknown Tomb Theory, and they make no effort to refute the Unknown Tomb Theory. Thus, even if they successfully disproved the four skeptical theories that they examined, they would have left the Unknown Tomb Theory untouched, so that alternative skeptical theory might well be true. Therefore, premise (1) is FALSE, and their case for the resurrection of Jesus FAILS.

THE LEGEND THEORY VS THE MYTH THEORY

McDowell, Craig, and Habermas & Licona all criticize a skeptical view about the alleged resurrection of Jesus called the Legend Theory. Kreeft and Tacelli examine and claim to refute a skeptical view they call the Myth Theory. One might suspect that these are the same theory, and that refuting the Myth Theory would be the same thing as refuting the Legend Theory.

However, the Myth Theory, as defined by Kreeft and Tacelli, is a different theory than the Legend Theory that is discussed by McDowell and Craig. Habermas and Licona divide the category of “Legend Theories” into three different skeptical theories. One of those three theories is basically the same as the Myth Theory discussed by Kreeft and Tacelli, but one of the other skeptical theories is basically the same as what McDowell and Craig call the Legend Theory.

Based on my comparison of these various theories, it is clear that the Myth Theory that Kreeft and Tacelli attempt to disprove, is a different theory than the Legend Theory, that was criticized by Craig and McDowell. Thus, even if Kreeft and Tacelli did manage to refute the Myth Theory, they did not examine the Legend Theory, and thus they did not refute the Legend Theory. Therefore, premise (1) is FALSE, and their case for the resurrection of Jesus FAILS.

Here is how Kreeft and Tacelli describe the Myth Theory:

…the apostles created a myth, not meaning it literally.

(Handbook of Christian Apologetics, p. 182)

In other words, Jesus’ disciples taught and preached that “Jesus rose from the dead”, but they did not mean this literally. They did NOT mean that Jesus’ physical body came back to life and that Jesus walked around Jerusalem in a visible and tangible body a couple of days after he had died on the cross.

More than one non-literal meaning could be attributed to this claim or belief of the disciples. One non-literal interpretation is that Jesus was now alive as a ghost or spirit, that Jesus had become like an angel after he died on the cross. Another non-literal interpretation is that Jesus’ beliefs and values continued to significantly influence and shape the lives of his disciples and the lives of converts to the religious movement founded by Jesus, even though Jesus was dead and no longer in existence. But later generations of believers misunderstood the message of the disciples and incorrectly interpreted statements like “Jesus rose from the dead” in a literal way that the disciples had not intended.

But this Myth Theory that Kreeft and Tacelli attempt to disprove is NOT the same as the Legend Theory that McDowell and Craig criticize. On the Legend Theory, the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus did not come from the original disciples, but were legends that developed over a significant period of time:

Some argue that the resurrection accounts are legends, cropping up years after the time of Christ.

[…]

If it were possible to date the Gospels to 200 or 300 years after the event of the resurrection, the theory might be plausible.

(The Resurrection Factor by Josh McDowell, p.80)

Strauss…denied the apostolic authorship of the gospels and rejected their accounts as unhistorical legends. There never was an empty tomb, nor was there ever any guard around it. These are legendary stories that built up over the years. Similarly, the stories of Jesus’ appearances in the gospels are just legends.

(The Son Rises by William Craig, p.42-43)

In other words, the problem according to the Legend Theory was not that the original disciples of Jesus intended their statements about Jesus rising from the dead to be understood in a non-literal way, but that stories about Jesus’ resurrection and empty tomb and resurrection appearances evolved over many decades among later generations of believers, after the original disciples were dead and gone.

The distinction between the Legend Theory and the Myth Theory is made even clearer by Habermas and Licona. They talk about different types of “legend theories”:

There are at least three types of legend theory: (1) embellishments, (2) a non-historical literary style, and (3) myths in other religions.

(The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, p.84)

The Embellishments Theory described by Habermas and Licona is basically the same as the Legend Theory that McDowell and Craig discuss:

Embellishment theories state that Jesus’ disciples never claimed that he rose from the dead. Rather, as the story of Jesus and his teachings spread, they were embellished with supernatural details.

(The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, p.84)

The Non-Historical Literary Style Theory (or the Non-Historical Genre Theory) described by Habermas and Licona is basically the same as the Myth Theory that Kreeft and Tacelli examine:

To claim that the disciples wrote in a nonhistorical genre is to claim that the disciples did not literally mean that Jesus rose from the dead but rather invented a fable about his rising and assigned him divine attributes in order to honor him and communicate a message.

(The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, p.86)

On this view, the Gospel accounts concerning the resurrection of Jesus were fictional stories that were “never intended to be regarded as historical.” (The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, p.87)

Based on the distinctions drawn by Habermas and Licona, the Myth Theory examined by Kreeft and Tacelli is a different skeptical theory than the Legend Theory that was discussed by Craig and by McDowell. Thus, even if Kreeft and Tacelli successfully disproved the Myth Theory, that would leave the Legend Theory untouched. Disproving the Myth Theory would not disprove the Legend Theory. Therefore, premise (1) is FALSE, and Kreeft and Tacelli’s case for the resurrection of Jesus FAILS.

THREE MORE SKEPTICAL THEORIES

So far, we have seen that there are at least four more skeptical theories about the alleged resurrection of Jesus beyond the four skeptical theories examined by Kreeft and Tacelli. Thus, even if they disproved the four skeptical theories that they discuss (i.e. Hallucination Theory, Myth Theory, Conspiracy Theory, and Swoon Theory), that would leave at least four other skeptical theories untouched (i.e. Wrong Tomb Theory, Body Moved by Somebody other than the Disciples Theory, Unknown Tomb Theory, and Legend Theory). Therefore, premise (1) is FALSE, and their case for the resurrection of Jesus FAILS.

There are at least three more skeptical theories that are discussed by Christian philosophers and apologists:

• DELUSIONS THEORY
• OBJECTIVE VISIONS THEORY
• SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION THEORY

If any of these three theories is not encompassed by the four theories that Kreeft and Tacelli examine, then that would provide further proof that premise (1) of their case is FALSE.

The Delusions Theory is discussed by Habermas and Licona. It is somewhat like the Hallucination Theory that is examined by Kreeft and Tacelli. In both theories, a psychological process impacts the thinking and beliefs of some of Jesus’ disciples, leading them to sincerely but mistakenly conclude that God had raised Jesus from the dead.

However, a hallucination is not the same as a delusion. These are two different kinds of psychological events or processes. A hallucination involves some sort of sensory experience that has a subjective or mental cause rather than being caused by actual physical objects and physical events. If I take LSD and then “see” a large fire-breathing dragon on the freeway, that is presumably NOT because there is an actual large fire-breathing dragon sitting on an actual freeway. It is probably because my mind, under the influence of a drug, is creating this visual experience (or part of the visual experience, since there might be an actual freeway that I am seeing even if there is no dragon sitting on the freeway).

A delusion does not involve sensory experiences that are created by one’s mind. I might, for example, have a delusional belief that there is a large fire-breathing dragon sitting on the freeway even if I don’t SEE the dragon when I look at the freeway. Delusional beliefs can exist independently of sensory experiences.

One skeptical explanation for the belief of Jesus’ disciples that Jesus had risen is that they had experiences of “seeing” a living, walking, and talking Jesus days or weeks or months after Jesus had died on the cross, but those experiences were NOT the result of being in the presence of a physically embodied, living, walking, and talking Jesus, but rather were experiences produced by their minds in the absence of Jesus. The alleged appearances of the risen Jesus, can be skeptically explained as hallucinations.

Habermas and Licona point out that the disciples’ belief that Jesus had risen from the dead could also be skeptically explained as being delusional beliefs. They point to examples where charismatic religious leaders persuaded their followers to accept obviously false beliefs, to the point that their followers committed suicide on the basis of their delusional beliefs (e.g. Marshall Applewhite the leader of the Heaven’s Gate cult, and Jim Jones the leader of the cult at the Jonestown commune in Guyana). As Habermas and Licona state:

One does not need to employ hallucinations to account for these events.

(The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, p.109)

Hallucinations are one way that Jesus’ disciples might have been deceived into believing that God had raised Jesus from the dead, if Jesus had died on the cross and remained dead. But there can be other psychological causes that lead people to accept false beliefs. It is possible that some of Jesus’ disciples developed delusional beliefs about Jesus rising from the dead, apart from experiencing hallucinations of a risen Jesus. Thus, the Delusion Theory is a different theory than the Hallucination Theory that was examined by Kreeft and Tacelli. Therefore, premise (1) is FALSE, and the case for the resurrection by Kreeft and Tacelli FAILS.

The Visions Theory is a bit problematic, because as Habermas and Licona indicate, the term “visions” is unclear. On the one hand a “vision” might be understood as a purely subjective phenomenon, like a hallucination. But in that case, a refutation of the Hallucination Theory might well also work as a refutation of the Vision Theory. However, one plausible interpretation of a “vision of Jesus” is that this would involve “a real experience of something without a body.” (The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, p.110). Habermas and Licona refer to this as an “objective vision”:

An objective vision is seen without the use of natural senses. However, the object seen is real, not imaginary. There is a reality and cause of the phenomenon outside of the mind.

(The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, p.110)

Thus, some of Jesus’ disciples could have experienced objective visions of a living Jesus even though there was no physical or embodied Jesus near them, and even though they did not see the living Jesus with their eyes. Such an event would be supernatural, involving something like ESP. But a supernatural “seeing” of the living Jesus would NOT require that Jesus had physically risen from the dead. Presumably Jesus as a spirit or angel could exist in heaven and cause some of his disciples to experience objective visions of himself.

Although the Objective Visions Theory appears to imply the existence of a supernatural kind of “seeing” (something like ESP), an objective vision of Jesus alive in heaven does NOT imply that Jesus physically rose from the dead. So, the Objective Visions Theory can be seen as a skeptical theory, a theory about the alleged resurrection of Jesus that is fully compatible with the skeptical rejection of the claim that Jesus physically rose from the dead.

Furthermore, the Objective Visions Theory is clearly different than the Hallucination Theory, because hallucinations are purely subjective phenomena that do not involve supernatural causes or events, but objective visions are NOT purely subjective and do involve supernatural causes and events. Thus, a refutation of the Hallucination Theory would not constitute a refutation of the Objective Visions Theory. Therefore, premise (1) is FALSE, and the case for the resurrection of Jesus by Kreeft and Tacelli FAILS.

Finally, Josh McDowell criticizes the Spiritual Resurrection Theory. Unfortunately, McDowell does not explain how this theory works. He only focuses on the idea that Jesus did not come back to life with a physical (visible and tangible) body, but that Jesus came back to life as a ghost or spirit.

But it is not difficult to figure out a plausible account of how such a theory would work. If Jesus returned to life as a ghost or spirit, then presumably Jesus’ disciples could have had some experiences of Jesus as a ghost or spirit, and those experiences would convince them that Jesus was alive again. If the disciples believed that the resurrection of one’s body was required in order for a person to return to life after dying, then they might well have inferred that Jesus must have physically risen from the dead (or perhaps that Jesus was in the process of obtaining a new immortal body at the time they saw or experienced him after the crucifixion).

Like the Objective Vision Theory, the Spiritual Resurrection Theory involves supernatural causes and events. However, the Spiritual Resurrection Theory does NOT imply that Jesus physically rose from the dead. The idea that Jesus obtained an immortal body after he died on the cross can be viewed as a mistaken inference of Jesus’ disciples based on their experience of the ghost or spirit of Jesus. Thus, the Spiritual Resurrection Theory, like the Objective Visions Theory, is fully compatible with the skeptical view that Jesus died on the cross and that his physical body remained dead.

The Spiritual Resurrection Theory is clearly different than any of the four skeptical theories examined by Kreeft and Tacelli. Because they fail to mention the Spiritual Resurrection Theory, they also make no attempt to refute this skeptical theory. Thus, even if they disproved all four of the skeptical theories that they examined, they would leave the Spiritual Resurrection Theory untouched, and that leaves open the possibility that this skeptical theory is true. Thus, premise (1) is FALSE, and their case for the resurrection of Jesus FAILS.

CONCLUSION

Because it is fairly obvious that there are a number of other skeptical theories besides the four that Kreeft and Tacelli examine, it is fairly obvious that premise (1), a key premise of their case for the resurrection of Jesus, is FALSE. Because it is fairly obvious that premise (1) is FALSE, it is fairly obvious that the case for the resurrection of Jesus made by Kreeft and Tacelli FAILS.