WHERE WE ARE AT

Kreeft’s Objection #2 (the “Break their Legs” objection) against The Survival Theory (hereafter: TST) has at least three problems:

PROBLEM 1:  Roman Soldiers were NOT Medical Doctors

PROBLEM 2:  The Same Passage Implies the Soldiers were NOT Sure Jesus was Dead

PROBLEM 3:  The Key Historical Claims Made by Kreeft are DUBIOUS

In Part 7 of this series, I provided a list of ten different points related to Problem 3 with this objection.

In Part 6 of this series I provided some evidence and reasoning supporting Point #1 and Point #2 of those ten points concerning Problem 3.

In Part 8 of this series I provided some evidence and reasoning supporting Point #3, Point #4, and Point #5 of those ten points concerning Problem 3.

In this post, I will provide some evidence and reasoning supporting the remaining five points concerning Problem 3 with Kreeft’s “Break their Legs” objection (Objection #2).

FIVE MORE POINTS CONCERNING PROBLEM 3 WITH KREEFT’S “BREAK THEIR LEGS” OBJECTION

POINT #6: Other gospels provide no corroboration of the two key historical claims that Kreeft derives from this passage in the 4th gospel:

• No corroboration that legs of other crucified men were broken.
• No corroboration that a soldier decided to NOT break Jesus’ legs.

The Gospel of Mark makes no mention about Roman soldiers breaking the legs of any of the crucified men, nor does the Gospel of Matthew, nor does the Gospel of Luke.

The Gospel of Mark makes no mention about a Roman soldier making a decision to NOT break the legs of Jesus, nor does the Gospel of Matthew, nor does the Gospel of Luke.

POINT #7: Other gospels provide no corroboration of Jewish leaders asking Pilate to remove bodies from crosses before the Sabbath day began.

The Gospel of Mark makes no mention about Jewish leaders asking Pilate for the crucified men to be removed from their crosses before the start of the Sabbath, nor does the Gospel of Matthew, nor does the Gospel of Luke.

POINT #8: Other gospels provide no corroboration of a wound in Jesus’ side.

• No corroboration that a soldier stabbed Jesus.
• No corroboration of a wound in Jesus’ side while he was on the cross.
• No corroboration of flow of blood and water from Jesus’ side.
• No corroboration of doubting Thomas story.
• No corroboration of a wound in the side of the risen Jesus.

The Gospel of Mark makes no mention of a Roman soldier stabbing Jesus with a spear, nor does the Gospel of Matthew, nor does the Gospel of Luke.

The Gospel of Mark makes no mention of there being a wound in Jesus’ side while Jesus was on the cross, nor does the Gospel of Matthew, nor does the Gospel of Luke.

The Gospel of Mark makes no mention of blood and water flowing from Jesus’ body while he was on the cross, nor does the Gospel of Matthew, nor does the Gospel of Luke.

The Gospel of Mark makes no mention of Thomas being a skeptic and demanding to touch the wound in the side of the risen Jesus, nor does the Gospel of Matthew, nor does the Gospel of Luke.

The Gospel of Mark makes no mention of the risen Jesus having a wound in his side, nor does the Gospel of Matthew, nor does the Gospel of Luke.

POINT #9: Other gospels provide no corroboration of the beloved disciple at the foot of the cross.

• No corroboration of disciples at the foot of the cross.
• No corroboration of words spoken by Jesus from the cross to any disciple.
• No corroboration of the presence of Jesus’ mother at the crucifixion.
• No corroboration of words spoken by Jesus from the cross to his mother.

The Gospel of Mark makes no mention of there being some of Jesus’ disciples standing at the foot of the cross, nor does the Gospel of Matthew, nor does the Gospel of Luke.

The Gospel of Mark makes no mention of Jesus speaking to one of his disciples from the cross, nor does the Gospel of Matthew, nor does the Gospel of Luke.

The Gospel of Mark makes no mention of Jesus’ mother being present at his crucifixion, nor does the Gospel of Matthew, nor does the Gospel of Luke.

The Gospel of Mark makes no mention of Jesus speaking to his mother from the cross, nor does the Gospel of Matthew, nor does the Gospel of Luke.

---

NOTE:

I understand that the lack of corroboration is considered an “argument from silence” and that such arguments are considered to be weak.  However, the silence here is deafening!  In Points #6 through #9, there are TWELVE different events closely related to the passage in the 4th Gospel that we are evaluating, and NOT A SINGLE ONE of those TWELVE events is mentioned in ANY of the other three Gospels.  There were thus 36 different opportunities for the other three Gospels to corroborate one of those events, yet there is NO CORROBORATION of ANY of the twelve events!  The most plausible explanation of this uniform silence in the other three Gospels is that the passage from the 4th Gospel (John 19:31-37) is NOT HISTORICAL but is a FICTIONAL story.

---

POINT #10: Other gospels provide no corroboration of stories about the beloved disciple.

• No corroboration of the Beloved Disciple at the Last Supper.
• No corroboration of the Beloved Disciple at High Priest’s courtyard.
• No corroboration of Beloved Disciple at foot of the cross.
• No corroboration of Beloved Disciple at empty tomb with Peter.
• No corroboration of Beloved Disciple fishing in Galilee when risen Jesus appears.

The very existence of “the beloved disciple” is questionable, adding further reason to doubt the historical reliability of the passage that Kreeft is relying upon for his Objection #2.

The Gospel of Mark makes no mention of a “beloved disciple” being at the Last Supper, nor of there being a disciple who leans on Jesus as the Last Supper, nor does the Gospel of Matthew, nor does the Gospel of Luke.

The Gospel of Mark makes no mention of a disciple helping Peter to get access into the courtyard of the High Priest, nor does the Gospel of Matthew, nor does the Gospel of Luke.

The Gospel of Mark makes no mention of a “beloved disciple” being at the foot of the cross, nor of Jesus speaking to one of his disciples from the cross, nor does the Gospel of Matthew, nor does the Gospel of Luke.

The Gospel of Mark makes no mention of Peter running with another disciple to the empty tomb of Jesus, nor does the Gospel of Matthew, nor does the Gospel of Luke (Luke, unlike Mark and Matthew, does mention Peter running to the empty tomb, but makes no mention of there being another disciple who ran with Peter).

The Gospel of Mark makes no mention of the risen Jesus appearing to his disciples in Galilee while they are busy fishing, nor does the Gospel of Matthew, nor does the Gospel of Luke.

These are FIVE different events mentioned above involving “the Beloved Disciple”, according to the 4th Gospel.  Yet there is ZERO CORROBORATION of ANY of these five events in ANY of the other three Gospels.  There were 15 different opportunities for one of the other Gospels to report one of these events, yet there is there is NO CORROBORATION of ANY of the five events.  This is evidence that the “Beloved Disciple” is a fictional character.  This silence in the other three Gospels is thus further evidence that the passage that Kreeft relies upon from the 4th Gospel (John 19:31-37) is NOT HISTORICAL but is a FICTIONAL story.