WHERE WE ARE

In Chapter 8 of the Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli attempt to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. A key premise in their case for the resurrection is their claim to have refuted the Swoon Theory.

Through a series of blog posts here at The Secular Frontier, I will carefully evaluate each of their nine objections against the Swoon Theory to show that they have FAILED to refute the Swoon Theory and thus FAILED to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. (For clarification about what the Swoon Theory implies, see my post “Careful Argument Analysis of Objections to the Swoon Theory“. )

In Part 2 of this series, I presented a clarified version of Objection #2 by Kreeft and Tacelli.

In Part 3 of this series, I argued that premise (C) in the core argument for Objection #2 is FALSE, and thus that the argument was UNSOUND and thus that Objection #2 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.

In this post, I will continue my careful evaluation of the argument constituting Objection #2 against the Swoon Theory.

THE CORE ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #2

Here, once again, is the core argument for Objection #2:

5a. The Roman soldiers were sure Jesus was dead while Jesus was still on the cross.

C. IF the Roman soldiers were sure Jesus was dead while Jesus was still on the cross, THEN Jesus died while Jesus was still on the cross.

D. IF Jesus died while Jesus was still on the cross, THEN the Swoon Theory is FALSE.

THEREFORE:

A. The Swoon Theory is FALSE.

The logic of this core argument is fine. Premise (D) is true. But, as I argued in Part 3 of this series, premise (C) is false, so this argument is UNSOUND. How about the historical premise (5a)? Is that premise true or false? Kreeft and Tacelli provide an argument for (5a), so we should consider that argument before evaluating that premise.

THE ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (5A)

1a. The Roman soldiers did NOT break Jesus’ legs while Jesus was still on the cross.

E. IF the Roman soldiers did NOT break Jesus’ legs while Jesus was still on the cross, THEN the Roman soldiers were sure Jesus was dead while Jesus was still on the cross.

THEREFORE:

5a. The Roman soldiers were sure Jesus was dead while Jesus was still on the cross.

The logic of this argument is VALID. This is a standard modus ponens inference. So, the evaluation of this argument depends on whether premises (1a) and (E) are true or false. Kreeft and Tacelli, provide arguments for each of these premises, so we should consider those arguments before evaluating those premises.

THE ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (1A)

3a. According to the Gospel of John (19:31-33), the Roman soldiers did NOT break Jesus’ legs while Jesus was still on the cross.

B. The Gospel of John provides a historically reliable and accurate account of the life of Jesus, including his crucifixion.

THEREFORE:

1a. The Roman soldiers did NOT break Jesus’ legs while Jesus was still on the cross.

This is NOT a deductively VALID argument. However, if the premises are both true, this argument would provide a good reason to believe that premise (1a) is true. When a historically reliable source asserts a particular historical claim, that is a good reason to believe that historical claim. However, in this case, the source is NOT historically reliable. Premise (B) is false, so this argument for premise (1a) is a bad argument, and it should be rejected. Since this is the only reason Kreeft and Tacelli provide in support of (1a), they have FAILED to give us a good reason to believe that (1a) is true. Thus, premise (1a) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.

Premise (B) is false because the Gospel of John is a historically UNRELIABLE source of information about the life, ministry, and death of Jesus. There are a number of reasons that support the view that the Gospel of John is a historically UNRELIABLE source of information about the life, ministry, and death of Jesus:

• The Gospel of John was the last of the four canonical gospels to be written, according to most NT scholars.
• The Gospel of John was written about 90-100 C.E., sixty to seventy years after Jesus was crucified, according to most NT scholars.
• The Gospel of John was probably NOT written by an eyewitness of the life, ministry, and crucifixion of Jesus, according to most NT scholars.
• The Gospel of John disagrees with the earlier Gospels on a number of important points (e.g. what Jesus said about himself, Jesus’ practice of exorcism, whether Jesus was crucified on Passover, and whether the first time the risen Jesus appeared to his male disciples took place in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday or in Galilee a week or more after Jesus was crucified).
• The “sermons” of Jesus in the earlier Gospels are just collections of various short sayings of Jesus, while the “sermons” of Jesus in the Gospel of John are actually long, coherent sermons. Short sayings repeatedly spoken by Jesus could have been accurately remembered by his followers, but it is very unlikely that his followers would be able to accurately remember a long sermon that Jesus delivered only once or twice. Most NT scholars do not believe that the “sermons” of Jesus presented in the Gospel of John represent accurate memories of what Jesus actually said.
• The Gospel of John features a number of dramatic one-on-one conversations between Jesus and specific individuals. An omniscient narrator tells us about these private conversations, which is a lovely literary device, but this casts serious doubt on the historicity of those private conversations (who was there to hear these conversations?)

In addition to there being a number of good reasons to regard the Gospel of John as being a historically unreliable source about the life, ministry, and death of Jesus, there are specific reasons to doubt the historicity of this specific passage in the Gospel of John:

• The alleged request of “the Jews” to have the legs of the crucified men broken and their bodies removed from the crosses on Friday evening is only found in the Gospel of John (John 19:31)
• The alleged breaking of the legs of the other crucified men is only found in the Gospel of John (John 19:32)
• The presence of “the beloved disciple” at the crucifixion (the alleged eyewitness of the breaking of the legs) is only found in the Gospel of John (19:26-27)
• The wounding of Jesus with a spear by a Roman soldier is only found in the Gospel of John (John 19:33-34)
• The flow of blood and water from a wound in Jesus’ side is only found in the Gospel of John (John 19:34)
• The presence of a wound in the side of the risen Jesus is only found in the Gospel of John (John 20:19-20)
• The story of the risen Jesus inviting doubting Thomas to touch the wound in his side is only found in the Gospel of John (John 20:24-27)

NONE of the other Gospels corroborate ANY of these SEVEN POINTS that are closely related to the story of the Roman soldiers allegedly breaking the legs of the other crucified men but failing to do the same to Jesus.

Finally, the Gospel of John states that these events fulfill two Old Testament prophecies:

³⁶ These things occurred so that the scripture might be fulfilled, “None of his bones shall be broken.” ³⁷ And again another passage of scripture says, “They will look on the one whom they have pierced.”

John 19:36-37, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

Many NT scholars doubt many of the details the Gospels provide about the trials and crucifixion of Jesus precisely because those details appear to have been generated on the basis of Old Testament passages. This is called “prophecy historicized”.

The fact that the author of the Gospel of John views the breaking of the legs of the other crucified men, the failure of the soldiers to break the legs of Jesus, and the wounding of Jesus with a spear as fulfillments of Old Testament prophecy raises significant doubt about the historicity of these particular historical claims.

The claims might well be the result of early Christians “learning” details about the trials and crucifixion of Jesus not from eyewitnesses, but from reading passages in the Old Testament as divine predictions about what would happen to Jesus. In short, the events in this particular passage of the Gospel of John might well be completely FICTIONAL and UNHISTORICAL.

EVALUATION OF THE ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (1A)

The argument given in support of premise (1a) is UNSOUND and should be rejected because it is based on the FALSE premise (B). Not only is the Gospel of John a historically unreliable source about the life, ministry, and death of Jesus, but the specific passage from Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John that is pointed to in premise (3a) has specific problems that cast doubt on the historicity of the alleged events and details it describes. Thus, premise (1a) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.

Premise (1a) is DUBIOUS, so the argument for premise (5a) FAILS, because premise (1a) is a key premise in that argument. That means that premise (5a) is also DUBIOUS, thus this is a second serious problem with Kreeft and Tacelli’s core argument for Objection #2. We already know that the core argument is UNSOUND because it is based on premise (C) which is FALSE. Now we see that (5a), another key premise in the core argument, is DUBIOUS.

THE ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (E)

We see that the argument for premise (5a) FAILS because it rests on premise (1a), which is a DUBIOUS historical claim. But the argument for (5a) also rests on premise (E). So, we need to consider the argument that Kreeft and Tacelli give in support of premise (E):

2a. The Roman soldiers DID break the legs of the other two crucified criminals while they were still on the cross.

6a. Breaking the legs of a crucified person hastened the death so that the corpse could be taken down from the cross before the Sabbath.

THEREFORE:

E. IF the Roman soldiers did NOT break Jesus’ legs while Jesus was still on the cross, THEN the Roman soldiers were sure Jesus was dead while Jesus was still on the cross.

EVALUATION OF THE ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (E)

This is NOT a VALID deductive argument, but if the two premises were TRUE, they appear to provide a good reason to believe that premise (E) is TRUE. However, we do not know that the historical premises (2a) and (6a) are TRUE. These historical claims are based upon passages from the Gospel of John. So, these historical claims are based on the following assumption:

B. The Gospel of John provides a historically reliable and accurate account of the life of Jesus, including his crucifixion.

As I have argued above, premise (B) is FALSE. Thus, the historical claims asserted by premises (2a) and (6a) are DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. Therefore, both key premises in the argument for (E) are DUBIOUS, and the argument for (E) FAILS. That means that premise (E) is also DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.

Furthermore, there are plausible scenarios in which even if (2a) and (6a) were both true, (E) might well still be FALSE. For example, the soldiers might have despised Jesus and refused to break his legs so that Jesus would suffer longer on the cross than the other crucified men. Perhaps a wealthy and powerful Jew requested Pilate or the Roman soldier in command on the scene to NOT break Jesus’ legs, and Pilate (or the Roman soldier in command) granted the request. Or perhaps an admirer of Jesus bribed the soldiers to NOT break Jesus’ legs. Or possibly the commanding officer was an admirer of Jesus and believed that Jesus would probably soon die a more peaceful death if they did not break Jesus’ legs, and thus he ordered the soldiers not to break Jesus’ legs.

There are other possible reasons besides a diagnosis of death that could have led the soldiers to break the legs of other crucified men but not break the legs of Jesus. In other words, there is a significant chance that even when the antecedent of (E) is true (the Roman soldiers did not break Jesus’ legs), the consequent of (E) is false (it is false that the soldiers were sure Jesus died on the cross).

Strictly speaking, premise (E) is FALSE, because there are other possible reasons besides a diagnosis of death that could have led the soldiers to break the legs of other crucified men but not the legs of Jesus. However, we could modify premise (E) so that it makes a somewhat weaker claim:

E1. IF the Roman soldiers did NOT break Jesus’ legs while Jesus was still on the cross, THEN it is PROBABLE that the Roman soldiers were sure Jesus was dead while Jesus was still on the cross.

If the claim is weakened to assert that the failure of the Roman soldiers to break Jesus’ legs only made it PROBABLE that the soldiers were sure Jesus was dead while Jesus was still on the cross, then the truth of the premises of the argument for (E1) would, perhaps, provide a good reason to believe (E1), but then (E1) would only be useful for showing that it was PROBABLE that the Roman soldiers were sure that Jesus was dead while Jesus was still on the cross, and that would NOT be sufficient as a basis for “refuting” or disproving the Swoon Theory. Such a claim would be too WEAK to do the job that Kreeft and Tacelli need this argument to do.

EVALUATION OF PREMISE (5A)

Premise (5a) is a key historical premise in the core argument for Objection #2. Kreeft and Tacelli give an argument in support of (5a), but one premise of that argument is a DUBIOUS historical claim, premise (1a), and another premise of that argument is a conditional claim that is, strictly speaking, FALSE: premise (E). So, the argument they give for (5a) FAILS.

One could weaken premise (E) to (E1), but then the argument would only make it PROBABLE that (5a) was the case, and only if premise (1a) was TRUE! But, as I have argued above, premise (1a) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. So, even if we modify their argument to eliminate the FALSE claim (E), the argument still FAILS, and premise (5a) remains a DUBIOUS historical claim that might well be FALSE.

Furthermore, it is clear from the passage that Kreeft and Tacelli point to, that the Roman soldiers were NOT SURE that Jesus was dead while he was still on the cross. The very passage that Kreeft and Tacelli point to provides us with a good reason to believe that premise (5a) is FALSE:

³¹ Since it was the day of Preparation, the Jews did not want the bodies left on the cross during the Sabbath, especially because that Sabbath was a day of great solemnity. So they asked Pilate to have the legs of the crucified men broken and the bodies removed. ³² Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him. ³³ But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. ³⁴ Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out. 

John 19:31-34, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

Instead of breaking Jesus’ legs, the soldiers “pierced his side with a spear”. Why did they do that? There are two obvious possible explanations for piercing Jesus’ side with a spear:

• They poked him with the sharp point of a spear to see if he would react by flinching or crying out.
• They thrust a spear into his side as a final blow to kill him off quickly.

In other words, the spearing of Jesus’ side was probably either (a) to check to see if Jesus was still alive, or (b) to cause Jesus to die quickly. In either case, the soldiers were clearly NOT “sure Jesus was dead…”. If the soldiers were “sure Jesus was dead…” there would be no reason to check for a pain reaction by poking him with a spear. If the soldiers were “sure Jesus was dead…” there would be no reason to thrust a spear into his side to cause Jesus to die quickly. The spearing of Jesus’ side provides us with a good reason to reject premise (5a) as being FALSE.

So, I conclude that premise (5a) is PROBABLY FALSE because the passage from John is probably FICTIONAL, and on the other hand if the passage were historically accurate, then it would provide a good reason for us to believe that premise (5a) is FALSE.

EVALUATION OF OBJECTION #2 (BREAK THEIR LEGS)

Here, once again, is the core argument for Objection #2:

5a. The Roman soldiers were sure Jesus was dead while Jesus was still on the cross.

C. IF the Roman soldiers were sure Jesus was dead while Jesus was still on the cross, THEN Jesus died while Jesus was still on the cross.

D. IF Jesus died while Jesus was still on the cross, THEN the Swoon Theory is FALSE.

THEREFORE:

A. The Swoon Theory is FALSE.

This core argument is VALID and premise (D) is TRUE. However, premise (C) is FALSE, and the key historical claim (5a) is DUBIOUS and is PROBABLY FALSE. Thus, this argument is UNSOUND and should be rejected. Therefore, Objection #2 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.