WHERE WE ARE

In Part 5 of this series, I presented a clarified version of the argument by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli (in Chapter 8 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics; hereafter: HCA) that constitutes their Objection #3 against the Swoon Theory.

In Part 6 of this series, I showed that premise (7a) was FALSE, and thus that the key premise (D) was DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. Therefore, we have a good reason to reject Objection #3.

THE CORE ARGUMENT OF OBJECTION #3

Here is the diagram of what I take to be the core argument of Objection #3:

STATED PREMISES

5a. Jesus’ lungs had collapsed before his side was pierced with a spear, while Jesus was still on the cross.

6a. Jesus had died of asphyxiation before his side was pierced with a spear, while Jesus was still on the cross.

7a. Any medical expert can vouch for the claim that: IF a Roman soldier pierced Jesus’ side with a spear while Jesus was still on the cross, and blood and water immediately came from the spear wound in Jesus’ side, THEN Jesus’ lungs had collapsed and Jesus had died before his side was pierced with a spear, while Jesus was still on the cross.

UNSTATED PREMISES

C. Blood and water came from Jesus’ pierced side immediately after one of the Roman soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear while Jesus was still on the cross.

D. IF a Roman soldier pierced Jesus’ side with a spear while Jesus was still on the cross, and blood and water immediately came from the spear wound in Jesus’ side, THEN Jesus’ lungs had collapsed and Jesus had died before his side was pierced with a spear, while Jesus was still on the cross.

THE ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (C)

Here is the argument for premise (C) in Objection #3:

STATED PREMISES

1a. John the son of Zebedee (one of Jesus’ twelve disciples) was an eyewitness to the crucifixion of Jesus.

2a. John the son of Zebedee (one of Jesus’ twelve disciples) certified that he saw blood and water come from Jesus’ pierced side immediately after one of the Roman soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear while Jesus was still on the cross.

3a. According to the Gospel of John (19:34-35), John the son of Zebedee (one of Jesus’ twelve disciples) was an eyewitness to the crucifixion of Jesus.

4a. According to the Gospel of John (19:34-35), John the son of Zebedee (one of Jesus’ twelve disciples) certified that he saw blood and water come from Jesus’ pierced side immediately after one of the Roman soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear while Jesus was still on the cross.

UNSTATED PREMISES

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

C. Blood and water came from Jesus’ pierced side immediately after one of the Roman soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear while Jesus was still on the cross.

Premise (C) is based on two historical claims:

1a. John the son of Zebedee (one of Jesus’ twelve disciples) was an eyewitness to the crucifixion of Jesus.

2a. John the son of Zebedee (one of Jesus’ twelve disciples) certified that he saw blood and water come from Jesus’ pierced side immediately after one of the Roman soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear while Jesus was still on the cross.

THEREFORE:

C. Blood and water came from Jesus’ pierced side immediately after one of the Roman soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear while Jesus was still on the cross.

As I previously mentioned, in Part 6 of this series, even if we took the passage from Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John to be historically accurate and reliable, we still would NOT KNOW that the fluids coming out of Jesus’ side were blood and water; we would only know that those fluids looked like blood, and looked like water. So, I will revise the wording of (C) to conform this premise to what we allegedly “know” from the Gospel of John:

C1. A fluid that looked like blood and a fluid that looked like water came from Jesus’ pierced side immediately after one of the Roman soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear while Jesus was still on the cross.

Premise (2a) also needs to be similarly revised, so that it connects logically to the conclusion (C1):

1a. John the son of Zebedee (one of Jesus’ twelve disciples) was an eyewitness to the crucifixion of Jesus.

2b. John the son of Zebedee (one of Jesus’ twelve disciples) certified that he saw a fluid that looked like blood and a fluid that looked like water came from Jesus’ pierced side immediately after one of the Roman soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear while Jesus was still on the cross.

THEREFORE:

C1. A fluid that looked like blood and a fluid that looked like water came from Jesus’ pierced side immediately after one of the Roman soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear while Jesus was still on the cross.

Premise (1a) is probably FALSE, and premise (2b) is probably FALSE, so this argument for premise (C1) is a bad argument, and we should reject this argument. Thus, the key premise (C1) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. This is a second good reason for rejecting the core argument of Objection #3.

THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (1a)

Because Kreeft and Tacelli provide a sub-argument in support of premise (1a), we need to consider that argument:

3a. According to the Gospel of John (19:34-35), John the son of Zebedee (one of Jesus’ twelve disciples) was an eyewitness to the crucifixion of Jesus.

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

THEREFORE:

1a. John the son of Zebedee (one of Jesus’ twelve disciples) was an eyewitness to the crucifixion of Jesus.

Premise (B) is FALSE, as I previously argued in Part 4 of this series. So, this argument for (1a) is UNSOUND and should be rejected. Also, there are more specific reasons for doubting the historical reliability of the specific passage in the Gospel of John that is relevant to (1a), as I previously argued in Part 4 of this series.

Furthermore, premise (3a) is FALSE, because the Gospel of John never states that John the son of Zebedee was an eyewitness to the crucifixion of Jesus. So, this is another reason to conclude that this argument for (1a) is UNSOUND and should be rejected.

The Gospel of John does imply that “the beloved disciple” was an eyewitness to the crucifixion of Jesus, but it is doubtful that “the beloved disciple” was John the son of Zebedee. Thus, even assuming that the relevant passage from Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John was historically accurate and reliable, it might well NOT be the case that John the son of Zebedee was an eyewitness to the crucifixion of Jesus.

Because both premises of this argument for (1a) are FALSE, the argument is clearly UNSOUND and should be rejected. Therefore, premise (1a) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.

Finally, the Gospel of Mark, the earliest of the four canonical Gospels, implies that Jesus’ male disciples went into hiding after Jesus was arrested and that they were NOT present at the crucifixion. Since the Gospel of John is the least historically reliable of the Gospels, and since the Gospel of Mark is the earliest of the four Gospels, it is reasonable to favor the view of the Gospel of Mark that Jesus’ male disciples, including John the son of Zebedee, were NOT present at the crucifixion of Jesus. Therefore, it is probable that premise (1a) is FALSE.

NOTE: If we were simply to drop all references to “John the son of Zebedee” in this argument, and weaken premise (1a) so that it only talks about “the beloved disciple”, the problems of the historical unreliability of the Gospel of John and the historical unreliability of the specific passage from Chapter 19 of that Gospel would still make this argument a bad argument, an argument that we should reject.

THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (2a)

Because Kreeft and Tacelli provide a sub-argument in support of premise (2a), we need to consider that argument:

4a. According to the Gospel of John (19:34-35), John the son of Zebedee (one of Jesus’ twelve disciples) certified that he saw blood and water come from Jesus’ pierced side immediately after one of the Roman soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear 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:

2a. John the son of Zebedee (one of Jesus’ twelve disciples) certified that he saw blood and water come from Jesus’ pierced side immediately after one of the Roman soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear while Jesus was still on the cross.

As noted previously, we need to revise premise (2a) because we don’t know the actual content of the fluids that came out of Jesus’ side. We also need to similarly modify premise (4a):

4b. According to the Gospel of John (19:34-35), John the son of Zebedee (one of Jesus’ twelve disciples) certified that he saw a fluid that looked like blood and a fluid that looked like water come from Jesus’ pierced side immediately after one of the Roman soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear 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:

2b. John the son of Zebedee (one of Jesus’ twelve disciples) certified that he saw a fluid that looked like blood and a fluid that looked like water come from Jesus’ pierced side immediately after one of the Roman soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear while Jesus was still on the cross.

As noted previously, premise (B) is FALSE, so this argument is UNSOUND. Thus, we should reject this argument. Furthermore, there are specific problems with the relevant passage from Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John that provide good reasons to believe that passage to be historically unreliable.

Premise (4b) is FALSE too because the passage referenced does NOT state that John the son of Zebedee said anything about Jesus’ crucifixion or about any wound of Jesus. The passage does imply that “the beloved disciple” claimed to have seen what appeared to be blood and water come from the wound in Jesus’ side. But it is doubtful that “the beloved disciple” was John the son of Zebedee. Thus, even assuming that the relevant passage from Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John was historically accurate and reliable, it might well NOT be the case that John the son of Zebedee claimed to have seen what appeared to be blood and water come from Jesus’ wound.

Furthermore, the Gospel of Mark, the earliest of the four canonical Gospels, implies that Jesus’ male disciples went into hiding after Jesus was arrested and that they were NOT present at the crucifixion. Since the Gospel of John is the least historically reliable of the Gospels, and since the Gospel of Mark is the earliest of the four Gospels, it is reasonable to favor the view of the Gospel of Mark that Jesus’ male disciples, including John the son of Zebedee, were NOT present at the crucifixion of Jesus. If John was not present at Jesus’ crucifixion, then it is very unlikely that John claimed to have seen fluids come out of a wound in Jesus’ side while Jesus was still on the cross. Therefore, it is probable that premise (2b) is FALSE. Thus, we have a second good reason to reject the argument given in support of the key premise (C1). Kreeft and Tacelli have FAILED to give us a good reason to believe premise (C1), so the key premise (C1) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.

NOTE: If we were simply to drop all references to “John the son of Zebedee” in this argument, and weaken premise (2b) so that it only talks about “the beloved disciple”, the problems of the historical unreliability of the Gospel of John and the historical unreliability of the specific passage from Chapter 19 of that Gospel would still make this argument a bad argument, an argument that we should reject.

EVALUATION OF THE ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (C1)

I have shown that premise (1a) is probably FALSE, and that premise (2b) is probably FALSE. So, the argument for premise (C1) is probably UNSOUND and we have good reasons to reject this argument. Therefore, the key premise (C1) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.

Furthermore, the argument for (C1) is NOT VALID. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. Even if it were the case that John the son of Zebedee was an eyewitness to the crucifixion of Jesus, and even if John the son of Zebedee claimed or “certified” that he saw fluid that looked like blood and fluid that looked like water come from a wound in the side of Jesus, it could still be the case that this event never happened.

John could have lied about what happened, or John could have a mistaken or false memory of this alleged event, or John could have had a dream about this event, and told other Christians about his dream, but they misunderstood him and mistakenly thought that he was talking about an actual waking experience of the actual crucifixion of Jesus, or John could have had a dream about Jesus’ crucifixion, and later confused that dream experience with an ordinary waking experience of the crucifixion of Jesus. Therefore, even if both (1a) and (2b) were true, the conclusion (C1) could still be FALSE.

The argument for the key premise (C1) is INVALID and each of the premises of that argument are probably FALSE, so we have good reasons to reject this argument. That means that Kreeft and Tacelli have FAILED to provide us with a good reason to believe that (C1) is true, so we may reasonably conclude that premise (C1) is DUBIOUS and that (C1) might well be FALSE.

EVALUATION OF THE KEY PREMISE (C1)

Because the argument given by Kreeft and Tacelli for the key premise (C1) is a bad argument, we may reasonably conclude that premise (C1) is DUBIOUS, but taking into consideration the evidence from other Gospels besides the Gospel of John, we can reasonably conclude that premise (C1) is PROBABLY FALSE.

As I have pointed out previously, the specific passage referenced from Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John is historically doubtful because none of the key points in that passage are corroborated by the other three Gospels. This is an argument from silence, so is not a powerful or conclusive argument, but it does have some significance, and the fact that several key points are unconfirmed by any of the other three Gospels is sufficient evidence to conclude that the alleged events of the breaking of the legs of the other crucified men and the spear wound in Jesus’ side are PROBABLY FICTIONAL.

Furthermore, the description of events surrounding Jesus’ apparent death on the cross in the Gospel of Mark conflicts with the description of events surrounding Jesus’ apparent death on the cross in the Gospel of John. Given that the Gospel of John is historically unreliable, the least reliable of the four Gospels, and given that the Gospel of Mark was the earliest Gospel to be written (written two or three decades before the Gospel of John), we should favor Mark’s account over John’s account, and thus reject the story of the spear wound in Jesus’ side as being PROBABLY FICTIONAL.

According to the Gospel of Mark, when Josephus asked Pilate for the body of Jesus, Pilate was unsure that Jesus was already dead:

⁴² When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, ⁴³ Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. ⁴⁴ Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead, and summoning the centurion he asked him whether he had been dead for some time.

Mark 15:42-44, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

This conflicts with the story in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John, because that story has Jewish leaders asking Pilate to have the legs of the crucified men broken (including Jesus) to kill them off quickly so that their bodies could be removed from the crosses that evening:

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.

John 19:31-32, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

According to the Gospel of John, Josephus asked Pilate for the body of Jesus AFTER the Jewish leaders had requested that the legs of the crucified men be broken (John 19:38). But if that were the case, then Pilate would probably not have been unsure about whether Jesus was already dead when Josephus requested the body of Jesus. Pilate would probably have assumed that Jesus had already died because Pilate had ordered the legs of the crucified men (including Jesus) to be broken. Thus, Mark’s account conflicts with John’s account on this matter. Because we should favor Mark’s account over John’s account, we may reasonably conclude that the spear wound story is PROBABLY FICTIONAL.

Therefore, we have two good reasons to conclude that the key premise (C1) is PROBABLY FALSE: (1) the failure of the other Gospels to corroborate a number of key details of the account in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John, and (2) the conflict between the account of Jesus’ apparent death in the Gospel of Mark and the account of Jesus’ apparent death in the Gospel of John.

EVALUATION OF OBJECTION #3

In Part 6 of this series, I showed that premise (7a) was FALSE, and thus that the key premise (D) was DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. Therefore, we have a good reason to reject Objection #3.

In this current post, I have shown that the key premise (C1) is PROBABLY FALSE. Therefore, we have a second good reason to reject Objection #3.

Because one key premise in the core argument for Objection #3 is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE, and another key premise in the core argument for Objection #3 is PROBABLY FALSE, it is clear that Objection #3 by Kreeft and Tacelli against the Swoon Theory FAILS.