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 am carefully evaluating 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 (“Break their Legs”) 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 Part 4 of this series, I completed my careful evaluation of the argument constituting Objection #2 against the Swoon Theory. My conclusion is that the core argument contained a false premise (C) and also a dubious premise (5a), so the argument should be rejected, and thus Objection #2 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.

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 (“Blood and Water”) against the Swoon Theory.

In Part 6 of this series, I showed that premise (7a) was FALSE, and thus that the key premise (D) in the core argument for Objection #3 (“Blood and Water”) was DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.

In Part 7 of this series, I showed that 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. Furthermore, I argued that based on evidence from the other three Gospels, premise (C1) is PROBABLY FALSE.

Since one key premise in the core argument for Objection #3 is DUBIOUS and another key premise in the core argument for Objection #3 is PROBABLY FALSE, we have good reasons to conclude that Objection #3 (“Blood and Water”) against the Swoon Theory FAILS.

In this post, I will present my analysis of Objection #4 (“Winding Sheets & Entombment”) by Kreeft and Tacelli against the Swoon Theory.

OBJECTION #4: WINDING SHEETS & ENTOMBMENT

Here is the fourth objection by Kreeft and Tacelli against the Swoon Theory:

The body was totally encased in winding sheets and entombed   (Jn 19:38-42).                  

(HCA, p.183)

CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF OBJECTION #4

After following my own process of careful argument analysis, I produced an argument diagram of this objection that includes four explicit claims, and five assumed or unstated claims, arranged in five inferences or sub-arguments:

STATED PREMISES/CLAIMS

1b. On Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, it was totally encased in winding sheets (that included 100-plus pounds of spices and a gummy substance).

2a. On Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, it was placed into a stone tomb.

3b. According to the Gospel of John (Jn 19:38-42), on Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, it was totally encased in winding sheets (that included 100-plus pounds of spices and a gummy substance).

4a. According to the Gospel of John (Jn 19:38-42), on Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, it was placed into a stone tomb.

UNSTATED PREMISES/CLAIMS

A. The Swoon Theory is false.

B. The Gospel of John provides a reliable and accurate account of the life of Jesus, including what happened to Jesus’ body after he was crucified.

C. IF On Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, Jesus’ body was totally encased in winding sheets (that included 100-plus pounds of spices and a gummy substance) and Jesus’ body was placed into a stone tomb, THEN even if Jesus had survived his crucifixion Jesus would have either quickly suffocated in his tomb or quickly died in his tomb as a result of the cold damp air in his tomb when Jesus’ body was placed into his tomb on Friday evening.

D. IF Jesus had survived his crucifixion, THEN Jesus would have either quickly suffocated in his tomb or quickly died in his tomb as a result of the cold damp air in his tomb when Jesus’ body was placed into his tomb on Friday evening.

E. IF Jesus had survived his crucifixion, THEN Jesus would have quickly died in his tomb.

THE CORE ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #4

Here is what I take to be the core argument for Objection #4 (“Winding Sheets & Entombment”):

1b. On Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, it was totally encased in winding sheets (that included 100-plus pounds of spices and a gummy substance).

2a. On Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, it was placed into a stone tomb.

C. IF On Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, Jesus’ body was totally encased in winding sheets (that included 100-plus pounds of spices and a gummy substance) and Jesus’ body was placed into a stone tomb, THEN even if Jesus had survived his crucifixion Jesus would have either quickly suffocated in his tomb or quickly died in his tomb as a result of the cold damp air in his tomb when Jesus’ body was placed into his tomb on Friday evening.

THEREFORE:

D. IF Jesus had survived his crucifixion, THEN Jesus would have either quickly suffocated in his tomb or quickly died in his tomb as a result of the cold damp air in his tomb when Jesus’ body was placed into his tomb on Friday evening.

In the next post of this series, I will begin to evaluate this core argument of Objection #4 by Kreeft and Tacelli against the Swoon Theory.