THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (2A)

Premise (2a) is a key premise in the core argument for Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli provide a sub-argument in support of premise (2a), so we need to consider that argument:

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.

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.

THEREFORE:

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

EVALUATION OF THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (2A)

Although the passage referenced in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John does not specifically state that the tomb was a stone tomb, that seems to be implied by the passage, and I’m not aware of there being any other kinds of “tombs” available in Jerusalem at that time. So, premise (4a) appears to be TRUE.

As I argued in Part 4 of this series of posts, the Gospel of John is NOT a reliable and accurate account of the life of Jesus, and we have also seen specific reasons to doubt the historical reliability of the descriptions of some events related to the crucifixion of Jesus in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John. Thus, premise (B) is FALSE. Therefore, this sub-argument for (2a) is UNSOUND and should be rejected. Kreeft and Tacelli have FAILED to provide us with a good reason to believe that the key premise (2a) is true.

EVIDENCE FOR PREMISE (2A) FROM THE OTHER GOSPELS

Although we should not take the referenced passage from Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John as sufficient evidence to establish the key premise (2a), the other three Gospels agree with the claim asserted by premise (2a). An obvious reply to my objection that the sub-argument for (2a) is UNSOUND, is that there is evidence in the other three Gospels that supports premise (2a). So, in order to evaluate premise (2a), we need to consider the evidence for (2a) from the other three Gospels.

EVALUATION OF THE KEY PREMISE (2A)

The key premise (2a) might be true. All four of the canonical gospels agree on the point made by that premise. Nobody can prove that premise (2a) is FALSE. However, as I have previously argued, the evidence from the Gospel of John is very weak and is worthless for the purpose of showing that (2a) asserts a historical fact.

Furthermore, there are two key points that taken together show that (2a) does NOT assert a historical fact and that there is a significant chance that (2a) is FALSE. l will argue that premise (2a) is DUBIOUS because:

• Whether (2a) is a historical fact comes down to the question of whether the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark is historically reliable.
• There are good reasons to believe that the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark is historically unreliable.

Whether (2a) is a historical fact comes down to the question of whether the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark is historically reliable.

For nearly two centuries scholars who study the historical Jesus have ignored the Gospel of John because it is historically unreliable. I have previously outlined some of the key reasons for concluding that the Gospel of John is an unreliable account of the life, ministry, and crucifixion of Jesus (see Part 4 of this series of posts).

The Gospel of Matthew is of value to the study of the historical Jesus primarily in terms of the sayings and parables of Jesus but is of little historical value in terms of the stories it tells about what Jesus did and about what happened to Jesus. This Gospel is of historical value concerning the words and sayings of Jesus because it includes alleged sayings of Jesus that come from Q, an early source of the words and sayings of Jesus. In general, the sayings of Jesus that are found in both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke but NOT in the Gospel of Mark are believed by most NT scholars to come from Q.

On the other hand, most of the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew come from the Gospel of Mark. So, if the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable, then so are most of the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. On the other hand, if the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Mark are historically reliable, then the Gospel of Matthew also has historically reliable stories about Jesus, but little to offer beyond the stories we find in the Gospel of Mark.

There are some general considerations about the Gospel of Matthew that show there is a good chance that when the Gospel of Matthew adds or changes events or details in stories that it borrows from the Gospel of Mark, those revisions are historically unreliable. Also, when the author of Matthew adds new stories about Jesus that do NOT come from the Gospel of Mark, those stories are usually historically DUBIOUS. For example, the Gospel of Matthew adds a Birth Story about Jesus which is historically DUBIOUS. I will argue these points in a series of posts called “The Historical Unreliability of Matthew”.

Furthermore, when the author of the Gospel of Matthew revises stories about Jesus that come from the Passion Narrative in the Gospel of Mark, those changes are usually driven by theological or dramatic or literary purposes rather than by historical evidence. The additions and changes that the author of the Gospel of Matthew makes to stories from the Passion Narrative in the Gospel of Mark are historically DUBIOUS. I argue this point in a series of posts called “The Historical Unreliability of Matthew”.

For the above reasons, a determination of whether premise (2a) is a historical fact cannot be based on the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. This determination must rest primarily on the Gospel of Mark and/or the Gospel of Luke.

However, the Gospel of Luke has problems similar to that of the Gospel of Matthew. Like the Gospel of Matthew, there are general considerations that show there is a good chance that what the author of the Gospel of Luke adds to or revises in stories about Jesus that come from the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable changes. The Gospel of Luke has a Birth Story, and like the Gospel of Matthew, the Birth Story is historically DUBIOUS. The Gospel of Luke also adds stories about alleged appearances of the risen Jesus in Jerusalem on the first Easter Sunday, but those stories are probably all fictional.

Furthermore, like the Gospel of Matthew, when the author of the Gospel of Luke borrows a story about Jesus from the Passion Narrative of the Gospel of Mark and adds or changes an event or detail in that story, the change is usually historically DUBIOUS. I will argue for these points in a series of posts called “The Historical Unreliability of Luke”.

For these reasons, the Gospel of Luke has little to offer in terms of historically reliable stories about Jesus, beyond the information we already have from the Gospel of Mark. Thus, a determination of whether premise (2a) is a historical fact cannot be based on stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Luke. And since we have previously eliminated the Gospel of Matthew for similar reasons, premise (2a) must be evaluated primarily on the basis of the contents of the Gospel of Mark.

There are good reasons to believe that the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark is historically unreliable.

Here are four good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark:

• There are some general considerations that provide a good reason for doubting the historical reliability of the Gospel of Mark.
• A second good reason for doubting the historical reliability of the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark is that the Passion Narrative in the Gospel of Mark is a historically unreliable account of the arrest, trials, and crucifixion of Jesus.
• A third good reason for doubting the historical reliability of the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark is based on the specific content of that story.
• A fourth good reason for doubting the historical reliability of the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark is that the empty tomb story in the Gospel of Mark is historically dubious.

I will argue for these points in a series of posts called “The Historical Unreliability of Mark”.

CONCLUSION

Assuming that I successfully argue for the following two claims, I will have shown that premise (2a) is DUBIOUS:

• Whether (2a) is a historical fact comes down to the question of whether the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark is historically reliable.
• There are good reasons to believe that the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark is historically unreliable.

The argument for (2a) given by Kreeft and Tacelli FAILS, because it rests on a FALSE premise, premise (B). A likely reply to this objection is that instead of basing premise (2a) on evidence from the Gospel of John, premise (2a) could be supported by evidence from the other three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke).

If my arguments supporting the above two bullet points are successful, then the attempt to base premise (2a) on evidence from the other three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) also FAILS to show that (2a) is true, and we would thus have good reason to conclude that premise (2a) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.