WHERE WE ARE

In Part 8 of this series, I presented a careful analysis of Peter Kreeft’s Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory.

In Part 9 of this series, I argued that the key premise (1b) in Objection #4 is supported by an argument consisting of two FALSE premises: premise (B) and premise (3b). Thus, the key premise (1b) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.

In Part 10 of this series, I argued that even if we assume the burial account in the Gospel of John to be historical and accurate, the strongest claim it can support is this:

1g. On Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, it was totally encased in winding sheets (that included between 11 pounds and 90 pounds of spices and a gummy substance).

This historical claim is too weak to provide a strong objection against the Swoon Theory. Thus, the argument given by Kreeft and Tacelli for the key premise (1b) FAILS, and in order to repair the argument by replacing one of the false premises of the argument, premise (3b), with a plausible premise, one must also weaken the conclusion to the point it no longer functions as a strong objection against the Swoon Theory. Furthermore, the repaired argument is still UNSOUND, because the other premise, premise (B), is still FALSE.

In Part 11 of this series, I argue that Kreeft and Tacelli FAIL to provide a solid argument in support of the key premise (2a), because their argument is UNSOUND, being based on a FALSE premise, premise (B). I also consider an alternative way of arguing for (2a), based on the other three Gospels. However, the alternative argument requires that the Gospel of Mark‘s account of the burial of Jesus be historically reliable, which it is not, so the alternative argument also FAILS to show that (2a) is true, and thus the key premise (2a) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.

THE CORE ARGUMENT OF 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.

Because premise (1b) and premise (2a) are both DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE, this argument for premise (D) should be rejected. Since this is the core argument of the objection, that means that Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.

But there is a third premise of this argument, premise (C), and I would like to examine that premise as well.

EVALUATION OF PREMISE (C)

Premise (C) asserts a conditional claim. It has this form:

IF P, THEN Q.

Another way of stating a conditional claim is to say that the antecedent logically implies the consequent:

P IMPLIES Q.

So, we can restate premise (C) like this:

The statement

“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”

LOGICALLY IMPLIES this statement:

“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.”

However, there are clear counterexamples that show that the first statement does NOT logically imply the second statement. Therefore, the conditional claim made by premise (C) is FALSE, so the core argument of Objection #4 is clearly UNSOUND and FAILS to refute the Swoon Theory.

The first statement says NOTHING about the air in the tomb being cold or damp. Therefore, the first statement could be true even if the air in the tomb was warm and dry. But if the air in the tomb was warm and dry, then obviously Jesus would not be quickly killed off “as a result of the cold damp air in his tomb”.

Furthermore, ZERO evidence has been provided for the assumption that the air in the tomb was cold and damp.* So, that assumption is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.

There are other assumptions being made here that also are NOT implied by the first statement. Wrapping Jesus’ body with winding sheets that “included 100-plus pounds of spices and a gummy substance” would NOT cause Jesus to suffocate unless:

• the winding sheets were tightly wrapped around Jesus’ head
• there were multiple layers of winding sheets wrapped around Jesus’ head
• there were many pounds of spices and gummy substance included in the layers of winding sheets wrapped around Jesus’ head

If some or all of these assumptions are false, then Jesus might well NOT have suffocated as a result of his body being “encased in winding sheets (including 100-plus pounds of spices and a gummy substance)”.

The first statement above–the antecedent of premise (C)–says NOTHING about the winding sheets being wrapped tightly around Jesus’ head, nor about there being multiple layers of winding sheets around Jesus’ head, nor about whether (or how much) spices and gummy substance was included in layers of winding sheets around Jesus’ head. Therefore, the first statement could be TRUE even if some or all of the crucial assumptions about the wrapping of winding sheets around Jesus’ head were FALSE. Thus, even if the first statement–the antecedent of premise (C)–was TRUE, Jesus might well have NOT quickly suffocated in the tomb.

Furthermore, ZERO evidence has been provided for the various assumptions above about the winding sheets being wrapped around the head of Jesus, so those assumptions are DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.*

Finally, the relevant passage in the Gospel of John provides us with NO DETAILS about the temperature of the air in Jesus’ tomb, nor about the dampness of the air in Jesus’ tomb, nor about how tightly the winding sheets were wrapped around Jesus’ head, nor about how many layers of winding sheets were wrapped around Jesus’ head, nor about whether (or how much) of the spices and the gummy substance was used in the wrappings around Jesus’ head. So, the Gospel of John does not provide evidence in support of any of the crucial assumptions that are required for the key premise (C) to be true.

Because the antecedent of premise (C) says NOTHING about the temperature or dampness of the air in Jesus’ tomb and says NOTHING about how Jesus’ head was tightly wrapped with multiple layers of winding sheets, it is clear that the antecedent of premise (C) could be TRUE and yet the consequent of premise (C) be FALSE. Thus, the key premise (C) is FALSE, and the core argument for Objection #4 is UNSOUND. Therefore, Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.

EVALUATION OF OBJECTION #4

The core argument for Objection #4 consists of three premises: (1b), (2a), and (C). I have shown that key premises (1b) and (2a) are DUBIOUS, and that is sufficient reason to reject the core argument for Objection #4.

In this present post, I have shown that the key premise (C) in the core argument for this objection is FALSE. That means the core argument is UNSOUND, which by itself is sufficient reason to reject the core argument for Objection #4.

Because two key premises of the core argument are DUBIOUS, and one key premise of the core argument is FALSE, Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory clearly FAILS.

=====================

* It is no surprise that Kreeft and Tacelli provide ZERO evidence in support of any of these crucial assumptions:

• the air inside of Jesus’ tomb was cold when he was placed into the tomb
• the air inside of Jesus’ tomb was damp when he was placed into the tomb
• the winding sheets were tightly wrapped around Jesus’ head
• there were multiple layers of winding sheets wrapped around Jesus’ head
• there were many pounds of spices and a gummy substance included in the layers of winding sheets wrapped around Jesus’ head

This is not a surprise, because their statement of this objection says NOTHING about WHY Jesus being wrapped in winding sheets and placed into a stone tomb would have caused him to quickly die if Jesus had survived the crucifixion.

I believe that Kreeft and Tacelli borrowed Objection #4 from Josh McDowell (The Resurrection Factor, published in 1981, see page 98). However, they abbreviated McDowell’s version of this objection and left out the crucial elements about WHY wrapping Jesus in winding sheets with lots of spices and gummy substance and placing him in a stone tomb would have caused Jesus to quickly die.

McDowell’s version of this objection points to the idea that the winding sheets and spices would have caused Jesus to quickly suffocate, and to the idea that the cold damp air in the tomb would have caused Jesus to quickly die (presumably in conjunction with Jesus’ various wounds and loss of blood).

McDowell, however, provides ZERO evidence for any of the above crucial assumptions about the air in the tomb and about how Jesus’ head was wrapped, so his version of Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory clearly FAILS for the reasons I give in the above post, which show that premise (C) is FALSE.