THE CORE ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #5

As we saw in Part 14 of this series, the core argument for Objection #5 against the Swoon Theory has two premises:

E. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN sometime after Jesus had been crucified, the eleven remaining disciples each had experiences that they believed were experiences of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus in which Jesus appeared to those disciples to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.

D. It is NOT the case that sometime after Jesus had been crucified, the eleven remaining disciples each had experiences that they believed were experiences of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus in which Jesus appeared to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.

THEREFORE:

A. The Swoon Theory is FALSE.

There are sub-arguments supporting each of the two premises of this core argument.

WHERE WE ARE

In Part 14 of this series, I presented a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #5 (The Sickly Jesus Objection) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli against the Swoon Theory.

In Part 15 of this series, I argued that a key premise (D) in the core argument of Objection #5 is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. That means that we should reject that core argument, and then reasonably conclude that Objection #5 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.

In this current post, I will examine the argument given in support of premise (E), the other key premise of the core argument of Objection #5.

THE ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (E)

This is the argument given in support of the key premise (E):

G. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN on the weekend after Jesus had been crucified, ten of the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus (not including Thomas) each had an experience that the disciples believed was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus in which Jesus appeared to those ten disciples to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.

I. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN on the second weekend after Jesus had been crucified, Jesus’ disciple Thomas had an experience that Thomas believed was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus in which Jesus appeared to Thomas to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.

THEREFORE:

E. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN sometime after Jesus had been crucified, the eleven remaining disciples each had experiences that they believed were experiences of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus in which Jesus appeared to those disciples to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.

Premise (G) and premise (I) are themselves each supported by an argument.

EVALUATION OF PREMISE (G) AND PREMISE (I)

Because there are arguments given in support of premises (G) and (I), we should examine those arguments before making a final determination of the truth or falsehood of those premises. However, I think it is clear that both of these premises are FALSE, and showing why they are FALSE may help to also show how the arguments given in support of (G) and (I) are defective and mistaken.

According to premise (G), the Swoon Theory LOGICALLY IMPLIES the following claim:

On the weekend after Jesus had been crucified, ten of the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus (not including Thomas) each had an experience that the disciples believed was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus.

But the Swoon Theory does NOT imply this fairly specific historical claim. For the Swoon Theory to be TRUE all that is required is that SOME of Jesus’ disciples had an experience that they believed was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus and that this experience took place SOMETIME after he was crucified. The Swoon Theory does NOT assert or imply that TEN of Jesus’ remaining eleven disciples had such an experience, nor that they had this experience on the same weekend. The Swoon Theory does NOT assert that ANY of the disciples had such an experience “on the weekend after Jesus had been crucified”. Therefore, premise (G) is clearly FALSE. The Swoon Theory simply does NOT imply what this premise says it implies.

According to premise (I), the Swoon Theory LOGICALLY IMPLIES the following claim:

On the second weekend after Jesus had been crucified, Jesus’ disciple Thomas had an experience that Thomas believed was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus.

But the Swoon Theory does NOT imply this fairly specific historical claim. For the Swoon Theory to be TRUE all that is required is that SOME of Jesus’ disciples had an experience that they believed was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus and that this experience took place SOMETIME after he was crucified. The Swoon Theory does NOT assert or imply that Jesus’ disciple Thomas had such an experience. The Swoon Theory does NOT assert or imply that ANY of the disciples had such an experience “on the second weekend after Jesus had been crucified”. Therefore, premise (I) is clearly FALSE. The Swoon Theory simply does NOT imply what this premise says it implies.

However, my conclusion that premises (G) and (I) are both FALSE should be accepted only tentatively, because we have not yet examined the arguments given in support of those two premises. Until we carefully examine those arguments, we should remain open to the possibility that those arguments are strong and solid, which would then cast doubt on the conclusion that premises (G) and (I) are FALSE.

So, in the next post in this series, I will examine the arguments for premises (G) and (I), to determine whether they are strong and solid or weak and defective. If they turn out to be weak or defective, then that will confirm my conclusion that these two premises are FALSE.

EVALUATION OF THE KEY PREMISE (E)

Because both of the premises in the argument supporting the key premise (E) are FALSE, that argument is clearly UNSOUND and should be rejected. Therefore, the key premise (E) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.

Furthermore, the key premise (E) is itself FALSE, for the same reasons that the premises in the argument for (E) are FALSE. According to premise (E) the Swoon Theory LOGICALLY IMPLIES this historical claim:

Sometime after Jesus had been crucified, the eleven remaining disciples each had experiences that they believed were experiences of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus.

However, the Swoon Theory does NOT imply this fairly specific historical claim. For the Swoon Theory to be TRUE all that is required is that SOME of Jesus’ disciples had an experience that they believed was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus and that this experience took place SOMETIME after he was crucified. The Swoon Theory does NOT require that all eleven remaining disciples had such an experience. Therefore, premise (E) is FALSE, because the Swoon Theory does NOT imply what this premise says it implies.

Additionally, according to premise (E), the Swoon Theory LOGICALLY IMPLIES this claim:

Sometime after Jesus had been crucified, the eleven remaining disciples each had experiences that they believed were experiences in which Jesus appeared to those disciples to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.

However, the Swoon Theory does NOT imply this fairly specific historical claim. Not only does the Swoon Theory NOT imply that all eleven remaining disciples had an experience of the “risen” Jesus; it also does NOT imply that Jesus “appeared to those disciples to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.” Therefore, premise (E) is FALSE, because the Swoon Theory does NOT imply what premise (E) says it implies.

The reason that Kreeft and Tacelli believe that a Jesus who survived crucifixion would appear “to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor” is because they make the following two specific historical assumptions:

Ten of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples had an experience on Sunday, about 48 hours after Jesus had been crucified, that they believed was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus.

If Jesus had survived his crucifixion, he would have been very weak and sickly on Sunday, about 48 hours after Jesus had been crucified, as a result of a number of very serious injuries and wounds inflicted on Jesus when he was crucified (by being severely scourged prior to being crucified, by having a crown of thorns with many long and sharp thorns that pointed inward towards his head shoved forcefully onto his head, by having both of his hands/arms nailed to the cross, by having both of his feet nailed to the cross, and by having a spear thrust deeply into his side while he was on the cross, creating a large wound in his side).

The problem is that the Swoon Theory does NOT assume nor imply either of these fairly specific historical assumptions. The Swoon Theory could be TRUE even if both of these assumptions were FALSE. But if both of these assumptions were FALSE, then the Swoon Theory could be TRUE and yet SOME of Jesus’ remaining eleven disciples had experiences that they believed to be experiences of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus, and those experiences involved them ACTUALLY seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus, and yet it could be FALSE that “Jesus appeared to those disciples to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.”

There are at least two different ways that the Swoon Theory could be TRUE and yet it is FALSE that:

Sometime after Jesus had been crucified, the eleven remaining disciples each had experiences that they believed were experiences in which Jesus appeared to those disciples to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.

If NONE of the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus had an experience of the “risen” Jesus on Easter Sunday, about 48 hours after Jesus was crucified, and if SOME of the disciples had experiences of the “risen” Jesus a month or two after Jesus was crucified, then any wounds and injuries that were inflicted on Jesus when he was crucified could have healed up by that time so that Jesus would NOT have “appeared to those disciples to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.”

Alternatively, if Jesus had NOT been severely scourged prior to his crucifixion and did NOT have a crown of many sharp thorns shoved forcefully onto his head, and his hands/arms were NOT nailed to the cross (but were instead tied to the cross), and his feet were NOT nailed to the cross (but were instead tied to the cross), and a spear was NOT thrust deeply into his side while he was on the cross, then Jesus might well have been seen by some of his disciples on Easter Sunday, about 48 hours after he had been crucified, and yet NOT have “appeared to those disciples to be a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.”

Because the Swoon Theory does NOT assume nor imply the specific historical assumptions that Kreeft and Tacelli are making about how ten of the remaining eleven disciples had an experience of the “risen” Jesus, and about those alleged experiences occurring about 48 hours after Jesus was crucified, and about the number, kinds, and severity of the wounds and injuries allegedly inflicted on Jesus when he was crucified, the Swoon Theory does NOT imply what premise (E) says it implies. Therefore, the key premise (E) is FALSE.

In effect, Kreeft and Tacelli commit the STRAW MAN FALLACY against the Swoon Theory, by assuming a very narrow characterization of the Swoon Theory in which this theory assumes or implies all kinds of historical assumptions that are favorable to their point of view. But someone who supports and defends the Swoon Theory does not need to assume or accept the various questionable historical assumptions that Kreeft and Tacelli are inclined to make. By characterizing the Swoon Theory in a way that assumes their various dubious historical assumptions, they create a weak and self-contradictory version of this theory; one that they can easily “refute”.

But their characterization of the Swoon Theory is a mischaracterization, an unfair, biased and inaccurate characterization. Objection #5 has no force against the Swoon Theory if that theory is presented fairly and accurately.

EVALUATION OF THE CORE ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #5

In Part 15 of this series, I argued that a key premise (D) in the core argument of Objection #5 is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. That means that we should reject that core argument, and then reasonably conclude that Objection #5 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.

In this current post, I have shown that the key premise (E) is FALSE. Because (E) is a key premise in the core argument for Objection #5 (The Sickly Jesus Objection), the fact that premise (E) is FALSE gives us another good reason to reject the core argument for Objection #5, and this shows that Objection #5 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.