WHERE WE ARE

In Part 19 of this series, I presented a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #6 (Who Overpowered the Guards?) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli.

In Part 20 of this series, I showed that premise (G) was FALSE, and thus that the core argument of Objection #6 is UNSOUND and should be rejected. Therefore, I showed that Objection #6 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.

There is another serious problem with Objection #6: premise (D) is also FALSE. Thus, we have a second good reason to reject the core argument of this objection and a second good reason to conclude that Objection #6 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.

In this current post, I will show that premise (D) is FALSE.

THE CORE ARGUMENT OF OBJECTION #6

Here, once again, is the core argument of Objection #6:

D. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN Jesus did NOT overpower the Roman soldiers who were guarding his tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.

F. It is NOT the case that some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples overpowered the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.

G. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN either (a) Jesus overpowered the Roman soldiers who were guarding his tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified or (b) some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples overpowered the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.

THEREFORE:

A. The Swoon Theory is FALSE.

THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (D)

Before I argue that the key premise (D) is FALSE, we should consider the sub-argument that Kreeft and Tacelli provided in support of premise (D):

B. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN Jesus survived his crucifixion.

1a. IF Jesus survived his crucifixion, THEN Jesus was too weak and frail to overpower the Roman soldiers who were guarding his tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.

C. IF Jesus was too weak and frail to overpower the Roman soldiers who were guarding his tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified, THEN Jesus did NOT overpower the Roman soldiers who were guarding his tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.

THEREFORE:

D. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN Jesus did NOT overpower the Roman soldiers who were guarding his tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.

EVALUATION OF THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (D)

The sub-argument for premise (D) is SOUND only if all three premises of the argument are true. But premise (1a) is FALSE, so the sub-argument is UNSOUND and should be rejected. Because the sub-argument for (D) is UNSOUND, Kreeft and Tacelli have failed to provide a good reason to believe that premise (D) is true. Since premise (D) is not obviously of self-evidently true, their failure to provide a good reason to believe that (D) is the case, makes premise (D) DUBIOUS, so premise (D) might well be FALSE.

The antecedent of the conditional claim (1a) does NOT logically imply the consequent of (1a), so it is possible for the antecedent “Jesus survived his crucifixion” to be true while the consequent “Jesus was too weak and frail to overpower the Roman soldiers who were guarding his tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.” is false. That means the conditional claim (1a) is itself FALSE.

Kreeft and Tacelli fail to notice this possibility because they believe that several serious injuries and wounds were inflicted on Jesus when he was crucified. They are making some of the same historical assumptions that they made in presenting Objection #5:

JESUS1: Jesus was severely scourged shortly before he was crucified.

JESUS2: A crown of thorns with several long sharp thorns pointing inward was shoved forcefully onto Jesus’ head shortly before he was crucified, resulting in several serious wounds to Jesus’ scalp.

JESUS3: Both of Jesus’ hands/arms were nailed to the cross when Jesus was crucified.

JESUS4: Both of Jesus’ feet were nailed to the cross when Jesus was crucified.

JESUS5: A Roman soldier forcefully thrust a spear deep into Jesus’ side while Jesus was on the cross.

Jesus surviving his crucifixion does NOT imply that any of the above historical assumptions are true. If Jesus had in fact survived his crucifixion, that would cast doubt on the view that all of the above serious injuries and wounds were inflicted on Jesus. In any case, if NONE of the above serious injuries or wounds was inflicted on Jesus, then that is completely compatible with it being the case that Jesus survived his crucifixion. Clearly, Jesus surviving crucifixion does NOT imply that any or all of the above claims about alleged wounds inflicted on Jesus are true. Therefore, premise (1a) is FALSE.

Furthermore, none of those claims are historical FACTS. Each alleged wound of Jesus is subject to reasonable doubt. Also, scourging, a crown of thorns, and a poke or stab from a spear can result in either minor wounds, moderate wounds, or very serious wounds. Because the Gospels do not provide details about these events and about the alleged wounds that Jesus had, and because the Gospels provide conflicting details about these events, the severity of each of those wounds is a matter of speculation and guessing, not a matter of established FACTS.

Because we don’t know whether any of the alleged wounds of Jesus are historical, and because we don’t know the severity of most of the wounds, if Jesus had survived crucifixion, he might well have been strong enough to overpower one or two Roman soldiers on the Sunday after his crucifixion. Therefore, premise (1a) is FALSE. That means that the sub-argument for the key premise (D) is UNSOUND and should be rejected. Thus, premise (D) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.

EVALUATION OF THE KEY PREMISE (D)

Because premise (D) is DUBIOUS, we have a second good reason to reject the core argument of Objection #6. However, there is an even stronger reason to reject the core argument: premise (D) is FALSE. Because (D) is FALSE, we have a second very good reason to conclude that the core argument is UNSOUND, and thus a second very good reason to reject the core argument of Objection #6. Therefore, Objection #6 (Who Overpowered the Guards?) against the Swoon Theory FAILS.

According to the key premise (D), the Swoon Theory logically implies this claim:

Jesus did NOT overpower the Roman soldiers who were guarding his tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.

But the Swoon Theory has no such implication, so premise (D) is FALSE.

The Swoon Theory does imply that Jesus survived his crucifixion. But as we have already seen, Jesus could have survived his crucifixion even if NONE of the five assumptions about various alleged serious wounds of Jesus is true.

Jesus could also have survived his crucifixion even if SOME of the five assumptions about his alleged wounds were false (and others were true). Neither the Swoon Theory nor the claim that “Jesus survived his crucifixion” imply that several serious wounds were inflicted on Jesus when he was crucified.

Thus, premise (D) is FALSE for the same reason that premise (1a) is FALSE: the survival of crucifixion by Jesus does NOT imply that Jesus had several serious wounds inflicted on him when he was crucified, and thus it does NOT imply that Jesus would have been very weak and frail on the Sunday after he was crucified (if he survived the crucifixion).

CONCLUSION

In Part 20 of this series (the previous post), I showed that the key premise (G) was FALSE. That gave us a very good reason to conclude that the core argument of Objection #6 is UNSOUND and should be rejected. Now we see that the key premise (D) is also FALSE. That gives us a second very good reason to conclude that the core argument of Objection #6 is UNSOUND and should be rejected. Because we have two very good reasons to reject the core argument of this objection, it is clear that Objection #6 (Who Overpowered the Guards?) against the Swoon Theory FAILS.