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.

Premise (G) is FALSE, and premise (D) is also FALSE, so it is clear that the core argument of Objection #6 is UNSOUND and should be rejected. Therefore, Objection #6 against the Swoon Theory clearly FAILS.

Because Objection #6 clearly FAILS, there is no pressing need to evaluate premise (F). However, Kreeft and Tacelli have provided arguments in support of (F), and both of those arguments are bad arguments. So, I will go ahead and evaluate premise (F) just to provide more evidence showing that Kreeft and Tacelli have no ability to distinguish between good strong arguments and bad or weak arguments.

It might be surprising or shocking that professional philosophers who specialize in the philosophy of religion could put forward nine objections against the Swoon Theory and yet that all nine objections would be bad arguments. I don’t believe that Kreeft and Tacelli intentionally and knowingly published bad arguments, so the only conclusion I can draw is that they have no clue about whether an argument is a good solid argument or an illogical or weak argument, not even when the arguments concern the philosophy of religion, which is their area of specialization.

THE UNARMED DISCIPLES SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (F)

Here is the first argument that Kreeft and Tacelli give to try to show that premise (F) is true:

2a. Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples were unarmed on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.

3a. IF Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples were unarmed on the weekend after Jesus was crucified, THEN some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples would have been unable to overpower the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.

E. IF some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples would have been unable to overpower the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after his crucifixion, THEN it is NOT the case that some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples overpowered the Roman soldiers who were guarding the tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.

THEREFORE:

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.

EVALUATION OF THE UN-ARMED DISCIPLES SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (F)

Premise (2a) is probably FALSE. So this argument for premise (F) is probably UNSOUND and should be rejected. Premise (3a) is FALSE, which means that this argument is in fact UNSOUND and should be rejected. So, this first argument FAILS to provide a good reason to believe that premise (F) is true.

Here, again, is premise (2a):

2a. Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples were unarmed on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.

Premise (2a) is probably FALSE, because according to the Gospel of Luke, at least some of the disciples had weapons, and the Gospel accounts leave open the possibility that most or all of the eleven disciples had weapons on the weekend after Jesus was crucified. Here is one of the relevant passages from the Gospel of Luke:

35 He [Jesus] said to them [his eleven disciples], “When I sent you out without a purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “No, not a thing.” 36 He said to them, “But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted among the lawless,’ and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.” 38 They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” He replied, “It is enough.”

(Luke 22:35-38, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

According to this passage from the Gospel of Luke, Jesus’ disciples had AT LEAST TWO swords. The two swords seem to have been produced while Jesus was still talking with his disciples, so they were presumably close at hand. The disciples could have had more swords than just those two, but the other swords may have been located in another room or in another house, and not as readily available as the two swords that they quickly produced. Notice that the disciples do NOT say “These are the only swords we have.” So, this passage leaves open the possibility that each of the eleven disciples had his own sword, but that only two of their swords were close at hand on this occasion.

Another passage from the Gospel of Luke suggests that a number of Jesus’ disciples owned or had access to swords:

47 While he was still speaking, suddenly a crowd came, and the one called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, 48 but Jesus said to him, “Judas, is it with a kiss that you are betraying the Son of Man?” 49 When those who were around him saw what was coming, they asked, “Lord, should we strike with the sword?” 50 Then one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear.

Luke 22:47-50, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

Who is referred to by the phrase “those who were around him”? Presumably, they were Jesus’ disciples or followers:

That “those who were around him” refers to Jesus’ disciples is clear from their address of him as “Lord,” a form of address used with regularity by the narrator and only otherwise by those who follow Jesus.

The Gospel of Luke by Joel B. Green, p.783, footnote #2.

So there was a group of Jesus’ disciples who were with Jesus when he was arrested, and they said to Jesus “Lord, should we strike with the sword?” Obviously, this group of disciples isn’t going to collectively swing just one sword. So, presumably a number of the disciples who were present when Jesus was arrested possessed swords. At least two and perhaps several of Jesus’ disciples had swords with them on this occasion.

The Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew agree with the above account in the Gospel of Luke, at least in terms of one disciple of Jesus using a sword to strike the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear (see: Mark 14:47 & Matthew 26:51). So, if Kreeft and Tacelli accept the historicity of a DUBIOUS passage from the Gospel of Matthew about there being soldiers guarding the tomb of Jesus, then to be logically consistent, they should also accept the historicity of passages from the Gospel of Luke that imply there were two or more disciples of Jesus who had swords with them when Jesus was arrested. Thus, if one believes that there were Roman soldiers guarding the tomb of Jesus, then one should conclude that premise (2a) is probably FALSE, and that means this argument for premise (F) is probably UNSOUND.

Finally, even if the eleven disciples had only one or two swords between them shortly before Jesus was arrested, they could have obtained more swords either by following Jesus’ suggestion to sell their cloaks to get money to buy swords, or they could have borrowed a few swords from other followers of Jesus who lived in Jerusalem. The disciples having only one or two swords on Thursday does NOT prove that they had only one or two swords on Saturday or Sunday, and it certainly does NOT prove that they were completely UNARMED on Saturday and Sunday!

Another serious problem with this sub-argument for premise (F) is that premise (3a) is FALSE, showing that this sub-argument is indeed UNSOUND. Here, again, is premise (3a):

3a. IF Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples were unarmed on the weekend after Jesus was crucified, THEN some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples would have been unable to overpower the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.

If there were eleven unarmed disciples who worked together as a coordinated team to attempt to get Jesus out of the tomb and away from the Roman soldiers, then it is entirely possible that they could have successfully overpowered one or two Roman soldiers, especially if the Roman soldiers were tired and fell asleep while guarding the tomb.

Kreeft and Tacelli believe there was more than just one Roman soldier guarding the tomb of Jesus, but they don’t claim to know how many Roman soldiers were present. If there were only two or three Roman soldiers guarding the tomb, then it was certainly possible for eleven unarmed disciples to overpower those Roman soldiers.

Furthermore, if there were three or more Roman soldiers assigned to guard the tomb twenty-four hours a day, they would probably work in shifts, so that only one or two soldiers would be stationed next to the tomb and who were supposed to stay awake and alert for their shift of guard duty. The other soldiers would probably find a comfortable spot a little ways away from the tomb, so they could rest or sleep while not on guard duty.

So, even if there were several Roman soldiers assigned to guard the tomb, it is likely that only one or two of them would be stationed next to the tomb at any given point in time. It is certainly possible for eleven unarmed disciples to work cooperatively as a team to overpower one or two Roman soldiers, while the other Roman soldiers rested or slept a short distance away. Therefore, premise (3a) is FALSE.

Because premise (2a) is DUBIOUS, and premise (3a) is FALSE, we should reject the UN-ARMED Disciples argument for the key premise (F), which means that this sub-argument for (F) fails to provide a good reason to believe (F) is true.

THE CONSPIRACY THEORY SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (F)

Here is the Conspiracy Theory sub-argument for the key premise (F):

4a. IF some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples overpowered the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified, THEN the disciples among Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples who wrote the Gospels knowingly lied about the resurrection of Jesus when they wrote the Gospels.

5a. IF the disciples among Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples who wrote the Gospels knowingly lied about the resurrection of Jesus when they wrote the Gospels, THEN the Conspiracy Theory is true.

6a. Kreeft and Tacelli refuted the Conspiracy Theory (in Chapter 8 of HCA).

THEREFORE:

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.

EVALUATION OF THE CONSPIRACY THEORY SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (F)

First of all, the Conspiracy Theory argument for (F) is based on the assumption that the Conspiracy Theory is FALSE. In their Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Kreeft and Tacelli put forward seven objections against the Conspiracy Theory, in an attempt to refute that skeptical theory. However, I have examined those seven objections, and I concluded that they are as lousy as the nine objections Kreeft and Tacelli put forward against the Swoon Theory.

The view that the Conspiracy Theory is FALSE is a DUBIOUS assumption.

Here is premise (6a) of the Conspiracy Theory argument for premise (F):

6a. Kreeft and Tacelli refuted the Conspiracy Theory (in Chapter 8 of HCA).

Premise (6a) is FALSE, based on my evaluation of their seven objections against the Conspiracy Theory, so the Conspiracy Theory might well be TRUE. I will not be arguing against their objections about the Conspiracy Theory here, because that would take too long (I plan to devote an entire book to a critical evaluation of their objections against the Conspiracy Theory). But given the consistent FAILURE of their objections against the Swoon Theory, and given that my careful evaluation of their seven objections against the Conspiracy Theory leads me to conclude that all of those objections also FAIL, there is good reason to doubt the view that the Conspiracy Theory is FALSE.

In any case, my view is that premise (6a) is FALSE. Kreeft and Tacelli have FAILED to refute the Conspiracy Theory, so premise (6a) is FALSE. That means this sub-argument for premise (F) is an UNSOUND argument, and this sub-argument should be rejected.

Another premise in this sub-argument for (F) is premise (4a):

4a. IF some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples overpowered the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified, THEN the disciples among Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples who wrote the Gospels knowingly lied about the resurrection of Jesus when they wrote the Gospels.

Premise (4a) is FALSE. So, the Conspiracy Theory argument for premise (F) is UNSOUND and should be rejected. That gives us a second good reason to reject the Conspiracy Theory argument for premise (F).

There are four Gospels in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Nobody believes that Mark and Luke were among the eleven disciples. So, at most, two of the Gospels were written by men who were part of the eleven disciples: Matthew and John. Most NT scholars, however, do NOT believe that the Gospel of John was written by John the Son of Zebedee, who was one of the eleven disciples. Also, most NT scholars do NOT believe that Matthew, one of the eleven disciples, wrote the Gospel of Matthew.

The view that two of the New Testament Gospels were written by two men who were among the eleven disciples is a DUBIOUS assumption.

Since it is entirely possible that NONE of the four Gospels was written by one of the eleven disciples, premise (4a) is FALSE. Thus, the Conspiracy Theory sub-argument for premise (F) is UNSOUND and should be rejected. This is a second good reason to reject this sub-argument for premise (F).

There is another serious problem with premise (4a). It assumes that ALL eleven remaining disciples of Jesus would have participated in overpowering the Roman soldiers guarding the tomb of Jesus. But it is possible that four (or five or six or seven or eight or nine) of the eleven disciples were involved in that effort, and that those disciples did not include Matthew and John. In that case, Matthew and John might not have been aware that some other disciples helped Jesus to get out of the tomb and get away from Roman soldiers who were guarding the tomb.

If the disciples Matthew and John were not part of the effort to overpower some Roman soldiers who were guarding the tomb of Jesus, their fellow disciples might not have told them about this event. Beating up or killing a Roman soldier who was on guard duty would have been a very serious offense, an offense that might well have been punished by crucifixion. Presumably, the eleven disciples would all want to avoid being arrested and executed, particularly by crucifixion. So, any of the eleven disciples who were involved in overpowering some Roman soldiers who were guarding the tomb of Jesus would have been inclined to keep the story of that incident to themselves.

The view that ALL eleven of Jesus’ disciples would have been involved in overpowering some Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb is a DUBIOUS assumption.

Thus, even if the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew the disciple of Jesus, and even if the Gospel of John was written by John the disciple of Jesus, it could be the case both that some of the eleven disciples (four, five, six, seven, eight, or nine of them) were involved in overpowering some Roman soldiers at the tomb of Jesus, but that Matthew and John were unaware of this event.

In that case, Matthew and John would NOT have LIED in their Gospels by failing to mention that Jesus had help from some of his disciples in escaping from his tomb and from some Roman soldiers who were guarding the tomb. Thus, even if two of the Gospels were written by disciples of Jesus, it does NOT follow that those two disciples knowingly LIED about how Jesus got out of his tomb and got past some Roman soldiers who were guarding his tomb. Therefore, premise (4a) is FALSE, so at least two of the premises of the Conspiracy Theory argument for premise (F) are FALSE, and that means that this sub-argument for (F) is clearly UNSOUND and should be rejected.

There is yet a third serious problem with premise (4a). Even if Matthew and John both knew about Roman soldiers guarding Jesus’ tomb and even if they both knew that some of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples overpowered some of those Roman soldiers to help Jesus escape from his tomb, it does NOT follow that Matthew and John knowingly LIED in their Gospels. They might have simply left out some significant events from their Gospels, without making any false assertions:

The view that leaving a specific event out of an account always involves telling a lie, is a FALSE assumption.

Let’s suppose that the antecedent of premise (4a) was the case: “some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples overpowered the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified”. What specifically did Matthew or John write in their Gospels that they knew was false?

John makes no mention of any Roman soldiers guarding the tomb of Jesus. So, if John knew that there were Roman soldiers guarding the tomb of Jesus, and if John knew that some of the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus overpowered those Roman soldiers to help Jesus escape from the tomb, then John was leaving out a significant event that took place on the first Easter Sunday (or on Saturday night). But leaving out those events does NOT constitute asserting a claim that John knew to be false.

Leaving out the the fact that there were some Roman soldiers guarding the tomb, and leaving out the story about some disciples of Jesus overpowering those Roman soldiers is NOT LYING. It is merely failing to disclose a significant event. But every Gospel author leaves out many significant events. The author of the Gospel of John admits this obvious fact about his Gospel:

²⁵ But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

John 21:25, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

Furthermore, John might have left out the story about disciples of Jesus overpowering some Roman soldiers in order to protect himself or to protect other disciples of Jesus from being arrested and executed for the crime of beating up or killing some Roman soldier(s) who were on guard duty at the time. So, there may have been no intention to deceive others, just an intention to keep a specific event a secret. Thus, premise (4a) is mistaken, at least in terms of the implication that the Gospel of John would contain a LIE if the author was aware that some (or all) of the eleven disciples overpowered some Roman guard(s) to help Jesus escape from the tomb.

What specific claim in the Gospel of Matthew would constitute a LIE, if the author of that Gospel was aware that some (or all) of the eleven disciples overpowered some Roman guard(s) to help Jesus escape from the tomb? The Gospel of Matthew claims that there were Roman soldiers guarding the tomb of Jesus on the weekend after Jesus was crucified. It is true that the Gospel of Matthew says nothing about any disciples overpowering Roman soldiers to help Jesus escape from his tomb. But, as I have already pointed out, leaving a significant event out of an account does NOT constitute asserting a claim that one knows to be false. Matthew might have left out this event in order to protect himself or to protect other disciples from being arrested and executed, even possibly crucified, for having beaten up or killed a Roman soldier(s) who were on guard duty at the tomb.

Chapter 28 of the Gospel of Matthew tells the story of what allegedly took place around the tomb of Jesus on the first Easter Sunday. There is NOTHING in that account that contradicts the view that some (or all) of the eleven disciples overpowered some Roman soldier(s) who were guarding Jesus’ tomb. So, although it is possible that the author of the Gospel of Matthew left out this significant event from the account of what took place around the tomb of Jesus on the first Easter, the author of Matthew did NOT LIE about this, did NOT intentionally make a false claim implying that no such rescue by the disciples took place.

Thus, premise (4a) is also mistaken concerning the other Gospel that MIGHT have been written by one of the eleven disciples of Jesus. The author of the Gospel of Matthew does NOT LIE in order to deceive others about how Jesus got out of his tomb and past the Roman soldiers. Since premise (4a) is mistaken on this issue concerning both the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Matthew, we can confidently conclude that (4a) is FALSE.

We now have at least three different good reasons for concluding that premise (4a) is FALSE, so it is clear that this premise is FALSE, and that the Conspiracy Theory sub-argument for premise (F) is UNSOUND and should be rejected.

Let’s also consider the last remaining premise of the Conspiracy Theory argument for premise (F):

5a. IF the disciples among Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples who wrote the Gospels knowingly lied about the resurrection of Jesus when they wrote the Gospels, THEN the Conspiracy Theory is true.

Premise (5a) is also FALSE, so all three premises of the Conspiracy Theory sub-argument for premise (F) are FALSE. Thus, there is no doubt that this sub-argument is UNSOUND and that it should be rejected.

Let’s suppose that the antecedent of premise (5a) was the case: “the disciples among Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples who wrote the Gospels knowingly lied about the resurrection of Jesus when they wrote the Gospels.”

What does the phrase “knowingly lied about the resurrection of Jesus” mean? From the context of this Conspiracy Theory argument, we can see that a disciple LYING about how Jesus got out of his tomb and about how he avoided being arrested or killed by Roman soldiers who were guarding his tomb would constitute an example of a disciple who “knowingly lied about the resurrection of Jesus”.

Let’s suppose that one or two of the Gospels was written by one of the eleven disciples of Jesus. Let’s also suppose that those Gospels contained LIES by the authors of those Gospels about how Jesus got out of his tomb and avoided being arrested or killed by Roman soldiers who were guarding the tomb. Even so, it does NOT follow that the Conspiracy Theory is true. Thus, the antecedent of the conditional claim asserted by premise (5a) could be true, while the consequent was FALSE. Therefore, premise (5a) is FALSE, and the Conspiracy Theory argument for premise (F) is UNSOUND and should be rejected.

The Conspiracy Theory, as understood by Kreeft and Tacelli, asserts that all eleven disciples KNEW that Jesus had NOT actually risen from the dead, and they KNEW that Jesus died on the cross and remained dead, and that they all agreed to participate in a HOAX or LIE and claim to have seen and heard the risen Jesus, when in fact none of them had such an experience.

NONE of these implications of the Conspiracy Theory are implied by the supposition that the authors of two of the Gospels knowingly lied about how Jesus got out of his tomb and about how Jesus avoided being arrested or killed by Roman soldiers who were guarding his tomb.

The view that LYING about how Jesus got out of his tomb or about how Jesus avoided being arrested or killed by some Roman soldiers who were guarding his tomb MUST involve LYING about seeing a risen Jesus is a FALSE assumption.

Telling a lie about how Jesus got out of his tomb, and telling a lie about how Jesus avoided being arrested or killed by Roman soldiers who were guarding his tomb is completely compatible with having had an experience that one believes was an experience of seeing a living and physically embodied Jesus sometime after when Jesus was crucified. Someone can both lie about specific details concerning what happened around the tomb of Jesus on the first Easter Sunday AND sincerely believe that Jesus rose from the dead a day or two after dying on a cross.

Kreeft and Tacelli have simply confused themselves by using sloppy language. On the one hand, they use the phrase “knowingly lied about the resurrection of Jesus” to encompass the act of knowingly lying about a specific event (some disciples overpowering some Roman soldiers near Jesus’ tomb) that took place around the tomb of Jesus on the first Easter, but on the other hand, the phrase “knowingly lied about the resurrection of Jesus” is given a much narrower meaning, namely the idea of a disciple knowingly lying about having seen and heard the risen Jesus, when the disciple never had any such experience. But these different instances of lying are very different from each other, and a lie of the first sort does NOT involve or imply a lie of the second sort. In short, their thinking is confused and involves the FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION.

If one rejects the FALSE ASSUMPTION that Kreeft and Tacelli were making here, then it becomes clear that premise (5a) is FALSE, and that gives us a third good reason to reject the Conspiracy Theory argument for premise (F).

CONCLUSION

Kreeft and Tacelli put forward two sub-arguments in support of the key premise (F): the UNARMED DISCIPLES argument and the CONSPIRACY THEORY argument. Both arguments are UNSOUND and should be rejected. Thus, they have failed to provide a good reason to believe that premise (F) is true. Therefore, premise (F) is DUBIOUS and it might well be FALSE.

However, there is a good reason to believe that (F) is TRUE. Here, once again, is premise (F):

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.

I believe that (F) is probably TRUE, because there probably were no Roman soldiers guarding the tomb of Jesus. If there were no Roman soldiers at the tomb for anyone to fight or overpower, it seems correct to say that the claim “Some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples overpowered the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified” is a FALSE claim, and thus it seems correct to say that premise (F), which is the negation of that claim, is TRUE.

In any case, it does not matter much whether (F) is true or false, because we have already determined that the two other key premises in the core argument of Objection #6 (Who Overpowered the Guards?) are FALSE. Thus, it was already clear that the core argument is UNSOUND and that Objection #6 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.