In Part 23 of this series, I provided a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli against the Swoon Theory in Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics.
For the past ten days, I have been carefully evaluating the argument constituting Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?). I have pointed out several significant problems with this argument that show the argument to be a BAD argument, and therefore I have shown that Objection #7 against the Swoon Theory clearly FAILS.
The last couple of posts about Objection #7 have focused on premise (G):
G. It is NOT the case that some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples moved the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.
Premise (G) is a premise in the sub-argument for the key premise (3a), and premise (3a) is one of just two premises in the core argument of Objection #7:
3a. There is no plausible natural explanation for how the stone was moved from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.
In Part 29 of this series, I showed that the sub-argument for premise (G) is INVALID, and thus that premise (G), which is a premise in the argument for the key premise (3a), is DUBIOUS.
In Part 30 of this series, I attempted to modify or repair the three arguments given by Kreeft and Tacelli in support of the irrelevant premise (10a) to make those arguments relevant as support for premise (G).
In this current post, I will evaluate the modified versions of those three arguments for premise (G) to determine if any of them provide a good reason to believe that (G) is true.
ALL THREE ARGUMENTS FOR PREMISE (G) FAIL
Although I have managed to improve Kreeft and Tacelli’s three arguments for the irrelevant premise (10a), making them into relevant arguments in support of premise (G), there is a serious problem with these three arguments that I could not repair, and that cannot be repaired. All three arguments for (G) are DEAD ON ARRIVAL because all three arguments are based on a historical claim that is probably FALSE:
Some Roman soldiers were assigned to guard the tomb of Jesus on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.
The story about Roman soldiers guarding the tomb of Jesus is found ONLY in the Gospel of Matthew, and most NT scholars view this story as an apologetic legend, as a bit of FICTION.
Because all three arguments for (G) are based on a historical assumption that is probably FALSE, all three arguments FAIL, and thus premise (G) is itself DUBIOUS, like premises (D1), (E), and (F). Thus, the argument for the key premise (3a) is clearly and undeniably a BAD argument, so premise (3a) is DUBIOUS, and the core argument for Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) should be rejected. Therefore, Objection #7 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.
There are other serious problems with these three arguments, so I will go ahead and point out some of those other problems now, but it is clear from the start that these three arguments are BAD arguments, and that Kreeft and Tacelli have FAILED to give us a good reason to believe that the key premise (3a) is true.
THE MODIFIED EXECUTION-THREAT ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (G)
12a. IF the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb fell asleep while on duty to guard Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified, THEN the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb would have been executed for failure to perform their guard duty.
THEREFORE:
11a. The Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb would NOT have fallen asleep while on duty to guard Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.
Q. IF the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb did NOT fall asleep while on duty to guard Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified, THEN the Roman soldiers would have prevented Jesus’ disciples from moving the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.
THEREFORE:
G. It is NOT the case that some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples moved the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.
EVALUATION OF THE MODIFIED EXECUTION-THREAT ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (G)
The modified Execution-Threat argument for premise (G) FAILS, because it is based on the historical assumption that there were Roman soldiers who were guarding the tomb of Jesus on the weekend after Jesus was crucified, and that assumption is probably FALSE. However, there are other significant problems with this sub-argument:
Premise (12a) is also DUBIOUS because the Gospel of Matthew implies that the Roman soldiers admitted (falsely) that they had fallen asleep, yet they were NOT executed or severely punished for this.
The inference from (12a) to (11a) is INVALID because what matters is NOT what was in the interest of the Roman soldiers to do, but what they BELIEVED to be in their interest, so premise (11a) is DUBIOUS.
The inference from (12a) to (11a) is INVALID because what is in the interest of the Roman soldiers to do is NOT based exclusively on what is in their self-interest, so premise (11a) is DUBIOUS.
The inference from (12a) to (11a) is DUBIOUS because the motivation to avoid execution might well be less powerful for a Roman soldier than some other motivations because they were trained, praised, and rewarded for bravery in the face of the threat of death, so premise (11a) is DUBIOUS.
Premise (Q) is FALSE, because there might well have been only one or two Roman soldiers stationed near the tomb, and it is certainly possible for a group of six to eleven disciples of Jesus to have physically overpowered one or two Roman soldiers.
Premise (Q) is FALSE because some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven disciples could have deceived, distracted, or threatened those Roman soldiers so that the disciples would be able to move the stone without resistance from the soldiers.
Premise (Q) is FALSE because Joseph of Arimathea could have bribed the Roman soldiers to walk away from the tomb for a few minutes while some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven disciples moved the stone.
NOTE: The above points have already been raised in previous parts of this series:
The fact that premise (Q) is FALSE, makes this sub-argument UNSOUND. That is sufficient reason by itself to reject this sub-argument for premise (G).
Furthermore, the cumulative impact of the other problems mentioned in the list above make it clear that premise (11a) is DUBIOUS, which gives us a third good reason to reject this sub-argument for premise (G). Therefore, the modified Execution-Threat argument should be rejected, and it FAILS to provide a good reason to believe that (G) is true. Since (G) is not obviously true, we may reasonably conclude that premise (G) is itself DUBIOUS.
Premise (G) is essential to the argument for the key premise (3a), so the key premise (3a) is also DUBIOUS. Premise (3a) is one of two premises in the core argument of Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?); therefore, Objection #7 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.
THE MODIFIED NOISY-EFFORT ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (G)
H. IF the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified were wakened by the noise from the attempt of some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples to move the stone from the door of Jesus tomb, THEN Roman soldiers would have prevented some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples from moving the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb.
13a. IF the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb fell asleep while on duty to guard Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified and some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples attempted to move the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified, THEN the noise from the attempt to move the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb would have wakened the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb.
R. IF the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb did NOT fall asleep while on duty to guard Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified, THEN the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb would have prevented some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven disciples from moving the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.
THEREFORE:
G. It is NOT the case that some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples moved the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.
EVALUATION OF THE MODIFIED NOISY-EFFORT ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (G)
The modified Noisy-Effort argument for premise (G) FAILS, because it is based on the historical assumption that there were Roman soldiers who were guarding the tomb of Jesus on the weekend after Jesus was crucified, and that assumption is probably FALSE. However, there are other significant problems with this sub-argument:
Premise (H) is FALSE, for the same reasons that premise (Q) in the modified Execution-Threat argument is FALSE.
Premise (R) is FALSE, for the same reasons that premise (Q) in the modified Excecution-Threat argument is FALSE.
Premise (13a) is DUBIOUS, because although the noise of moving the stone would probably have been enough to wake the one or two Roman soldiers who were probably positioned next to the tomb, the noise might well have NOT been enough to wake up other soldiers (if there were other soldiers) who would likely have been relaxing or sleeping in a more comfortable location further away from the tomb (perhaps 50 to 100 yards away).
The fact that premise (H) is FALSE is sufficient reason by itself to reject the modified Noisy-Effort argument for premise (G). The fact that premise (R) is FALSE is a sufficient reason by itself to reject the modified Noisy-Effort argument for premise (G). Combined with the initial problem of the probably FALSE historical assumption that there were Roman soldiers guarding the tomb of Jesus on the weekend after Jesus was crucified, we have three very good reasons to reject the modified Noisy-Effort argument for premise (G). The fact that premise (13a) is DUBIOUS gives another reason to reject this argument.
Since premise (G) is not obviously true, the failure of the modified Noisy-Effort argument for (G) gives us good reason to conclude that premise (G) is itself DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. Premise (G) is essential to the argument for the key premise (3a), so the key premise (3a) is also DUBIOUS. Premise (3a) is one of two premises in the core argument of Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?); therefore, Objection #7 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.
THE MODIFIED CONSPIRACY-THEORY ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (G)
16a. In Chapter 8 of HCA, Kreeft and Tacelli show that the Conspiracy Theory has a number of unanswerable difficulties.
THEREFORE:
15a. The Conspiracy Theory has a number of unanswerable difficulties.
THEREFORE:
I. It is NOT the case that the Conspiracy Theory is true.
S. IF some (or all) of the remaining eleven disciples of Jesus moved the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified, THEN the Conspiracy Theory is true.
THEREFORE:
G. It is NOT the case that some (or all) of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples moved the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.
EVALUATION OF THE MODIFIED CONSPIRACY-THEORY ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (G)
The modified Conspiracy-Theory argument for premise (G) FAILS because it is based on the historical assumption that there were Roman soldiers who were guarding the tomb of Jesus on the weekend after Jesus was crucified, and that assumption is probably FALSE. However, there are other significant problems with this sub-argument:
Premise (16a) is FALSE. I have carefully analyzed and evaluated all of the objections that Kreeft and Tacelli raise against the Conspiracy Theory and concluded that their objections against that skeptical theory all FAIL, just like all of their objections against the Swoon Theory FAIL. I don’t have time and space here to defend this conclusion, but I do plan to write a book presenting my analysis and evaluation of their objections against the Conspiracy Theory.
Because Premise (16a) is FALSE, the argument for premise (15a) is UNSOUND. Since premise (15a) is not obviously true, we may reasonably conclude that premise (15a) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.
Because premise (15a) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE, we should reject the argument for premise (I), and since premise (I) is not obviously true, we may reasonably conclude that premise (I) is also DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.
Premise (S) is FALSE and only appears to be true to Kreeft and Tacelli based on four FALSE or DUBIOUS assumptions that they make: (1) the view that two of the New Testament Gospels were written by two men who were among the eleven disciples is a DUBIOUS assumption, (2) 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, (3) the view that leaving a specific event out of an account always involves telling a lie, is a FALSE assumption, (4) 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. Once these assumptions are rejected, it becomes clear that premise (S) is FALSE.
NOTE: The points above about premise (S) were made and explained in Part 22 of this series, about another argument that referred to the Conspiracy Theory.
There are two key premises in the main argument here: premise (I) and premise (S). Because premise (S) is FALSE, and premise (I) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE, we have two more good reasons to reject the modified Conspiracy-Theory argument for premise (G), in addition to the serious problem that this argument is based upon the probably FALSE historical assumption that there were some Roman soldiers who were guarding the tomb of Jesus on the weekend after Jesus was crucified. Thus, it is clear that this sub-argument for premise (G) should be rejected.
Because the argument for premise (G) is a BAD argument, and because premise (G) is not obviously true, we may reasonably conclude that (G) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. Premise (G) is essential to the argument for the key premise (3a), so the key premise (3a) is also DUBIOUS. Premise (3a) is one of two premises in the core argument of Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?); therefore, Objection #7 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.
CONCLUSION ABOUT PREMISE (G)
I attempted to repair the three arguments presented by Kreeft and Tacelli in support of the irrelevant premise (10a), in order to make them into relevant arguments in support of premise (G). Although I was able to modify those arguments so that they would be relevant as support for premise (G), it is now clear that there are multiple serious problems with each of those three modified arguments. So, the three modified arguments FAIL to provide a good reason to believe that premise (G) is true. Since premise (G) is not obviously true, we may reasonably conclude that premise (G) is DUBIOUS.
CONCLUSIONS ABOUT OBJECTION #7
The core argument of Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) consists of just two premises:
B. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN there is a plausible natural explanation for how the stone was moved from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.
3a. There is no plausible natural explanation for how the stone was moved from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.
THEREFORE:
A. The Swoon Theory is FALSE.
In Part 24 of this series, I showed that the key premise (B) in the core argument of Objection #7 is FALSE, that the core argument is thus UNSOUND, and that Objection #7 against the Swoon Theory therefore FAILS.
I have also shown that the argument given in support of premise (3a) is a very BAD argument that clearly should be rejected.
Here is the argument that was given in support of premise (3a):
D1. Jesus did NOT move the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified (unless Jesus experienced a supernatural resurrection).
E. The Roman soldiers did NOT move the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.
F. The Jewish authorities in Jerusalem did NOT move the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.
G. It is NOT the case that some or all of Jesus’ eleven remaining disciples moved the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.
C. There are only four possible natural explanations for how the stone was moved from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified: (a) Jesus moved the stone, (b) the Roman soldiers moved the stone, (c) the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem moved the stone, or (d) some (or all) of Jesus’ remaining eleven disciples moved the stone.
THEREFORE:
3a. There is no plausible natural explanation for how the stone was moved from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.
I have shown that all of the premises of this sub-argument for the key premise (3a) are either FALSE or DUBIOUS:
In Part 25 of this series, I showed that premise (C) in the sub-argument for the key premise (3a) is FALSE.
In Part 26 of this series, I showed that premise (D1) in the sub-argument for the key premise (3a) is DUBIOUS.
In Part 27 of this series, I showed that premise (E) in the sub-argument for the key premise (3a) is DUBIOUS.
In Part 28 of this series, I showed that premise (F) in the sub-argument for the key premise (3a) is DUBIOUS.
In Part 29 of this series, I showed that the sub-argument for premise (G) is INVALID, meaning that premise (G) in the sub-argument for the key premise (3a) is DUBIOUS.
In Part 30 of this series, I attempted to modify or repair the three arguments given by Kreeft and Tacelli in support of the irrelevant premise (10a) to make those arguments relevant as support for premise (G).
In this current post, I showed that the modified versions of the three arguments that were made relevant as support for premise (G) all FAIL to provide a good reason to believe that (G) is true.
Because the argument supporting the key premise (3a) is a completeand miserable FAILURE, and since premise (3a) is not obviously true, we may reasonably conclude that premise (3a) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. This gives us a second good reason to reject the core argument of Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?), and a second good reason to conclude that Objection #7 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.
