WHERE WE ARE

I am finishing up my careful evaluation of Objection #9 (Swoon Theory Implies False Theories) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli from Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA).

In Part 32 of this series, I presented my careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #9 against the Swoon Theory.

In Part 33 of this series, I argued that the key premise (B) in the core argument of Objection #9 is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. This gives us a good reason to reject the core argument and to conclude that Objection #9 FAILS.

In Part 34 of this series, I argued that the key premise (1a) in the core argument of Objection #9 is FALSE. This gives us a second good reason to reject the core argument and to conclude that Objection #9 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.

In this current post, I will examine the sub-argument given in support of premise (1a) in order to confirm my conclusion that premise (1a) is indeed FALSE. This will complete my evaluation of Objection #9 (Swoon Theory Implies False Theories).

THE CORE ARGUMENT OF OBJECTION #9

1a. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN either (a) the Conspiracy Theory is true or (b) the Hallucination Theory is true.

B. It is NOT the case that either (a) the Conspiracy Theory is true or (b) the Hallucination Theory is true.

THEREFORE:

A. The Swoon Theory is FALSE.

THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (1a)

H. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus testified to three false claims: that Jesus did NOT faint while he was on the cross, that Jesus really died while he was on the cross, and that Jesus came back to life sometime after he was taken down from the cross.

I. IF the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus testified to three false claims: that Jesus did NOT faint while he was on the cross, that Jesus really died while he was on the cross, and that Jesus came back to life sometime after he was taken down from the cross, THEN either (a) the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus were DECEIVERS who lied to others about the alleged resurrection of Jesus, or (b) the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus were themselves DECEIVED into sincerely but mistakenly believing that Jesus had risen from the dead.

J. IF the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus were DECEIVERS who lied to others about the alleged resurrection of Jesus, THEN the Conspiracy Theory is true.

K. IF the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus were themselves DECEIVED into sincerely but mistakenly believing that Jesus had risen from the dead, THEN the Hallucination Theory is true.

THEREFORE:

1a. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN either (a) the Conspiracy Theory is true or (b) the Hallucination Theory is true.

INITIAL EVALUATION OF THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (1a)

Because I have previously shown that the key premise (1a) is FALSE, I have good reason to believe that there is a problem with the sub-argument that supposedly shows this premise to be TRUE. However, unless and until I can show that there is a significant problem with the sub-argument for premise (1a), I cannot be completely confident that it is FALSE.

After looking over the premises in the sub-argument for premise (1a), however, it is clear that this argument has very serious problems. Each of the four premises of the sub-argument is FALSE, making it clear and certain that this sub-argument for the key premise (1a) is UNSOUND and that we should reject this argument. Since premise (1a) is NOT obviously true, that means that premise (1a) is (at least) DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. Given that I have previously (in Part 34 of this series) given good reasons to believe that premise (1a) is FALSE, we may reasonably conclude that this key premise of the core argument of Objection #9 against the Swoon Theory is indeed FALSE.

EVALUATION OF PREMISE (H)

Here, again, is premise (H):

H. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus testified to three false claims: that Jesus did NOT faint while he was on the cross, that Jesus really died while he was on the cross, and that Jesus came back to life sometime after he was taken down from the cross.

Premise (H) is FALSE because the Swoon Theory does NOT assert or imply that ALL ELEVEN of the remaining disciples of Jesus testified or proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus. Kreeft and Tacelli commit the STRAW MAN FALLACY when they characterize skeptical theories as claiming that ALL ELEVEN of the disciples had the same beliefs (or the same publically-stated views) about Jesus’ crucifixion, alleged death on the cross, and his alleged resurrection, and when they characterized skeptical theories as claiming that ALL ELEVEN of the disciples had these shared beliefs (or shared publically-stated views) for the same reason.

Skeptical theories about the alleged resurrection of Jesus, such as the Swoon Theory, are concerned with the PRIMARY CAUSE of the early Christian belief that God raised Jesus from the dead. The testimony or preaching of SOME of the eleven disciples that they had seen a living and embodied Jesus after his crucifixion would be sufficient to explain the origin of the early Christian belief that God raised Jesus from the dead. It is not necessary that ALL ELEVEN remaining disciples testified or preached that they had seen a living and embodied Jesus after his crucifixion.

Kreeft and Tacelli have thus mischaracterized the Swoon Theory as implying that ALL ELEVEN of the disciples testified or preached that they had each seen a living and embodied Jesus after the crucifixion. This strong claim is NOT required for the Swoon Theory to be correct or TRUE, so they are unfairly characterizing the Swoon Theory as making a stronger claim than it needs to make. This biased characterization helps them to attack the Swoon Theory and thus constitutes a STRAW MAN FALLACY.

Because the truth of the Swoon Theory does NOT assume or imply that ALL ELEVEN disciples testified or preached that they had each seen a living and embodied Jesus after the crucifixion, premise (H) is FALSE, and thus the argument for the key premise (1a) is UNSOUND and should be rejected.

Furthermore, the Gospels of Mark and Matthew indicate that the eleven disciples were NOT present at the crucifixion of Jesus. If that is so, then they could NOT “testify” that “Jesus really died while he was on the cross”, because they did not themselves SEE Jesus die (or appear to die) on the cross. They probably believed that Jesus died on the cross, but they would not be in a position to provide testimony of that based on having watched Jesus on the cross. So, it seems UNLIKELY that the ALL ELEVEN disciples actually testified that “Jesus really died while he was on the cross”, although they might have preached and believed that this was the case.

Finally, it seems LIKELY that Jesus did faint on the cross, whether the Swoon Theory is true or false. If, for example, Jesus did die on the cross, it is PROBABLE that he lost consciousness at some point before his death. Because it is LIKELY that Jesus fainted on the cross whether the Swoon Theory is true or false, it is UNLIKELY that ALL ELEVEN of the disciples would have testified that “Jesus did NOT faint while he was on the cross”.

First of all, it is LIKELY they were not present to observe Jesus on the cross; second, if some of them had observed Jesus appear to die on the cross, they probably also saw Jesus faint on the cross; third, it would be difficult for an observer standing at some distance from the cross to distinguish the difference between Jesus dying on the cross and Jesus fainting on the cross (unless Jesus regained consciousness while on the cross after fainting).

It is clear that the Swoon Theory does NOT assert or imply that ALL ELEVEN of the remaining disciples testified that “Jesus really died while he was on the cross” nor that “Jesus did NOT faint while he was on the cross” nor that “Jesus came back to life sometime after he was taken down from the cross.” Thus, premise (H) is FALSE, and the sub-argument for the key premise (1a) is UNSOUND. Therefore, we should reject the sub-argument for premise (1a).

EVALUATION OF PREMISE (I)

Here, again, is premise (I):

I. IF the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus testified to three false claims: that Jesus did NOT faint while he was on the cross, that Jesus really died while he was on the cross, and that Jesus came back to life sometime after he was taken down from the cross, THEN either (a) the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus were DECEIVERS who lied to others about the alleged resurrection of Jesus, or (b) the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus were themselves DECEIVED into sincerely but mistakenly believing that Jesus had risen from the dead.

Premise (I) is FALSE. Thus, the sub-argument for the key premise (1a) is UNSOUND and should be rejected.

Premise (I) is FALSE because it mistakenly assumes that ALL ELEVEN disciples must have had the same reason or motivation for testifying or proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus. Although it is possible that they all had the same reason or motivation for testifying or proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus, this is UNLIKELY. In any case, there is a significant chance that one or more of the eleven disciples had a different reason or motivation than the other disciples. In other words, it is quite possible that SOME of the eleven disciples were DECEIVERS and SOME of the eleven disciples were not DECEIVERS (but were instead DECEIVED about what had happened to Jesus).

Because it is quite possible that SOME of the eleven disciples were DECEIVERS concerning the alleged resurrection of Jesus and that SOME of the eleven disciples were not DECEIVERS concerning the alleged resurrection of Jesus, premise (I) is FALSE. Therefore, the sub-argument for the key premise (1a) is UNSOUND and should be rejected.

EVALUATION OF PREMISE (J)

Here, again, is premise (J):

J. IF the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus were DECEIVERS who lied to others about the alleged resurrection of Jesus, THEN the Conspiracy Theory is true.

Premise (J) is FALSE. Thus, the sub-argument for the key premise (1a) is UNSOUND; therefore, we should reject the sub-argument for premise (1a).

Premise (J) is FALSE because even if all eleven of the disciples lied about having seen the risen Jesus, that does NOT IMPLY that the Conspiracy Theory is true. In order for the Conspiracy Theory to be true, at least two other conditions need to be met: (1) the eleven disciples were lying about the resurrection because they had CONSPIRED to do so, and (2) their lying about having seen the risen Jesus must be the PRIMARY CAUSE of the early Christian belief that God raised Jesus from the dead. But neither of those two other conditions is logically implied or guaranteed by the mere fact that all eleven of the disciples lied about having seen the risen Jesus.

First, the eleven disciples could have had different reasons or motivations for lying about having seen the risen Jesus, and they might have made their decisions to tell their lies as individuals, not as a unified group. The decisions of the disciples to lie about the alleged resurrection of Jesus could have been made apart from peer pressure, and apart from any explicit conversations and agreements between the eleven disciples to lie about this matter. If so, then their lies were NOT the product of a CONSPIRACY, and thus the Conspiracy Theory would be FALSE. Thus, the mere fact that all eleven disciples lied about seeing the risen Jesus would NOT be sufficient to show that the Conspiracy Theory was TRUE. Therefore, premise (J) is FALSE.

Second, even if all eleven disciples testified and preached that they had seen the risen Jesus, it is possible that their testimony and preaching was NOT the PRIMARY CAUSE of the early Christian belief that God raised Jesus from the dead. For example, perhaps Jesus himself taught hundreds or thousands of his followers that he would rise from the dead after being killed and that teaching and preaching of Jesus could have been sufficient to be the PRIMARY CAUSE of the early Christian belief that God raised Jesus from the dead, apart from the testimony and preaching of the eleven disciples.

It is, of course, a plausible explanation that the testimony and preaching of the eleven disciples was the PRIMARY CAUSE of the early Christian belief that God raised Jesus from the dead, but the mere fact that all eleven disciples testified and preached that they had seen the risen Jesus does NOT logically imply or prove that their testimony and preaching was in fact the PRIMARY CAUSE. Therefore, premise (J) is FALSE.

We have two good reasons to believe that premise (J) is FALSE, and thus two good reasons showing that the sub-argument for the key premise (1a) is UNSOUND. Therefore, it is clear that we should reject the sub-argument for premise (1a).

EVALUATION OF PREMISE (K)

Here, again, is premise (K):

K. IF the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus were themselves DECEIVED into sincerely but mistakenly believing that Jesus had risen from the dead, THEN the Hallucination Theory is true.

Premise (K) is FALSE. Thus, the sub-argument for the key premise (1a) is UNSOUND and should be rejected.

Premise (K) is FALSE because hallucinations of Jesus are only ONE WAY in which the disciples of Jesus could have been DECEIVED so that they “sincerely but mistakenly” believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. Because there are other ways for the disciples to have been DECEIVED, premise (K) is clearly FALSE.

An obvious alternative is the Swoon Theory! According to the Swoon Theory, at least some of the eleven disciples of Jesus were DECEIVED by the experience of seeing a living and embodied Jesus after Jesus had been crucified (because Jesus survived his crucifixion and did not die on the cross). If the Swoon Theory is TRUE, then some (or all) of the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus could have “sincerely but mistakenly” believed that Jesus had risen from the dead, having been DECEIVED by their experiences of seeing the surviving Jesus (after his crucifixion).

Another possibility is that Jesus was never crucified, but someone who looked like Jesus was crucified as a result of mistaken identity. If the real Jesus then showed up to visit some (or all) of his eleven disciples after the Jesus-look-alike had been crucified, his disciples could have been DECEIVED by this experience into “sincerely but mistakenly” believing that Jesus had died by crucifixion and then rose from the dead.

Because it is clear that some or all of the eleven disciples could have been DECEIVED into “sincerely but mistakenly” believing that Jesus had risen from the dead, even if NONE of them had experienced a hallucination of Jesus, it is clear that premise (K) is FALSE. Thus, the sub-argument for the key premise (1a) is UNSOUND and should be rejected.

CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (1a)

It is clear and certain that the sub-argument for the key premise (1a) is UNSOUND because each of the four premises of that argument are FALSE. Just one single FALSE premise would be sufficient to show this argument to be UNSOUND, but all four premises are FALSE. Thus, it is clear and certain that the sub-argument for the key premise (1a) should be rejected. Since premise (1a) is not obviously true, we may reasonably conclude that premise (1a) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.

EVALUATION OF THE KEY PREMISE (1a) AND OBJECTION #9

Given that I have previously (in Part 34 of this series) given good reasons to believe that the key premise (1a) is FALSE, and given that the sub-argument in support of (1a) is definitely UNSOUND, we may reasonably conclude that this key premise of the core argument of Objection #9 against the Swoon Theory is indeed FALSE. This means that the core argument of Objection #9 is also UNSOUND.

Because the key premise (B) of the core argument for Objection #9 is DUBIOUS, and the other key premise (1a) is FALSE, we should reject the core argument of Objection #9 (Swoon Theory Implies False Theories). Therefore, Objection #9 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.