WHERE WE ARE

I am in the process of evaluating Objection #1 (The Deadliness of Roman Crucifixion) against the Swoon Theory.

In Part 36 of this series, I provided a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #1.

In Part 37 of this series, I did an initial evaluation of the key premise (1a), and gave good reasons for the view that (1a) is DUBIOUS, as well as a good reason for the view that (1a) is FALSE.

Before we confidently conclude that the key premise (1a) is FALSE, we should examine the argument given in support of premise (1a), and that is what I will be doing in this current post.

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

C. All Roman soldiers were highly motivated to make sure that they never let a capital prisoner escape, and that no person they crucified ever survived the crucifixion.

2a. Roman military procedures for crucifixion were very careful to eliminate the possibility of a person surviving crucifixion.

THEREFORE:

6a. No Roman soldier ever bungled a crucifixion, so that the victim survived the crucifixion.

THEREFORE:

1a. Jesus could not have survived crucifixion by Roman soldiers.

EVALUATION OF THE ARGUMENT FOR (1a)

We can see from consideration of premise (6a) that this argument for (1a) is NOT based on some alleged weakness or frailty of Jesus, but rather that this argument is based on the deadliness of “crucifixion by Roman soldiers.” My previous comments about premise (1a) being DUBIOUS are thus confirmed, and those comments apply clearly and directly to premise (6a).

The scope of premise (6a) is extremely broad. We are talking about tens of thousands of crucifixions carried out by Roman soldiers over a period of about 850 years. It is simply not possible for someone to KNOW that “No Roman soldier ever bungled a crucifixion…” when such a claim encompasses tens of thousands of crucifixions carried out over more than eight centuries.

Because the scope of (6a) is so extremely broad, this claim is clearly DUBIOUS, and it is highly probable that premise (6a) is FALSE. Of course, some Roman soldiers bungled some crucifixions sometimes in the course of tens of thousands of crucifixions that were carried out over more than eight centuries. It would be FOOLISH to think otherwise.

Because premise (6a) is DUBIOUS and it is highly probable that (6a) is FALSE, the argument for the key premise (1a) should be rejected, and this confirms my previous conclusions that we have good reasons to conclude that (1a) is DUBIOUS, and a good reason to conclude that (1a) is FALSE. Thus, we should reject the argument constituting Objection #1. Therefore, Objection #1 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.

However, Kreeft and Tacelli provide an argument in support of premise (6a), so I will go ahead and evaluate that argument now, but because premise (6a) is clearly DUBIOUS and because it is highly probable that (6a) is FALSE, we have sufficient reason at this point to reject Objection #1 (The Deadliness of Roman Crucifixion).

THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (6a)

C. All Roman soldiers were highly motivated to make sure that they never let a capital prisoner escape, and that no person they crucified ever survived the crucifixion.

2a. Roman military procedures for crucifixion were very careful to eliminate the possibility of a person surviving crucifixion.

THEREFORE:

6a. No Roman soldier ever bungled a crucifixion, so that the victim survived the crucifixion.

First, the inference from premises (C) and (2a) to premise (6a) is INVALID; it is NOT a deductively valid inference. Both premises do seem to be relevant as evidence for the claim made in (6a), but they do not logically imply that (6a) is true.

Second, the phrase “All Roman soldiers” in premise (C) makes that an extremely strong historical claim, similar in scope to the claim made by (6a). Thus, (C) is DUBIOUS and very probably FALSE for the same reason that (6a) is DUBIOUS and very probably FALSE. We are talking about tens of thousands of crucifixions that were carried out by Roman soldiers in a period of about 850 years. Of course some Roman soldiers who performed some of the tens of thousands of crucifixions that took place over about 850 years were NOT “highly motivated to make sure…that no person they crucified ever survived crucifixion”. It would be FOOLISH to think otherwise.

Third, premise (2a) is also DUBIOUS. Kreeft and Tacelli provide ZERO historical evidence in support of premise (2a). Furthermore, some basic questions need to be answered before we can evaluate the significance of premise (2a):

• Were the “Roman military procedures for crucifixion” ever written down? If not, how do we know what was actually taught to Roman soldiers about crucifixion?
• Were the “Roman military procedures for crucifixion” written down at the beginning of the 850-year period when Roman soldiers carried out crucifixions? If not, when were these procedures written down?
• Did the contents and steps of the “Roman military procedures for crucifixion” change over the 850 years from the beginning of the Roman Republic to the outlawing of crucifixion near the end of the Roman Empire?
• Do we possess an ancient copy of “Roman military procedures for crucifixion”?
• What are the specific steps and instructions that are contained in the “Roman military procedures for crucifixion”?

I believe that Kreeft and Tacelli would be unable to answer any of these questions because it appears they have ZERO historical facts or evidence relevant to the premise (2a). I strongly suspect that they simply don’t know what they are talking about.

EVALUATION OF THE INFERENCE FROM PREMISES (C) AND (2a) to (6a)

The sub-argument for the key premise (6a) is INVALID. The claim (6a) does NOT FOLLOW from premises (C) and (2a).

The general idea of this argument is about people being “willing and able” to do something. If Jack is WILLING to do X, and Jack is ABLE to do X, then we infer that Jack will do X. Similarly, if a Roman soldier is WILLING to successfully kill a person by means of crucifixion, and the Roman soldier is ABLE to successfully kill that person by means of crucifixion, then we may reasonably infer that the Roman soldier will in fact kill that person by means of crucifixion.

Premise (C) is in support of the idea that Roman soldiers were WILLING to successfully kill condemned people by means of crucifixion, and premise (2a) is in support of the idea that Roman soldiers were ABLE to successfully kill condemned people by means of crucifixion. Premise (C), if true, provides strong support for the WILLINGNESS piece of this reasoning, but premise (2a), even if true, FAILS to provide strong support for the ABILITY piece of this reasoning.

Here, again, is premise (2a):

2a. Roman military procedures for crucifixion were very careful to eliminate the possibility of a person surviving crucifixion.

There are at least four different logical gaps between premise (2a) and the ABILITY of a particular Roman soldier to carry out a particular crucifixion successfully:

• Was EVERY Roman soldier provided with excellent teaching and training on Roman military procedures for crucifixion?
• Was EVERY Roman soldier an excellent student and learner of Roman military procedures for crucifixion?
• Was EVERY Roman soldier provided several opportunities over their years of service to practice Roman military procedures for crucifixion?
• Was EVERY Roman soldier ALWAYS in good health, well rested, and clear-headed (not drunk or hungover, and not in a state of emotional turmoil) when performing crucifixions?

Given that we are talking about roughly 100,000 crucifixions taking place over 850 years, it seems very probable that the answer to each of these four questions is: NO!

Of course some Roman soldiers were NOT provided with excellent teaching and training on Roman military procedures for crucifixion. Of course some Roman soldiers were NOT excellent students and learners of Roman military procedures for crucifixion. Of course some Roman soldiers were NOT provided with several opportunities over their years of service to practice Roman military procedures for crucifixion. Of course some Roman soldiers were sometimes either NOT in good health or NOT well rested or NOT clear-headed when they performed a crucifixion.

My point is that excellent procedures do NOT by themselves guarantee that those procedures will be carried out as originally intended. Poor training in a procedure can destroy the effectiveness of the very best procedures. Poor learning of a procedure can also destroy the effectiveness of the very best procedures. Poor provision of additional experiences of implementing a procedure can destroy the effectiveness of the very best procedures. Finally, being in a state of illness, sleep deprivation, or unclear-headedness can destroy the effectiveness of the very best procedures.

Thus, even if we assume that premise (2a) is TRUE, that does NOT imply that Roman soldiers ALWAYS correctly followed Roman military procedures for crucifixion. Therefore, because of these four logical gaps between premise (2a) and the idea that Roman soldiers always correctly followed Roman military procedures for crucifixion, not only is the inference from premise (C) and premise (2a) to (6a) an INVALID inference, but the inference, considered as a non-deductive inference, is WEAK and DUBIOUS. This is sufficient reason by itself to reject the sub-argument for the key premise (6a), and thus is sufficient reason to reject Objection #1 against the Swoon Theory.

EVALUATION OF THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (6a)

Because the scope of premise (6a) is extremely broad, we have good reason to conclude that the key premise (6a) is very probably FALSE. When we examine the sub-argument for (6a), we find that every aspect of that argument is problematic:

• Premise (2a) is DUBIOUS
• Premise (C) is probably FALSE
• The inference from (2a) and (C) to (6a) is INVALID, considered as a deductive inference
• The inference from (2a) and (C) to (6a) is WEAK and DUBIOUS, considered as a non-deductive inference

For these reasons, we should reject the sub-argument for the key premise (6a), and this confirms our original evaluation of (6a) as being probably FALSE. Thus, the key premise in the argument constituting Objection #1 (The Deadliness of Roman Crucifixion) is probably FALSE, so we should reject the argument. Therefore, Objection #1 against the Swoon Theory FAILS, just like all of the previous objections have FAILED.

THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (C)

Although we now have sufficient reasons for rejecting the argument for the key premise (6a) whether premise (C) is true or not, I will go ahead and examine the sub-argument in support of premise (C):

3a. Roman law even laid the death penalty on any Roman soldier who let a capital prisoner escape in any way.

4a. Roman law even laid the death penalty on any Roman soldier who bungled a crucifixion, so that the victim survived the crucifixion.

THEREFORE:

C. All Roman soldiers were highly motivated to make sure that they never let a capital prisoner escape, and that no person they crucified ever survived the crucifixion.

EVALUATION OF THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (C)

It should come as no surprise that Kreeft and Tacelli provide ZERO historical evidence in support of the historical claims made in premises (3a) and (4a). Those claims are NOT obviously true, so with ZERO historical evidence, those claims should be viewed as DUBIOUS.

Kreeft and Tacelli are philosophers NOT historians. Given their consistent FAILURE to provide historical evidence in support of their historical claims, it appears that they don’t have a clue about how to intelligently support a historical claim with historical evidence. They certainly have no expertise in the specific area of Roman history. So, it would be unreasonable to simply accept their unevidenced historical assertions about Roman laws.

The inference from (3a) and (4a) to (C) is INVALID. Premise (C) does NOT FOLLOW logically from premises (3a) and (4a). However, premises (3a) and (4a) are relevant as evidence in support of (C).

There is a logical inconsistency in this argument that suggests the inference from (3a) and (4a) to (C) is a WEAK and DUBIOUS inference. Claim (6a) makes a very strong historical claim:

6a. No Roman soldier ever bungled a crucifixion, so that the victim survived the crucifixion.

I have argued that the scope of this claim is so broad and that the claim is so strong, that it is probably FALSE. But let’s set my criticism of (6a) aside, and assume, for the sake of argument, that (6a) was true. There are two implications of (6a) that cast significant doubt on the sub-argument for (C).

First, if no Roman solder ever bungled a crucifixion, then why would there be a LAW written that proscribed the death penalty to any Roman soldier who bungled a crucifixion? It is DUBIOUS that a law would be written to prevent a dereliction of duty that had never actually occurred. Surely, no such law would be written before any Roman soldier performed an execution by crucifixion. And if Roman soldiers faithfully and flawlessly performed crucifixions for several years or decades or for a century, why would anyone think to come up with such a law? Therefore, the very conclusion that Kreeft and Tacelli are trying to establish provides a good reason to doubt that premise (4a) is true.

Second, if no Roman soldier ever bungled a crucifixion, as claimed in premise (6a), then there probably was never any actual execution of a Roman soldier for bungling a crucifixion. But if there was never any actual execution of a Roman soldier for bungling a crucifixion, then the mere fact that execution was the legally prescribed punishment for a Roman soldier who bungled a crucifixion would NOT be a powerful motivation for Roman soldiers to be careful to avoid bungling a crucifixion.

The threat of execution would only be a powerful motivation if the threat was actually carried out from time to time. Only if Roman soldiers were executed from time to time for bungling a crucifixion would the threat of execution become a powerful and widespread motivation for Roman soldiers. Therefore, the very conclusion that Kreeft and Tacelli are trying to establish, namely (6a), provides a good reason to doubt the inference of (C) from the premise (4a).

There are other good reasons to doubt the inference from (3a) and (4a) to (C). The death penalty was the legally prescribed punishment for murder in many states in the USA for many decades. But that did NOT prevent people from committing murder. In fact, states with the death penalty tended to have HIGHER murder rates than states that did not have the death penalty. So, people tend to overestimate the power of the death penalty to act as a deterrent to the crime of murder.

Furthermore, Roman soldiers were expected and encouraged to be brave in the face of the threat of violence and death in battle. They were rewarded for acts of bravery, and they were severely punished for acts of cowardice. To the extent that Roman soldiers were brave and fearless, we would NOT expect them to be as strongly motivated by the threat of the death penalty as ordinary people who were not Roman soldiers. If the Roman soldiers who (allegedly) were guarding the tomb of Jesus were brave and fearless warriors, then the threat of the death penalty was probably nowhere near the strong motivation it would be for most of us other people who are not Roman soldiers.

Finally, some commanding officers in the Roman army were more lenient than other commanding officers. If the Roman soldiers guarding the tomb of Jesus were under the command of an officer who the soldiers believed to be lenient, they might have believed there was only a very low probability that sleeping on duty would result in their commanding officer imposing the death penalty on them.

We know NOTHING about who these alleged Roman soldiers were and NOTHING about who their commanding officer was, so for all we know, these soldiers were tough and brave warriors who experienced little fear in the face of the threat of death, and they believed that their commanding officer was very lenient and unlikely to impose the death penalty on them, even for falling asleep while on guard duty.

Because premises (3a) and (4a) are DUBIOUS, and because the inference from these premises to (C) is WEAK and DUBIOUS, we have good reason to reject the sub-argument for premise (C). Premise (C) was previously judged to be probably FALSE because it makes such a strong historical claim, so the FAILURE of Kreeft and Tacelli to provide a good reason to believe (C), means that we should continue to view (C) as being probably FALSE.

EVALUATION OF OBJECTION #1

Once again, the key premise of the argument constituting Objection #1 (The Deadliness of Roman Crucifixion) is (1a), and we have good reason to believe that this key premise is FALSE.

The key premise (1a) is inferred from premise (6a). We also have good reason to believe that premise (6a) is probably FALSE.

However, Kreeft and Tacelli provided a sub-argument in support of (6a), so I examined that sub-argument. I found that every aspect of the sub-argument for (6a) is WEAK or DUBIOUS or INVALID, so my initial evaluation that the key premise (6a) is probably FALSE holds up.

Thus, the argument constituting Objection #1 should be rejected. Therefore, Objection #1 against the Swoon Theory FAILS, just like all of the previous objections have FAILED.