Careful Analysis of Objections to the Swoon Theory: Objection #1 (Deadliness of Roman Crucifixion)
WHERE WE ARE
Careful argument evaluation is the heart and soul of critical thinking. But in order to do a careful evaluation of an argument, one must first have a clear understanding of the argument that is to be evaluated. Careful argument analysis is usually required in order to obtain a clear understanding of an argument, so having the knowledge, skills, and desire to do careful argument analysis is crucial to being a critical thinker.
I have carefully evaluated nine objections against the Swoon Theory, objections put forward by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics. I arrived at the conclusion that all nine objections FAIL, and thus that their case against the Swoon Theory FAILS, and their case for the resurrection of Jesus FAILS. But in order to be in a position to do this, I had to first do a careful argument analysis of each objection (each objection constitutes an argument against the Swoon Theory).
In this post I will walk through my process of careful argument analysis, step-by-step, showing how the sausage gets made. The process of careful argument analysis that I use here can be applied to almost any text or speech that contains an argument or arguments. This post will focus on Objection #1 against the Swoon Theory.
ANALYSIS OF OBJECTION #1
Objection #1 is the first of two objections that are NOT based on the Gospels:
OBJECTION #1: THE DEADLINESS OF ROMAN CRUCIFIXION
Kreeft and Tacelli’s Objection #1 against the Swoon Theory does not rest on Gospel passages:
Jesus could not have survived crucifixion. Roman procedures were very careful to eliminate that possibility. Roman law even laid the death penalty on any soldier who let a capital prisoner escape in any way, including bungling a crucifixion. It was never done.
(HCA, p.183)
The Gospels do not specify “Roman procedures” for executions or crucifixions. The Gospels do not specify what punishment was given to Roman soldiers who let a capital prisoner escape or who bungle a crucifixion. The Gospels do not assert generalizations about the deadliness of Roman crucifixion or about how Roman crucifixion ALWAYS resulted in the death of a crucified person. None of the explicitly stated historical claims in Objection #1 are based on a Gospel passage.
IDENTIFICATION STEPS
1. [Jesus could not have survived crucifixion.]
2. [Roman procedures were very careful to eliminate that possibility.]
3. [Roman law even laid the death penalty on any soldier who let a capital prisoner escape in any way,]
4. [including bungling a crucifixion.]
5. [It was never done.]
CLARIFICATION STEPS
1. [Jesus could not have survived crucifixion.]
=>1a. Jesus could not have survived crucifixion by Roman soldiers.
2. [Roman procedures for crucifixion were very careful to eliminate that possibility.]
=>2a. Roman military procedures for crucifixion were very careful to eliminate the possibility of a person surviving crucifixion.
3. [Roman law even laid the death penalty on any soldier who let a capital prisoner escape in any way,]
=>3a. Roman law even laid the death penalty on any Roman soldier who let a capital prisoner escape in any way.
4. [including bungling a crucifixion.]
=>4a. Roman law even laid the death penalty on any Roman soldier who bungled a crucifixion, so that the victim survived the crucifixion.
5. [It was never done.] – I will split this into two claims:
=>5a. No Roman soldier ever let a capital prisoner escape.
=>6a. No Roman soldier ever bungled a crucifixion, so that the victim survived the crucifixion.
FILL IN STEPS
As usual, Kreeft and Tacelli fail to state the conclusion of this argument:
A. The Swoon Theory is false.
Premise (1a) gets us close to the ultimate conclusion. There is just one unstated premise that needs to be made explicit:
1a. Jesus could not have survived crucifixion by Roman soldiers.
THEREFORE:
B. Jesus did NOT survive crucifixion by Roman soldiers.
THEREFORE:
A. The Swoon Theory is false.
Premises (5a) and (6a) would suffice by themselves to imply (1a):
5a. No Roman soldier ever let a capital prisoner escape.
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.
If we take it that (5a) and (6a) provide a separate argument for (1a), then there is a very serious problem with the argument: premises (5a) and (6a) clearly beg the question. For example, the claim that no Roman soldier ever bungled a crucifixion ASSUMES that the crucifixion of Jesus was NOT “bungled”, i.e. that Jesus did NOT survive his crucifixion. But that is the very question at issue. So, on this interpretation, the argument clearly commits the FALLACY of BEGGING THE QUESTION, at least the argument consisting of premises (5a) and (6a) as a separate argument in support of (1a).
Because the argument clearly BEGS THE QUESTION on that interpretation, it is more reasonable to adopt a different interpretation of the logical structure of this argument, where premises (2a), (3a), and (4a) are understood as part of an argument for premises (5a) and (6a). This way Kreeft and Tacelli are not simply ASSUMING (5a) and (6a) to be the case, but are providing an argument in support of those claims.
I take it that the basic logic of this argument concerns the concept of being “willing and able” to do something. The basic idea is that Roman soldiers were both highly motivated to make sure that the people they crucified did NOT survive the crucifixion, and that the Roman military procedure for crucifixion fully enabled them to consistently accomplish this goal:
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.
2a. Roman military procedures for crucifixion were very careful to eliminate the possibility of a person surviving crucifixion.
THEREFORE:
5a. No Roman soldier ever let a capital prisoner escape.
AND
6a. No Roman soldier ever bungled a crucifixion, so that the victim survived the crucifixion.
The inferences in the above sub-argument are NOT deductively VALID inferences. However, premises (3a) and (4a) seem at least initially to provide a good reason in support of premise (C). Also, premises (C) and (2a) seem at least initially to provide a good reason in support of (6a).
The inference from (C) and (2a) to (5a), however, is very dubious. The fact that Roman soldiers were highly motivated to make sure that they never let a capital prisoner escape does NOT show that no Roman soldier ever let a capital prisoner escape. Strong motivation to do X (or to avoid doing X) is not sufficient reason to conclude that someone did NOT do X (or did NOT avoid doing X). Roman soldiers would also need to have the ABILITY (not just the motivation) to never let a capital prisoner escape, and there is no premise asserting they had such an ABILITY.
The inference from (C) and (2a) to (6a) seems to be a better and stronger inference than from (C) and (2a) to (5a), because (2a) suggests that Roman soldiers had the ABILITY to make sure that people did not ever survive crucifixion. Since (6a) is sufficient to support the sub-conclusion (1a), we can simply toss aside premise (5a) as unnecessary and irrelevant:
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.
DIAGRAMMING THE ARGUMENT
1a. Jesus could not have survived crucifixion by Roman soldiers.
THEREFORE:
B. Jesus did NOT survive crucifixion by Roman soldiers.
THEREFORE:
A. The Swoon Theory is false.
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.
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.
THE STATED PREMISES OF OBJECTION #1
1a. Jesus could not have survived crucifixion by Roman soldiers.
2a. Roman military procedures for crucifixion were very careful to eliminate the possibility of a person surviving crucifixion.
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.
6a. No Roman soldier ever bungled a crucifixion, so that the victim survived the crucifixion.
THE UNSTATED ASSUMPTIONS/PREMISES OF OBJECTION #1
A. The Swoon Theory is false.
B. Jesus did NOT survive crucifixion by Roman soldiers.
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 OBJECTION #1
For my careful evaluation of Objection #1 by Kreeft and Tacelli against the Swoon Theory, see these posts on The Secular Frontier: