WHERE WE ARE

There are twelve objections against the Swoon Theory in the 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory by Josh McDowell and his son Sean McDowell in their book Evidence For the Resurrection (hereafter: EFR). However, in my upcoming book, Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, Volume 1: The Resuscitation of the Swoon Theory (hereafter: TCAR1), I have shown that ten of those objections fail.

So, only the two remaining objections against the Swoon Theory in EFR need to be carefully analyzed and evaluated in order to determine whether the McDowells’ 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory succeeds or fails:

• Jesus’ Last Words Objection (EFR, p.223)
• Early Writers Objection (EFR, p.224)

If these two objections fail, then the 21st-century case by the McDowells against the Swoon Theory fails, because all twelve objections that constitute their case will have been shown to fail.

In Part 1 of this series, I carefully analyzed and clarified the argument constituting the Jesus’ Last Words Objection. In Part 3 of this series and in Part 4 of this series, I showed that the Jesus’ Last Words Objection against the Swoon Theory fails.

So, now there is only one remaining objection from the McDowell’s 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory that we need to critically evaluate: the Early Writers Objection.

MY ANALYSIS OF THE EARLY WRITERS OBJECTION

In Part 2 of this series, I carefully analyzed and clarified the argument constituting the Jesus’ Last Words Objection. My critical evaluation of that objection will be based on my clarified version of the McDowells’ argument for this objection.

STATED PREMISES/CLAIMS

1. Non-Christian historians from the first and second centuries recorded the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

4a. The earliest Christian writers after the time of Christ asserted Jesus of Nazareth’s death by crucifixion on the cross.

UNSTATED PREMISES/CLAIMS

A. Jesus died while he was on the cross.

J. Non-Christian historians from the first and second centuries who wrote about the death of Jesus of Nazareth provide us with accurate and reliable historical information about Jesus of Nazareth.

K. The earliest Christian writers after the time of Christ who wrote about the death of Jesus of Nazareth provide us with accurate and reliable historical information about Jesus of Nazareth.

L. IF Jesus died while he was on the cross, THEN the Swoon Theory is false.

M. The Swoon Theory is false.

THE NON-CHRISTIAN HISTORIANS ARGUMENT

There are two arguments supporting the conclusion (A). The first argument concerns the writings of some non-Christian historians:

1. Non-Christian historians from the first and second centuries recorded the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

J. Non-Christian historians from the first and second centuries who wrote about the death of Jesus of Nazareth provide us with accurate and reliable historical information about Jesus of Nazareth.

THEREFORE:

A. Jesus died while he was on the cross.

The inference in this argument is logically invalid. Claim (A) does not follow from (1) and (J). Furthermore, even if both (1) and (J) were true, they also would not provide a good reason to believe claim (A). The problem is that premise (1) says nothing about how or where Jesus died, but the conclusion specifies that Jesus died “while he was on the cross.” Thus, premise (1) is too VAGUE to provide us with a good reason to believe claim (A).

But this is just because the McDowells were sloppy and careless in how they expressed premise (1). We can revise this premise to make it more specific and fix the main problem with the inference in their argument:

1a. Non-Christian historians from the first and second centuries recorded the death of Jesus of Nazareth as taking place while Jesus was hanging on the cross.

J. Non-Christian historians from the first and second centuries who wrote about the death of Jesus of Nazareth provide us with accurate and reliable historical information about Jesus of Nazareth.

THEREFORE:

A. Jesus died while he was on the cross.

This is still NOT a deductively valid argument, because even writers who generally provide accurate and reliable historical information about a person can also provide some false or inaccurate information about that person. However, if (1a) and (J) were both true, that would provide a good reason to believe that claim (A) was true. Thus, the inference in this argument is reasonable and acceptable. If there is a significant problem with this argument it would be about the truth or falsehood of the premises (1a) or (J).

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

There are two examples given in support of premise (1a), and both examples are needed in order to show that premise (1a) is true:

2. Tacitus recorded the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

B. Tacitus was a non-Christian historian from the first and/or second century who wrote about the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

3. Josephus recorded the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

C. Josephus was a non-Christian historian from the first and/or second century who wrote about the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

THEREFORE:

1a. Non-Christian historians from the first and second centuries recorded the death of Jesus of Nazareth as taking place while Jesus was hanging on the cross.

Because premise (1a) specifies that these historians wrote about the death of Jesus “taking place while Jesus was hanging on the cross”, the premises (2) and (3) fail to support this more specific premise. The inference in this sub-argument is logically invalid.

However, we can revise premises (2) and (3) so that they make more specific claims, claims that actually imply the desired conclusion:

2a. Tacitus recorded the death of Jesus of Nazareth as taking place while Jesus was hanging on the cross.

B. Tacitus was a non-Christian historian from the first and/or second century who wrote about the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

3a. Josephus recorded the death of Jesus of Nazareth as taking place while Jesus was hanging on the cross.

C. Josephus was a non-Christian historian from the first and/or second century who wrote about the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

THEREFORE:

1a. Non-Christian historians from the first and second centuries recorded the death of Jesus of Nazareth as taking place while Jesus was hanging on the cross.

EVALUATION OF PREMISE (2a)

Here, once again, is premise (2a):

2a. Tacitus recorded the death of Jesus of Nazareth as taking place while Jesus was hanging on the cross.

This premise is FALSE. So, the sub-argument for the key premise (1a) is UNSOUND and should be rejected. Thus, premise (1a) is dubious and might well be false. Therefore, the non-Christian historians argument for the conclusion (A) fails to provide a good reason to believe that (A) is true.

Gary Habermas, a Christian apologist and leading defender of the resurrection of Jesus, wrote this about Tacitus:

Cornelius Tacitus (ca. AD 55-120) was a Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over a half dozen Roman emperors. …
Tacitus is best know for two works – the Annals and the Histories. …The Annals cover the period from Augustus’ death in AD 14 to that of Nero in AD 68…
Tacitus recorded at least one reference to Christ and two to early Christianity… . The most important one is that found in Annals, written about AD 115.

(Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus, p.187-188)

The McDowells do not provide an actual quotation from Tacitus, but if they had, most readers would have quickly concluded that premise (2a) is FALSE:

[2] But neither human effort nor the emperor’s generosity nor the placating of the gods ended the scandalous belief that the fire [in Rome] had been ordered [by the emperor Nero]. Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts…, whom the crowd called “Chrestians.” [3] The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate…

(Quote from Annals by Robert Van Voorst in Jesus Outside the New Testament, p.41)

The above comments in brackets were added by me. Note that Tacitus states only that Christ “had been executed”. He does NOT claim that Jesus “had died by crucifixion”. Since this is the only reference to Jesus in the works of Tacitus, it is clear that premise (2a) is FALSE.

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

Because premise (2a) is FALSE, the sub-argument for the key premise (1a) is UNSOUND and should be rejected. Thus, premise (1a) is dubious and might well be false. Therefore, the non-Christian historians argument for the conclusion (A) fails to provide a good reason to believe that (A) is true.

THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (J)

Here is the sub-argument in support of the key premise (J):

B. Tacitus was a non-Christian historian from the first and/or second century who wrote about the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

F. Tacitus provides us with accurate and reliable historical information about Jesus of Nazareth.

C. Josephus was a non-Christian historian from the first and/or second century who wrote about the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

G. Josephus provides us with accurate and reliable historical information about Jesus of Nazareth.

THEREFORE:

J. Non-Christian historians from the first and second centuries who wrote about the death of Jesus of Nazareth provide us with accurate and reliable historical information about Jesus of Nazareth.

None of the claims here were stated explicitly by the McDowells, but all of these claims are assumed or implied by what they do explicitly state. Since they give Tacitus and Josephus as examples in support of premise (1a), they clearly assume that Tacitus and Josephus are non-Christian historians from the first and/or second centuries, otherwise these people would NOT be examples that support premise (1a).

Furthermore, whenever the McDowells cite a Gospel passage as evidence for a historical claim about Jesus they are assuming that the Gospel in question provides an accurate and historically reliable account of the life of Jesus or of the trials and crucifixion of Jesus. Similarly, when they refer to passages from non-Christian historians in support of a historical claim about Jesus, they are assuming that those historians provide accurate and reliable historical information about Jesus. So, the above sub-argument simply spells out the assumptions that they need to make in order to support the historical claim made by the conclusion (A).

Premises (B) is true, but premise (C) is dubious. More importantly, I believe that premise (F) is false. If that is so, then this sub-argument for the key premise (J) is no good, and it fails to provide a good reason to believe that (J) is true, so (J) is dubious. Furthermore, if (F) is false, then (J) is incorrect about half of the examples (one out of two) given by the McDowells, that means the key premise (J) is probably false.

EVALUATION OF PREMISE (C)

The passage where Josephus mentions the death of Jesus is a passage that scholars agree was either altered or created by a Christian. So, this casts doubt on the authenticity of that particular passage. If the passage about Jesus was inserted by a Christian, then premise (C) is false, and the sub-argument for (J) fails, and one could reasonably conclude that (J) is probably false.

Many scholars, however, believe that this passage was modified by Christian copyist(s), but that the basic claim about Jesus being crucified was in the original text written by Josephus. [THIS SECTION IS STILL IN WORK]

EVALUATION OF PREMISE (F)

Here, once again, is premise (F), one of the premises in the sub-argument supporting the key premise (J):

F. Tacitus provides us with accurate and reliable historical information about Jesus of Nazareth.

It is important to note that the McDowells offer ZERO evidence in support of their assumptions about the historical reliability of Tacitus and Josephus, but without these assumption their Non-Christian Historians Argument fails.

There is only ONE brief passage by Tacitus that talks about Jesus of Nazareth. That immediately raises a RED FLAG. How can we be confident that Tacitus provides generally accurate and reliable historical information about Jesus, when Tacitus has very little to say about Jesus? There is insufficient data to confidently conclude that Tacitus generally provides “accurate and reliable historical information about Jesus of Nazareth”. Therefore, premise (F) is dubious at best, and it might well be false.

Although Tacitus has very little to say about Jesus, what he does say includes some incorrect historical information:

Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts…, whom the crowd called “Chrestians.” [3] The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate…

(Quoted from Annals by Robert Van Voorst in Jesus Outside the New Testament, p.41)

First of all, although crucifixion is a form of execution, Tacitus writes that Jesus “had been executed” but does not state that Jesus was crucified, nor that Jesus died on a cross:

…he does not say explicitly that Jesus was crucified.

(Robert Van Voorst in Jesus Outside the New Testament, p.47)

Secondly, Tacitus does not refer to Jesus by the name “Jesus”, but mistakenly thinks that “Christ” is the name of the man who founded the Christian religion:

…Tacitus regards Christus as a personal name and does not seem to know “Jesus”…

(Robert Van Voorst in Jesus Outside the New Testament, p.46)

But “Christus” or “Christ” was a title (meaning: the Messiah), not a name. Tacitus appears to not know the actual name of the founder of the Christian religion, and has mistakenly taken the title “Christ” to be the name of the man he is discussing. Thus, Tacitus writes just one sentence about Jesus of Nazareth, but in that one sentence, he makes two false claims: (1) “Christ” is the name of a person (when it was actually a title), and (2) the founder of Christianity was named “Christ” (when his actual name was: Jesus). Given that Tacitus made two significant errors in his one and only sentence about Jesus, premise (F) should be rejected as a false claim.

There is another problem with premise (F) that casts additional doubt on that premise. Why turn to “non-Christian historians” for information about the death of Jesus? There are a couple of reasons for this. First of all, there are serious problems with the historical accuracy and reliability of the Gospels. If the Gospels provided accurate and reliable accounts of the trials and crucifixion of Jesus, then there would be no need for any other evidence.

Second, the Gospels are obviously biased sources of information. The purpose of the Gospels was to promote the Christian faith, so if there were any reasons or evidence to doubt the Christian belief that Jesus died as a result of crucifixion and that he died while he was hanging on the cross, the authors of the Gospels would be very unlikely to mention such reasons or evidence. By pointing to the writings of non-Christian historians, the McDowells hope to avoid the problem of the Christian bias of the Gospel accounts.

One problem with what Tacitus wrote about Jesus is that we don’t know where he got his information. If his source was Christian believers, then those Christian believers probably learned what they “knew” about Jesus from the Gospels. But in that case, the information we get from Tacitus about Jesus is no more trustworthy or reliable than the information about Jesus contained in the Gospels. Thus, a key question about early non-Christian writers who write about Jesus is whether the source of their information was Christian believers. If so, then what they say about Jesus does not confirm or verify the historical claims made by the Gospels.

We don’t know the source or sources of information that Tacitus had for his brief comment about Jesus. However, it might well be the case that his source of information was Christian believers who in turn got their information about Jesus from the Gospels:

…Tacitus gives the strongest evidence outside the New Testament for the death of Jesus. His brief mention of Christ may fairly be claimed to corroborate some key elements of the New Testament account. Does this “Testimonium Taciteum” therefore provide definitive evidence of the existence of Jesus? If we could be certain that Tacitus’s account was based on non-Christian sources, the answer would be yes; but as we have seen, such independent knowledge is unverifiable. As R.T. France concludes, while the evidence from Tacitus corroborates the New Testament accounts of the death of Jesus, “by itself it cannot prove that events happened as Tacitus had been informed,” or even the existence of Jesus.

(Robert Van Voorst in Jesus Outside the New Testament, p.52)

The most likely source of Tacitus’s information about Christ is Tacitus’s own dealings with Christians, directly or indirectly.

(Robert Van Voorst in Jesus Outside the New Testament, p.52)

It is likely that Tacitus’s source of information about Jesus was Christian believers who would have learned about Jesus from the Gospels. Thus, the passage from Tacitus about the death of Jesus probably rests upon the accounts of the trials and crucifixion of Jesus presented in the Gospels. Therefore, the passage by Tacitus about Jesus in the Annals is no more accurate or reliable than the Gospels, and fails to provide additional evidence above and beyond the weak and dubious evidence we already have from the Gospel accounts.

Because premise (C) is dubious and premise (F) is false, the sub-argument for the key premise (J) is a bad argument, and it fails to provide a good reason to believe that (J) is true. Furthermore, because (J) is a generalization supported by only two examples, and because (J) is false about one of the two examples, we may reasonably conclude that the key premise (J) is probably false.

EVALUATION OF THE NON-CHRISTIAN HISTORIAN ARGUMENT

The Early Writers Objection to the Swoon Theory by the McDowells includes two lines of argument for the conclusion (A):

• The Non-Christian Historian Argument
• The Early Christian Writers Argument

We have been critically examining the Non-Christian Historian Argument, which is based on two key premises:

1a. Non-Christian historians from the first and second centuries recorded the death of Jesus of Nazareth as taking place while Jesus was hanging on the cross.

J. Non-Christian historians from the first and second centuries who wrote about the death of Jesus of Nazareth provide us with accurate and reliable historical information about Jesus of Nazareth.

THEREFORE:

A. Jesus died while he was on the cross.

This argument is clearly UNSOUND, because, as we saw above, the key premise (1a) is false, and the key premise (J) is probably false. We have very good reason to reject this argument. Thus, this argument fails to prove that (A) is true, and it also fails to provide a good reason to believe that (A) is true. Therefore, the conclusion (A) is dubious if the second argument for (A) also fails.