WHERE WE ARE

In Part 25 of this series, I showed that premise (C) in the sub-argument for the key premise (3a) is FALSE. Thus, the argument for (3a) is UNSOUND and should be rejected. Thus, premise (3a) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. Therefore, the core argument of Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) should be rejected, and Objection #7 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.

In Part 26 of this series, I showed that premise (D1) in the sub-argument for the key premise (3a) is DUBIOUS. Therefore, premise (3a) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. Therefore, the core argument of Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) should be rejected, and Objection #7 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.

In this current post, I will argue that premise (E) in the sub-argument for the key premise (3a) is DUBIOUS. Therefore, premise (3a) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.

THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY 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.

THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (E)

9a. The Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb would be killed if they let Jesus leave the tomb or if they let someone take Jesus’ body from the tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.

THEREFORE:

7a. It was in the interest of the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb to keep the tomb of Jesus sealed on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.

THEREFORE:

5a. The Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb would NOT have moved the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.

THEREFORE:

E. The Roman soldiers did NOT move the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.

EVALUATION OF THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (E)

One of the premises in the sub-argument for (E) is premise (9a):

9a. The Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb would be killed if they let Jesus leave the tomb or if they let someone take Jesus’ body from the tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.

First, no historical evidence is provided to support the historical claim made by Premise (9a).

Second, the story that there were Roman soldiers guarding the tomb of Jesus is found only in the Gospel of Matthew and is probably an apologetic legend, so there probably were no Roman soldiers guarding Jesus’ tomb.

Third, the Gospel of Matthew itself implies that premise (9a) is FALSE, because the Gospel of Matthew implies that the Roman Soldiers admitted (falsely) that they had fallen asleep and that the disciples had stolen Jesus’ body, and yet that the Roman soldiers were NOT put to death or severely punished for dereliction of guard duty:

11 While they were going, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 After the priests[a] had assembled with the elders, they devised a plan to give a large sum of money to the soldiers, 13 telling them, “You must say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 If this comes to the governor’s ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15 So they took the money and did as they were directed. …

Matthew 28:11-15, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

This passage in Matthew suggests that the Roman soldiers were NOT executed even though they admitted that they had fallen asleep while on guard duty.

Evangelical NT scholars appear to interpret this passage as I do, as implying that these Roman soldiers were NOT executed or severely punished:

Penalties for falling asleep on guard duty could be severe, and guards who claimed to have slept through the stealing of a body, yet suffered no harm, would sound very suspiscious. …Under normal circumstances, people might suppose that they and those who failed to punish them had collaborated in the disappearance of the body, but in this situation those who failed to punish them had too much to lose for anyone to suppose that.

A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, by Craig Keener, p.713-714

It must have been with a degree of bewildered delight that the soldiers walked away with the large amount of money in their pockets when they had no doubt expected to be censured and perhaps sent back to Pilate with a complaint for not having succeeded in their mission.

Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 33B: Matthew 14-28, by Donald Hagner, p.877

The soldiers were grateful to take the money and be safe from any military charge. …the soldiers realized that they could be free from unpleasant disciplinary action…

The Gospel According to Matthew, by Leon Morris, p.743

According to the Gospel of Matthew it was indeed possible for a Roman soldier to admit to falling asleep on guard duty, and yet NOT be executed or severely punished. So, if one accepts the DUBIOUS story in the Gospel of Matthew that Roman soldiers were guarding the tomb of Jesus, then one ought to also accept the story in that same Gospel that implies that Roman soldiers could fall asleep on guard duty and yet NOT be executed or severely punished. This casts doubt on premise (9a).

Setting aside doubts about the truth of premise (9a), and assuming for the sake of argument, that (9a) was true, it does seem reasonable to infer premise (7a) from premise (9a):

9a. The Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb would be killed if they let Jesus leave the tomb or if they let someone take Jesus’ body from the tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.

THEREFORE:

7a. It was in the interest of the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb to keep the tomb of Jesus sealed on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.

If we understand “the interest” of the Roman soldiers to be their SELF-INTEREST, then (9a) seems like a very strong reason in support of (7a). It is clearly in the SELF-INTEREST of each Roman soldier to avoid being executed.

However, there are some qualifications to this inference that should be noted. What if by helping Jesus to get out of his tomb, the soldier could obtain forgiveness of his sins and eternal life in heaven, and what if by failing to help Jesus to get out of his tomb, the soldier would instead fail to obtain forgiveness of his sins and end up being punished in hell for all eternity? Most Christians would argue that avoiding eternal punishment in hell is in the greatest self-interest of these Roman soldiers and that the risk of execution would be far outweighed by the advantage of gaining eternal life in heaven and avoiding eternal punishment in hell. The inference from (9a) to (7a) is NOT logically airtight in view of Christian beliefs about what happens after we die.

On reflection, it seems that SELF-INTEREST is not the only consideration that goes into determining what is in a person’s “interest”. A person can care deeply about people and animals other than themselves. Most parents, for example, care about their children and want their children to be happy and successful in life. Parents often sacrifice their own comfort, safety, and financial security to help their children to be happy and successful. It seems appropriate to say that the happiness and success of the children of such parents is at least one consideration that figures into the “interest” of such parents.

For example, suppose that the wife and child of a Roman soldier were kidnapped, and suppose that the soldier was told that his wife and child would be killed unless he pushed the stone away from the tomb that he was assigned to guard. That Roman soldier might well prefer to put his own life at risk (for failing his duty to prevent the opening of the tomb) in order to save the lives of his wife and child.

In other words, a Roman soldier could have an INTEREST in opening the tomb of Jesus, even if doing so was contrary to his SELF-INTEREST, even if taking that action would put his own life into serious risk. This is another way in which (9a) could be true, while (7a) was false. Again, the inference from (9a) to (7a) is less than conclusive. So, even assuming that (9a) was true, there is still a chance that (7a) could be FALSE.

Let’s examine the next inference in the sub-argument for premise (E):

7a. It was in the interest of the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb to keep the tomb of Jesus sealed on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.

THEREFORE:

5a. The Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb would NOT have moved the stone from the door of Jesus’ tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified.

There are a few serious problems with this inference. First, there is a LOGICAL GAP between what is in the “interest” of the Roman soldiers, and what those Roman soldiers BELIEVE to be in their interest. For example, one or more of the Roman soldiers who were guarding the tomb of Jesus might have believed that his superior officer was very lenient and would be unlikely to order execution or a severe punishment for falling asleep while guarding a tomb.

Alternatively, perhaps one or more of the Roman soldiers who were guarding the tomb of Jesus believed his superior officer could be bribed so that he/they could avoid execution or severe punishment by handing over some of their pay to their superior officer. Whether these BELIEFS were true or not, the decisions and actions of the Roman soldiers would be based on such beliefs, making the threat of execution or severe punishment seem unlikely, at least in their view.

This shows there is a logical gap between what is in fact in “the interest” of a Roman soldier, and what that soldier BELIEVES to be in his interest.

Second, there is an inherent problem with the threat of execution in relation to the motivations of Roman soldiers. Roman soldiers were trained and expected to be brave in the face of the threat of death. Roman soldiers are praised and chosen and rewarded for bravery in the face of death. Thus, although most ordinary people might find the threat of execution to be highly motivating, it is doubtful that the threat of execution would be as powerful a motivation for Roman soldiers. Other desires, goals, and motives might tend to outweigh concern about the threat of execution for a Roman soldier, more so than for people with ordinary jobs and careers.

Third, in order for one to make good decisions, decisions that are in keeping with one’s actual interests, a person needs to be able to think clearly and rationally. We don’t know anything about the specific Roman soldiers who were (allegedly) guarding the tomb of Jesus, and we don’t know whether they were well-rested, well-fed, healthy, and clear-headed at the time they were put on guard duty. If they were exhausted, hungry, sick, and/or hungover, then they might not have been able to think clearly and rationally about what was in their own interest. This is another way in which a person’s actual interest can diverge from his or her perceived interest. Because we don’t know the characters, intellectual abilities, and physical circumstances of the Roman soldiers, we cannot know whether they were clear-headed and able to think rationally for the duration of their time on guard duty.

For the above reasons, the inference from (7a) to (5a) is weak and DUBIOUS. There are LOGICAL GAPS between “the interest” of the Roman soldiers who were guarding the tomb of Jesus and the decisions and actions that they made and took while they were on duty.

CONCLUSION ABOUT PREMISE (E)

Here are my conclusions about the sub-argument for premise (E):

• Premise (9a) is DUBIOUS.
• The inference from (9a) to (7a) is less than airtight.
• The inference from (7a) to (5a) is weak and DUBIOUS.

The cumulative impact of these three problems is sufficient to show that premise (5a) is DUBIOUS. Since (5a) is the reason given to support premise (E), and since premise (E) is NOT obviously true, it is reasonable to conclude that premise (E) is itself DUBIOUS.

Because (E) is one of the premises in the sub-argument for the key premise (3a), we have yet another good reason to reject the sub-argument for the key premise (3a), and to doubt the truth of (3a).