WHERE WE ARE

Although Objection #8 (Where Did Jesus Go?) as presented by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) was DEAD ON ARRIVAL because of the embarrassing blunder that a key premise of their argument was obviously FALSE, we have revised and improved that premise so that it is now plausible and NOT obviously false. Here is the revised and improved key premise:

1b. There is absolutely no legitimate and credible historical data about Jesus’ life after his crucifixion, other than some stories in the New Testament about alleged appearances of a living Jesus to some of his disciples that took place for a few weeks after Jesus was crucified.

I understand this key premise to be part of a reduction-to-absurdity argument against the Swoon Theory:

B. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN there would be some legitimate and credible historical data about Jesus’ life after his crucifixion, other than some stories in the New Testament about alleged appearances of a living Jesus to some of his disciples that took place for a few weeks after Jesus was crucified.

1b. There is absolutely no legitimate and credible historical data about Jesus’ life after his crucifixion, other than some stories in the New Testament about alleged appearances of a living Jesus to some of his disciples that took place for a few weeks after Jesus was crucified.

THEREFORE:

C. It is NOT the case that the Swoon Theory is true.

THEREFORE:

A. The Swoon Theory is FALSE.

This is the core argument for Objection #8 against the Swoon Theory.

INITIAL EVALUATION OF THE CORE ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #8

I have made a serious effort to repair an obviously false key premise in Kreeft and Tacelli’s argument constituting Objection #8. I think that I did a good job of fixing that embarrassing blunder in their argument, so I believe that the revised premise (1b) is probably true, and I won’t continue to scrutinize that premise.

The logic of the core argument is a valid form of deductive reasoning called modus tollens, so I accept the logic of the main inference in this core argument. That means that this core argument is sound UNLESS there is a problem with the other key premise, premise (B):

B. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN there would be some legitimate and credible historical data about Jesus’ life after his crucifixion, other than some stories in the New Testament about alleged appearances of a living Jesus to some of his disciples that took place for a few weeks after Jesus was crucified.

If premise (B) is true, then the core argument is SOUND, but if premise (B) is false or dubious, then we should reject this argument.

I believe that premise (B) is FALSE, and thus that this core argument is UNSOUND and should be rejected. However, before I argue that premise (B) is false, I will consider and evaluate the sub-argument by Kreeft and Tacelli in support of (B).

THE SUB-ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF PREMISE (B)

Here (again) is Objection #8 (Where Did Jesus Go?) against the Swoon Theory as presented by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (HCA):

If Jesus awoke from a swoon, where did he go? Think this through: you have a living body to deal with now, not a dead one. Why did it disappear? There is absolutely no data, not even any false, fantastic, imagined data, about Jesus’ life after his crucifixion, in any sources, friend or foe, at any time, early or late. A man like that, with a past like that, would have left traces.  (HCA, p. 184)

The reason they give in support of premise (B) is in the last sentence quoted above: “A man like that, with a past like that, would have left traces.” Their sub-argument for premise (B) is this:

2. A man like that, with a past like that, would have left traces.

THEREFORE:

B. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN there would be some legitimate and credible historical data about Jesus’ life after his crucifixion, other than some stories in the New Testament about alleged appearances of a living Jesus to some of his disciples that took place for a few weeks after Jesus was crucified.

In terms of deductive logic, this argument is INVALID. The conclusion (B) does not follow logically from premise (2). As a deductive argument, this argument FAILS.

We could take premise (2) simply as some sort of inductive REASON given in support of (B). However, it is unclear HOW (2) provides support for (B). Most importantly, premise (2) is VERY UNCLEAR. What does “a man like that” mean? What does “with a past like that” mean? Presumably, Kreeft and Tacelli had something more specific in mind, but they FAILED to spell out what they had in mind here. Because of the great UNCLARITY of premise (2), it cannot be rationally evaluated as being true or false, or as being probable or improbable.

This sub-argument FAILS to provide any significant support for premise (B) because premise (2) FAILS to make a claim that can be rationally evaluated. But premise (B) is NOT self-evident or obviously true, so we should not accept (B) simply because Kreeft and Tacelli assert or believe that (B) is the case. They need to provide us with a good reason or a solid argument in support of (B) in order for the core argument of Objection #8 to be a solid and acceptable argument. They have FAILED to provide a good reason or solid argument in support of (B), so we may reasonably conclude that (B) is DUBIOUS, and thus that Objection #8 FAILS.

A SECOND CHANCE FOR OBJECTION #8

Objection #8 against the Swoon Theory as presented by Kreeft and Tacelli FAILS, even if we repair their embarrassing blunder of asserting a key premise that is obviously false and we replace their premise (1) with the much more plausible premise (1b). The argument for Objection #8 still FAILS, because it requires premise (B), and premise (B) is DUBIOUS, because the sub-argument they give for premise (B) is too UNCLEAR to provide any significant support for (B).

Nevertheless, we can give Objection #8 a second chance by looking for a better sub-argument for (B) from Josh McDowell. I suspect that Kreeft and Tacelli borrowed most of their objections against the Swoon Theory from Josh McDowell’s previously published books: Evidence that Demands a Verdict (revised edition, 1979), and The Resurrection Factor (1981). So, it makes sense to take a look at whether McDowell made a similar objection against the Swoon Theory and if so to look for whether McDowell provides a better sub-argument for premise (B).

In Evidence that Demands a Verdict (revised edition, 1979) the final objection given against the Swoon Theory is very similar to Objection #8 by Kreeft and Tacelli. McDowell begins by asking some questions:

If Christ did not die at this time [when he was crucified], then when did He die, and under what circumstances? (p.237)

To present this objection, McDowell quotes from The Resurrection of Our Lord (1927):

William Milligan says that if Christ merely swooned on the cross and later survived, “He must have retired to some solitary retreat unknown even to the most attached of His disciples. While His Church was rising around Him, shaking the old world to its foundations, and introducing everywhere amidst many difficulties a new order of things–while it was torn by controversies, surrounded by temptations, exposed to trials, placed in short in the very circumstances that made it most dependent on His aid–He was absent from it, and spending the remainder of His days, whether few or many, in what we can describe by no other term than ignoble solitude. And then at last He must have died–no one can say either where, or when, or how! There is not a ray of light to penetrate the darkness…”

(Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p.237)

Milligan doesn’t come right out and clearly state his objection against the Swoon Theory here, but it is clear that he finds this alleged implication of the Swoon Theory to be unbelievable and highly improbable. Milligan is suggesting a reduction-to-absurdity argument against the Swoon Theory that involves a couple of steps of reasoning:

3. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN either (a) after surviving his crucifixion Jesus continued for the rest of his life to help his disciples to create, organize, and lead the first Christian churches, or (b) Jesus was a self-centered and uncaring person who after surviving his crucifixion ignored the struggles of his disciples to create, organize, and lead the first Christian churches by retiring to some solitary retreat unknown even to the most attached of his disciples.

D. Jesus was NOT a self-centered and uncaring person who after surviving his crucifixion would ignore the struggles of his disciples to create, organize, and lead the first Christian churches by retiring to some solitary retreat unknown even to the most attached of his disciples.

THEREFORE:

E. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN after surviving his crucifixion Jesus would have continued for the rest of his life to help his disciples to create, organize, and lead the first Christian churches.

F. IF after surviving his crucifixion Jesus continued for the rest of his life to help his disciples to create, organize, and lead the first Christian churches, THEN there would be some legitimate and credible historical data about Jesus’ life after his crucifixion, other than some stories in the New Testament about alleged appearances of a living Jesus to some of his disciples that took place for a few weeks after Jesus was crucified.

THEREFORE:

B. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN there would be some legitimate and credible historical data about Jesus’ life after his crucifixion, other than some stories in the New Testament about alleged appearances of a living Jesus to some of his disciples that took place for a few weeks after Jesus was crucified.

In short, in Evidence that Demands a Verdict, McDowell’s quote from William Milligan provides an argument in support of the key premise (B) in Objection #8 (Where Did Jesus Go?). Unlike the UNCLEAR argument given by Kreeft and Tacelli, this argument is clear enough to be rationally evaluated.

In the next post in this series, I will begin to evaluate this McDowell/Milligan argument in support of the key premise (B). Perhaps McDowell and Milligan can succeed where Kreeft and Tacelli FAILED.