The Unreliability of the Gospel of Luke - Part 3: Unhistorical Geneology

 A SECOND REASON FOR THE HISTORICAL UNRELIABILITY OF THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

In this post, I am going to provide more specific evidence that the changes and additions to stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark made by the author of the Gospel of Luke are dubious and historically unreliable.

Here is the second reason that supports this conclusion:

REASON #2: The Gospel of Mark has no stories about the birth, infancy, or childhood of Jesus, but the Gospel of Luke adds stories of eight such events, and there are good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of those stories in the Gospel of Luke. 

In Part 2, we saw that most mainline NT and Jesus scholars view the birth stories in Matthew and Luke as being unhistorical legends and that there are at least three good reasons why scholars are skeptical about these stories.  Given that in Part 1 we saw that there were eight general considerations that cast doubt on the reliability of the stories in the Gospel of Luke that are added to or changed from the Gospel of Mark, and that the birth stories are not based on the Gospel of Mark, we may reasonably conclude that the birth stories in the Gospel of Luke is probably historically unreliable.

NINE ASPECTS OF THE BIRTH STORIES IN LUKE 

In the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke we find eight different events about the birth, infancy, and childhood of Jesus that are not found in the Gospel of Mark:[1]

• Miraculous Conception of John (Luke 1:7-25)
• Miraculous Conception of Jesus (Luke 1:26-38)
• Mary Visits Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-56)
• Birth and Naming of John (Luke 1:57-80]
• Birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1-7)
• Visit of the Shepherds (Luke 2:8-20)
• Dedication of Jesus (Luke 2:21-40)
• The Young Jesus in Jerusalem (Luke 2:41-52)

Also related to the birth of Jesus, the Gospel of Luke provides an alleged genealogy of Jesus:

• Jesus' Genealogy (Luke 3:23-38)

If this genealogy is historically dubious, then that would cast doubt on the historical reliability of the eight alleged events in the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke.

LEADING NT AND JESUS SCHOLARS DOUBT JESUS' GENEOLOGY IN LUKE 3:23-38

The genealogy of Jesus presented in Chapter 3 of the Gospel of Luke is dubious and probably fictional.  If so, then this is another good reason to believe that the birth stories in the Gospel of Luke are historically unreliable. 

NT and Jesus scholar Raymond Brown doubts that the genealogy in the Gospel of Luke is historical:

There are many differences [in Luke's geneology] from Matt's geneology (especially from David on)... While Luke's list may be less classically monarchical than Matt's, there is little likelihood that either is strictly historical. ...Both serve a theological purpose, e.g., Luke has a pattern of sevens even as Matt had a pattern of fourteen [generations] to show divine planning.[1]

NT and Jesus scholar John Meier views the genealogies in both the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew as "theological constructs":

Any attempt to use one of the two genealogies of Jesus (Matt 11-17; Luke 3:23-38) to establish Mary's lineage is doomed to failure because (1) both genealogies explicitly trace Jesus' genealogy through Joseph and (2) both genealogies are theological constructs and should not be taken as biological records. ...With minor exceptions, the two genealogies contradict each other from the time of David to the time of Joseph, legal father of Jesus.  In theory, one of the two genealogies might possibly contain some historical information, but it is impossible for us today to know which that might be...[2]

NT and Jesus scholar E.P. Sanders does not discuss the genealogies of Jesus in detail, but he does clearly imply that the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke is unhistorical: 

According to Luke's own genealogy (3.23-38), David had lived forty-two generations before Joseph. ...No one could trace his genealogy for forty-two generations, but if he could, he would find that he had millions of ancestors (one million is passed at the twentieth generation).[3]

If no one could trace his genealogy for forty-two generations, then Joseph, Jesus' legal father, could not have traced his genealogy for forty-two generations. If Joseph could not trace his own genealogy for forty-two generations, then clearly nobody else, such as the author of the Gospel of Luke, could trace Joseph's genealogy for that many generations. Therefore, the genealogy in the Gospel of Luke is unhistorical, according to Jesus scholar E.P. Sanders.

Jesus scholar Geza Vermes doubts that the genealogies of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke and in the Gospel of Matthew provide historically reliable information about Jesus:

The first impression we gain when we compare the often discrepant names advanced by Luke with the list of Matthew is that the documents before us are unlikely to be reliable from the point of view of history.[4]

The substantial differences between Matthew and Luke are beyond dispute and have always puzzled the theologians and the Bible interpreters of the Church. New Testament scholars have attempted since time immemorial to iron out the discrepancies and reconcile them, but without visible success.[5] 

 ...the most probable explanation of the enigma is that the aim pursued by Matthew and Luke in compiling their genealogies was doctrinal, and not historical. To prove the Davidic family connection of Jesus, a prerequisite of his Messianic standing, they probably employed documents. But since their records are contradictory, they must have laid their hands on separate registers of David's descendants.  All they needed to do was to re-edit them so that they both ended (or started) with Joseph and Jesus (or Jesus and Joseph). This was definitely possible, as we know from Jewish as well as from Christian sources that genealogical lists of this sort were circulating among the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine at the beginning of the Christian era.[6]   

NT scholar M. Eugene Boring is skeptical of the historicity of the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. Many of his skeptical comments also apply to the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke: 

The purpose of the genealogy is not to give accurate history, but to set the story of Jesus into the context of the ongoing story of God's acts in history... The genealogy is not the result of a biographical effort to discover genealogical data, but a literary-theological construction by Matthew himself, from his Bible, and (perhaps) from traditional genealogies circulating in Jewish Christianity.

[...]

 Except in priestly families, detailed genealogical records were rarely available. Many genealogies were tangled, and even some religious leaders could not trace their own genealogy. ...Occasionally, genealogies were produced by imaginative puns on the words involved rather than from history or tradition. Joshua and Jonah were provided with genealogies by imaginative midrashic exegesis, as were famous rabbis. Thus, the speculative, novelistic picture of Matthew or some other early Christian researching the genealogical archives of Bethlehem or interviewing members of Jesus' family should be abandoned as a fundamental misunderstanding of the historical reality of the times and of the gospel genre.[7]

One of the Jewish objections to the Christian claim that Jesus is the Messiah was that according to Scripture the Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem (cf. John 7:42), while Jesus came from unbiblical Nazareth. ...It could well be that Jesus was in fact born in Nazareth, and that Christian scribes provided Jesus with a Davidic genealogy and a Davidic birthplace based on their conviction that Jesus is the Christ and their interpretation of Scripture...[8] 

Boring clearly does not view the genealogies of Jesus found in the Gospel of Matthew or the Gospel of Luke as providing historically reliable information about Jesus.

NT scholar R. Alan Culpepper's commentary on the Gospel of Luke does not explicitly state that the genealogy of Jesus is historically unreliable, but nearly every point he makes about the genealogy implies skepticism about its historical reliability:

Documentation of ancestry was especially common among royal and priestly families.  Succession and kinship conferred power and privilege.  Genealogies established lines of relationship among families and tribes, but they could also describe the character of an individual.  In order to fulfill such purposes, genealogies were often oral and marked by fluidity.  First Timothy 1:4 warns against those who are preoccupied with "myths and endliess genealogies that promote speculations."[9]

The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke both reflect attention to their structure, deliberate numerical patterns, and evidence of their author's theological interests.[9]

If the genealogies were shaped by these non-historical concerns and interests, then the genealogies are probably not historically reliable.

Culpepper points out a number of contradictions between the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke and the genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew, and he rejects the attempt to reconcile the genealogies by the claim that the genealogy in the Gospel of Luke is about Mary's ancestors while the genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew is about Joseph's ancestors. He also draws this skeptical conclusion:

From these comparisons, it is clear that any attempt to harmonize the two genealogies is futile. Both evangelists presumably worked with traditional genealogies... Each evangelist exercised considerable freedom in constructing the genealogy, therefore, and each genealogy, by its selection and arrangement of the names, serves as a comment on the identity of Jesus.[9]

Clearly, if Matthew and Luke "selected" different currently available genealogies of the descendants of David, and if they "exercised considerable freedom in constructing the genealogy" and in the "arrangement of the names", then these genealogies do NOT contain historically reliable information about Jesus. Culpepper indicates that the purpose of these genealogies was not historical, but rather the purpose was to "comment on the identity of Jesus".  

In his final comments on Luke's genealogy, Culpepper suggests five different theological points that Luke had in mind in the construction of the genealogy of Jesus.[10] If the purpose and the "arrangement of the names" in this genealogy was to make four or five theological points about "the identity of Jesus", then the genealogy in the Gospel of Luke does not provide historically reliable information about Jesus. 

LUKE'S GENEALOGY CONTRADICTS MATTHEW'S GENEALOGY

There are a number of contradictions between the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke and the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, and this is a good reason to doubt the historical reliability of both genealogies.

First, the number of generations from Abraham to Jesus is significantly different in the Gospel of Luke compared to the Gospel of Matthew:

Matthew declares that there are 42 generations between Abraham and Jesus (but gives only 41), while Luke lists 56...[11]

At least one of these two Gospels has a very inaccurate genealogy.  The Gospel of Matthew lists fifteen fewer generations between Abraham and Jesus than what the Gospel of Luke lists. 

Second, the Gospel of Luke also gives a different number of generations between David and Jesus compared with the Gospel of Matthew:

...Luke lists...42 generations from David to Jesus (for which Matthew has 27, claiming 28.[11]

At least one of these two genealogies must be incorrect.

Third, the two genealogies differ on which son of King David was an ancestor of Jesus:

Further, Matthew traces the line of Jesus through Solomon, so that names following David represent the royal line, the actual kings of Judah, while Luke's genealogy traces the line through David's son Nathan, resulting in a non-royal line.[11]

Fourth, the genealogies contradict each other about who was the father of Joseph:

Matthew and Luke even give different names for Joseph's father (Matt. 1:16, Jacob; Luke 3:23, Heli).[11]

Given these contradictions between the genealogies, at least one of these two genealogies must be mistaken. This gives us good reason to doubt the historical reliability of both genealogies.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on various general considerations, in Part 1 of this series, we concluded that the changes and additions made by the author of the Gospel of Luke to the stories found in the Gospel of Mark are probably historically unreliable.

Given this reasonable assumption, and given that most mainstream scholars view the birth stories in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew as unhistorical legends, and given the three reasons presented by the Jesus scholar Marcus Borg for viewing the birth stories as unhistorical, in Part 2 we concluded that it is probable that the birth stories in the Gospel of Luke are historically unreliable additions to the stories found in the Gospel of Mark.

Because many leading Jesus and NT scholars doubt the historical reliability of the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke, and because the two genealogies contradict each other on a number of points, and because there are other good reasons to doubt both the genealogy in the Gospel of Luke and the genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew, we may reasonably conclude that the geneaology of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke is probably historically unreliable.

We now have another specific reason to doubt the reliability of the birth stories in the Gospel of Luke: the probable historical unreliability of the genealogy of Jesus in that Gospel.

In upcoming posts, I will examine various alleged events that make up the stories in the Gospel of Luke about the birth, infancy, and childhood of Jesus.  

END NOTES

1. Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York, NY: Doubleday,1997), from footnote #23 on page 236.

2. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Volume 1 (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1991), end note #47 on p.238.

3. E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York, NY: Penguin Books USA Inc., 1993), p.86.

4. Geza Vermes, The Nativity (London: Penguin Books, 2006), p.36.

5. Geza Vermes, The Nativity (London: Penguin Books, 2006), pp.41-42.

6. Geza Vermes, The Nativity (London: Penguin Books, 2006), p.43.

7. M. Eugene Boring, "The Gospel of Matthew" in The New Interpreter's Bible, Volume VIII (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), pp.128-129.

8. M. Eugene Boring, "The Gospel of Matthew" in The New Interpreter's Bible, Volume VIII (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), p.140.

9. R. Alan Culpepper, "The Gospel of Luke" in The New Interpreter's Bible, Volume IX (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), p.94.

10. R. Alan Culpepper, "The Gospel of Luke" in The New Interpreter's Bible, Volume IX (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), p.95.

11. M. Eugene Boring, "The Gospel of Matthew" in The New Interpreter's Bible, Volume VIII (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), p.131.

The Historical Unreliability of Matthew, Mark, and Luke - INDEX

 In this INDEX post, there are (or will be) links to posts about the following topics:

The Strategy of my Case for the Historical Unreliability of Matthew, Mark, and Luke: 

https://tcaict.blogspot.com/2025/11/my-divide-and-conquer-strategy.html

The Historical Unreliability of the Gospel of Luke

The Historical Unreliability of the Gospel of Matthew

The Historical Unreliability of the Passion Story in the Gospel of Mark

Because each of these Gospels are historically unreliable in terms of stories about events in the life, ministry, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus (i.e., careful investigation of these stories casts significant doubt on them), people who think critically will maintain healthy skepticism about any historical claims that are based on these Gospels, including historical claims asserted by Christian aplogists in cases for the resurrection of Jesus. 

That is, critical thinkers will demand clear and strong historical evidence before accepting any historical claims about alleged events in the life of Jesus (especially concerning the alleged trials, crucifixion, burial, and post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus) that are based on these Gospels. Simply quoting passages from these Gospels will not be sufficient evidence to establish such historical claims.

NOTE: As I write and publish posts on these topics, I will add links to those posts on this page.

The Lousy Track Record of Supernatural Claims - INDEX

 This INDEX post contains (or will contain) links to posts about the track records of various specific kinds of supernatural claims:

The Lousy Track Record of Astrology

The Lousy Track Record of Telepathy/Mind Reading

The Lousy Track Record of Psychic Healing/Faith Healing

The Lousy Track Record of Precognition/Psychic Predictions

The Lousy Track Record of Ghosts & Mediums

The Lousy Track Record of Clairvoyance/Remote Viewing

The Lousy Track Record of Astral Projection/Out Of Body Experiences

The Lousy Track Record of Telekenesis/Mind Over Matter

The Lousy Track Record of Demon Possession and Exorcism

Because each of these different kinds of supernatural claims has a lousy track record (i.e., careful scientific investigation of these claims casts significant doubt on them), people who think critically will maintain healthy skepticism about any supernatural claims, including miracle claims. That is, critical thinkers will demand clear and strong scientific evidence before accepting any specific supernatural claim.

NOTE: As I write and publish posts on these topics, I will add links to those posts on this page.

CAREFUL ARGUMENT ANALYSIS: Determining the Logical Structure of an Argument

 CLARIFICATION OF LOGICAL STRUCTURE

In addition to clarifying an argument by clarifying the explicit statements in the argument and by making unstated premises and unstated conclusions explicit, there is a third very important kind of clarification involved in careful argument analysis: determining and displaying the logical structure of the argument.

We have previously mentioned two useful tools for displaying the logical structure of an argument: (a) putting an argument into standard form, and (b) showing the logical structure of an argument in an argument diagram.  In order to be able to show the logical structure of an argument in either of those ways, one must be able to determine when one statement is being given as a reason or premise in support of another statement.  This post will provide some tips and hints about how to do this.

HOW TO DETERMINE LOGICAL STRUCTURE

The primary way to determine the logical structure of an argument is to use your own understanding of an argumentative text or speech.  Which statements are being given as reasons for other statements?  Which statement(s) are being given as the conclusion(s) of the argument?  Your experiences of reading and listening to arguments gives you some ability to answers these questions.

Here are some tips for determining and showing the logical structure of an argument:

1. IDENTIFY INFERENCE INDICATORS

Argumentative passages often include words that indicate that an inference is being made.  Some words are commonly used to indicate an inference:

X thus Y

X therefore Y

X so Y

X implies Y

Y because X

Y since X

The use of such words can help you determine which statements are reasons or premises, and which statements are conclusions.  Keep an eye out for these words when you analyze an argumentative passage in a text or speech.

2. IDENTIFY LOGICAL CONNECTIVES

Statements are often composed of two or more claims that are connected by a term or phrase indicating a logical relationship between those claims.  These words or phrases words indicate the logical structure contained within a statement:

IF P, THEN Q.

EITHER P OR Q.

BOTH P AND Q.

P IF AND ONLY IF Q.

The use of such logical connectives indicates that the reasoning in that argument or sub-argument involves propositional logic. 

3. IDENTIFY QUANTIFIERS

Similarly, the use of some quantifier terms in a statement indicates that the reasoning in the argument or sub-argument involves categorical logic:

ALL As ARE Bs.

NEARLY ALL As ARE Bs.

MOST As ARE Bs.

SOME As ARE Bs.

ALMOST NO As ARE Bs.

NO As ARE Bs.

More precise quantification often uses percentage:

X % OF As ARE Bs.

4. IDENTIFY COMMON LOGICAL FORMS

If you become familiar with some common forms of VALID logical inference, then you can more easily determine the logical structure of an argument:

5. DETERMINE WHEN PREMISES WORK TOGETHER

 The above valid argument forms that have two premises and a conclusion

 

 

 

 

6. DETERMINE WHEN PREMISES ARE INDEPENDENT REASONS

CAREFUL ARGUMENT ANALYSIS: Eight Ways to Clarify Claims

 CAREFUL ARGUMENT ANALYSIS IS CLARIFICATION

Careful argument analysis is needed to obtain a clear understanding of an argument before you evaluate the argument.  There are at least three major areas of clarification involved in careful argument analysis: (a) clarification of an argument by clarifying the explicit statements in the argument, (b) clarification of an argument by making unstated premises and unstated conclusions explicit, and (c) clarification of an argument by determining and displaying the logical structure of the argument in an argument diagram. 

There are a number of ways in which a statement in an argument can be UNCLEAR and in need of clarification.  A critical thinker needs to be aware of the common ways in which statements can be unclear, to be on the lookout for such problems in arguments, and to correct those problems by clarifying unclear statements.

EIGHT WAYS THAT A STATEMENT CAN BE CLARIFIED

Here are eight different ways to clarify a claim or statement:

I will now briefly discuss each of these ways to clarify a claim or statement.

REPLACE PRONOUNS AND REFERRING EXPRESSIONS

Here is one important way to clarify statements:

1. ELIMINATE and REPLACE all pronouns and referring expressions in the statements.

Pronouns like “he”, “she”, “them”, “it”, and “those” should be eliminated and replaced with the name of the person, animal, place, or thing to which the pronoun refers.  Phrases can also refer to people, animals, places, or things, and such phrases should be eliminated and replaced with expressions that clearly identify the referent of that phrase.

Here is an example passage from one of Kreeft and Tacelli’s arguments:

The fact that the Roman soldier did not break Jesus’ legs, as he did to the other two crucified criminals (Jn 19:31-33), means that the soldier was sure Jesus was dead.

(HCA, p. 183)

This one sentence asserts four different claims.  One of those claims is stated this way:

…as he did to the other two crucified criminals…

The subject of the previous statement is “the Roman soldier”, so we know what the pronoun “he” in the second statement means:

…as the Roman soldier did to the other two crucified criminals…

The previous statement says the soldier “did not break Jesus’ legs”, so we know what action is being referenced by the phrase “as ____ did to ____”, and we can now fully clarify that second statement:

The Roman soldier broke the legs of the other two crucified criminals.

This revised statement is clear and meaningful even standing alone, without needing any contextual clues from the previous statement.

CLARIFY UNCLEAR WORDS AND PHRASES

Sometimes a word or phrase needs to be clarified:

2. CLARIFY any unclear WORDS or PHRASES in the statements.

 For example, the following claim by Kreeft and Tacelli is unclear:

If we can refute all other theories (2-5), we will have proved the truth of the resurrection (1).      

(HCA, p.182, emphasis added)

The phrase “the truth of the resurrection” is UNCLEAR and needs to be expressed in a clear statement.  I have previously argued that the conclusion that Kreeft and Tacelli are arguing for is that God intentionally caused Jesus to rise from the dead and gave Jesus an immortal body.  So, the above-quoted statement can be clarified as meaning this:

If we can refute all other theories (2-5), we will have proved that God intentionally caused Jesus to rise from the dead and gave Jesus an immortal body.          

This revised version of this key statement makes the actual conclusion of their case clear and explicit.

CLARIFY UNCLEAR QUANTIFICATION

People often fail to include appropriate quantification of their statements.  When that happens, we should try to figure out what sort of quantification the arguer intended:

3. CLARIFY any unclear QUANTIFICATION in the statements.

For example, the following statement is VAGUE because of unclear quantification:

Women are emotional.

Because this statement is UNCLEAR, it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether this statement is true.  The problem is that there is a lack of quantification in that statement.  Here is a similar claim, that is much clearer:

All women are always very emotional.

Because the quantification in this statement is specified, it is much clearer than the previous statement, and we can easily see that this clearer statement is FALSE. 

Some modifications of the quantification in the above statement can produce a claim that is TRUE (or at least PLAUSIBLE):

Most women are sometimes very emotional.

It should be noted that a parallel claim about men is also TRUE (or at least PLAUSIBLE):

Most men are sometimes very emotional.

When someone puts forward an argument that includes a VAGUE claim like “Women are emotional”, we have at least two options.  One option is to reject that claim as being too UNCLEAR to be rationally evaluated, and to reject any argument that uses that statement as a premise, again because the argument is too UNCLEAR to be rationally evaluated.

Another option is to try to figure out what specific claim the arguer intended to make.  Suppose that the argument only works if the premise makes this very strong claim:

All women are always very emotional.

In that case we can clarify the meaning of the statement and reject the claim as being FALSE, and also reject the argument as being UNSOUND.  However, if the argument would work if the statement was interpreted as making the following weaker claim, then we should interpret the statement this other way to be fair to the arguer and to the argument:

Most women are sometimes very emotional.

Because the truth or falsehood of a statement often depends on the specific quantification intended in the statement, a critical thinker keeps an eye out for problems of unclear quantification, and points out those problems, and corrects those problems when possible.

MAKE IMPLIED DETAILS AND QUALIFICATIONS EXPLICIT

Sometimes arguers leave out important details and qualifications, but you can infer that those details and qualifications are intended to be understood as part of a statement or statements they make.  When that happens, we should make those details and qualifications explicit: 

4. MAKE EXPLICIT contextually implied DETAILS or QUALIFICATIONS.

For example, here is a statement from the “Trump actually won” argument:

You do the math and tell me how many JB got – can’t do it – I’ll help: 68.5 million votes.

Votes in which election?  Who is “JB”? and does the math give us the precise number of votes for “JB”?  In context, we see that this statement is about the 2020 presidential election, and thus “JB” means: Joe Biden. 

Furthermore, the math doesn’t show the number of votes that Biden received, it shows the MAXIMUM possible number of votes that Biden received. (You cannot get the precise number of votes for Biden by simply subtracting the number of votes for Trump from the total number of votes, because some people voted for someone other than Biden or Trump, and some voters did not vote for any presidential candidate). 

Given the context, and given an understanding of the calculation that is being performed, we can add important details and qualifications to clarify the above statement:

Biden received a maximum of 68.5 million votes in the 2020 presidential election.

With this clarification, nobody has to guess who “JB” is, or which election is being discussed, or whether the calculation is supposed to show precisely how many votes Biden received in that election.

RESTATE RHETORICAL QUESTIONS

Arguers can make claims by asking rhetorical questions.  When this occurs, we should restate those questions as straightforward statements:

5. CONVERT rhetorical questions into statements.

One of the objections by Kreeft and Tacelli against the Swoon Theory begins with this question:

How were the Roman guards at the tomb overpowered by a swooning corpse?

(HCA, p.183)

This sentence is not intended to ask a question.  This sentence makes a claim that is part of an argument against the Swoon Theory.  This is a rhetorical question, and it needs to be clarified by being converted into a straightforward statement.  The reference to “a swooning corpse” is about Jesus who would supposedly have been very weak and frail on the weekend just after his crucifixion, if he had somehow survived the crucifixion (as the Swoon Theory asserts):

Jesus would have been too weak and frail on the weekend after Jesus was crucified to be able to overpower the Roman soldiers (who were guarding the tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified) all by himself.

This is the statement or claim that Kreeft and Tacelli asserted in an unclear way by means of the above-quoted rhetorical question.

STANDARDIZE LOGICAL FORMS OF STATEMENTS

Part of clarifying an argument is clarifying the logical structure of the argument and of the statements in the argument.  To achieve this aim, it helps to standardize the logical forms of the statements: 

6. STANDARDIZE the LOGICAL FORMS of the statements to clarify the logical structure of the argument.

Categorical logic uses statements with these logical forms (where X and Y are categories or kinds of things):

All Xs are Ys.

All Xs are non-Ys.

Some Xs are Ys.

Some Xs are non-Ys.

No Xs are Ys.

No Xs are non-Ys.

To those standard categorical statements, we can add a few more:

Most Xs are Ys.

Most Xs are non-Ys.

Nearly All Xs are Ys.

Nearly All Xs are non-Ys.

Almost No Xs are Ys.

Almost No Xs are non-Ys.

So, when an argument involves mostly categorical logic, you want to use the above forms of statements consistently throughout the argument, or at least in the sub-arguments that make use of categorical logic.

Propositional logic uses statements that are negations, conjunctions, disjunctions, conditionals, and bi-conditionals, and the standard forms of such statements are these (where P and Q are propositions or claims):

NEGATION: It is not the case that P.

CONJUNCTION: P and Q.

DISJUNCTION:  P or Q.

CONDITIONAL:  IF P, THEN Q.

BI-CONDITIONAL:  P IF AND ONLY IF Q.

When an argument involves mostly propositional logic, you should use the above forms of statements consistently throughout the argument, or at least in the sub-arguments that make use of propositional logic.

For example, one of Kreeft and Tacelli’s objections against the Swoon Theory begins with this sentence:

The fact that the Roman soldier did not break Jesus’ legs…means that the soldier was sure Jesus was dead. 

(HCA, p.193)

This objection makes use of propositional logic, and this specific statement can be understood as asserting a CONDITIONAL claim, so putting this statement into the standard form of a CONDITIONAL helps to clarify the logic of this argument:

IF the Roman soldier did not break Jesus’ legs, THEN the Roman soldier was sure Jesus was dead.

The “IF___, THEN ____” form of the revised statement makes it clear that this is a CONDITIONAL claim and that this argument makes use of propositional logic.

REGULARIZE KEY WORDS AND PHRASES

Arguers often use different words or different phrases to mean the same thing.  This makes the presentation of their argument more pleasant to read or hear, but it can also result in unclarity.  A common logical fallacy is that of EQUIVOCATION.  That happens when a word or phrase is ambiguous and it has different meanings in different parts of the argument.  This is a logical fallacy because the logical structure of an argument often depends on the meaning of a key word or phrase being the same throughout the argument. 

Something very similar to the fallacy of EQUIVOCATION can happen when a variety of words or phrases in an argument appear to be synonymous, but on closer examination, the different words or phrases actually have significantly different meanings.  Once again, an argument that appears to have a good logical structure might actually be logically invalid, because alternative words or phrases that appear to have the same meaning don’t actually have the same meaning.

One can avoid this logical problem by regularizing the words or phrases that are used to logically connect various statements in an argument:

7. REGULARIZE KEY WORDS and PHRASES to clarify the logical structure of the argument.

For example, in one of Kreeft and Tacelli’s objections against the Swoon Theory, they make these two statements:

It is psychologically impossible for the disciples to have been so transformed and confident if Jesus had merely struggled out of a swoon, badly in need of a doctor.

A half-dead, staggering sick man who has just had a narrow escape is not worshipped fearlessly as divine lord and conqueror of death.

(HCA, p. 183)

Both of these statements refer to Jesus being in bad physical condition, but the words and phrases used to describe Jesus’ condition are different in these two statements.  Because the two statements were clearly intended to be logically connected to each other, we should regularize the key words and phrases describing Jesus’ condition, so that it is clear that these two statements are in fact logically connected to each other:

It is psychologically impossible for the disciples to have been so transformed and confident if Jesus was a half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor.

A half-dead, staggering sick man who was badly in need of a doctor is not worshipped fearlessly as divine lord and conqueror of death. 

When you clarify the statements in an argument so that key words and phrases are used consistently throughout the argument, you clearly show that the various statements containing alternative expressions of those key words and phrases were intended to be logically connected, and that the various key words or phrases used by the argument in their original statements were intended to be synonymous.

DETERMINE THE TYPE OF CLAIM

One final way to clarify a statement is to figure out the kind of claim it is making:

8. DETERMINE the TYPE OF CLAIM of each statement (factual, conceptual, evaluative, or mixed).

There are three main types of claims:

FACTUAL: empirical claims, or objective descriptions of people, actions, things, or events.

CONCEPTUAL: claims about the meanings of words, phrases, statements, or claims that are based strictly on the meanings of words, phrases, or statements.

EVALUATIVE: claims about the goodness or badness of people, actions, things, or events, or claims about an action being right or the best or wisest action to take, or wrong or worst or the most foolish action to take.

Additionally, sometimes a statement includes two or three different kinds of claims or implications:

MIXED: statements that have implications of more than one of the above kinds.

Here are some examples of FACTUAL statements:

The moon is about 239,000 miles away from the Earth. (True)

The moon is about fifteen miles in diameter. (False)

The moon is made of green cheese.  (False)

Note that a FACTUAL statement can be a false statement. 

Here are some examples of CONCEPTUAL statements:  

All triangles have exactly three sides. (True) 

A triangle is a quadrilateral in which the opposite sides are of equal length. (False) 

The word “rectangle” means “a three-sided figure in which the interior angles add up to 180 degrees”. (False)

Note that a CONCEPTUAL statement can be a false statement.  

Here are some examples of EVALUATIVE statements:

It is morally wrong to intentionally kill another person, except in self-defense. 

Porsche makes the best mass-produced gas-powered sports car in the world. 

If you don’t expect to inherit great wealth, then it is wise to start a 401k savings account in your twenties and put at least 10% of every paycheck you earn into the 401k savings for when you retire.

It can be challenging to determine whether an EVALUATIVE statement is true or false, but like the other kinds of claims, an EVALUATIVE statement can be false.  For example:

It is not morally wrong to torture a young child just for the fun of making a helpless person miserable.

This is a FALSE statement, but it is clearly an EVALUATIVE statement, nevertheless.