WHERE WE ARE

In Part 5 of this series, I presented a clarified version of the argument by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli (in Chapter 8 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics; hereafter: HCA) that constitutes their Objection #3 against the Swoon Theory.

In this current post, I will begin to critically evaluate that argument.

THE CORE ARGUMENT OF OBJECTION #3

Typically, the core or heart of an argument is located in the final inference or final sub-argument of the overall argument. However, in the case of the argument for Objection #3, I see the core argument as located more in the middle of the reasoning, not at the end. The final inference or sub-argument of Objection #3 is straightforward and unproblematic. So, any potential problems with the argument are located further back in the chain of reasoning.

Here is the diagram of what I take to be the core argument of Objection #3:

STATED PREMISES

5a. Jesus’ lungs had collapsed before his side was pierced with a spear, while Jesus was still on the cross.

6a. Jesus had died of asphyxiation before his side was pierced with a spear, while Jesus was still on the cross.

7a. Any medical expert can vouch for the claim that: IF a Roman soldier pierced Jesus’ side with a spear while Jesus was still on the cross, and blood and water immediately came from the spear wound in Jesus’ side, THEN Jesus’ lungs had collapsed and Jesus had died before his side was pierced with a spear, while Jesus was still on the cross.

UNSTATED PREMISES

C. Blood and water came from Jesus’ pierced side immediately after one of the Roman soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear while Jesus was still on the cross.

D. IF a Roman soldier pierced Jesus’ side with a spear while Jesus was still on the cross, and blood and water immediately came from the spear wound in Jesus’ side, THEN Jesus’ lungs had collapsed and Jesus had died before his side was pierced with a spear, while Jesus was still on the cross.

This core argument is a bad argument and it should be rejected because premise (C) is probably FALSE, and premise (D) is DUBIOUS. Therefore, Objection #3 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.

EVALUATION OF PREMISE (D)

Here is the argument for premise (D):

7a. Any medical expert can vouch for the claim that: IF a Roman soldier pierced Jesus’ side with a spear while Jesus was still on the cross, and blood and water immediately came from the spear wound in Jesus’ side, THEN Jesus’ lungs had collapsed and Jesus had died before his side was pierced with a spear, while Jesus was still on the cross.

THEREFORE:

D. IF a Roman soldier pierced Jesus’ side with a spear while Jesus was still on the cross, and blood and water immediately came from the spear wound in Jesus’ side, THEN Jesus’ lungs had collapsed and Jesus had died before his side was pierced with a spear, while Jesus was still on the cross.

This is NOT a VALID deductive argument. However, if premise (7a) were true, this argument would give us a good reason to believe premise (D). If “any medical expert” would vouch for the medical claim here, that means that medical experts would in general agree with this medical claim, and that would be a good reason to accept the medical claim.

The problem with this argument is that premise (7a) is FALSE, so this argument FAILS to provide us with a good reason to believe that (D) is true. Since this is the only reason Kreeft and Tacelli give in support of (D), we may reasonably conclude that premise (D) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.

Why do I say that premise (7a) is FALSE?  There are at least two serious problems with premise (7a).  First, many medical experts have attempted to determine the cause of Jesus’ death and they disagree with each other and have arrived at many different conclusions on this question. Premise (7a) implies that medical experts AGREE on the cause of Jesus’ death, and that is simply FALSE.

A review of relevant medical articles on this topic found that there have been several different conflicting theories as to the cause of Jesus’ death:

(This table is from: “Medical Theories on the Cause of Death in Crucifixion” by Matthew Maslen and Piers Mitchell, in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 99, April 2006, p.186.)

Because medical experts disagree about the cause of Jesus’ alleged death, premise (7a) is FALSE, and this argument for premise (D) FAILS.

Second, the information we have from the passage in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John is not only historically doubtful, but it is AMBIGUOUS and VAGUE. Because of the AMBIGUITY and VAGUENESS of this passage, there is no solid basis for any medical theory about what caused Jesus’ death, even if we assume the historical reliability of the passage.

Recall that in the original version of premise (7), Kreeft and Tacelli talk about how blood and water came “from Jesus’ pierced heart” (HCA, p.183). However, the passage they reference from the Gospel of John does NOT say anything about Jesus’ heart being pierced:

32 Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out.

John 19:32-34, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

This passage only claims that the soldiers “pierced his side with a spear”. It does not indicate which side they pierced. So, there is a significant chance that they pierced Jesus’ right side and did NOT pierce his heart.

Even if the soldiers did wound Jesus’ left side, the Greek term translated as “pierced” is ambiguous:

The term … means “to prick, stab (especially with a dagger), pierce”;

Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 36: John, 2nd edition, by George Beasley-Murray, p.354; hereafter: WBCv36

A reasonable alternative translation of this passage would be that the soldiers “pricked Jesus’ side with a spear”. They could have done so to check for a pain response (e.g. a flinch or groan from Jesus). In that case, Jesus’ heart would NOT have been pierced.

Finally, although the passage does say that “blood and water” came from the wound in Jesus’ side, this cannot be assumed to be literally true, because there were no chemical or medical tests performed on the liquids that came from the wound. Even if we assume this passage to be historically reliable, we can at most conclude that some liquid that looked like blood, and some liquid that looked like water came from the wound.

The medical experts who draw the conclusion described by Kreeft and Tacelli DO NOT themselves believe that the liquid that looked like water was water! They believe the clear liquid was “serous pleural and pericardial fluid” (WBCv36, p.356). Those medical experts DO NOT take the description in the passage to be literally true. Those medical experts, like me, understand that the passage only provides a phenomenal description, a description about the appearance of the liquids, NOT an accurate scientific characterization of the chemical or biological contents of the liquids! So, even if we assume that something that looked like water and something that looked like blood came from a wound in Jesus’ side, we DO NOT KNOW whether these liquids were IN FACT blood and water. We DO NOT KNOW the chemical or biological contents of those liquids.

Finally, in the passage from the Gospel of John that Kreeft and Tacelli reference, there is no description of the size and shape of the wound that allegedly was inflicted in Jesus’ side. The width and depth of the wound is NOT described and is NOT KNOWN.

Let’s review the problematic AMBIGUITY and VAGUENESS of the brief passage from Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John:

• We don’t know if Jesus was wounded on his left side or his right side.
• We don’t know how high or low on Jesus’ side the wound was located.
• We don’t know if the soldiers just “pricked” Jesus’ side or if they “stabbed” Jesus’ side, or if they “pierced” Jesus’ side.
• We don’t know if Jesus’ heart was pierced.
• We don’t know the chemical or biological contents of the fluids that allegedly came out of the wound in Jesus’ side.
• We don’t know how deep or how wide the alleged wound was in Jesus’ side.

Given the AMBIGUITY and VAGUENESS of the medical information in this very brief passage from the Gospel of John, no reasonable medical expert would “vouch” for any medical theory about how and why Jesus died.

For example, the asphyxiation theory mentioned by Kreeft and Tacelli is based on the assumption that the spear wound pierced Jesus’ heart. The “medical experts” DO NOT KNOW whether the wound was on Jesus’ left side or right side. They also DO NOT KNOW if Jesus was “pricked” or “stabbed” or “pierced” with a spear. They DO NOT KNOW how high or low the wound was on Jesus’ side. They also DO NOT KNOW the width or depth of the wound in Jesus’ side. Thus, they DO NOT KNOW that Jesus’ heart was pierced with a spear. Therefore, the asphyxiation theory rests on an assumption that is NOT a fact. Any conclusions by any “medical experts” based on such AMBIGUOUS and VAGUE information cannot be taken seriously as anything other than speculations or educated guesses. 

Because there are several different conflicting theories about the cause of Jesus’ death among medical experts who have examined this question, premise (7a) is clearly FALSE.  Because the basic factual information about the alleged spear wound in Jesus’ side is AMBIGUOUS and VAGUE, any medical theory about Jesus’ death based on that information will necessarily be speculative. 

Thus, no reasonable and credible “medical expert” would “vouch” for the asphyxiation theory of the cause of Jesus’ death; they will at most provide a speculative opinion or an educated guess on this matter.  So, premise (7a) is FALSE. Kreeft and Tacelli have FAILED to provide a good reason to believe that premise (D) is true. Therefore, premise (D) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE.

Given that a key premise of the core argument for Objection #3 is DUBIOUS and might well be false, Objection #3 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.

In the next post of this series, I will argue that premise (C) is probably FALSE. Since (C) is a key premise of the core argument for Objection #3, this will give us another good reason to reject the core argument for Objection #3 and another good reason to conclude that Objection #3 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.

=======================

NOTE:

Because the information about Jesus’ alleged spear wound found in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John is AMBIGUOUS and VAGUE, premise (7a) should be CORRECTED to reflect that fact.

Since premise (D) is based upon premise (7a) it too should be CORRECTED to reflect the actual information provided by the passage from the Gospel of John. I have previously corrected these premises by eliminating the reference to Jesus’ heart being pierced because the passage says nothing about Jesus’ heart and only talks about his SIDE being wounded. But there are other elements of (7a) and (D) that also should be CORRECTED.

Before making a final revision of these premises, I will clearly spell out the ambiguity of the term “side”. As previously mentioned the passage in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John does NOT specify whether Jesus was wounded on his right side or his left side, and it does not specify how high or how low the wound was located on his side.

Here is a diagram of the left and right sides of the human body:

I have divided both sides into seven general areas:

• Head & Neck
• Chest, Shoulder & Upper Arm
• Stomach & Elbow
• Butt & Hip, Forearm & Hand
• Upper Leg
• Knee & Lower Leg
• Ankle & Foot

Because there are at least seven different areas on each side, there are at least fourteen different areas where a wound could have been inflicted on Jesus’ body under the description of being on “his side”.

However, it seems unlikely that if Jesus had been wounded in his head or neck that this would have been called a wound in “his side”, as opposed to being called a wound in “his head” or “his neck”.

It also seems unlikely that if Jesus had been wounded in his ankle or foot that this would have been called a wound in “his side”, as opposed to being called a wound in “his ankle” or “his foot”. So, we may reasonably set aside the highest and lowest areas of Jesus left side and right side, as being unlikely locations of the wound.

That still leaves us with five different possible areas where Jesus could have been wounded on each side:

• Chest, Shoulder & Upper Arm
• Stomach & Elbow
• Butt & Hip, Forearm & Hand
• Upper Leg
• Knee & Lower Leg

So, there are a total of ten different possible areas where the wound in “his side” could have been located.

The diagram above shows the arms of the man dangling at his side. People generally suppose that Jesus’ arms were streched out horizontally and were attached to a horizontal wooden beam on a cross. In that case, we could eliminate Jesus being wounded in his shoulder, upper arm, elbow, forearm, wrist and hand, because his arms would probably not be considered part of “his side” if they were stretched out horizontally.

But the word “crucified” does NOT mean “nailed to a cross”:

CRUCIFIXION…a person…was nailed or bound to a cross…or to a stake or tree.

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, p.298

Some people were crucified on crosses, but others were crucified on stakes, and others were crucified on trees. Some people were nailed to a cross or a stake or a tree, and others were bound to a cross or a stake or a tree. There was not just one standard way of being crucified.

The Gospels do NOT actually state that Jesus was crucified on a cross. So, it might be the case that Jesus was crucified on a stake or a tree, and not on a cross. The Greek word in the Gospels that is usually translated as “cross” actually means “pole” or “stake”:

CROSS…The most basic meaning of stauros is a pole placed in the ground that was used for capital punishment. It was made of wood and dropped into a hold dug into the ground so that it could stand in an upright position. …Thus, when the gospels refer to the events of Jesus’ death…the “cross” is the physical pole on which Jesus was crucified.

Mounces Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, p.147

However, if Jesus was crucified on a stake or on a tree, his arms could have been stretched out upwards over his head. In that case, it would seem odd to call a wound in one of his arms a wound in “his side”. If Jesus was crucified in a tree, then his arms could also have been stretched out horizontally, as they would be on a cross. So, I’m inclined to ignore the unlikely possibility that Jesus was wounded by a spear on one of his shoulders or arms or hands.

That still leaves us with five possible areas for each side, but without reference to his shoulders, arms, or hands:

• Chest area
• Stomach area
• Butt & Hip area
• Upper Leg area
• Knee & Lower Leg area

Now we can revise premise (7a) and premise (D) so that they reflect the ambiguity and vagueness of the information that is provided by the relevant passage from the Gospel of John:

7b. Any medical expert can vouch for the claim that: IF a Roman soldier pricked OR stabbed OR pierced Jesus’ left side knee & lower leg area OR right side knee & lower leg area OR left side upper leg area OR right side upper leg area OR left side butt & hip area OR right side butt & hip area OR left side stomach area OR right side stomach area OR left side chest area OR right side chest area with a spear while Jesus was still on the cross, and some fluid that looked like blood and some fluid that looked like water immediately came from the spear wound of unknown width and unknown depth in Jesus’ left side knee & lower leg area OR right side knee & lower leg area OR left side upper leg area OR right side upper leg area OR left side butt & hip area OR right side butt & hip area OR left side stomach area OR right side stomach area OR left side chest area OR right side chest area, THEN Jesus’ lungs had collapsed and Jesus had died before Jesus’ left side knee & lower leg area OR right side knee & lower leg area OR left side upper leg area OR right side upper leg area OR left side butt & hip area OR right side butt & hip area OR left side stomach area OR right side stomach area OR left side chest area OR right side chest area was pricked OR stabbed OR pierced with a spear, while Jesus was still on the cross.

THEREFORE:

D1. IF a Roman soldier pricked OR stabbed OR pierced Jesus’ left side knee & lower leg area OR right side knee & lower leg area OR left side upper leg area OR right side upper leg area OR left side butt & hip area OR right side butt & hip area OR left side stomach area OR right side stomach area OR left side chest area OR right side chest area with a spear while Jesus was still on the cross, and some fluid that looked like blood and some fluid that looked like water immediately came from the spear wound of unknown width and unknown depth in Jesus’ left side knee & lower leg area OR right side knee & lower leg area OR left side upper leg area OR right side upper leg area OR left side butt & hip area OR right side butt & hip area OR left side stomach area OR right side stomach area OR left side chest area OR right side chest area, THEN Jesus’ lungs had collapsed and Jesus had died before Jesus’ left side knee & lower leg area OR right side knee & lower leg area OR left side upper leg area OR right side upper leg area OR left side butt & hip area OR right side butt & hip area OR left side stomach area OR right side stomach area OR left side chest area OR right side chest area was pricked OR stabbed OR pierced with a spear, while Jesus was still on the cross.

This clarification of premise (7) makes it clearer and more obvious that this premise is FALSE and thus makes it clearer and more obvious that premise (D1) is DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. It doesn’t require medical expertise to see that premise (7b) is FALSE.

The original premise (7) seemed to have some plausibility only because Kreeft and Tacelli ignored the AMBIGUITY and VAGUENESS of the information in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John. Once the AMBIGUITY and VAGUENESS is made manifest in the revised wording of premise (7b), the initial appearance of plausibility disappears.