WHERE WE ARE

I am in the process of reviewing objections to the Swoon Theory found in four books published by Christian apologists in the 21st century. I am trying to determine how many of these objections correspond to the nine objections against the Swoon Theory raised by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (published in 1994, hereafter: HCA) and how many of them are different objections than the objections presented in HCA.

In Part 1 of this series, I showed that almost all of the objections to the Swoon Theory by William Craig in Reasonable Faith (3rd edition, published in 2008) correspond to objections to the Swoon Theory raised by Kreeft and Tacelli in HCA. There was one objection made by Craig that was not also presented in HCA.

In Part 2 of this series, I showed that most of the objections to the Swoon Theory by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek in I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (published in 2004) correspond to objections raised in HCA. There were a couple of objections by Geisler and Turek that are not found in HCA.

In this current post, I will review objections to the Swoon Theory presented in Evidence for the Resurrection by Sean and Josh McDowell, which was published in 2009.

EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION BY SEAN & JOSH MCDOWELL

Sean and Josh McDowell make several points against the Swoon Theory in two paragraphs on page 222, and then they make one more objection in a third paragraph that starts on page 222.

On the next page there is another paragraph that begins at the bottom third of page 223, which again lists several points, most of which are the same objections as they already raised on page 222, with a couple of exceptions (that are objections not found in HCA), and at the bottom of page 224, they make a new objection, one that is not found in HCA. At the top of page 225, they conclude their discussion of the Swoon Theory with a repetition of an objection that they had previously emphasized on pages 222 to 223.

THE FIRST AND SECOND PARAGRAPHS (of Objections)

Initially, the McDowells focus on Jesus’ alleged wounds and injuries:

“He…was beaten to bloody shreds by the Roman flagrum…had a crown of thorns thrust into his scalp…had spikes driven through his hands and feet…” (p.222)

These alleged wounds and injuries are an important part of various objections made by Kreeft and Tacelli in HCA:

• Objection #4 (Winding Sheets & Entombment)
• Objection #5 (Sickly Jesus Objection)
• Objection #6 (Who Overpowered the Roman Guards?)
• Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?)

So, the claims about Jesus’ various alleged wounds and injuries are there in HCA, but Kreeft and Tacelli do not directly connect the wounds and injuries to the idea of the DEADLINESS of Roman Crucifixion.

Kreeft and Tacelli do have an objection focused on the Deadliness of Roman Crucifixion (Objection #1), but they don’t specifically point to the wounds of Jesus in making that objection. So, it is a potential improvement of Objection #1 (Deadliness of Roman Crucifixion) to add the evidence of Jesus’ alleged wounds as further support for that objection.

The McDowells also mention the spear wound in Jesus’ side:

“the Romans thrust a spear deep into his side;” (p.222)

This point corresponds to Objection #3 (Blood & Water) in HCA, as well as providing another alleged wound as further evidence of the deadliness of the specific crucifixion of Jesus.

The McDowells also point to the wrapping of Jesus’ body:

“…he was encased in wrapped linen and 100-plus pounds of spices–and somehow breathed through it all;” (p.222)

This corresponds to Objection #4 (Winding Sheets & Entombment) in HCA.

Then the McDowells talk about the stone that closed up Jesus’ tomb and about Roman soldiers who allegedly guarded the tomb:

“a large stone was lodged against the tomb’s entrance…a Roman guard was stationed outside;” (p.222)

[According to the Swoon Theory]”He split out of his garments, single-handedly pushed the stone away, either fought off the guard or somehow…moved the stone without their noticing it…” (p.222)

These points correspond to Objection #6 (Who Overpowered the Roman Guards?) and Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) in HCA.

The second paragraph also states an alleged implausible implication of the Swoon Theory concerning Jesus’ wounded feet:

“[Jesus] walked naked and barefoot on badly wounded feet through a city…” (p.222)

The objection that a Jesus who survived crucifixion would have had to walk on badly wounded feet is NOT an objection raised by Kreeft and Tacelli in HCA.

THE THIRD PARAGRAPH (of Objections)

The McDowells quote the frequently referenced passage where David Strauss argues that a Jesus who had just survived crucifixion would

“creep about week and ill, wanting medical treatment; who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence…” (p.222)

and that such a Jesus could not

“have given to the disciples the impression that he was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life…” (p.222)

This corresponds to Objection #5 (Sickly Jesus Objection) in HCA.

THE SECOND LIST OF POINTS (starting Bottom of Page 223)

As mentioned previously, the McDowells provide a second list of points starting in the bottom third of page 223. Most of the points are redundant with objections that they had already raised. But a couple represent new objections that are not found in HCA.

As with the previous list on page 222, they begin with a reference to various alleged wounds and injuries of Jesus:

“,,,his whipping, beating, lack of sleep, crown of thorns…” (p.223)

These points are redundant with the previous list, and they also relate to multiple objections found in HCA.

The McDowells repeat the spear-wound point, but add some explanation about its significance:

“The piercing of Jesus’ side, from which came “blood and water” (John 19:34), is medical proof that Jesus had already died.” (p.223)

This, once again, corresponds with Objection #3 (Blood & Water) in HCA.

The McDowells then make an objection that is NOT found in HCA:

“Jesus said he was in the act of dying while on the cross, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 24:36). John renders that he “gave up his spirit” (John 19:30). (p. 223)

I don’t think this is a solid or strong objection, but it is different than the objections made by Kreeft and Tacelli.

The next point made by the McDowells concerns the Roman soldiers who performed the crucifixion:

“The Roman soldiers, who were trained killers, were charged to make sure that he died.” (p.223)

This point corresponds to Objection #1 (Deadliness of Roman Crucifixion) in HCA.

The McDowells make an objection from the alleged fact that the Roman soldiers did not break Jesus’ legs:

“Even though it was customary for soldiers to break the legs of the victims to speed death, they did not even have to break the legs of Jesus, for their examination determined that he was already dead (John 19:33).” (p.223)

This statement corresponds to Objection #2 (Break Their Legs) in HCA.

The McDowells repeat a point from the previous list on page 222, but add some explanation of its significance:

“Jesus’ body was wrapped in about 100-plus pounds of cloth and spices and placed in a sealed tomb for three days (see John 19:39-40; Matt. 27:60). If Jesus had not died from his previous torture, he would have died in the tomb from lack of food, water and medical treatment.” (p.224)

This point, as with the previous mention of this in the first list of points on page 222, corresponds with Objection #4 (Winding Sheets & Entombment) in HCA.

The McDowells point to the opinion of some medical experts:

“Medical experts who have studied the circumstances surrounding the end of Jesus’ life have concluded that he actually died on the cross.” (p.224)

Although one could take this as a separate objection, I think it is best understood in terms of a supporting point for other objections found in HCA that relate to Jesus’ wounds and crucifixion:

• Objection #1 (Deadliness of Roman Crucifixion)
• Objection #3 (Blood & Water)
• Objection #4 (Winding Sheets & Entombment)
• Objection #5 (Sickly Jesus Objection)
• Objection #6 (Who Overpowered the Roman Guards?)
• Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?)

The next points made by the McDowells on page 224 constitute an objection that is NOT found in HCA:

“Non-Christian historians from the first and second centuries, such as Tacitus and Josephus, recorded the death of Jesus of Nazareth.” (p.224)

“The earliest Christian writers after the time of Christ, such as Polycarp and Ignatius, verify his death by crucifixion on the cross as well.” (p.224)

The objection is that writers (from early centuries) other than the authors of the New Testament agree with the Gospels and New Testament that Jesus died by crucifixion.

A paragraph in the bottom third of page 224 also presents an objection that is NOT found in HCA:

“Another significant problem for the swoon theory is that it makes Jesus into a deceiver.” (p.224)

The final paragraph about the Swoon Theory on page 225 reiterates a previous objection:

“To claim that Jesus survived the rigors of crucifixion and then convinced his disciples that he was Lord of life–as the swoon theory suggests–would be a greater miracle than the resurrection itself.” (p.225)

This is a repetition of the objection they already made in the third paragraph (of objections) on page 222, namely Objection #5 (Sickly Jesus Objection) in HCA.