WHERE WE ARE

There are twelve objections against the Swoon Theory in the 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory by Josh McDowell and his son Sean McDowell in their book Evidence For the Resurrection (hereafter: EFR). However, in my upcoming book, Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, Volume 1: The Resuscitation of the Swoon Theory (hereafter: TCAR1), I have shown that ten of those objections fail.

So, only the two remaining objections against the Swoon Theory in EFR need to be carefully analyzed and evaluated in order to determine whether the McDowells’ 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory succeeds or fails:

• Jesus’ Last Words (EFR, p.223)
• Early Writers (EFR, p.224)

If these two objections fail, then the 21st-century case by the McDowells against the Swoon Theory fails, because all twelve objections that constitute their case will have been shown to fail.

MY ANALYSIS OF THE JESUS’ LAST WORDS OBJECTION

In Part 1 of this series, I carefully analyzed and clarified the argument constituting the Jesus’ Last Words Objection. My critical evaluation of that objection will be based on my clarified version of the McDowells’ argument for this objection.

EXPLICITLY STATED CLAIMS/PREMISES

1a. At some point while Jesus was on the cross, Jesus said he was in the act of dying.

2a. At some point while Jesus was on the cross, Jesus said: “Father into your hands I commit my spirit.”

UNSTATED CLAIMS/ASSUMPTIONS

A. Jesus died while he was on the cross.

C. IF at some point while Jesus was on the cross, Jesus said he was in the act of dying, THEN Jesus died while he was on the cross.

D. IF at some point while Jesus was on the cross, Jesus said: “Father into your hands I commit my spirit.”, THEN at some point while Jesus was on the cross, Jesus said he was in the act of dying.

F. IF Jesus died while he was on the cross, THEN the Swoon Theory is false.

G. The Swoon Theory is false.

THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION (A)

Here are the last two inferences supporting the intermediate conclusion (A):

2a. At some point while Jesus was on the cross, Jesus said: “Father into your hands I commit my spirit.”

D. IF at some point while Jesus was on the cross, Jesus said: “Father into your hands I commit my spirit.”, THEN at some point while Jesus was on the cross, Jesus said he was in the act of dying.

THEREFORE:

1a. At some point while Jesus was on the cross, Jesus said he was in the act of dying.

C. IF at some point while Jesus was on the cross, Jesus said he was in the act of dying, THEN Jesus died while he was on the cross.

THEREFORE:

A. Jesus died while he was on the cross.

EVALUATION OF THE KEY PREMISE (C)

The core of the argument constituting this objection against the Swoon Theory has just two premises: (1a) and (C). Premise (1a) asserts a historical claim, and there is a sub-argument for that historical claim. So, to evaluate (1a), we need to evaluate the sub-argument given to support it. There is no sub-argument for the key premise (C), however, so we can try to evaluate that claim right now.

Here, again, is premise (C):

C. IF at some point while Jesus was on the cross, Jesus said he was in the act of dying, THEN Jesus died while he was on the cross.

If “Jesus said he was in the act of dying” means that “Jesus said he was in the process of dying,” then it would NOT follow that Jesus died while he was on the cross, because the process of dying could take place over a period of several hours or even days. Jesus could have been removed from the cross several hours before the process of dying was completed. So, on this interpretation, premise (C) would be false, the core argument would be unsound, and the Jesus’ Last Words Objection would fail.

In order for this objection to have any chance of success, we must interpret premise (C) in some other way. If “Jesus said he was in the act of dying” means that “Jesus said he was going to die right at that very moment,” then premise (C) would make more sense, so let’s revise the wording so that it clearly specifies this very short span of time:

C1. IF at some point while Jesus was on the cross, Jesus said he was going to die right at that very moment, THEN Jesus died while he was on the cross.

Because we have revised the key premise (C) we must also revise the key premise (1a) similarly, so that the two premises will logically connect with each other (otherwise the inference of the core argument would become invalid):

1b. At some point while Jesus was on the cross, Jesus said he was going to die right at that very moment.

C1. IF at some point while Jesus was on the cross, Jesus said he was going to die right at that very moment, THEN Jesus died while he was on the cross.

THEREFORE:

A. Jesus died while he was on the cross.

Although (C1) is an improvement over (C), it is still a false claim. Thus, the core argument of this objection is unsound and should be rejected. Therefore, the Jesus’ Last Words Objection against the Swoon Theory fails.

The problem with (C1) is that Jesus saying that X was just about to happen does not prove that X was just about to happen. Jesus could have been mistaken. The fact that Jesus believed he was just about to die at a particular moment while he was hanging on the cross is compatible with Jesus surviving his crucifixion, contrary to his previous belief that he was just about to die at a particular moment while he was on the cross.

Trained and experienced medical doctors in the 21st century who have modern scientific medical knowledge and who also have access to a great amount of specific medical data about the physical condition of their patients, generally cannot predict with confidence and precision the moment when a very sick or badly injured person is going to die.

There was no science in the first century, and very little knowledge about the biological structure, function, and chemistry of various parts and organs of the human body. While hanging on the cross, Jesus also did not have any of the following data about his own physical condition:

• his pulse rate and changes to it (no stethoscopes and no watches or clocks)
• the rythm of his heartbeat and changes to it (no EKG machines)
• the temperature of his body and changes to it (no thermometers)
• his blood pressure and changes in his blood pressure (no blood pressure gauges)
• the level of oxygen in his blood and changes to it (no blood oxygen monitors)
• the results of blood tests (no biochemistry)
• the results of urine tests (no biochemistry)
• sonogram images of his body/wounds (no sonogram machines)
• X-ray images of his body/wounds (no X-ray machines)
• MRI images of his body/wounds (no MRI machines)
• observation of his internal organs through surgery or by tiny video cameras inserted inside his body (little knowledge of surgery, and no video cameras)

Without any modern scientific medical knowledge and without any modern scientific medical data, there is no reason to believe that Jesus would have been able to predict the time he was going to die with any degree of confidence and precision.

One could add another premise to this argument in order to avoid the possibility of Jesus being mistaken:

F. Jesus was never wrong (because he was omniscient).

Christians believe that Jesus was omniscient, so they would agree with claim (F). But such a claim would, in the context of this argument, commit the fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION.

The whole point of arguing about the alleged resurrection of Jesus is so that Christians could, if they manage to prove the resurrection of Jesus, then use that conclusion as evidence for the Christian belief that Jesus was divine, that Jesus was God incarnate.

One cannot assume that Jesus was God or that Jesus was omniscient before one has proven that God raised Jesus from the dead. Christians must FIRST prove the resurrection of Jesus, and THEN that conclusion may be used as evidence for claims about the divinity of Jesus. As long as we are still investigating the question of whether God raised Jesus from the dead, we cannot make the assumption that Jesus was omniscient.

Because we cannot fix the core argument by adding the assumption that Jesus was never wrong, we must conclude that the core argument is unsound, and that the Jesus’ Last Words Objection against the Swoon Theory fails, just like ten of the other objections that the McDowells made in their 21st-century case.

THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (1b)

Because we revised premise (1a) and clarified that it was intended to assert claim (1b), we must also revise premise (D), a key premise in the sub-argument for (1b), otherwise the sub-argument for (1b) would be logically invalid. Here is the revised version of the sub-argument for (1b):

2a. At some point while Jesus was on the cross, Jesus said: “Father into your hands I commit my spirit.”

D1. IF at some point while Jesus was on the cross, Jesus said: “Father into your hands I commit my spirit.”, THEN at some point while Jesus was on the cross, Jesus said he was going to die right at that very moment.

THEREFORE:

1b. At some point while Jesus was on the cross, Jesus said he was going to die right at that very moment.

EVALUATION OF PREMISE (D1)

Premise (2a) makes a historical claim and there are two sub-arguments for (2a), so in order to evaluate premise (2a) we will need to evaluate the sub-arguments given in support of (2a). Premise (D1), however, is not supported by a sub-argument. So, we can try to evaluate premise (D1) right now.

As Jesus was hanging on the cross, he probably realized that he was in the process of dying, and he presumably believed that he was going to die on that cross sometime in the next day or two. If Jesus was an ordinary human being, then he would NOT have known the time of day or the precise moment when he was going to die.

Remember, we cannot assume that Jesus was omniscient and knew the precise moment that he was going to die. Given the assumption that Jesus did not know the time of day or the precise moment that he was going to die, his prayer to God saying “Father into your hands I commit my spirit” merely anticipates that he was going to die sometime in the next 24 to 48 hours. Thus, his saying “Father into your hands I commit my spirit” does NOT mean or imply “My spirit is leaving my body right at this precise moment“. Therefore, premise (D1) is false, and the sub-argument for premise (1b) is unsound and should be rejected.

Premise (1b) is dubious because the McDowells have failed to provide a good reason to believe that (1b) is true. Thus, premise (1b) is dubious and might well be false. That is a second good reason to reject the core argument of this objection, and a second good reason to conclude that the Jesus’ Last Words Objection against the Swoon Theory fails.

THE SUB-ARGUMENTS FOR PREMISE (2a)

Premise (2a) is another premise in the sub-argument for the key premise (1b). The McDowells provide two sub-arguments in support of premise (2a), so we need to critically examine both of those sub-arguments to evaluate whether (2a) is true or false, probable or improbable:

The clearest sub-argument for premise (2a) is this one:

3a. According to the Gospel of Luke (specifically, verse 46 of Chapter 23), at some point while Jesus was on the cross, Jesus said: “Father into your hands I commit my spirit.”

B. The Gospel of Luke provides an accurate and reliable historical account of the trials and crucifixion of Jesus.

THEREFORE:

2a. At some point while Jesus was on the cross, Jesus said: “Father into your hands I commit my spirit.”

This is NOT a deductively valid argument. That is because even an “accurate and reliable historical account” can contain errors and false claims. However, if both premises were true, that would give us a good reason to believe the conclusion (2a).

However, premise (B) is false. The Gospel of Luke does NOT provide an accurate and reliable historical account of the trials and crucifixion of Jesus. Therefore, this sub-argument for (2a) is unsound and should be rejected. This attempt of the McDowells to show that premise (2a) is true fails. So, if the other sub-argument for (2a) fails, then the McDowells will have provided us with no good reason to believe that premise (2a) is true.

The Gospel of Luke does not provide an accurate and reliable historical account of the life of Jesus in general, and it does not provide an accurate and reliable historical account of the trials and crucifixion of Jesus.

CRITICAL EVALUATION OF PREMISE (2a)

In addition to the general points that the Gospel of Luke does not provide an accurate and reliable historical account of the life of Jesus, nor an accurate and reliable historical account of the trials and crucifixion of Jesus, there are some specific reasons to doubt the historicity of this particular passage (Luke 23:44-47):

• No other Gospel mentions that Jesus spoke these words from the cross: “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit”.
• Jesus’ male disciples were in hiding, so they did not see Jesus being crucified or hanging on the cross or hear anything that Jesus might have said while on the cross.
• Only the Gospel of John mentions that there was a “beloved disciple” of Jesus, and only the Gospel of John mentions that a “beloved disciple” of Jesus was present at the crucifixion. Also, the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life of Jesus and of his trials and crucifixion.
• The women who were allegedly present at Jesus’ crucifixion “stood at a distance” from the cross (Luke 23:49, Mark 15:40 and Matthew 27:55). Thus, it is unlikely that they could hear anything Jesus might have said from the cross.
• In Psalm 31 King David prays: “Into your hand I commit my spirit”, and the Gospels often draw on the Psalms for details and events about the trials and crucifixion of Jesus. So, it is likely that the author of the Gospel of Luke put the prayer of David into the mouth of Jesus, and that this quotation was not based on an eyewitness account of Jesus’ crucifixion.
• In the verses just before the quotation of Jesus on the cross, the Gospel of Luke contradicts the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew by having one of the criminals who were crucified with Jesus defend the innocence of Jesus (Luke 23:39-43). Because it is a theme of the passion narrative in the Gospel of Luke to have various people declare Jesus to be innocent, it is very likely that the author of Luke has deliberately altered the account from the Gospel of Mark to fit this theme.
• The McDowells, like William Craig, Gary Habermas, and Michael Licona, believe and assert the Asphyxiation Theory of how crucifixion causes death. But if the Asphyxiation Theory were true, that would make it very unlikely that Jesus would have been able to speak intelligible sentences from the cross, especially after he had been on the cross for an hour or two. Based on this theory, one could only speak while straining to lift one’s body upward on the cross in order to exhale.

Based on these considerations, it is not merely dubious that Jesus spoke the words from the cross that the Gospel of Luke attributes to Jesus, but it is probably false that Jesus spoke those words. It is more likely that the author of the Gospel of Luke borrowed this quote from Psalm 31 and put the words of King David into the mouth of Jesus without having reliable historical evidence for Jesus actually having spoken those words from the cross.

It appears that premise (2a) is probably false, and if that is so, then we have another good reason to reject the sub-argument for the key premise (1b), and another good reason to conclude that the Jesus’ Last Words Objection against the Swoon Theory fails.

THE OTHER SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (2a)

Before we may confidently conclude that premise (2a) is probably false, we need to critically examine the other sub-argument that the McDowells provide in support of premise (2a):

5a. According to the Gospel of John (specifically, verse 30 of chapter 19), Jesus “gave up his spirit”.

E. The context of verse 30 in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John clearly implies that the events described in verse 30 took place at some point while Jesus was on the cross.

THEREFORE:

4b. The Gospel of John claims that Jesus “gave up his spirit” and that Jesus did this at some point while Jesus was on the cross.

THEREFORE:

2a. At some point while Jesus was on the cross, Jesus said: “Father into your hands I commit my spirit.”

It is clear that the inference from (4b) to (2a) is not a deductively valid inference. The Gospel of John does not claim that Jesus said “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” while Jesus was on the cross. However, it does say that Jesus “gave up his spirit” while Jesus was on the cross, an event that seems fitting, given the words attributed to Jesus by the Gospel of Luke.

I suspect that what the McDowells had in mind is this idea:

F. IF the author of the Gospel of John believed that Jesus spoke these words while Jesus was on the cross: “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit”, THEN the author of the Gospel of John would have concluded that Jesus gave up his spirit right after speaking those words, that is, at some point while Jesus was on the cross.

In other words, the Gospel of John‘s author’s conclusion that Jesus gave up his spirit at some point while Jesus was on the cross could have been based on the belief that Jesus had uttered the words “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” at some point while Jesus was on the cross. This is certainly a possibility.

However, there is a very good chance that the author of the Gospel of John believed that Jesus had died at some point while Jesus was on the cross, and the author of the Gospel of John simply understood the death of Jesus to be the moment when Jesus gave up his spirit. This would not require any belief about Jesus saying something about giving up his spirit. Thus, not only is the inference from (4b) and (F) to (2a) an invalid inference, but (4b) and (F) also fall short of providing a good reason to believe that (2a) is true.

The McDowells’ second sub-argument for (2a) fails to provide a good reason to believe that premise (2a) is true, so we may now confidently conclude that premise (2a) is probably false, and we now have a second good reason to reject the sub-argument for the key premise (1b).

We previously saw that premise (D1) was false, and now we see that premise (2a) is probably false, so the sub-argument for the key premise (1b) is clearly a bad argument which we should reject. The McDowells have failed to provide a good reason to believe that the key premise (1b) is true. Thus, the key premise (1b) is dubious and might well be false.

EVALUATION OF THE ARGUMENT CONSTITUTING THE JESUS’ LAST WORDS OBJECTION

Here, once again, is the core argument of the Jesus’ Last Words Objection:

1b. At some point while Jesus was on the cross, Jesus said he was going to die right at that very moment.

C1. IF at some point while Jesus was on the cross, Jesus said he was going to die right at that very moment, THEN Jesus died while he was on the cross.

THEREFORE:

A. Jesus died while he was on the cross.

Premise (1b) is dubious and might well be false, and premise (C1) is false. So, the core argument of this objection is unsound and should be rejected. Therefore, the Jesus’ Last Words Objection against the Swoon Theory fails, just like the ten other objections in the McDowells’ 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory.

There is now only one more objection that needs to be carefully evaluated in order to determine whether the McDowells’ 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory is a complete failure or not: the Early Writers Objection (EFR, p.224)