6. Mind Games: Psychological Phenomena ..................... 104
Always Looking for a Way Out
Of Legends, Lies, and Lapses
C ome critics have suggested that Jesus' resurrection originated as a legend.
► 'There are at least three types of legend theory: (1) embellishments, (2) a
nonhistorical literary style, and (3) myths in other religions.
Legend theories assume the story grew
Embellishment theories state that Jesus' disciples never claimed that he rose from the dead. Rather, as the story of Jesus and his teachings spread, they were embellished with supernatural details. This is much like the game "telephone," where a person in the front of a room whispers something to the person next to him who does the same until it reaches the last person in the back of the room. By then, the original message has changed substantially. If that much change can happen in one room over five minutes, what can happen over two thousand years stretching across the globe? Even in our own times when people tell stories of their childhood, details change. One example most will recognize is how far their grandfather walked to school and how deep the snow was in which he walked. Other stories contain gaps that were initially filled with "It probably happened like this," but were changed in subsequent conversations to "This is what happened." Changes and embellishments of this sort are common. And they seem to be even more so when they are said to involve incredible or mi raculous stories. The more amazing something is, the faster its facts take on even grander proportions.
One example of legendary embellishments is the Buddhist scriptures. Siddhartha Gautama (c. 563-483 B.c.) founded Buddhism, but he left only oral traditions of his teaching. Buddhist scriptures of today arose from two traditions differentiated by the languages in which they are written, the older Pali and later Sanskrit. The Pali manuscripts are dated to the first century B.c. The later Sanskrit appeared at the beginning of the Christian era. This leaves plenty of time for legend to creep into the oral tradition, since the earliest writings didn't appear until approximately four hundred years after the founder's death. It is also notable that stories of miracles by Gautama almost all appear in the later Sanskrit texts. The Buddhist scriptures are highly suspect in that embellishments crept into the tradition over time.'
According to skeptic Robert Price, a long period of time is not always required in order for legend to develop. Price cites instances when legend spread even before the principal person of the legend had died.' Further, the phenomenon of Internet communication in our own time has shown how quickly legends can grow and spread, given the opportunity. For many of us, e-mails are a major part of life at home and at work. Numerous e-mails make the rounds, describing words and actions of prominent people and organizations that are just not true. Web sites have been created simply to set the record straight about these "urban legends."
Are embellishments responsible for the accounts of Jesus' resurrection that we see in the New Testament? The textual purity of the New Testament is rarely questioned in scholarship. It is well established and agreed among almost all who have seriously studied the ancient texts that the text is virtually the same as what was originally written.' Even critical scholars question very few words in the New Testament, and those words in question do not affect doctrinal issues.
The question in scholarship today is, "Did legend creep into Christian traditions before they were put in writing?" This is where we must show that legend is unlikely.
Several problems beset the embellishment view of Jesus' resurrection.'
First, the Resurrection story itself can be traced to the real experiences of the original apostles.5 If embellishments added details over time so that the ending of the story became the resurrection of Jesus, then the original story told by the disciples most likely would not have included Jesus' resurrection. In short, the evidence from the disciples contradicts the embellishment explanation.
Second, Paul came to Christ through an experience in which he thought he encountered the risen Jesus. This account also dates very early. We need reasons for his conversion from unbelief, since his conversion was based on a personal appearance of Jesus and counts very heavily against embellishment.
Third, the same applies to James.
Fourth, he mere mentioning of an assertion is not evidence that it is true. While embellishments may be introduced into a text or oral tradition causing legend to accumulate over time, this certainly has not occurred with all ancient accounts. The key question is whether such legend is sufficient to account for the reports of Jesus' resurrection.' Each case must be considered separately.
Nonhistorical genre theories assume it was just a story
A genre is a type or class. There are different genres of music (e.g., classical, pop, jazz, rock, swing) and different genres of literature (e.g., romantic, fable, historical, scientific, philosophical). To claim that the disciples wrote in a nonhistoricalgenreis to claim that the disciples did not literally mean that Jesus rose from the dead but rather invented a fable about his rising and assigned him divine attributes in order to honor him and communicate a message.' An example of nonhistorical genre is found in Aesop's fables, in which the author never intended for us to believe that animals in ancient Greece really talked. Rather, he used this literary style in order to communicate points about various character traits in a creative manner.
Here is an example of what a skeptic might say when using this objection:
Accounts of dying and rising gods are prevalent throughout the GrecoRoman world. The authors of that time never intended for their readers to believe that someone really rose from the dead but were simply honoring the heroes of their stories by ascribing traits of divinity to them. Therefore, when we read the New Testament accounts of Jesus' resurrection, we must recognize that the disciples never intended for their readers to believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead, either. Rather they were attempting to communicate a deeper message. This seems even more obvious when one considers the parabolic rhetoric frequently employed by Jesus. Most, if not all, of his parables include a fictitious story. If we focused on whether the story in the parable was an actual historical event, we would miss the message Jesus was trying to tell us. Jesus' resurrection is, likewise, a fictitious account that was never intended to be regarded as historical. To focus on whether it was a real event is to miss the message that the disciples were attempting to communicate; that Jesus was a great man who changed the world and that his teachings will live on forever.'
Although the nonhistorical genre theory can seem quite reasonable at first glance, it is plagued with serious problems. First, it cannot account for the empty tomb, especially since this can be established by multiple arguments, even from texts outside the New Testament accounts.') In order to account for the empty tomb, an additional theory must be employed; for example, someone stole the body. However, as we will observe later, this theory is exceptionally weak. Also, combination theories inevitably produce a weak argument.'()
Second, a fable or nice story would not have convinced Paul that Jesus had risen from the dead. Indeed, in light of his hostile attitude and actions toward Christians, as well as his own Jewish studies, he most likely would have perceived the gospel to be a poor Christian attempt to imitate Jewish fables that later came to be known as Midrash. An educated man, Paul was surely familiar with nonhistorical genre. It would not have lured him to follow the man he considered to be a false messiah who was cursed by God." He would have feared such apostasy from true faith, for it would jeopardize his soul.
Third, the same applies to James. We have seen that he remained pious toward the Jewish law even after becoming a Christian. 12 It is extremely unlikely that he would change his worldview to follow the brother he believed to be a false prophet and jeopardize his soul, simply because he was moved by a story that Jesus' disciples had made up.
Fourth, if educated people knew about a nonhistorical genre of literature in the first century, they also were familiar with the historical genre. The mere existence of nonhistorical literature at the time of the Gospels is not evidence that these authors were using that genre. That would be the same as dismissing a modern history book as fictitious, based on the fact that some of the historical writer's contemporaries write fictional novels. Those who claim that Jesus' resurrection was presented in a nonhistorical genre must provide evidence to prove their assertion.
Fifth, if we look at the New Testament material on Jesus' resurrection, there are indicators that the accounts were meant to be understood as historical rather than mythical. Consider the two sermon summaries of Peter and Paul, recorded in Acts, that contrast King David's buried body with Jesus' resurrected body.13 They claimed that Jesus' body did not decay in the grave as David's did, but rather was raised up by God. It is difficult to imagine how Peter and Paul could have been any clearer if they meant to communicate a literal, physical resurrection. If a mythical genre was being employed, Peter and Paul could have easily said, "David died, was buried, his body decayed, but his spirit has ascended to be with God. Jesus likewise died, was buried, and his body now decays. But as with David, his spirit has ascended to be with God where he is now seated at the right hand of power." This would more closely resemble mythical or vision language. The language the apostles employed, however, seems to have been historical."
Sixth, the responses of early critics imply that the early church understood the resurrection of Jesus to be historical. The Jewish leaders accused the disciples of stealing Jesus' body. Although later, the second century critic Celsus (c. A.D. 170) responded to claims of Jesus' resurrection by suggesting he and/or his disciples performed magic or deception.' These arguments indicate that these critics thought they needed to respond to a claim of a literal and bodily resurrection.
We have looked at six reasons why the nonhistorical genre theoryfails to explain all of the facts: (1) the empty tomb; (2) the conversion of Paul; (3) the conversion of James; (4) the need for evidence that the genre is nonhistorical; (5) the assumptions made in Scripture about the resurrection of Jesus being a literal, physical event in history; and (6) the fact that Christ's enemies regarded the story as meaning a literal event. Indeed, each of the first, second, third, and fifth points are sufficient to render the nonhistorical genre position as highly improbable. Collectively, the six arguments render the position virtually impossible.
The Resurrection story is a variation of myths in other religions
Reported miracles abound in other religions, including stories of risen saviors. Skeptics frequently cite Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Attis, and Marduk as examples of dying and rising gods. Did Christians copy or get inspiration from these pagan accounts? Why should one believe the Christian account of Jesus' resurrection while rejecting similar accounts in other religions? What makes the account of Jesus' resurrection more credible than these others?
Although it is true that other religions contain resurrection accounts, there are excellent reasons for accepting the story of Jesus' resurrection while rejecting the others.
First, the accounts of rising gods in other religions tend to be unclear. Justin Martyr, writing in about A.D. 150, considered several parallels of rising gods in other religions. lb However, since the details of the stories are vague and unlike Jesus' resurrection, today's scholars would not regard the stories as parallels. Justin mentions the deaths and risings of the sons of Jupiter: Aesculapius was struck by lightning and ascended to heaven; after dying violent deaths, Baccus, Hercules, and a few other sons rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. Justin then mentions Ariadne and others like her, though unnamed, who "have been declared to be set among the stars." Finally, he mentions the account of the cremation of the Roman emperor Augustus, during which someone swore that he saw Augustus's spirit in the flames ascend toward heaven."
Justin's reason for mentioning these alleged parallels is noteworthy. At a time when Christians were brutally persecuted, Justin attempted to convince the Roman emperor that Christian teachings and claims were not all that different from the beliefs of other philosophies and religions that enjoyed Rome's favor. Therefore, there was no reason to persecute Christians."
These stories look little like Jesus' resurrection. If we were to consider these as parallels to Jesus' resurrection, we would also have to consider every ghost story. The question is this: Do accounts such as those mentioned by Justin merit the conclusion that Christians copied, or were influenced by, them? The majority of critical scholars today say no. Moreover, while some skeptics like to celebrate these vague similarities, they fail to recognize what great differences exist in these accounts.
Let us look at some alleged parallel accounts that are more frequently appealed to. The first account of a dying and rising god that somewhat parallels the story of Jesus' resurrection appeared at least 100 years after the reports of Jesus' resurrection.'`' The earliest versions of the death and resurrection of the Greek mythological figure Adonis appeared after A.D. 150.20 There are no accounts of a resurrection of Attis, the Phrygian god of vegetation who was responsible for the death and rebirth of plant life, until early in the third century A.D. or later.2' Therefore, one cannot claim that the disciples were writing according to a contemporary literary style of dying and rising gods, since there is no literature contemporary to the disciples indicating that this was a genre of that period.22
That a resurrection was reported in the earlier accounts of these pagan deities is questionable. For example, there is not a clear death or resurrection of Marduk.23 In the earliest versions of the story of Adonis, no death or resurrection is reported, and Adonis is the first clear parallel of a dying and rising god. As noted above, a resurrection of Adonis is not reported until after A.D. 150.24 There are conflicting accounts regarding Osiris's fate. Some accounts say he is assigned to the underworld, while others refer to him as the "sun." But there is no account that claims Osiris rose from the dead.21
However, we can note that the ancient Egyptian cult of Osiris is the only account of a god who survived death that predates Christianity. According to one version of the story, and there are several, Osiris was killed by his brother, chopped up into fourteen pieces and scattered throughout Egypt. The goddess Isis collected and reassembled his parts and brought him back to life. Unfortunately, she was only able to find thirteen pieces. Moreover, it is questionable whether Osiris was brought back to life on earth or seen by others as Jesus was .26 He was given status as god of the gloomy underworld. So the picture we get of Osiris is that of a guy who does not have all of his parts and who maintains a shadowy existence as god of the mummies. As a friend, Chris Clayton, put it, Osiris's return to life was not a resurrection, but a zombification. Further, the hero of the account is not even Osiris, but Isis or even Horus, their son. This is far different than Jesus' resurrection account where he was the gloriously risen Prince of life who was seen by others on earth before his ascension into heaven.21
Second, accounts of miracles and rising gods in other religions lack evidence and can easily be accounted for by opposing theories. For example, the first miracle accounts of Muhammad do not appear until approximately seventyfive years after his death and are found in sources that many Islamic scholars regard as untrustworthy. Therefore, it is likely that they were influenced by developing legends.21 Moreover, miracle reports from other religions are usually not multiply attested, and the first manuscript that reports the miraculous event is usually far removed in time from when the event allegedly took place.29 Again, this makes legend-making influences a plausible explanation. The Life ofApollonius by Philostratus not only postdates Jesus by nearly 200 years, but it is also thought by some to be "the product of a conscious reaction against Christianity.""' Thus, the large majority of parallels speak of an event that allegedly took place in the distant past. These stories were not written and circulated at a time when eye-witnesses were alive to discern the truth in the claims.
Third, claims of resurrections in other religions do not explain the evidence that exists for Jesus' resurrection. At best, these critical arguments suggest that the earliest Christians were writing according to a mythical genre of the day. However, we have already observed that such a theory is plagued with serious problems."
On the one hand, the lack of evidence for supposed resurrections in other religions, the late reports of the alleged events, and the fact that opposing theories can account for them makes any claims of true resurrection implausible. On the other hand, the strong evidence and the fact that opposing theories completely fail to account for all of the evidence places Jesus' resurrection in an entirely different category. The fact that many of the miracles in other religions have been disproved does nothing to undermine Jesus' miracles and resurrection. Jesus' miracles have not been disproved, and the accounts of them suffer from few of the weaknesses that bring miracle accounts of other religions into question.12 Furthermore, if the New Testament faithfully reports Jesus' words, he predicted that false christs and false prophets would come and deceive others." Based on his words, competing resurrection claims in non-Christian religions should not be a surprise.
Although some skeptics today would like us to believe that resurrection claims in other religions cancel out Jesus' resurrection, when we look more closely at them we note that the accounts themselves are unclear, that they lack evidence for the event, and that they fail to explain the known historical data concerning Jesus' resurrection.;'
Fraud theories assume the story was a deception
Claiming that something is true is a long way from establishing that something is true. The disciples, Paul, and James claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, but why should we believe them? A skeptic might propose that a motive for inventing the story of Jesus' resurrection can certainly be found. For three years the disciples had placed their normal lives on hold and followed Jesus with total dedication. Most of them were peasants who had not formally studied religion. Yet they were teaching that the well-educated Jewish religious leaders of the day were wrong and that Jesus, a carpenter, had it right. Then Jesus was arrested, and within twenty-tour hours he was dead. Bewildered and without a leader, they came to the realization that they had made an embarrassing mistake. So they invented the story of Jesus' resurrection in order to save face, or to promote their own views or causes.
Fraud appears to be the first opposing theory proposed by Jesus' critics. The gospel of Matthew reports that the Jewish leaders in the first century spread the story that Jesus' disciples had stolen the body.35 In A.l). 150, in his Dialogue with Trvpho, Justin Martyr writes that the Jewish leadership was still spreading the same rumor in his day."
There are two general types of fraud theory. We will refer to these as Fraud I and Fraud 2. Fraud I charges that the disciples invented the appearance accounts and stole the body from the tomb. Fraud 2 proposes that someone other than the disciples stole the body, leading the disciples to believe mistakenly that Jesus had risen from the dead.
Fraud 1: "Disciples lied or stole the body..."
Did the disciples lie about the appearances and possibly steal the body from the tomb? This is the central idea of Fraud I theories. The data we have strongly suggest that this was not what happened.
First, we established earlier that the disciples of Jesus claimed to have seen the risen Jesus because they really believed that they had seen him. Shortly after Jesus' crucifixion, their lives were radically transformed to the point that they were willing to endure imprisonment, sufferings, and even martyrdom. This indicates that their claim of seeing the risen Jesus was the result of a strong and sincere belief that they truly had seen him. In all the political scandals that occurred over recent generations, one or more from the guilty party was often willing to tell the truth rather than face a lengthy prison term. The disciples of Jesus, on the other hand, boldly proclaimed the risen Christ in the face of severe persecution and death. They faced dungeons, torture, and brutal executions-not the white collar prisons that hold today's corrupt politicians. And yet, we are not aware of a single disciple who recanted. An accomplice to the 1972-73 Watergate scandal that toppled U.S. President Richard Nixon, Charles Colson elaborates:
Watergate involved a conspiracy to cover up, perpetuated by the closest aides to the President of the United States-the most powerful men in America, who were intensely loyal to their president. But one of them, John Dean, turned state's evidence, that is, testified against Nixon, as he put it, "to save his own skin"-and he did so only two weeks after informing the president about what was really going on-two weeks! The real cover-up, the lie, could only be held together for two weeks, and then everybody else jumped ship in order to save themselves. Now, the fact is that all that those around the President were facing was embarrassment, maybe prison. Nobody's life was at stake. But what about the disciples? Twelve powerless men, peasants really, were facing not just embarrassment or political disgrace, but beatings, stonings, execution. Every single one of the disciples insisted, to their dying breaths, that they had physically seen Jesus bodily raised from the dead. Don't you think that one of those apostles would have cracked before being beheaded or stoned? That one of them would have made a deal with the authorities? None did."
Skeptics many times respond that people often convert to other faiths and even die for those faiths, so this proves nothing. One need only think of the devotion of Islamic terrorists. But this misses the point. It is not being argued that the sincerity of the apostles proves that Jesus rose from the dead. The point is that their sincerity to the point of martyrdom indicates that they were not intentionally lying. No one holds that the Muslims enlisted for the horrible suicide missions of September 11, 2001, sat in front of their recruiters and thought, "Okay, Muhammad is a false prophet and Islam is a false religion. If I do this, I'm going straight to hell when the plane crashes. Sounds good! Where do I sign?" They really believed in their cause. Deceived? Yes. Liars? No.
Remember that in the Fraud 1 theory, the skeptic is claiming that the dis ciples lied about the risen Jesus. Their willingness to suffer continuously and die for the gospel points to their sincerity, and points out a fatal flaw in the Fraud 1 theory."
Second, a mere story propagated by the disciples would not have convinced Paul, who was an enemy of the church. Fraud on their part would have been the first thing he would have suspected, just as we would be suspicious today if someone claimed that a recent cult leader like David Koresh of the Branch Davidians had risen from the dead after dying in the 1993 fire when federal officers attacked their Texas compound. Instead of rejecting the claims of Jesus' resurrection as fraud, Paul was convinced by what he described as the risen Jesus appearing to him.
Third, it is doubtful that fraud on the part of the disciples would have convinced James who, even though he may have heard of Jesus' miracles, had rejected him prior to his resurrection. Jesus' resurrection from the dead would likely have been perceived merely as another lie from Jesus' disciples. Like Paul, James appears to have been convinced by what he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus to himself.
In summary, the strong and abiding conviction of the disciples that the risen Jesus had appeared to them, shown in their willingness to suffer continuously and even die for these beliefs, speaks strongly against lies and theft of Jesus' body on their part. Moreover, the skeptics Paul and James would have been looking for fraud on the part of the disciples. For these reasons and others, only a small number of critical scholars have opted for this view during the last 200 years."'
Fraud 2: "Someone other than the disciples stole the body."
Since the disciples must have sincerely believed that they had seen the risen Jesus, perhaps someone else who stole the body from the tomb duped them. When the disciples discovered that the tomb was empty, they simply concluded that Jesus had risen from the dead. This is the Fraud 2 option, which is flawed because it cannot account for the vast majority of the known historical facts. Virtually all critics recognize this. That is why very few scholars held it during the twentieth century. Here are some reasons why.
First, an empty tomb by itself would not have convinced the church persecutor Paul. Instead, he would have suspected foul play. If it were reported today that the grave of Mormonism's founder Joseph Smith was empty, would those of us who do not embrace Mormonism rush to become Mormons, or would we presume that someone had moved the body? Paul converted because he believed the risen Jesus had appeared to him. Fraud 2 fails to account for the appearance to Paul, which is far stronger evidence for Jesus' resurrection than is the empty tomb.
Second, an empty tomb by itself would not have convinced the skeptic James, who, like Paul, appears to have been convinced by an appearance of the risen Jesus to him.
Third, the empty tomb did not appear to lead any of Jesus' followers except John to believe that he had risen from the dead.40 Indeed, the gospel of John reports that Mary Magdalene immediately jumped to the conclusion that someone had stolen the body upon discovering the empty tomb. Her first thought was not that Jesus had risen.41 The gospels further report that Peter, upon seeing the empty tomb, was unconvinced as well.42 Thomas was unconvinced by reports of an empty tomb and reports of appearances by the risen Jesus to the others.43 It was the appearances that led to the disciples' belief that Jesus had risen from the dead.44 Fraud 2 fails to account for these appearances.
Fourth, even if true, Fraud 2 could only call into question the cause of the empty tomb, not the Resurrection itself. This is because the strongest evidence for Jesus' resurrection is the appearances to the disciples, Paul, and James. But the theory that a non-disciple stole Jesus' body does nothing to disprove the claim that many persons had actually seen the risen Jesus. So Fraud 2 is so weak that additional theories are needed to explain the most crucial data.
The empty tomb convinced no one. Rather, it was the appearances that brought about belief in friend and foe alike, and Fraud 2 cannot account for these. All Fraud 2 can account for is the empty tomb. Jesus' resurrection can account for all of the facts and, therefore, is a better explanation than theft.
"Witnesses went to the wrong tomb."
The wrong tomb theory states that the women and the disciples went to the wrong tomb and, having discovered it empty, concluded that Jesus had risen from the dead. Can we be certain that they remembered where the tomb was? Furthermore, can we know whether the burial account found in the Gospels is accurate?
At least six major problems beset the wrong tomb theory:
First, even if the disciples went to the wrong tomb, this does not account for their belief that they had seen the risen Jesus. Since this approach cannot account for the strongest evidence for Jesus' resurrection, the appearances, an additional opposing theory is necessary.
Second, the testimony of the Gospels is that the empty tomb convinced no one but John. Mary concluded that the gardener stole the body. The disciples did not believe upon seeing the empty tomb, but rather were confused.
Third, the church persecutor Paul converted based on the appearance of the risen Jesus, not on an empty tomb. Paul would have assumed that someone had stolen the body or that the wrong tomb was visited. Rather, he was convinced based on the appearances of the risen Jesus, not the empty tomb. So even if the wrong tomb had been visited or the burial accounts in the Gospels are inaccurate, these do nothing to call into question Jesus' resurrection. This theory only offers to remove the empty tomb from the collection of historical facts we have.
Fourth, the skeptic James would not have been convinced merely by an empty tomb. Like Paul, James was convinced by an appearance.
Fifth, no sources support the wrong tomb theory. If the women and disciples had gone to the wrong tomb, all that the Roman and Jewish authorities would have had to do would have been to go to the right tomb, exhume the body, publicly display it, and clear up the misunderstanding. Yet, not a single critic is recorded to have even thought of this explanation for the Resurrection during the first few centuries of Christianity.
Sixth, the evidence suggests that the tomb's location was known, because a well-known man, Joseph of Arimathea, buried Jesus in his own tomb. If the burial by Joseph was an invention, then we might expect ancient critics to state that Joseph denied this version of the story. Or the critics could have denied the existence of Joseph if he had been a fictitious character. After all, Joseph was allegedly on the Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish ruling body in the time of Jesus, and was therefore a public figure. Instead of questioning the place of burial, however, this group resorted to claiming that the disciples had stolen the body.
Considering the above six refutations, we can note that our argument for Jesus' resurrection is not weakened, even if the disciples had gone to the wrong tomb, because it was not the empty tomb that led to the belief held by friends and foes of Jesus that he was risen. It was the appearances. Moreover, there is no evidence that his disciples went to the wrong tomb. In fact, there is good reason to believe the disciples went to the correct tomb. Finally, by all accounts, the empty tomb failed to convince anyone of the Resurrection except John. Thus, that the tomb of Jesus was empty remains a fact that believer and unbeliever alike can agree upon.
Apparent Death Theory
That Jesus was crucified is certain.45 Notwithstanding, how can we be certain that he actually died while on the cross? We have all heard of cases in which someone who had been declared dead started breathing again a few hours later. If this can happen in our modern society, what would have prevented it from happening two thousand years ago? Perhaps Jesus never died to begin with, so there was no Resurrection. Could it have been that the soldiers at the cross mistook him for being dead when he had actually fallen into a coma? Jesus had many followers. Certainly some of them must have been affluent. Could they have bribed the soldiers to take him off the cross while he was still alive? Then Jesus could have recuperated and showed his nail-scarred hands and feet so that some believed him to be risen from the dead. This apparent death theory has been referred to as the "swoon theory," and there are at least three major problems with it.46
First, such an occurrence seems highly unlikely, given the nature of scourging and crucifixion. We now understand these processes much more than we did even fifty years ago. In the March 21, 1986 issue of the Journal oftheAmeri- can Medical Association, a team of three, including a pathologist from Mayo Clinic, studied the procedures of scourging and crucifixion and their affects on the victim. The following is an excerpt from that article and begins by describing the process of scourging:
The usual instrument was a short whip ... with several single or braided leather thongs of variable lengths, in which small iron balls or sharp pieces of sheep bones were tied at intervals ... the man was stripped of his clothing, and his hands were tied to an upright post.... The back, buttocks, and legs were flogged.... The scourging ... was intended to weaken the victim to a state just short of collapse or death.... As the Roman soldiers repeatedly struck the victim's back with full force, the iron balls would cause deep contusions, and the leather thongs and sheep bones would cut into the skin and subcutaneous tissues. Then, as the flogging continued, the lacerations would tear into the underlying skeletal muscles."
Keep in mind that this procedure is just the preparation for crucifixion. Regarding the actual crucifixion, each wound was intended to cause intense agony. The team reported that when the condemned man had his wrists nailed to the cross, "the driven nail would crush or sever the rather large sensorimotor median nerve. The stimulated nerve would produce excruciating bolts of fiery pain in both arms."'R Another doctor compares the sensation to using pliers to crush the nerve that causes intense pain when you hit your elbow-what we commonly call the "funny bone."49
The many physicians who have studied crucifixion over the years have invariably concluded that the major problem faced by victims of crucifixion was breathing, or more precisely-asphyxiation. Once on the cross, the victim would want to take the pressure off his nailed feet. To do this, he would allow the weight of his body to be held up by his nailed hands. However, in this "down" position, certain muscles would be in the inhalation position, making it difficult to exhale. Thus, the victim would have to push up on his pierced feet in order to exhale. However, the first several times he did this would cause intense pain, since it would cause the nail to tear through the flesh in the feet until it enlodged itself against one of the bones. Thus, the crucifixion victim would be seen pushing up quite often and returning to the down position. Severe muscle cramps and spasms would also make breathing all the more difficult and painful."'
It was typical for a person to hang on the cross for days. However, on occasion when the Romans desired to speed up the process they would employ the crurifragium, the act of breaking the legs with a heavy club or mallet. This would prevent the victim from pushing up and exhaling. The cause of death for the crucified victim was simple-he could not breathe.
That inability to breathe was the cause of death by crucifixion is a fact supported by an ancient writing composed around the middle of the second century A.D.: the Gospel of Peter. Although all but a handful of the most radical of critical scholars maintain that this writing was composed much later than the canonical Gospels and was certainly dependent on them, it does provide us with insight regarding why the practice of breaking the legs of crucified victims was done: "And having become irritated at him, they ordered that there be no legbreaking, so that he might die tormented."" To the victim of crucifixion, shattering the legs, painful as it was, was, in an ironic sense, a merciful act, because it shortened their time on the cross. The soldiers had seen hundreds of men executed by crucifixion. It was routine to know when the victim was dead. He was not pushing up any longer for air. The team writing the article concluded, "Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge."52
Moreover, if the spear wound described in John 19:34-35 was inflicted on Jesus, the blood and water that were described as flowing from his body were probably due to the rupturing of the sac that surrounds the heart (called the pericardium). This would produce the water and, if the right side of the heart was pierced, blood would likewise flow (as attested by our medical sources above). The Roman author Quintilian (A.D. 35-95) reports of this procedure being performed on crucifixion victims.53 No question remained concerning the status of the victim afterward.
Second, over a century before this study, one liberal scholar who thought hallucinations accounted for the appearances of the risen Jesus ended up decimating the swoon theory. The German scholar D. F. Strauss wrote that it was not plausible that, having been scourged and crucified, Jesus pushed the heavy stone away from the tomb with pierced hands and walked blocks on pierced and wounded feet. Even if such a ridiculous scenario were possible, when he appeared to his disciples in his pathetic and mutilated state, would this convince them that he was the risen Prince of life?'' Alive? Barely. Risen? No.
So even if Jesus got off of the cross while he was still alive, the disciples would not have been convinced that he had risen from the dead, since the sight of his body and his slow and careful movements would have clearly indicated that he was a horribly hurting man. Upon seeing a swooned Jesus who was limping, bleeding, pale, and stooped over in pain, Peter would not have responded, "Wow, I can't wait to have a resurrection body just like that!" Rather the disciples would have said, "Let's get you a doctor. You need help!"" One of my acquaintances chuckles as he imagines Jesus grimacing when Thomas touches him and responds, "Wait! That still hurts! Ouch! "16 But we have established that the disciples really believed that he rose from the dead.
Third, the apparent death theory cannot account for Paul's dramatic reversal of worldviews. Paul claimed that his conversion was the result of experiencing a glorious appearance of the risen Jesus.57 A swooned Jesus, even if healed, would not appear gloriously. Therefore, it looks as if the swoon theory is "dead" with no hopes of a resurrection.51
When discussing the Resurrection with others, remember that in most instances you will not need to go over all of the reasons presented here as to why a particular opposing theory is inadequate. One or two refutations will usually be sufficient. Articulating every one of them may be an overload of information, causing the other person to lose interest in the process.