Shortly after the turn of the century, Schweitzer referred to Strauss’ critique as the “death-blow” to such rationalistic approaches.^14 After Strauss’ views were circulated, the liberal “lives of Jesus” usually shunned the swoon theory.^15 By the early twentieth century, other critical scholars proclaimed this theory to be nothing more than a historical curiosity of the past. Even critics no longer considered it to be a viable hypothesis.^16
2.Death by asphyxiation
Modern medical research has leveled at least two additional critiques against the swoon theory. First, crucifixion is essentially death by asphyxiation, as the intercostal and pectoral muscles around the lungs halt normal breathing while the
13 David Strauss, A New Life of Jesus, vol. 1, pp. 408–412.
14 Schweitzer, Quest, pp. 56–67.
15 Ibid., cf. pp. 161–166 with 166–179, for example.
16 Eduard Riggenbach, The Resurrection of Jesus(New York: Eaton and Mains, 1907), pp. 48–49; James Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, p. 92.
body hangs in the “down” position. Therefore, faking death on the cross still would not permit one to breathe; one cannot fake the inability to breathe for any length of time. Breaking the victim’s ankles insured death even quicker, since the person could not push up in order to free the lungs for breathing. The Romans were knowledgeable in these matters, as indicated by the broken leg bones of a first century crucifixion victim whose skeleton was recently discovered (see Chapter 8 for details). Since Jesus’ ankles were not broken, we have the Roman’s assurance that he was previously dead. Otherwise, this method would have killed him. Either way, the end result of Jesus’ death is very probable.
3.Heart wound
Further, an even stronger refutation of the swoon theory is gained from the medical conclusion that the Roman lance entered Jesus’ heart, the final assurance of death by crucifixion as recorded by Roman author Quintilian (Declarationes maiores6.9). The gospel writer probably never understood the medical significance of what he recorded, for which eyewitness testimony is claimed (John 19:34–35). Medical doctors who have studied this issue usually agree that this is a very accurate medical description. The water probably proceeded from the pericardium, the sac that surrounds the heart, while the blood came from the right side of the heart. Even if Jesus was alive before he was stabbed, the lance would almost certainly have killed him.^17 Therefore, this chest wound also disproves the swoon theory.
We have noted three major problems that are sufficient to refute the swoon hypothesis. The physical condition of Jesus (as advocated by Strauss), the nature of death on the cross by asphyxiation, and the study of Jesus’ chest wound combine to eliminate this theory. Additionally, we witnessed the difficulties above (with Schonfield and Joyce) in the actual implementation of this view. Neither are these the only key problems. For example, this thesis cannot account for the conversions of James, the brother of Jesus, and especially Paul, from their skepticism to Christianity. Therefore, it is no surprise that this hypothesis is rejected today by critics.^18 Qumran Connections
17 For examples of physicians who deal with this issue, see William D. Edwards, Wesley J.Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Associationvol. 255, No. 11, 21 March 1986; Robert Bucklin, “The Legal and Medical Aspects of the Trial and Death of Christ,” Medicine, Science and the Law(January, 1970); C. Truman Davis, “The Crucifixion of Jesus: The Passion of Christ from a Medical Point of View,” in Arizona Medicine, March, 1965, pp. 183–187; Pierre Barbet, A Doctor at Calvary(Garden City: Doubleday, 1953); Robert Wassenar, “A Physician Looks at the Suffering of Christ” in Moody Monthly, 79/7, March 1979, pp. 41– 42; James H. Jewell, Jr., and Patricia A. Didden, “A Surgeon Looks at the Cross,” in Voice, 58/2, March-April, 1979, pp. 3–5.
