Swoon hypothesis.html
 
| ca | de | en | es | fr | it | nl | no | pl | pt | ru | ro | fi | sv | tr | vo |


 

Part of a series on the
Death and resurrection of Jesus
Passion Events
Hypotheses
Holy Week
Miscellaneous
Other views
This box: view • talk • 
This is a sub-article of Death of Jesus.

The swoon hypothesis refers to a number of theories that aim to explain the resurrection of Jesus, proposing that Jesus didn't die on the cross, but merely fell unconscious ("swooned"), and was later revived in the tomb in the same mortal body. Although this hypothesis has not been widely held by scholars, it has had noteworthy advocates for hundreds of years.

Contents

18th and 19th centuries

Early proponents of this theory include German Karl Friedrich Bahrdt, who suggested in around 1780, that Jesus deliberately feigned his death, using drugs provided by the physician Luke to appear as a spiritual messiah and get Israel to abandon the idea of a political messiah. In this interpretation of the events described in the Gospels, Jesus was resuscitated by Joseph of Arimathea, with whom he shared a connection through a secret order of the Essenes—a group that appear in many of the "swoon" theories.

Around 1800, Karl Venturini proposed that a group of supporters dressed in white — who were, with Jesus, members of a "secret society" — had not expected him to survive the crucifixion, but heard groaning from inside the tomb, where Jesus had regained consciousness in the cool, damp air. They then frightened away the guards and rescued him.

A third rationalist theologian, Heinrich Paulus, wrote in various works from 1802 onwards that he believed that Jesus had fallen into a temporary coma and somehow revived without help in the tomb. He was critical of the vision hypothesis, and argued that the disciples must have believed that God had resurrected Jesus. Friedrich Schleiermacher endorsed a form of Paulus' theory in the early 1830s.

A number of theories that suggest Jesus travelled to India also entail his survival of the crucifixion. In particular, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Movement, spelled out this theory in his 1899 book Jesus in India.

20th century

Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, in their 1982 book Holy Blood, Holy Grail, speculated that Pontius Pilate was bribed to allow Jesus to be taken down from the cross before he was dead. In 1992, Barbara Thiering explored the theory in depth in her book Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls and on her web site "The Pesher of Christ" in the reference section. In 2006, Baigent published The Jesus Papers, a book that describes how Jesus may have survived the crucifixion. Other 20th-century proponents of various "swoon theories" include:

Arguments against the swoon hypothesis

The swoon hypothesis has been criticized by many, including medical experts who, based on the account given in the New Testament, conclude that Jesus was dead when removed from the cross. Others reject the reliability of the Gospel accounts, and still others consider it unlikely that Jesus would be capable of inspiring faith after surviving a crucifixion, including the 19th century rationalist theologian David Strauss, who wrote:

"It is impossible that a being who had stolen half dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill and wanting medical treatment... could have given the disciples the impression that he was a conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of life: an impression that lay at the bottom of their future ministry." [1]

Using the work of the 19th century University of Dublin physiologist and ordained priest Samuel Haughton, Bible commentator Frederick Charles Cook and Christian evangelist author Josh McDowell argue that the crucifixion narrative in the Gospel of John could not have been fabricated, as it displays medical knowledge not available at the time. Haughton wrote that the description in the Gospel of John of the flowing of "blood and water" after the soldier pierced Jesus' side with a spear was extremely unusual:

"... With the foregoing cases most anatomists who have devoted their attention to this subject are familiar; but the two following cases, although readily explicable on physiological principles, are not recorded in the books (except by St. John). Nor have I been fortunate enough to meet with them." [2][3] (for more details see: Josh McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, pages 223-225).

Medical authorities W. D. Edwards, W. J. Gabel and F. E. Hosmer appear to offer a different analysis in regard to the New Testament Greek and the medical data, however.[4][5] (the latter footnote is the whole JAMA article in a PDF file format). Alexander Metherall concurs that, based on the gospel accounts, Jesus was dead when removed from the cross.

See also

References

  • William Lane Craig, The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist Controversy. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1985
  • E. B. Docker, If Jesus Did Not Die on the Cross: A Study of the Evidence (London: Robert Scott, 1920
  • R. Graves and J. Podro, Jesus in Rome, (London: Cassell & Co., 1957)
  • Talmud Jmmanuel, ed. Eduard A. Meier (Schmidrüti, Switzerland: 1978)
  • Donovan Joyce, The Jesus Scroll (Melbourne, Australia: Ferret Books, 1972)
  • Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, Holy Blood, Holy Grail (New York: Harper and Row, 1983)
  • J.D.M. Derrett, The Anastasis: The Resurrection of Jesus as an Historical Event (Shipston-on-Stour, England: P. Drinkwater, 1982)
  • Kersten, Holger, Jesus lived in India. (Shaftsbury, Dorset : Element, 1994)
  • The Pesher of Christ: The_Resurrection by Dr. Barbara Thiering.

External links
All Right Reserved © 2007, Designed by Stylish Blog.