Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[Rote Man]

How can you have faith in a book with so many glaring issues? Also, given that most biblical scholars now place Mark as the original Gospel, and the original ending is not clear about the resurrection, how do you ignore the "Swoon Hypothesis"? It's more likely that Jesus fell unconcious and woke up, rather than him being the "Son of God".

[jimwalton]

With or without the ending of Mark (which I will get to), the Swoon Theory doesn't make sense. His ordeal started with being beaten by fists (Matt. 26.67; Mk. 14.65). Then he was flogged (Matt. 27.26; Mk. 15.15), the brutality of which is unspeakable. Many people died in the flogging, for it tore the skin and muscle right off the bones, exposing the organs. Then he was beaten with sticks of some sort (Matt. 27.30; Mk. 15.19). After that he was to carry his own cross (Matt. 27.32; Mk. 15.21), a weight of possibly several hundred pounds to the crucifixion site. He was too physically weak to get all the way there, and help had to be recruited. Then he was crucified for six hours, arguably the most horrific torture ever designed. It was death by suffocation. He expired in 6 hours, and the professional executioners at the site confirmed his death. To make sure, a spear was plunged under his rib cage into his pericardial cavity, and the wound gushed with blood and water. It's called pericardial fusion or pleural effusion, a sure sign that physical death had already occurred (John 19.34-35). In Mark 13.43-46, Joseph has to negotiate for the body, get the body off the cross, wrap it and put the spices in the folds. He is working with the body for an extended amount of time. There was no coroner or mortuary. With all this time handling the body they would have seen the mortis triad: (1) Loss of temperature (algor mortis), (2) Rigidity (rigor mortis), (3) lividity (discoloration)(livor mortis). Is the accusation that these guys got Jesus off the cross and never noticed any of this? He was buried in a solid rock tomb with a heavy stone covering on it. The Swoon Theory contends that after a good night's sleep he was feeling better, moved the one/two ton behemoth in the opening of the tomb, overcame the armed guard, and appeared to his disciples such that their reaction was not "You look awful, you better lay down," but "He is risen from the dead!" I know that anything is possible, but we're exploring what is reasonable. Logic tells us there's something dreadfully wrong with this picture. Any interpretation that Jesus merely swooned and revived are at odds with modern medical knowledge and reason.

Now let's talk about the Gospel of Mark itself. One of the themes of Mark is the failure of his disciples to comprehend anything he was saying or doing. As a matter of fact, only once in the whole gospel do the disciples say or do anything right, and that's at the climax of the book in Mk. 8.29. It's no surprise that Mark ends in 16.1-8 (vv.9-20 are not authentic) with the disciples at a loss, trembling and bewildered. Another key theme in the book of Mark is irony, and chapter 16.1-8 is filled with it, just like the rest of the book.

But don't be misled. Mk. 16.6 is quite clear about the resurrection: he was dead, he's now alive. He's not here in the tomb, but he'll meet you in Galilee, where you can see him in the flesh.

Where are the glaring issues?

[Name Withheld]

Mark has nothing to say about Jesus ascending to heaven. It also says the Jesus will reappear in Galilee, but instead the other books have him appearing in Jerusalem. How do you reconcile these contradictions?

[jimwalton]

> Mark has nothing to say about Jesus ascending to heaven.

You're right, but no gospel writer includes everything that Jesus did. One theory about the book of Mark, since it ends so abruptly, is that somehow the authentic end got lost. But that's a cop-out to say, "Well, he WOULD'A mentioned it if the end was really there!" I think, instead, that the ending fits well with Mark's emphases on irony and discipleship failure. But since no gospel includes everything that Jesus did, it's not within the purpose of Mark, as an author, to include that, and that's OK. John doesn't mention the ascension either. Only Matthew and Luke mention the ascension. It's not a contradiction, but selectivity.

> Jesus will reappear in Galilee, but instead the other books have him appearing in Jerusalem.

Jesus did appear to the disciples in Galilee on two notable occasions (Jn.21 by the lake, and Mt. 28.16-20 on the mountain). Jesus didn’t say he would not see any of them in Jerusalem. He merely made a definite appointment in Galilee, which he kept. Again, it's not a contradiction that needs to be reconciled. Mt. 28.7 also has mention of a meeting in Galilee. There's no contradiction here.