No Christian apologist has made a strong and solid case for the resurrection of Jesus. One reason for this is that no Christian apologist has made a strong and solid case AGAINST the Swoon Theory, which is one skeptical alternative to the Christian view that Jesus died on the cross, was buried in a stone tomb, and a couple of days later God raised Jesus from the dead.

There are many different problems with the cases that Christian apologists have made against the Swoon Theory, but one of the key reasons why Christian apologists have consistently FAILED to make a strong and solid case against the Swoon Theory is that they are UNCLEAR about the concept.

Christian apologists don’t have a clear understanding of what the phrase “the Swoon Theory” means. As a result, they literally do not know what they are talking about when they talk about “the Swoon Theory”. You cannot make a strong and solid case against a claim unless you first have a clear understanding of what that claim means.

A KEY PROBLEM WITH DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE SWOON THEORY

Christian apologists are often UNCLEAR and ILLOGICAL, like most other human beings. One common problem with the books and articles of Christian apologists is that they consistently FAIL to provide clear and reasonable DEFINITIONS of the basic terms that they are using (again, like most other human beings).

Some Christian apologists are philosophers, such as: Peter Kreeft, Norman Geisler, William Craig, and Gary Habermas. Because philosophy is often concerned with definitions of basic terms, and with the task of CLARIFYING basic ideas, one would think that Christian apologists who have graduate degrees in philosophy would typically provide clear and reasonable DEFINITIONS of the basic terms that they are using, but, sadly, that is NOT the case.

One important problem with the attempts of Christian apologists to refute the Swoon Theory is that they FAIL to provide a clear and reasonable DEFINITION of what the term “the Swoon Theory” means. Because they FAIL to do this, their efforts to refute the Swoon Theory are doomed to FAIL.

I have my own definition of “the Swoon Theory” to offer, but before I offer it, I will first show the CONFUSION and UNCLARITY that exists among Christian apologists about the meaning of the term “the Swoon Theory”.

Perhaps the most obvious problem is that no two Christian apologists describe the Swoon Theory in the same way. Some Christian apologists offer very sparse and broad characterizations of the Swoon Theory, while other Christian apologists offer very detailed and narrow characterizations of the Swoon Theory, and yet other Christian apologists offer characterizations that fall in between these two extremes. But they all offer different and conflicting characterizations, so they are creating and promoting CONFUSION and UNCLARITY about the meaning of the term “the Swoon Theory”.

THE SIMPLEST AND BROADEST DEFINITION OF “THE SWOON THEORY”

In their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (1994; hereafter: HCA), the Christian philosophers Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli claim to refute the Swoon Theory. However, they FAIL to offer a clear and reasonable definition of the term “the Swoon Theory”, which is one key reason why their attempt to refute the Swoon Theory FAILS.

Kreeft and Tacelli use a diagram of logical possibilities to support an important premise of their case for the resurrection of Jesus (HCA, p.182):

This diagram is essential to their case for the resurrection of Jesus because this diagram shows the logic behind their key claim that there are only FIVE possible views about the alleged resurrection of Jesus. If this diagram is mistaken or logically defective, then their case for the resurrection collapses, because their case is based on the assumption that there are only those FIVE possible views.

This diagram, however, implies a very simple and very broad DEFINITION of the term “the Swoon Theory”:

The Swoon Theory is true IF AND ONLY IF: Jesus didn’t die.

There are two overarching logical possibilities represented in the above diagram:

EITHER Jesus died OR Jesus didn’t die.

This high-level statement of the logical possibilities is logically defective.

First of all, the statement “Jesus died” is too broad to work in support of Kreeft and Tacelli’s case for the resurrection of Jesus. Suppose that “Jesus died” when Jesus was just a baby (and he remained dead). In that case, NONE of the FIVE theories on the right side would be true! But according to the diagram, the assumption that “Jesus died” implies that ONE of the FOUR following theories MUST be true:

• The Christian Theory (i.e. Jesus died on the cross, but God raised Jesus from the dead a couple of days later).
• The Hallucination Theory (i.e. Jesus died on the cross, and he stayed dead. The disciples mistakenly thought Jesus had risen because they had hallucinations about Jesus being alive after Jesus had died on the cross).
• The Myth Theory (i.e. Jesus died on the cross, and he stayed dead. The story about Jesus’ resurrection was intended to be metaphorical or symbolic and was not intended as a literal story about an actual event).
• The Conspiracy Theory (i.e. Jesus died on the cross, and he stayed dead. The story about Jesus’ resurrection was a hoax created by his disciples who conspired with each other to spread this lie about Jesus.)

But if Jesus died as a baby, then NONE of these four theories would be true. All four theories would be FALSE.

Furthermore, the alternative logical possibility is also problematic: Jesus didn’t die.

What if “Jesus didn’t die” because Jesus was immortal and was incapable of being injured or killed? In that case, if Jesus had been crucified, he would not have been injured or wounded by being nailed to the cross, nor by having a spear thrust into his chest. Jesus would not have fainted on the cross, because he would not have been injured or wounded or harmed by being crucified.

In that case, the Swoon Theory would be FALSE. But according to the diagram, the view that “Jesus didn’t die” logically implies that the Swoon Theory is TRUE!

The high-level logic of the diagram is badly broken, and cannot serve the purpose of providing a solid foundation for Kreeft and Tacelli’s case for the resurrection of Jesus.
In order for the diagram to have any chance of serving its intended purpose, we must clarify and narrow one of the high-level logical possibilities. The broad possibility that “Jesus died” must be narrowed to something more specific, like this:

Jesus was crucified, and he died while still on the cross.

With this narrower basic logical possibility, the diagram can more reasonably assert that this implies that one of the above FOUR theories is true.

Given this clarification and narrowing of the first logical possibility, we can now correctly state the OTHER high-level logical possibility:

It is NOT the case that: Jesus was crucified, and he died while still on the cross.

With this adjustment to the high-level logical possibilities, the implied DEFINITION of the Swoon Theory is this:

The Swoon Theory is true IF AND ONLY IF
it is NOT the case that: Jesus was crucified, and he died while still on the cross.

But this definition is clearly defective and wrong. Each of the following scenarios, on this definition, would imply that the Swoon Theory was TRUE:

⦁ Jesus never existed.
⦁ Jesus existed, but as a child he drowned while swimming in the Sea of Galilee (and remained dead).
⦁ Jesus grew up to be an adult man, but he was never crucified.
⦁ Jesus grew up to be an adult man, and he was crucified, but he was already dead when he was nailed to the cross, and he remained dead.
⦁ Jesus grew up to be an adult man, and he was crucified, but he did not die while he was on the cross; rather, he died one minute after he was removed from the cross, and he remained dead.

But if you have any understanding of what “the Swoon Theory” means, it will be obvious that NONE of the above scenarios is compatible with the Swoon Theory. The Swoon Theory would be FALSE in any of these five scenarios.

Therefore, the DEFINITION of “the Swoon Theory” that is implied by the logic of the diagram presented by Kreeft and Tacelli is WRONG. It is too simple and too broad, and thus it encompasses many scenarios in which the Swoon Theory would clearly be FALSE.

A VERY NARROW AND COMPLEX DEFINITION OF “THE SWOON THEORY”

Josh McDowell and his son Sean McDowell are Christian apologists who have written a book defending the resurrection of Jesus called Evidence for the Resurrection (2009), and they have both worked on the recently updated and expanded version of Evidence that Demands a Verdict (2017). They discuss and describe the Swoon Theory in both of these books.

The McDowells provide a narrow and complex description of the Swoon Theory in their book Evidence for the Resurrection:

The swoon theory asserts that Jesus did not really die on the cross. According to the theory, he was nailed to the cross and suffered from shock, pain and loss of blood. But instead of dying, he merely fainted (swooned) from exhaustion. He was thought to be dead because medical knowledge was not at that time advanced enough to distinguish between a swoon and death. Thus Jesus was mistakenly buried alive. The cold sepulcher in which he was placed revived him. His disciples, who ignorantly believed he had truly died, couldn’t believe mere resuscitation revived him, so they insisted it was a resurrection from the dead.

Evidence for the Resurrection, p.221-222

Note that this description of the Swoon Theory is more complex and more detailed than the definition implied by Kreeft and Tacelli’s diagram:

The Swoon Theory is true IF AND ONLY IF
it is NOT the case that: Jesus was crucified, and he died while still on the cross.

The McDowells also provide a narrow and complex description of the Swoon Theory in their book Evidence that Demands a Verdict:

According to the theory, after being removed from the cross, Jesus was placed in Joseph of Arimethea’s tomb while still alive, yet unconscious. After several hours he revived in the coolness of the tomb, arose, freed himself from burial wrappings and the sealed tomb, and made his way back to his disciples to declare himself the risen Lord, the conqueror and defeater of death.

Evidence that Demands a Verdict (2017), p. 276

This description is also clearly more complex and more detailed than the very simple and broad definition implied by the diagram in Kreeft and Tacelli’s Handbook of Christian Apologetics.

However, the description of the Swoon Theory given by the McDowells in Evidence for the Resurrection is DIFFERENT than the description of the Swoon Theory given by the McDowells in Evidence that Demands a Verdict. For example, there is no mention of Jesus being “nailed to the cross” in the description found in Evidence that Demands a Verdict like there is in the description given in Evidence for the Resurrection. Also, there is no mention that Jesus was buried “in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb” in the description found in Evidence for the Resurrection like there is in the description given in Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Taken at face value, the different descriptions imply conflicting definitions of the Swoon Theory.

However, we can reconcile the two different descriptions of the Swoon Theory given by the McDowells by assuming that the descriptions are only intended to provide MOST but not ALL of the specifications of the Swoon Theory, and thus we can combine the specifications of both descriptions to arrive at a complete (or nearly complete) definition of the specifications of the Swoon Theory. What follows is a definition that consists of a COMBINATION of the specifications from BOTH of the above descriptions of the Swoon Theory:

The Swoon Theory is true IF AND ONLY IF each of the following claims is true:

• Jesus did not really die on the cross.
• Jesus was nailed to the cross.
• Jesus suffered from shock, pain and loss of blood [while on the cross].
• But instead of dying [while on the cross], Jesus merely fainted (swooned) from exhaustion [while on the cross].
• Jesus was thought to be dead [by ???] [when he fainted on the cross].
• Jesus was thought to be dead [when he fainted on the cross] because medical knowledge was not at that time advanced enough to distinguish between a swoon and death.
• Jesus was removed from the cross [after he fainted on the cross].
• Jesus was placed in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb [after he was removed from the cross].
• Jesus was still alive, yet unconscious [when he was placed in the tomb].
• After several hours [in the tomb] Jesus revived.
• The cold sepulcher in which Jesus was placed [after he was removed from the cross] revived him.
• Jesus arose and freed himself from burial wrappings [when he revived in the tomb].
• Jesus freed himself from the sealed tomb [after he freed himself from burial wrappings].
• Jesus made his way back to his disciples [after he freed himself from the tomb].
• Jesus declared himself the risen Lord [to his disciples], the conqueror and defeater of death [after leaving the tomb and making his way back to his disciples].
• Jesus’ disciples ignorantly believed he had truly died [when Jesus was buried in the tomb].
• Jesus’ disciples couldn’t believe mere resuscitation revived him [when Jesus appeared to them after he left the tomb].
• Jesus’ disciples insisted [that Jesus was alive because of] a resurrection from the dead [after Jesus appeared to them after he left the tomb].

According to this definition, the Swoon Theory would be true IF AND ONLY IF each of the above 18 claims was true.

This very complex and very narrow definition of “the Swoon Theory” is WRONG. It is wrong because it is UNFAIR to supporters of the Swoon Theory. This definition commits the STRAWMAN FALLACY. By characterizing the Swoon Theory as asserting so many specific claims, the McDowells make it too easy to “refute” the Swoon Theory.

For example, what if Joseph of Arimathea was a fictional character, but all of the other details above are true? Suppose that Jesus was buried in a stone tomb, but that he was buried by some of his disciples in a stone tomb that belonged to someone who was NOT “Joseph of Arimathea”. In that case, bullet number 8 above would be FALSE, and according to this definition, the “Swoon Theory” would also be FALSE.

But obviously, who owned the tomb into which Jesus was placed is NOT of great significance for evaluating the Swoon Theory. If the other 17 claims were all true, then clearly the Swoon Theory would still be TRUE. So, this definition is WRONG, and it is UNFAIR to supporters of the Swoon Theory.

What if Jesus had actually been tied to the cross, rather than nailed to the cross? In that case, bullet number 2 would be FALSE, and according to this definition, the Swoon Theory would also be FALSE. But obviously, how Jesus was attached to the cross is NOT of great significance for evaluating the Swoon Theory. Suppose that the other 17 claims were all true, then clearly the Swoon Theory would still be TRUE. So, this definition is WRONG, and it is UNFAIR to supporters of the Swoon Theory.

What if Jesus revived in the tomb just ten minutes after he was placed in the tomb? In that case, bullet number 10 would be FALSE, and according to this definition, the Swoon Theory would also be FALSE. But obviously, the amount of minutes or hours it took for Jesus to revive inside the tomb is NOT of great significance for evaluating the Swoon Theory. Suppose that the other 17 claims were all true, then clearly the Swoon Theory would still be TRUE. So, this definition is WRONG, and it is UNFAIR to supporters of the Swoon Theory.

It looks to me like several of the bullet points (perhaps most of them) are NOT essential to the Swoon Theory. So, this definition of “the Swoon Theory” is very very WRONG and very very UNFAIR, because it ascribes many specific claims to the Swoon Theory which are not essential to the Swoon Theory, thereby making it much too easy to “refute” the Swoon Theory. Thus, the above definition of “the Swoon Theory” which is implied by the descriptions of the Swoon Theory given by the McDowells commits the STRAWMAN FALLACY.

CONCLUSION

In their Handbook of Christian Apologetics, the Christian philosophers Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli imply a definition of “the Swoon Theory” that is very simple and very broad. That definition is clearly WRONG because it encompasses many different scenarios where it is clear that the Swoon Theory would actually be FALSE.

In their books Evidence for the Resurrection and Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Sean and Josh McDowell give two different descriptions of the contents of the Swoon Theory. However, we can reconcile those two different descriptions by the assumption that they were presenting MOST but not ALL of the contents of the Swoon Theory in each description.

That means that we can form a clear definition of “the Swoon Theory” by combining the various specifications from both descriptions. When we do this, the resulting definition is very complex and very narrow. The resulting definition is also clearly WRONG and UNFAIR, because it ascribes many specific claims to the Swoon Theory which clearly are NOT essential to the Swoon Theory.

In future posts of this series, I will examine some other descriptions and/or definitions of the Swoon Theory presented by other Christian apologists.