WHERE WE ARE

In the first post of this series, I showed that the definition of “swoon theory” implied by the Christian apologists Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (1994) was WRONG because it was too simple and too broad.

I also showed that the definition of “swoon theory” implied by the Christian apologists Sean and Josh McDowell in their books Evidence for the Resurrection (2009) and Evidence that Demands a Verdict (2017) was WRONG because it was too complex and too narrow, so it included specifications that are not essential to the Swoon Theory, thus committing the STRAWMAN FALLACY against those who support this skeptical theory.

In this current post, I will consider some definitions that fall between the overly simple and broad definition of Kreeft and Tacelli and the overly complex and narrow definition of the McDowells.

NORMAN GEISLER’S DEFINITIONS OF THE “SWOON THEORY”

In his book, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (1999), the Christian apologist Norman Geisler presents a very brief description or definition of the “Swoon Theory”:

The swoon theory is the naturalistic…view that Christ was not dead when taken from the cross and placed in the tomb. Therefore, he was not raised from the dead. (p.713)

This description includes five historical claims, so we could formulate a definition involving those five claims:

The Swoon Theory is true IF AND ONLY IF the following five claims are all true:

1. Jesus was crucified.
2. Jesus was removed from the cross (sometime after he was crucified).
3. Jesus was alive when he was removed from the cross.
4. Jesus was placed into a tomb after being removed from the cross.
5. Jesus was alive when he was placed into a tomb (after being removed from the cross).

This is clearly an inadequate definition of the “swoon theory”. These five claims could all be true, even if the Swoon Theory was clearly FALSE.

For example, suppose that these five claims were all true and that Jesus died five minutes after he was placed into the tomb, and he remained dead. In that case, the Swoon Theory would clearly be FALSE, even though all five of the above historical claims were true.

For another example, suppose the above five claims were all true, and that Jesus died five minutes after he was placed into the tomb, and then God raised Jesus from the dead about 36 hours later on Sunday morning. Clearly, the Swoon Theory would be FALSE in that case.

For a third example, suppose that the above five claims were all true and that the still living Jesus was able to escape from the tomb on Saturday evening (about 24 hours after being put into the tomb) and he was able to find a place to hide, but that Jesus died from his wounds while in hiding, never to be seen again by any of his disciples. The Swoon Theory would also be FALSE in this case, because according to the Swoon Theory, some of Jesus’ disciples were convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead because they actually saw Jesus alive after Jesus had been crucified, removed from the cross, and buried in a tomb.

Although Geisler’s definition above is not as simple and as broad as the definition implied by Kreeft and Tacelli, it is still too simple and too broad, and thus, like the bad definition by Kreeft and Tacelli, it applies to circumstances in which the Swoon Theory would actually be FALSE. So, the above definition from Geisler is clearly WRONG.

There is another serious problem with the above too simple and too broad definition of the “swoon theory” by Geisler. It does not even attempt to EXPLAIN what the Swoon Theory is an attempt to EXPLAIN. Skeptical theories are attempted explanations of some of the “evidence” related to the alleged resurrection of Jesus.

Two important bits of “evidence” used to support the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead are: (a) the alleged discovery of the empty tomb, and (b) the alleged experiences by Jesus’ disciples of the risen Jesus. The Swoon Theory attempts to EXPLAIN those two bits of “evidence”. If Jesus survived his crucifixion, then it is possible that he could have escaped from the tomb where he was placed (either on his own or with help from others), thus leaving his tomb empty. If Jesus survived his crucifixion, then he could have met with some of his disciples days or weeks after his crucifixion, and this would explain why his disciples claimed to have seen the risen Jesus.

But the five claims in Geisler’s above definition don’t say anything about Jesus escaping his tomb, and they don’t say anything about Jesus being seen by some of his disciples sometime after he was crucified and buried in a tomb. So, those five claims do not even attempt to provide an EXPLANATION of the two most important bits of “evidence” that the Swoon Theory is intended to EXPLAIN. Therefore, this definition is clearly inadequate, and it is WRONG.

The Christian apologists Norman Geisler and Frank Turek discuss the Swoon Theory in their book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be and Atheist (2004). They provide a somewhat more complex and narrower definition of the “swoon theory” in that book:

Swoon or Apparent Death Theory–Is it possible that Jesus didn’t really die on the cross? Perhaps Jesus merely swooned. In other words, he was still alive when he was placed in the tomb, but he somehow escaped and convinced his disciples that he had risen from the dead. (p.304)

We can take the claims in this description of the Swoon Theory and formulate a definition based on them:

The Swoon Theory is true IF AND ONLY IF the following claims are all true:

1. Jesus was crucified.
2. Jesus did not die while he was on the cross.
3. Jesus swooned while he was on the cross.
4. Jesus was removed from the cross [implied].
5. Jesus was placed in a tomb (after being removed from the cross).
6. Jesus was alive when he was placed in a tomb (after being removed from the cross).
7. Jesus somehow escaped from the tomb.
8. Jesus came into contact with some of his disciples after he escaped from the tomb [implied].
9. Jesus convinced his disciples that he had risen from the dead (when he came into contact with some of his disciples).

This is getting close to being a reasonable definition of the “swoon theory”. There is significantly more detail here than in the very simple and very broad definition by Kreeft and Tacelli. But there is significantly less detail here than in the very complex and very narrow definition that I inferred from the descriptions of the “swoon theory” by the McDowells.

Although this definition seems more reasonable than other definitions that I have discussed so far, there are still some significant problems with this definition. One of the problems is claim (9). Claim (9) is NOT essential to the Swoon Theory, so even if (9) was FALSE, the Swoon Theory could still be TRUE. If I am correct, then this definition is UNFAIR to supporters of the Swoon Theory and this definition could reasonably be viewed as committing the STRAWMAN FALLACY.

Suppose that the first eight claims above were all true, but that Jesus made no effort to convince his disciples that he had risen from the dead. For example, Jesus might have just exhorted his disciples to love and forgive each other and to continue to preach the Good News that God’s kingdom would soon arrive. The disciples might have later arrived at the conclusion that Jesus had died on the cross and that God had miraculously raised Jesus from the dead, even if Jesus never specifically claimed this was the case. This seems to be a reasonable and plausible scenario. So, it is NOT necessary to assume that “Jesus convinced his disciples that he had risen from the dead” in order to believe that the Swoon Theory is TRUE.

A second problem is claim (3). Although it seems like Jesus swooning on the cross is essential to the Swoon Theory, that is just because the word “swoon” is in the name of the theory. But, the name of the theory is misleading. The idea implied by the word “swoon” is that Jesus APPEARED to die on the cross. Thus, an alternative name for this theory is the “Apparent Death Theory”.

But there are different ways that Jesus could have APPEARED to die on the cross. Here are four different ways this could have happened:

• Jesus might have PRETENDED to be dead.
• Jesus might have FAINTED (i.e. swooned) on the cross.
• Jesus might have gone into a COMA on the cross.
• Jesus might have experienced CLINICAL DEATH on the cross.

Since the point of “swooning” is that Jesus would have APPEARED to die if he had “swooned” (i.e. fainted) on the cross, it is NOT necessary that Jesus swooned or fainted in order for the Swoon Theory to be TRUE. This is one advantage of the label “Apparent Death Theory” over the label “Swoon Theory”. The “Apparent Death Theory” label does not specify HOW Jesus appeared to die on the cross, only THAT he appeared to die on the cross. The label “Swoon Theory” is thus misleading, because it doesn’t really matter HOW Jesus appeared to die on the cross, so long as his alleged death on the cross was only apparent and not actual or complete.

I would go even further than this, and add that the label “Apparent Death Theory” is also misleading. It is misleading because it is NOT necessary even that Jesus APPEARED to die on the cross in order for the Swoon Theory or Apparent Death Theory to be TRUE. All that is necessary is that Jesus be in a state that is something less than complete and irreversible death when he was removed from the cross. In other words, Jesus would have to be in a state where it was still physically possible for him to come back to life NATURALLY, without any magic or supernatural power, without any divine intervention or miracle.

Jesus appearing to die is ONE WAY of explaining why the Roman soldiers removed him from the cross (or allowed somebody else to remove him from the cross) if Jesus was still alive (or less than completely dead) at that time. But there are other ways of explaining this. The Christian apologists Gary Habermas and Michael Licona mention one other way this could have happened in their discussion of the Swoon Theory in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (2004):

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? (p.100)

If the soldiers were bribed to take Jesus off the cross while he was still alive, then it would not have been necessary for Jesus to appear to have died. Habermas and Licona are correct to view such a scenario as being a version of the Swoon Theory. But in that case, not only is swooning or fainting NOT essential to the Swoon Theory but the underlying idea that Jesus appeared to die on the cross is also NOT essential to the Swoon Theory (or the Apparent Death Theory).

So, we cannot rescue the second definition by Geisler and Turek by replacing the too-narrow claim (3) that Jesus swooned while on the cross with the broader claim that Jesus appeared to die on the cross, because even that broader claim is NOT essential to the Swoon Theory. So, claim (3) is UNFAIR to supporters of the Swoon Theory and makes it reasonable to view this definition as committing the STRAWMAN FALLACY.

Claims (2) and (6) are also problematic because the terms “die” and “alive” are UNCLEAR. As the Christian apologist Murray Harris points out, a 20th-century version of the Swoon Theory involves making the distinction between “clinical death” and “brain death”. This modern version of the Swoon Theory was put forward by J.D.M. Derrett in his book The Anastasis: The Resurrection of Jesus as an Historical Event (1982). Harris briefly summarizes Derrett’s view:

So Derrett believes that Jesus suffered clinical death, but not real death, then revived, and subsequently experienced real death or brain death; and that his disciples chose to interpret that temporary revival as actual resurrection.

3 Crucial Questions about Jesus (1994) p.33

So, in addition to Jesus pretending to be dead, or fainting, or going into a coma on the cross, Jesus could have appeared to be dead because he experienced clinical death on the cross (i.e. his heart stopped beating, and he stopped breathing). In Derrett’s version of the Swoon Theory, Jesus could be said to have “died” on the cross, and to still be “dead” when placed into the tomb. So, claims (2) and (6) could both be FALSE even if the Swoon Theory was TRUE, depending on how one understands the meanings of the words “die” and “alive” in those two claims.

The problem with claims (2) and (6) could be resolved by clarifying the meanings of the words “die” and “alive” in those claims:

2a. Jesus did not experience brain death while he was on the cross.

6a. Jesus was (at most) only clinically dead and not brain dead when he was placed in a tomb (after being removed from the cross).

This clarification of claims (2) and (6) would not make this definition acceptable, however, because claims (3) and (9) are NOT essential to the Swoon Theory, as I have argued above. Therefore, this second definition by Geisler and Turek is WRONG and commits the STRAWMAN FALLACY against supporters of the Swoon Theory.

CONCLUSIONS

• The very simple and very broad definition of the “Swoon Theory” implied by Kreeft and Tacelli was WRONG.
• The very complex and very detailed definition of the “Swoon Theory” by the McDowells was WRONG and committed the STRAWMAN FALLACY.
• The two different definitions of the “Swoon Theory” by Geisler (that were more complex and more narrow than the definition implied by Kreeft and Tacelli and that were less complex and less narrow than the definition from the McDowells) are BOTH WRONG.
• The definition in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics is still too simple and too broad, applying to scenarios where the Swoon Theory would clearly be FALSE.
• The definition in I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist is too complex and too narrow because it includes claims that are NOT essential to the Swoon Theory and thus commits the STRAWMAN FALLACY against supporters of the Swoon Theory.

We have now considered four different and conflicting definitions of the “Swoon Theory” put forward by six different Christian apologists, and ALL FOUR definitions have been shown to be WRONG. Some are too simple and too broad, and others are too complex and too narrow. I think this is sufficient evidence to support my claim that Christian apologists are UNCLEAR about the meaning of the term “Swoon Theory” (as well as the meaning of “Apparent Death Theory”).