CRAIG’S CASE AGAINST THE SWOON THEORY IN THE SON RISES

In my upcoming book Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, Volume 1: The Resuscitation of the Swoon Theory (hereafter: TCAR1), I critically examine cases against the Swoon Theory presented by different Christian Apologists.

In Chapter 6 of my book, I show that William Craig’s case against the Swoon Theory in his book The Son Rises (hereafter: TSR) FAILS. Craig presents three objections to the Swoon Theory in TSR:

• CRAIG’S OBJECTION #1: Jesus’ Physical Injuries
• CRAIG’S OBJECTION #2: The Sickly Jesus Objection
• CRAIG’S OBJECTION #3: The Deceptive Jesus Objection

His second objection, the Sickly Jesus Objection is the same as Objection #5 against the Swoon Theory by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). In Chapter 3 of my book TCAR1, I show that HCA Objection #5 FAILS, so there is no need to do a careful analysis and evaluation of Craig’s Objection #2 because it has previously been shown that the Sickly Jesus Objection fails.

So, in Chapter 6 of my book TCAR1, I focus on Craig’s Objection #1, and Craig’s Objection #3, and I show that both of those objections against the Swoon Theory also FAIL. Since all three of Craig’s objections FAIL, his case against the Swoon Theory in TSR clearly FAILS.

A CONCERN ABOUT MY CRITIQUE OF CRAIG’S CASE IN TSR

However, someone who is familiar with the work and writing of William Craig, might well raise the following concern about my critique of Craig’s case against the Swoon Theory:

William Craig published The Son Rises back in 1981. That was more than four decades ago. He has continued to read, write, publish, teach, and speak about Christian apologetics and philosophy of religion up to now, so his thinking about the resurrection of Jesus and about the Swoon Theory have probably developed and changed over the past forty-four years. His case for the resurrection and against the Swoon Theory cannot be assumed to be exactly the same as what they were like back in 1981. Even if you have managed to show that his case against the Swoon Theory in The Son Rises has serious problems, that does not mean that his more recent 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory has serious problems.

This is a good point. Since Craig has continued to work on and develop his case for the resurrection of Jesus and on his cases against alternative skeptical theories, such as the Swoon Theory, we need to take a look at his more recent books and articles, to see if he has significantly improved his case against the Swoon Theory over the years.

THE HISTORY OF CRAIG’S CASES AGAINST THE SWOON THEORY

I have taken a look at more recent articles and books by Craig that present his case for the resurrection of Jesus and his case against the Swoon Theory, and I can see that he has in fact changed and developed both cases over the years.

There are three significant changes that Craig has made to his case against the Swoon Theory:

1. There are a number of additional objections that he has added to his original three, so that his 21st-century case now includes eight objections.
2. One of the additional objections is unique to Craig’s case against the Swoon Theory.
3. Although Craig maintained two of his original three objections, he dropped one of his original three objections (the Deceptive Jesus Objection).

Craig appears to have stuck with his original three objections to the Swoon Theory for about two decades (from 1981 to sometime between 2000 and 2008). Based on the information in the chart below, it appears that Craig revised his case against the Swoon Theory in the first decade of the 21st century, after the republication of The Son Rises in 2000 and before the publication of the 3rd edition of Reasonable Faith in 2008:

However, there is good reason to believe that Craig modified his case for the resurrection in the last decade of the 20th century.

Craig’s article “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?” in the book Jesus Under Fire (as Chapter 6 of that book), is structured on the basis of seven criteria for evaluating historical hypotheses that were put forward by C. Behan McCullagh (in Justifying Historical Descriptions). The book Jesus Under Fire, which contains Craig’s modified case for the resurrection of Jesus, was published in 1995. I believe that the adoption of McCullagh’s criteria led Craig to modify his case for the resurrection of Jesus and to also modify his case against the Swoon Theory. So, Craig’s new cases actually originated in the last decade of the 20th century.

The above chart references objections to the Swoon Theory from Kreeft and Tacelli in their book HCA. I don’t know whether Craig’s more recent case against the Swoon Theory borrows those objections from HCA or if Craig learned those objections elsewhere.

CRAIG’S 21ST-CENTURY CASE AGAINST THE SWOON THEORY

My point here is that in my book TCAR1, I have already shown that all nine objections from HCA against the Swoon Theory FAIL, before I get around to critically examining Craig’s case in TSR (in Chapter 6 of TCAR1). So, because most of the objections in Craig’s 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory are the same as six of the objections from HCA, I have already shown that six out of eight objections in Craig’s new case FAIL.

There are only two objections in Craig’s 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory that do not correlate to objections that were raised by Kreeft and Tacelli in HCA:

• Contrary to Jewish Thought
• Jesus’ Physical Injuries

Furthermore, the Jesus’ Physical Injuries objection was one of the three original objections in the case against the Swoon Theory presented by Craig in TSR back in 1981. So, in Chapter 6 of my book TCAR1, I have shown that Craig’s Objection #1 (Jesus’ Physical Injuries) FAILS.

That means that Craig’s 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory has only ONE NEW objection that might possibly be a good and solid objection: his Contrary to Jewish Thought Objection.

I have done a careful argument analysis of Craig’s Contrary to Jewish Thought Objection here at The Secular Frontier:

Careful Analysis of Objections to the Swoon Theory: Objection #10 (Jewish Thought)

I have also written a critical examination of this new objection, and concluded that it FAILS, just like all of the other objections that Craig has raised against the Swoon Theory. I plan to publish a post here at The Secular Frontier soon, presenting my critical evaluation of Craig’s Contrary to Jewish Thought Objection.

CRAIG’S CASE IN THE 3RD EDITION OF REASONABLE FAITH

I will now examine the specific claims by Craig that make up his 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory in the 3rd edition of Reasonable Faith (published in 2008, hereafter: RF3).

1. Some Versions of the Swoon Theory Share the Weaknesses of the Conspiracy Hypothesis

Some versions of the Apparent Death Hypothesis [i.e. the Swoon Theory] are really variations on the Conspiracy Hypothesis, merely substituting the disciples hoaxing Jesus’ death for their stealing Jesus’ body. In such cases, the theory shares all the weaknesses of the Conspiracy Hypothesis. (RF3, p.373)

This is a legitimate point by Craig, but it does not apply to the Swoon Theory in general, only to certain specific versions of the Swoon Theory. So, I am going to ignore this point.

2. Jesus Could Not Move the Stone from the Entrance of his Tomb

A non-conspiratorial version of the theory is also saddled with insupperable difficulties: how to explain the empty tomb, given Jesus’ merely apparent death, since a man sealed inside a tomb could not move the stone so as to escape… (RF3, p.373)

I have already dealt with this objection in Chapter 4 of my book TCAR1, because this was an objection presented by Kreeft and Tacelli: HCA Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?). In Chapter 4 of my book TCAR1, I show that this objection FAILS, just like all of the other objections against the Swoon Theory in HCA.

3. A Half-Dead Man Could Not Elicit Belief in the Resurrection of Jesus

A non-conspiratorial version of the theory is also saddled with insupperable difficulties: …how to explain the post-mortem appearances, since as Strauss mused, the appearance of a half-dead man desperately in need of medical attention would hardly have elicited in the disciples the conclusion that he was the Risen Lord and conqueror of Death… (RF3, p.373)

This is The Sickly Jesus Objection, which is the same as HCA Objection #5. In Chapter 3 of my book TCAR1, I show that the Sickly Jesus Objection FAILS, just like all of the other objections against the Swoon Theory in HCA.

4. The Disciples’ Belief in Jesus’ Resurrection was Contrary to Jewish Thought

A non-conspiratorial version of the theory is also saddled with insupperable difficulties: …how to explain the anachronism of the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since seeing him again would lead them to conclude that he had not died, not that he was, contrary to Jewish thought (as well as their own eyes), gloriously risen from the dead. (RF3, p.373)

This is the only new and unique objection in Craig’s 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory. This is also the only objection by Craig against the Swoon Theory that I do not critically evaluate in my book TCAR1. But I have carefully analyzed this objection here at The Secular Frontier, and will critically evaluate it here as well, showing that this objection FAILS, just like all of the other objections that Craig has raised against the Swoon Theory.

5. Roman Executioners Ensured that Their Victims were Dead

Roman executioners could be relied upon to ensure that their victims were dead. (RF3, p.373-374)

This is the same as HCA Objection #1: The Deadliness of Roman Crucifixion. In Chapter 5 of my book TCAR1, I show that this objection FAILS, just like all of the other objections from HCA fail.

6. Executioners Could Ensure Death by a Spear Thrust into the Victim’s Side

Since the exact moment of death was uncertain, executioners could ensure death by a spear thrust into the victim’s side, such as was dealt to Jesus. (RF3, p.374)

This is the same as HCA Objection #3: Blood and Water. In Chapter 3 of my book TCAR1, I show that this objection FAILS, just like all of the other objections against the Swoon Theory from HCA fail.

7. The Extent of Jesus’ Tortures Meant He Could Never Have Survived

Moreover, what the theory suggests is virtually physically impossible. The extent of Jesus’ tortures was such that he could never have survived crucifixion and entombment. (RF3, p.374)

This is the same as Craig’s Objection #1: Jesus’ Physical Injuries (from TSR). I view this as the most important objection that Christian apologists have raised against the Swoon Theory. It is a persuasive or psychologically powerful objection, and it is the first objection given both by William Craig in TSR and also by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona in their book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (see pages 100-102).

Also, the widely used and extolled Sickly Jesus Objection depends on the Jesus’ Physical Injuries Objection. If the Jesus’ Physical Injuries Objection FAILS, then so does the Sickly Jesus Objection. In Chapter 6 of my book TCAR1, I show that the Jesus’ Physical Injuries Objection FAILS, just like the other objections against the Swoon Theory in TSR fail.

The only difference from the Jesus’ Physical Injuries Objection is that Craig adds “and entombment” to this claim, which refers to an additional objection that corresponds to HCA Objection #4: Winding Sheets and Entombment. In Chapter 3 of my book TCAR1, I show that the Winding Sheets and Entombment objection FAILS, just like all of the other objections from HCA fail.

8. A Man So Critically Wounded Would Not Have Appeared to the Disciples in Jerusalem and Galilee

The suggestion that a man so critically wounded then went on to appear to the disciples on various occasions in Jerusalem and Galilee is pure fantasy. (RF3, p.374)

This objection is unclear. I suspect this is an enhancement of HCA Objection #5: the Sickly Jesus Objection. The phrase “a man so critically wounded” suggests that the weak, bleeding, limping, and badly wounded Jesus described in the Sickly Jesus Objection would not have been able to walk very far from his tomb.

Habermas and Licona make this point in their presentation of the Sickly Jesus Objection:

…it was not plausible that, having been scourged and crucified, Jesus pushed the heavy stone away from the tomb with pierced hands and walked blocks on pierced and wounded feet. (The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, p.102)

So, this point by Craig in RF3 appears to be a part of his presentation of the Sickly Jesus Objection.

9. The Swoon Theory Can Become Enormously Ad Hoc

The Apparent Death Hypothesis [i.e. Swoon Theory], especially in its conspiratorial instantiations, can become enormously ad hoc. (RF3, p.374)

Again, as with Craig’s point (1) above, this is NOT a general problem with the Swoon Theory but is a problem with some specific versions of the Swoon Theory. So, I will ignore this objection.

10. The Swoon Theory is Disconfirmed by Medical Facts about Scourging and Crucifixion

The Apparent Death Hypothesis [i.e. Swoon Theory] is massively disconfirmed by medical facts concerning what would happen to a person who has been scourged and crucified. (RF3, p.374)

This is a part of Craig’s Objection #1: Jesus’ Physical Injuries, which was one of the three objections that constituted Craig’s earlier case against the Swoon Theory presented in TSR. In Chapter 6 of my book TCAR1, I show that the Jesus’ Physical Injuries objection FAILS, just like the other objections in his case against the Swoon Theory in TSR.

11. The Swoon Theory is Disconfirmed by Jesus NOT Staying Among His Disciples

It [the Swoon Theory] is also disconfirmed by the unanimous evidence that Jesus did not continue among his disciples after his death. (RF3, p.374)

This is the same as HCA Objection #8: Where Did Jesus Go? In Chapter 5 of my book TCAR1, I show that HCA Objection #8 FAILS, just like all of the other objections against the Swoon Theory in HCA. So, this objection by Craig in RF3 also fails.

SUMMARY OF CRAIG’S CASE AGAINST THE SWOON THEORY IN RF3

Although Craig makes eleven different points in his 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory in RF3, I see only eight significant objections against the Swoon Theory. Six of those objections correspond to objections put forward by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in HCA:

• HCA Objection #7: Who Moved the Stone?
• HCA Objection #5: The Sickly Jesus Objection (same as Craig’s Objection #2 in TSR)
• HCA Objection #1: The Deadliness of Roman Crucifixion.
• HCA Objection #3: Blood and Water.
• HCA Objection #4: Winding Sheets and Entombment.
• HCA Objection #8: Where Did Jesus Go?

In my book TCAT1, I show that all six of these objections against the Swoon Theory FAIL.

There are two other objections in Craig’s 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory in RF3:

• Craig’s Objection #1: Jesus’ Physical Injuries (also in TSR)
• Craig’s Contrary to Jewish Thought Objection (the only new objection in RF3)

In Chapter 6 of my book TCAT1, I show that Craig’s Objection #1 (Jesus’ Physical Injuries) FAILS.

Therefore, the only significant objection in Craig’s 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory that I have not shown to FAIL (in my book TCAT1) is Craig’s Contrary to Jewish Thought objection.