THE QUESTION AT ISSUE

In their book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (published in 2004), Gary Habermas and Michael Licona present three objections against the Swoon Theory, on pages 99 through 103.

My Christian friend David Diaz, however, disagrees with the above claim:

Habermas and Licona are NOT writing about the “Swoon Theory,” per se; they are writing about what they call the “Apparent Death Theory.”

If Habermas and Licona believed that the Swoon Theory was dead, then they would have no need to challenge the “Swoon Theory,” per se. Indeed, this is why they didn’t.

Recent comments by David Diaz on my post “21st Century Christian Apologists on the Swoon Theory – Part 4: Gary Habermas & Michael Licona” which was published on 1/26/2024

But it is OBVIOUS and VERY CLEAR, that Habermas and Licona ARE writing about the Swoon Theory and they ARE challenging the Swoon Theory on pages 99 through 103 of their book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.

I guess that what is OBVIOUS to one person is not necessarily OBVIOUS to another person. So, in this current post, I am going to lay out the evidence that makes it CLEAR and OBVIOUS that Habermas and Licona ARE writing about the Swoon Theory and ARE challenging the Swoon Theory on those pages of their book.

REASON #1: HABERMAS & LICONA INDICATE THAT THERE ARE TWO TERMS THAT REFER TO THE SAME THEORY

Although this section of the book begins is labeled “Apparent Death Theory” on page 99, they quickly point out that an alternative term is used to refer to this theory:

This apparent death theory has been referred to as the “swoon theory”, and there are at least three major problems with it. (p.100)

Because the “swoon theory” refers to the “apparent death theory”, clearly the three major problems that Habermas and Licona raise against the “apparent death theory” are ALSO three major problems with the “swoon theory” because both expressions refer to the SAME THEORY. This one sentence, which occurs near the beginning of their critique of the Apparent Death Theory is sufficient by itself to settle the issue. This one sentence implies that they are also pointing out “three major problems” with the Swoon Theory.

REASON #2: HABERMAS & LICONA INDICATE THAT THE SECOND “MAJOR PROBLEM” IS A PROBLEM WITH THE SWOON THEORY

Habermas and Licona have indicated early on (on page 100) that they are going to cover “three major problems” with the Apparent Death Theory (see quote above). But when they discuss the second “major problem” with the Apparent Death Theory, they refer to it as the “swoon theory”:

Second, over a century before this study [a reference to a 1986 article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association about the crucifixion of Jesus], one liberal scholar who thought hallucinations accounted for the appearances of the risen Jesus ended up decimating the swoon theory. (p.102)

They go on to present an objection that David Strauss raised against the Swoon Theory. In presenting their second “major problem” with the Apparent Death Theory, Habermas and Licona state that Strauss “ended up decimating the swoon theory.” They MAKE NO REFERENCE to the “Apparent Death Theory”. Why not? Because, as they have previously indicated at the start of their discussion that the terms “Swoon Theory” and “Apparent Death Theory” refer to the SAME THEORY!

REASON #3: HABERMAS & LICONA INDICATE THAT THE CONCLUSION OF THEIR THREE OBJECTIONS IS ABOUT THE SWOON THEORY

When Habermas and Licona put forward their third and final “major problem” with (or objection to) the Apparent Death Theory, they use the term “Apparent Death Theory,” but then they state their ultimate conclusion as a conclusion about the “Swoon Theory”:

Third, the apparent death theory cannot account for Paul’s dramatic reversal of worldviews. …Therefore, it looks as if the swoon theory is “dead” with no hopes of resurrection. (p.103)

After presenting their THREE “major problems” with (or objections to) the Apparent Death Theory, Habermas and Licona state their ultimate conclusion as being that they have destroyed (killed off) the Swoon Theory! This makes it CLEAR and OBVIOUS that they believe their THREE objections against the Apparent Death Theory apply equally to the Swoon Theory, and thus that they use the terms “Apparent Death Theory” and “Swoon Theory” to refer to the SAME THEORY. Their alleged refutation of the Apparent Death Theory IS an alleged refutation of the Swoon Theory.

No more evidence is needed to definitively establish that Habermas and Licona use the terms “Apparent Death Theory” and “Swoon Theory” to refer to the SAME Theory, and thus that their discussion and critique of the Apparrent Death Theory IS a discussion and critique of the Swoon Theory.

However, I suspect that this overwhelming evidence is, for some unknown reason, insufficient to persuade my Christian friend David Diaz that Habermas and Licona were discussing and challenging the Swoon Theory on pages 99 to 103 of their book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. So, I will go ahead and provide further evidence to support what seems to me to be a CLEAR and OBVIOUS interpretation of that section of the book by Habermas and Licona.

REASON #4: IN ANOTHER BOOK HABERMAS RAISES THE DEADLINESS-OF-CRUCIFIXION OBJECTION AGAINST THE SWOON THEORY

In his book Risen Indeed (published in 2021), Gary Habermas raises the SAME deadliness-of-crucifixion objection against the Swoon Theory as Habermas and Licona raised against the Apparent Death Theory in their book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (published in 2004). Here is the second objection against the Swoon Theory that Habermas raises in Risen Indeed:

…secondly, there is strong evidence to demonstrate that Jesus was dead prior to burial. (p.119)

Habermas then makes some of the same points in support of this objection as he and Licona made in support of this objection against the Apparent Death Theory in their book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. So, this is clearly the SAME OBJECTION. In Risen Indeed, Habermas does not even mention the Apparent Death Theory. This is another strong indication that Habermas views the Swoon Theory as being the SAME THEORY as the Apparent Death Theory.

REASON #5: IN ANOTHER BOOK HABERMAS RAISES THE SICKLY JESUS OBJECTION AGAINST THE SWOON THEORY

In The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Habermas and Licona raise THREE “major problems” with (or objections to) the Apparent Death Theory on pages 99 through 103. The second “major problem” that they discuss is what I call the Sickly Jesus Objection. This is the main objection made by David Strauss, an objection which most Christian apologists view as one of the best and strongest objections:

…when he [Jesus] appeared to his disciples in his pathetic and mutilated state, would this convince them that he was the risen Prince of life? Alive? Barely. Risen? No.

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, p.102

But in Habermas’ later book Risen Indeed, he uses this SAME OBJECTION against the Swoon Theory:

Strangely enough, various liberal theologians were some of the most ardent critics of the swoon theory. By far the most famous critique was given by David Strauss himself. He pointed out that in order for this theory to be true, Jesus would have come forth from the grave half dead, one who was quite visibly ill and weak, badly in need of medical help and care… . But Strauss persuasively argues that it would be impossible for such an individual to have convinced the disciples that he was the Conqueror of death, the Victor over the grave, or the Prince of life.

Risen Indeed, p.117

We have seen that Habermas and Licona present THREE “major problems” with (or objections to) the Apparent Death Theory in their book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, and TWO of those “major problems” are presented by Habermas in his later book Risen Indeed, as being major problems with the Swoon Theory. Furthermore, Habermas does not mention the Apparent Death Theory in his book Risen Indeed. This is powerful evidence showing that Habermas views the Apparent Death Theory as being the SAME THEORY as the Swoon Theory.

REASON #6: THE THIRD MAJOR PROBLEM RAISED BY HABERMAS & LICONA AGAINST THE APPARENT DEATH THEORY WAS RAISED BY HABERMAS AS A PROBLEM WITH THE SWOON THEORY

There is a clear parallel between the THREE objections that Habermas raises against the Swoon Theory in his book Risen Indeed, and the THREE objections that Habermas and Licona raise against the Apparent Death Theory in their book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. I have argued that TWO of the THREE objections are the SAME (namely the Deadliness of Roman Crucifixion & the Sickly Jesus Objection). This is powerful evidence that Habermas views the Swoon Theory as being the SAME THEORY as the Apparent Death Theory.

However, the third objection that Habermas and Licona raise against the Apparent Death Theory in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus is different from the third objection that Habermas raises against the Swoon Theory in his book Risen Indeed. So, the three objections that Habermas makes against the Swoon Theory in Risen Indeed, are not identical to the three objections that Habermas and Licona make against the Apparent Death Theory in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. This might raise a very tiny doubt about my claim that Habermas views the Apparent Death Theory as being the SAME THEORY as the Swoon Theory.

But this very tiny doubt can be extinguished by consideration of the following fact: the third objection against the Apparent Death Theory in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, is used by Gary Habermas and J.P. Moreland against the Swoon Theory in their book Immortality: The Other Side of Death (published in 1992). So, Habermas has used ALL THREE of the “major problems” with the Apparent Death Theory presented in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, as objections to the Swoon Theory in other books.

In The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Habermas and Licona briefly present their third and final objection against the Apparent Death Theory:

Third, the apparent death theory cannot account for Paul’s dramatic reversal of worldviews. (p.103)

In their book Immortality, Habermas and Moreland raise the SAME objection against the Swoon Theory:

…the swoon theory dies for still other reasons. It cannot account…for Paul’s dramatic reversal of worldviews. (p. 60)

In their book Immortality, Habermas and Moreland discuss various skeptical theories about the resurrection, but they don’t even mention the Apparent Death Theory. Why not? Because they understand that the Apparent Death Theory is the SAME THEORY as the Swoon Theory, so there is no need for a separate discussion of the Apparent Death Theory.

REASON #7: CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS NORMAN GEISLER & FRANK TUREK UNDERSTAND THAT THE SWOON THEORY AND THE APPARENT DEATH THEORY ARE THE SAME THEORY

In their book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (published in 2004) Christian apologists Norman Geisler and Frank Turek discuss various skeptical theories about the resurrection on pages 301 to 315. The discussion of each skeptical theory is put under a separate sub-heading. One of these sections has this heading:

Swoon or Apparent Death Theory

Under that heading Geisler & Turek write the following:

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. There are numerous fatal flaws with this theory… (p.304)

Note that they are criticizing just ONE theory here: “this theory”. But the heading of the section mentions two different NAMES for “this theory”: Swoon or Apparent Death Theory. Clearly, the Christian apologists Geisler and Turek understand that the terms “Swoon Theory” and “Apparent Death Theory” both refer to the SAME THEORY.

REASON #8: SEAN & JOSH MCDOWELL UNDERSTAND THAT THE SWOON THEORY AND THE APPARENT DEATH THEORY ARE THE SAME THEORY

In their book Evidence for the Resurrection (published in 2009) the Christian apologists Sean and Josh McDowell raise several objections to the Swoon Theory. One of those objections is attributed to William Lane Craig:

Another significant problem for the swoon theory is that it makes Jesus into a deceiver. William Lane Craig explains:

“The necessary implication of the theory is that Jesus was a charlatan who tricked the disciples into believing that He had been raised from the dead. […]”

Evidence for the Resurrection, p.224

The passage that the McDowells quote is from Craig’s book The Son Rises (re-published in 2000), and that point is clearly about the Apparent Death Theory. Here is the first sentence of the paragraph by Craig from which the McDowells quoted:

The apparent-death theory makes Jesus into a deceiver.

The Son Rises, p.39

Craig NEVER refers to the “swoon theory” in his book The Son Rises. In fact, as far as I know, Craig never uses the term “swoon theory” in ANY of his books that discuss the resurrection of Jesus.

So, why do the Christian apologists Sean and Josh McDowell quote from William Craig’s objection against the Apparent Death Theory, when the McDowells are making an objection to the Swoon Theory? They do so because they UNDERSTAND that the terms “Apparent Death Theory” and “Swoon Theory” both refer to the SAME THEORY.

CONCLUSION

The EIGHT REASONS given above clearly establish that the terms “Apparent Death Theory” and “Swoon Theory” both refer to the SAME THEORY, and therefore the THREE objections raised against the Apparent Death Theory in the book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona constitute a discussion about the Swoon Theory and a challenge to the Swoon Theory.