Careful Analysis of Objections to the Swoon Theory: Objection #12 (Paul’s Conversion)

Bradley Bowen | April 24, 2024

WHERE WE ARE

The Christian apologists Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli presented nine objections against the Swoon Theory in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (published in 1994). I have carefully analyzed those nine objection and then carefully evaluated them. I concluded that each of those nine objections against the Swoon Theory FAIL. So, Kreeft and Tacelli FAILED to refute the Swoon Theory. Because their case for the resurrection of Jesus required them to refute the Swoon Theory, their case for the resurrection in Chapter 8 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics also FAILS.

I am in the process of carefully analyzing and evaluating six more objections against the Swoon Theory, objections from other Christian apologists besides Kreeft and Tacelli.

I have recently carefully analyzed two objections by the Christian apologist William Craig against the Swoon Theory, objections that do not correspond to any of the nine objections presented by Kreeft and Tacelli:

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

Careful Analysis of Objections to the Swoon Theory: Objection #11 (Deceptive Jesus)

OBJECTION #12 TO THE SWOON THEORY

In this current post, I will carefully analyze an objection against the Swoon Theory presented by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (published in 2004; hereafter: CRJ). This objection focuses on the conversion of Paul, who wrote a significant portion of the New Testament. Like the above two objections by Craig, this objection does not correspond to any of the nine objections presented by Kreeft and Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics. I will consider this objection by Habermas and Licona to be: Objection #12 (Paul’s Conversion).

Habermas and Licona state this objection in one brief paragraph:

Third, the apparent death theory [i.e. the Swoon Theory] cannot account for Paul’s dramatic reversal of worldviews. Paul claimed that his conversion was the result of experiencing a glorious appearance of the risen Jesus. A swooned Jesus, even if healed, would not appear gloriously. Therefore, it looks as if the swoon theory is “dead” with no hopes of a resurrection.
(CRJ, p. 103)

I will now carefully analyze this objection against the Swoon Theory.

IDENTIFICATION STEPS

First, I will identify the explicitly stated claims made in this argument.

[Third,] – indicates that a third argument is about to be given against the Swoon Theory.

1. [the apparent death theory cannot account for Paul’s dramatic reversal of worldviews.]

2. [Paul claimed that his conversion was the result of experiencing a glorious appearance of the risen Jesus.]

3. [A swooned Jesus, even if healed, would not appear gloriously.]

[Therefore,] – indicates that the conclusion of the argument will now be stated:

4. [it looks as if the swoon theory is “dead” with no hopes of a resurrection.]

CLARIFICATION STEPS

Now I will clarify the explicitly stated claims in this argument against the Swoon Theory.

1. [the apparent death theory cannot account for Paul’s dramatic reversal of worldviews.] – the term “apparent death theory” refers to the same view as the Swoon Theory, so we can insert “Swoon Theory” here:

=>1a. The Swoon Theory cannot account for Paul’s dramatic reversal of worldviews.

2. [Paul claimed that his conversion was the result of experiencing a glorious appearance of the risen Jesus.] – the expression “experiencing a glorious appearance of the risen Jesus” is UNCLEAR, but I will suggest two possible interpretations here:

=>2a. Paul claimed that his conversion to Christianity was the result of Paul SEEING (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically embodied risen Jesus who had a glorious appearance.

=>2b. Paul claimed that his conversion to Christianity was the result of Paul ENCOUNTERING (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically embodied risen Jesus whose presence was indicated by a glorious light.

3. [A swooned Jesus, even if healed, would not appear gloriously.] – I’m going to provide two interpretations of this statement in relation to the above two interpretations of statement (2):

=>3a. IF Jesus had survived crucifixion and Paul SAW (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically-embodied Jesus, THEN Jesus would NOT have had a glorious appearance when Paul SAW (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically-embodied Jesus.

=>3b. IF Jesus had survived crucifixion and Paul ENCOUNTERED (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically embodied Jesus, THEN Jesus would not have arrived along with a glorious light when Paul ENCOUNTERED (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically-embodied Jesus.

4. [it looks as if the swoon theory is “dead” with no hopes of a resurrection.] – this statement is UNCLEAR and it can be interpreted in terms of different degrees of strength:

=>4a. It is certain that the Swoon Theory is false.

=>4b. It is very probable that the Swoon Theory is false.

=>4c. It is somewhat probable that the Swoon Theory is false.

=>4d. The Swoon Theory is much less probable than the Christian Theory.

=>4e. The Swoon Theory is somewhat less probable than the Christian Theory.

HOW STONG IS THE CLAIM IN STATEMENT (4)?

Habermas and Licona provide some indications that they intend statement (4) to make a strong claim against the Swoon Theory. For example, at one point they refer to their objections against skeptical theories as being “refutations”. They advise Christian believers who are arguing against skeptical theories about the resurrection, such as the Swoon Theory:

One or two refutations will usually be enough.
(CRJ, p.103)

To “refute” a claim or theory means to prove that the claim or theory is false. The first definition of “refute” in The American Heritage Dictionary confirms this:

re·fute

tr.v. re·fut·ed, re·fut·ing, re·futes

1. To prove to be false or erroneous; …
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers.)

Furthermore, if only “one or two” objections is sufficient to show that the Swoon Theory is incorrect, then each of those objections needs to be very strong; each objection needs to “refute” the Swoon Theory; each objection needs to prove that the Swoon Theory is false.

Objection #12 is the third of three objections raised by Habermas and Licona in Chapter 5 of their book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. They state that there are “at least three major problems” with the Swoon Theory (CRJ, p.100). Their first objection is about the main assertion of the Swoon Theory: the claim that Jesus survived his crucifixion.

Habermas and Licona provide a clear indication of the strength of their first objection:

First, such an occurrence [i.e. Jesus surviving his crucifixion] seems highly unlikely, given the nature of scourging and crucifixion.
(CRJ, p.100)

They do not claim that it was impossible for Jesus to have survived his crucifixion, nor do they claim that it is certain that Jesus died on the cross. But they still make a very strong claim here: that a primary implication of the Swoon Theory is “highly unlikely”, which makes the Swoon Theory “highly unlikely”. This seems to fall a little bit short of “proving” that the Swoon Theory is false, but it approaches that degree of strength. If we stretch the meaning of “proving a claim to be false” a little (so that it includes showing the claim to be highly unlikely), then they could reasonably be viewed as thinking their first objection by itself constitutes a “refutation” and that, by itself, the first objection “proves” the Swoon Theory to be false.

The second objection that Habermas and Licona raise against the Swoon Theory is basically the same as Objection #5 (Sickly Jesus) that was raised by Kreeft and Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Habermas and Licona are not clear about the alleged strength of this objection. Clearly, they believe it to constitute a “major problem” with the Swoon Theory.

They do not explicitly assert that this second objection proves the Swoon Theory to be false. However, they do provide some indications that they believe their second objection to be very strong. The Sickly Jesus objection originated with the German scholar David Strauss, and according to Habermas and Licona, Strauss “ended up decimating the swoon theory.” (CRJ, p.102) with his Sickly Jesus objection.

The term “decimating” is another metaphorical expression, but it has a strong meaning. Consider the first definition given in The American Heritage Dictionary:

dec·i·mate

tr.v. dec·i·mat·ed, dec·i·mat·ing, dec·i·mates

1. To destroy or kill a large part of (a group of people or organisms).
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers.)

I suppose that to “decimate” a group of people is something less than to “annihilate” the entire group of people. So, there is a small degree of qualification implied here.

They could have used terms like “highly unlikely” or “very improbable” to indicate that this second objection falls short of proving that the Swoon Theory is false, but no such qualifications appear in their statement of the Sickly Jesus objection:

…when he 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.

So even if Jesus got off the cross while he was still alive, the disciples would not have been convinced that he had risen from the dead…
(CRJ, p.102)

There are no qualifications here, and no indications of uncertainty, and there is no mention of probability or improbability. The absence of qualifications and the absence of hints of uncertainty along with the use of the rather powerful term “decimate” suggest that they believe that the Sickly Jesus objection, their second objection, is a very strong objection and that by itself it either proves that the Swoon Theory is false, or shows the Swoon Theory to be very improbable.

Habermas and Licona view their first two objections as being very strong and powerful objections. They believe that each of these two objections is sufficient by itself to prove the Swoon Theory to be false, or to show that the Swoon Theory is very improbable. Because they refer to their objections to skeptical theories as “refutations”, and because they believe that each of their three objections to the Swoon Theory constitutes a “major problem” with the Swoon Theory, we may reasonably conclude that (in the absence of any specific qualifications or hints of uncertainty) they also consider their third objection against the Swoon Theory to be a very strong and powerful objection, an objection that by itself either proves the Swoon Theory to be false or shows the Swoon Theory to be very improbable.

Based on the above considerations, I think the best interpretations of their statement (4) are these two claims:

4a. It is certain that the Swoon Theory is false.

4b. It is very probable that the Swoon Theory is false.

Because Habermas and Licona use the term “very unlikely” of a clear implication of the Swoon Theory, to indicate the strength of their first objection against the Swoon Theory, and because that is the clearest indication they give of the degree of strength of one of their three objections, interpretation (4b) is a somewhat better interpretation than (4a).

FILL IN STEPS

I will now try to make explicit any unstated assumptions or inferences that will help to better understand the argument presented by Habermas and Licona constituting Objection #12 (Paul’s Conversion).

Statements (2) and (3) have two different possible meanings. I’m going to start out with the stronger senses of these claims, and then later move to weaker interpretations, if the argument FAILS because of the strong claims being false or dubious. I take it that interpretations (2a) and (3a) are the stronger senses of statements (2) and (3).

Premise (2a) and premise (3a) appear to be closely related to each other:

2a. Paul claimed that his conversion was the result of Paul clearly SEEING with his own eyes (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the face and body of the risen Jesus who had a glorious (i.e. brightly radiant) appearance.

3a. IF Jesus had survived crucifixion and Paul clearly SAW with his own eyes (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the face and body of Jesus, THEN Jesus would NOT have had a glorious (i.e. brightly radiant) appearance when Paul SAW (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the face and body of Jesus.

However, there is a logical disconnect between these claims, because premise (2a) asserts that Paul CLAIMED to have seen a physically-embodied risen Jesus while premise (3a) talks about Paul ACTUALLY seeing the physically-embodied Jesus. There is a logical gap between Paul CLAIMING X to be the case and X ACTUALLY being the case. So, we need an additional assumption and an additional inference to bridge the logical gap between (2a) and (3a):

2a. Paul claimed that his conversion was the result of Paul clearly SEEING with his own eyes (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the face and body of the risen Jesus who had a glorious (i.e. brightly radiant) appearance.

A. IF Paul claimed that his conversion to Christianity was the result of Paul clearly SEEING with his own eyes (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the face and body of the risen Jesus who had a glorious (i.e. brightly radiant) appearance, THEN Paul’s conversion to Christianity was the result of Paul clearly SEEING with his own eyes (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the face and body of Jesus who had a glorious (i.e. brightly radiant) appearance.

THEREFORE:

B. Paul’s conversion to Christianity was the result of Paul SEEING (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically embodied Jesus who had a glorious appearance.

Premise (B) comes close to bridging the logical gap between (2a) and (3a), but one more inference is needed to fully bridge the gap:

B. Paul’s conversion to Christianity was the result of Paul SEEING (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically embodied Jesus who had a glorious appearance.

THEREFORE:

C. Jesus had a glorious appearance when Paul SAW (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically embodied Jesus.

Premise (C) directly connects with premise (3a) to form a modus tollens inference (which is often used in reduction to absurdity arguments):

3a. IF Jesus had survived crucifixion and Paul SAW (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically embodied Jesus, THEN Jesus would NOT have had a glorious appearance when Paul SAW (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically embodied Jesus.

C. Jesus had a glorious appearance when Paul SAW (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically embodied Jesus.

THEREFORE:

D. It is NOT the case that: Jesus had survived crucifixion and Paul SAW (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically embodied Jesus.

Premise (D) is the denial of a conjunction:

It is NOT the case that: P and Q.

That implies that at least one of the conjuncts must be false:

Either NOT P or NOT Q.

So, from (D) we may logically infer this statement:

E. Either it is NOT the case that Jesus had survived crucifixion or it is NOT the case that Paul SAW (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically embodied Jesus.

But premise (C) clearly implies this:

F. Paul SAW (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically embodied Jesus.

From (E) and (F) we can infer that a clear implication of the Swoon Theory is false:

G. It is NOT the case that Jesus had survived crucifixion.

Now we can state the final inference of Objection #12:

H. IF it is NOT the case that Jesus survived crucifixion, THEN the Swoon Theory is false.

G. It is NOT the case that Jesus survived crucifixion.

THEREFORE:

I. The Swoon Theory is false.

DIAGRAMMING OBJECTION #12 (PAUL’S CONVERSION)

Initially, it appeared to me that the core argument of Objection #12 involved premise (1a):

1a. The Swoon Theory cannot account for Paul’s dramatic reversal of worldviews.

THEREFORE:

4b. It is very probable that the Swoon Theory is false.

If this was the core argument, then the rest of the argument would presumably be a sub-argument in support of the key premise (1a).

However, the reasoning that is strongly suggested by premises (2a) and (3a) leads to the conclusion that the Swoon Theory is simply false, not that it is “very probable” that the Swoon Theory is false. Furthermore, there seems to be no need for any intermediate conclusion about what the Swoon Theory can or cannot explain or account for. So, it is unclear whether the statements (1a) or (4b) are even relevant to this argument.

The statement (4b) could potentially be the conclusion of the argument, but we would need to weaken one of the premises that leads to the conclusion, in order to inject the term “very probable” into the argument prior to arriving at the conclusion of the argument.

The unstated assumption that I identified as premise (A) seems dubious as it stands and could be made more plausible by weakening it with a reference to the idea of probability (i.e. “very probable”):

A1. IF Paul claimed that his conversion to Christianity was the result of Paul SEEING (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically embodied risen Jesus who had a glorious appearance, THEN it is very probable that Paul’s conversion to Christianity was the result of Paul SEEING (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically embodied Jesus who had a glorious appearance.

Qualifying premise (A) this way would impact the further claims inferred from it, so that the qualification “very probable” would need to be added to the various claims that are based upon (A1). The ultimate conclusion of the argument would thus also include this qualification:

4b. It is very probable that the Swoon Theory is false.

I still do not see a logical role for statement (1a) in this argument. However, we could reasonably view (1a) as being a brief summary of the reasoning that is based on premises (2a) and (3a):

1a. The Swoon Theory cannot account for Paul’s dramatic reversal of worldviews.

The reasoning based on premises (2a) and (3a) shows (or tries to show) that Paul’s claims about how his conversion to Christianity, referred to as “Paul’s dramatic reversal of worldviews” in statement (1a), does not fit well with a clear implication of the Swoon Theory.

Assuming that the argument constituting Objection #12 is based upon premises (2a) and (3a), and that the conclusion of the argument is (4b), and assuming that statement (1a) is just a brief summary of the reasoning (rather than being a premise of the argument), we can now diagram the full argument.

EXPLICITLY STATED CLAIMS

2a. Paul claimed that his conversion to Christianity was the result of Paul SEEING (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically embodied risen Jesus who had a glorious appearance.

3a. IF Jesus had survived crucifixion and Paul SAW (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically embodied Jesus, THEN Jesus would NOT have had a glorious appearance when Paul SAW (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically embodied Jesus.

4b. It is very probable that the Swoon Theory is false.

UNSTATED ASSUMPTIONS/CLAIMS

B1. It is very probable that Paul’s conversion to Christianity was the result of Paul SEEING (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically embodied Jesus who had a glorious appearance.

C1. It is very probable that Jesus had a glorious appearance when Paul SAW (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically embodied Jesus.

D1. It is very probable that it is NOT the case that: Jesus had survived crucifixion and Paul SAW (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically embodied Jesus.

E1. It is very probable that either it is NOT the case that Jesus had survived crucifixion or it is NOT the case that Paul SAW (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically embodied Jesus.

F1. It is very probable that Paul SAW (on the road to Damascus sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus) the physically embodied Jesus.

G1. It is very probable that it is NOT the case that Jesus had survived crucifixion.

H1. IF it is very probable that it is NOT the case that Jesus survived crucifixion, THEN it is very probable that the Swoon Theory is false.