The last comment I want to make about the Swoon Theory, for now, is it fails to account for all the historical evidence for the resurrection. Due to that, it requires other theories to cover the data that it fails to address thus making it ad hoc in its approach.
For instance, since the Swoon Theory claims that Jesus did not rise from the dead, it fails to explain how the resurrection became the central teaching of the Apostles and the early church.[1] If Jesus’ followers knew that he had not died and, by extension, had not risen from the dead, then they must be charged with forming a conspiracy to spread this story. But the Conspiracy Theory is full of all sorts of issues as well and it cannot account for all the data either.
Additionally, to make up the idea that Jesus had resurrected ahead of the general resurrection would have been beyond the followers comprehension given their cultural background.[2] But this is what we would be asked to accept if the Swoon Theory were true.
There is also the critique of the skeptic Strauss that if Jesus had appeared alive to the followers instead of risen, they would not have turned around to worship him, but would have sought out medical attention to try and save him. Also, as mentioned yesterday, a badly wounded and most likely crippled Jesus is not going to inspire conversion in either Paul the church persecutor or James, the skeptical half-brother of Jesus.
Overall, the Swoon Theory is on very unstable ground as a viable theory. It leaves too much data unexplained and fails to deliver as a naturalistic explanation.
Previous posts:
- Swoon Theory – Part 1
- Swoon Theory – Part 2
- See 1 Corinthians 15:1-4
- N.T. Wright has a lot to say about this in his massive book The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress Press, 2003).