WHERE WE ARE
In Part 1 of this series, I pointed out that an important part of the case for the resurrection of Jesus by the Christian philosophers Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) is their attempt to refute the Swoon Theory. Because they fail to refute the Swoon Theory, their case for the resurrection of Jesus also fails.
Four of their objections to the Swoon Theory are based on the Gospel of John:
In Part 1 of this series, I showed that Objection #2 and Objection #3 are both weak and defective objections. In this current post, I will critically examine Objection #4.
OBJECTION #4: WINDING SHEETS AND ENTOMBMENT
Here is what I take to be the core argument of Objection #4 (Winding Sheets & Entombment):
1b. On Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the
cross, it was totally encased in winding sheets (that included 100-plus pounds
of spices and a gummy substance).
2a. On Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the
cross, it was placed into a stone tomb.
C. IF on Friday evening, after
Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, Jesus’ body was totally encased in
winding sheets (that included 100-plus pounds of spices and a gummy substance)
and Jesus’ body was placed into a stone tomb, THEN even if Jesus had survived
his crucifixion Jesus would have either quickly suffocated in his tomb or
quickly died in his tomb as a result of the cold, damp air in his tomb when
Jesus’ body was placed into his tomb on Friday evening.
THEREFORE:
D. IF Jesus had survived his crucifixion, THEN Jesus would
have either quickly suffocated in his tomb or quickly died in his tomb as a
result of the cold, damp air in his tomb when Jesus’ body was placed into his
tomb on Friday evening.
This core argument is a logically VALID argument because it can be
re-stated as a modus ponens inference by simply combining
premise (1b) and premise (2a) into a single claim or premise. None of the three
premises of this core argument is obviously true, so all three premises
require support by further arguments.
THE
SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (1b)
Because Kreeft and Tacelli provide an argument
in support of the key premise (1b), we need to consider that argument:
3b. According to the Gospel of John (Jn
19:38-42), on Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, it
was totally encased in winding sheets (that included 100-plus pounds of spices
and a gummy substance).
B. The Gospel of John provides a reliable and
accurate account of the life of Jesus, including what happened to Jesus’ body
after he was crucified.
THEREFORE:
1b. On Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the
cross, it was totally encased in winding sheets (that included 100-plus pounds
of spices and a gummy substance).
As I
argued previously, the Gospel of John is not a reliable and
accurate account of the life of Jesus, and we have also seen specific reasons
to doubt the historical reliability of the descriptions of some events related
to the crucifixion of Jesus in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John.[1] Thus, premise (B) is false. Therefore, this sub-argument for (1b) is unsound
and should be rejected. We may reasonably conclude that the key premise (1b) is
dubious and might well be false.
Furthermore,
the passage referenced in premise (3b) has some specific problems that cast
significant doubt on the historical reliability of that particular
passage:
- No other Gospel mentions the involvement of Nicodemus in the
burial of Jesus
- No other Gospel ever mentions Nicodemus
- No other
Gospel indicates that a large quantity of spices was used to prepare the body
of Jesus for burial
- No other Gospel states that Jesus was crucified in a garden
- No other Gospel states that the tomb of Jesus was in a garden
- The
other Gospels state that Joseph of Arimathea wrapped Jesus’ body in a
linen cloth (Mark 15:46, Matthew 27:59, Luke 23:53), while the Gospel of John has Jesus wrapped in strips of linen or linen wrappings (John 19:40 NIV or NRSV Updated Version)[2]
- Only in the Gospel of John is there no mention of women followers of Jesus being present at the burial
- Only in the Gospel of John is there no mention of Joseph closing the tomb entrance with a rock
Some women who
followed Jesus allegedly watched Joseph prepare the body of Jesus for burial (Matthew 27:59-61),
so if a large amount of myrrh and aloes were incorporated into the cloth
wrapped around Jesus, the women would have known that was done and would not have
purchased or planned to use more expensive spices to do
further preparation of Jesus’ body, but that is what they did according to
the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke (Mark
15:46-16:1, Luke 23:55-56).
Given
the failure of the other three Gospels to corroborate key details of this
passage in the Gospel of John, given the inconsistencies between
this passage and the accounts of the other three Gospels, given the historical unreliability of the Gospel of John, and given other
previously mentioned historical problems with the stories and details in Chapter 19 of
the Gospel of John, we have good reason to doubt the historical
claims made in the passage of the Gospel of John that is referenced in
premise (3b). So, it is probably false that Nicodemus brought a large amount of spices to the tomb of Jesus. Therefore, the key premise (1b) is probably
false.
Finally,
premise (3b) is false because the passage referenced from the Gospel of
John does NOT indicate that “100-plus pounds of spices and a gummy
substance” were used in encasing the body of Jesus in winding sheets.
The
“100-plus pounds” weight is based on a faulty translation of
John 19:39.[3] The translation in the New
International Version “about seventy-five pounds” is accurate (assuming that the Greek term “litras” means the same as the Roman Latin term
“libras”):
He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man
who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh
and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. (John
19:39, New International Version)
Therefore, premise (3b) is false. The relevant Gospel passage does
not state that “100-plus pounds” of spices and a gummy substance were
incorporated into the encasement of Jesus’ body with winding sheets.
Also, since the passage states (at most) that
Nicodemus brought about 75 pounds of spices to Jesus’ tomb, it
is probably false that Nicodemus actually brought 100 pounds of
spices to Jesus’ tomb. Therefore, we have another good reason to conclude that
premise (1b) is probably false.
Since both premise (B) and premise (3b) in the
sub-argument for the key premise (1b) are false, it is clear that this
sub-argument is unsound and should be rejected. Thus, Kreeft and Tacelli have failed
to provide us with a good reason to believe premise (1b). Therefore, the key
premise (1b) is dubious and might well be false. That is a good reason to
conclude that Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory fails.
But as I argued above, we also have good reasons
to believe that the key premise (1b) is probably false. So, we clearly have a
good reason for concluding that Objection #4 against the Swoon
Theory fails.
THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE
(2A)
Premise (2a) is a key premise in the core argument
for Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory. Peter
Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli provide a sub-argument in support of premise (2a), so
we need to consider that argument:
4a. According to the Gospel of John (Jn
19:38-42), on Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, it
was placed into a stone tomb.
B.
The Gospel of John provides a reliable and accurate account of
the life of Jesus, including what happened to Jesus’ body after he was
crucified.
THEREFORE:
2a. On Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was
removed from the cross, it was placed into a stone tomb.
Premise (4a) appears to be true.
As I argued previously,
the Gospel of John is not a reliable and accurate account of
the life of Jesus, and we have also seen specific reasons to doubt the
historical reliability of the descriptions of some events related to the
crucifixion of Jesus in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John.[1] Thus,
premise (B) is false. Therefore, this sub-argument for (2a) is unsound and
should be rejected. Kreeft and Tacelli have failed to provide us with a good
reason to believe that the key premise (2a) is true.
EVIDENCE
FOR PREMISE (2A) FROM THE OTHER GOSPELS
Although we should not take
the referenced passage from Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John as
sufficient evidence to establish the key premise (2a), the other three Gospels
agree with the claim asserted by premise (2a). So, in order to
evaluate premise (2a), we need to consider the evidence for (2a) from the other
three Gospels.
The key premise (2a) might
be true. All four of the canonical gospels agree on the point made by that
premise. Nobody can prove that premise (2a) is false. However, as I have
previously argued, the evidence from the Gospel of John is clearly insufficient for
the purpose of showing that (2a) asserts a historical fact.
Furthermore, there are two key points that
taken together show that (2a) does not assert a historical fact and that there
is a significant chance that (2a) is false. l will argue that premise (2a)
is dubious because:
- Whether (2a) is a historical fact comes down to
the question of whether the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark is historically
reliable.
- There are good reasons to believe that the Burial Story
in the Gospel of Mark is historically unreliable.
The key premise (2a) might be true. All four of the canonical gospels agree on the point made by that premise. Nobody can prove that premise (2a) is false. However, as I have previously argued, the evidence from the Gospel of John is clearly insufficient for the purpose of showing that (2a) asserts a historical fact.
For nearly two centuries, scholars who study the historical Jesus have ignored the Gospel of John because
it is historically unreliable. I have previously outlined some of the key
reasons for concluding that the Gospel of John is an
unreliable account of the life, ministry, and crucifixion of Jesus.
Most of the stories about Jesus in
the Gospel of Matthew come from the Gospel of Mark.
So, if the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Mark are historically
unreliable, then so are most of the stories about Jesus in the Gospel
of Matthew. On the other hand, if the stories about Jesus in the Gospel
of Mark are historically reliable, then the Gospel
of Matthew also has historically reliable stories about Jesus, but
little to offer beyond the stories we find in the Gospel of Mark.
There are some general
considerations about the Gospel of Matthew that show
there is a good chance that when the Gospel of Matthew adds or
changes events or details in stories that it borrows from the Gospel of
Mark, those revisions are historically unreliable. When the
author of Matthew adds new stories about Jesus that do not
come from the Gospel of Mark, those stories are usually
historically dubious. For example, the Gospel of Matthew adds
a Birth Story about Jesus which is historically dubious. I argue these points
in a series of posts called “The Historical Unreliability of the Gospel of Matthew”.[4]
Furthermore, when the
author of the Gospel of Matthew revises stories about Jesus that
come from the Passion Narrative in the Gospel of Mark, those
changes are usually driven by theological or dramatic or literary purposes
rather than by historical evidence. The additions and changes that the author
of the Gospel of Matthew makes to stories from the Passion
Narrative in the Gospel of Mark are historically dubious. I also
argue this point in a series of posts called “The Historical Unreliability of the
Gospel of Matthew”.[4]
For the above reasons, a
determination of whether premise (2a) is a historical fact cannot be based on
the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. This
determination must rest primarily on the Gospel of Mark and/or
the Gospel of Luke.
However, the Gospel
of Luke has problems similar to that of the Gospel of Matthew.
Like the Gospel of Matthew, there are general considerations that
show there is a good chance that what the author of the Gospel of Luke adds
to or revises in stories about Jesus that come from the Gospel of Mark are
historically unreliable changes. The Gospel of Luke has a
Birth Story, and like the Gospel of Matthew, the Birth Story is
historically dubious. The Gospel of Luke also adds stories
about alleged appearances of the risen Jesus in Jerusalem on the first Easter
Sunday, but those stories are probably all fictional.
Furthermore, like the Gospel
of Matthew, when the author of the Gospel of Luke borrows
a story about Jesus from the Passion Narrative of the Gospel of Mark and
adds or changes an event or detail in that story, the change is usually
historically dubious. I argue these points in a series of posts called “The
Historical Unreliability of the Gospel of Luke”.[5]
For these reasons,
the Gospel of Luke has little to offer in terms of
historically reliable stories about Jesus, beyond the information we already
have from the Gospel of Mark. Thus, a determination of whether
premise (2a) is a historical fact cannot be based on stories about Jesus in
the Gospel of Luke. And since we have previously eliminated
the Gospel of Matthew for similar reasons, premise (2a) must
be evaluated primarily on the basis of the contents of the Gospel of
Mark.
There are good reasons to
believe that the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark is historically
unreliable. Here are four good
reasons to doubt the historical reliability of the Burial Story in the Gospel
of Mark:
- First, there are some general considerations that
provide a good reason for doubting the historical reliability of the Gospel
of Mark.
- A second good reason for doubting the historical
reliability of the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark is that
the Passion Narrative in the Gospel of Mark is a historically
unreliable account of the arrest, trials, and crucifixion of Jesus.
- A third good reason for doubting the historical
reliability of the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark is based
on the specific content of that story.
- A fourth good reason for doubting the historical
reliability of the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark is that
the empty tomb story in the Gospel of Mark is historically
dubious.
I argue for these points in a series of posts
called “The Historical Unreliability of the Passion Narrative in Mark”.[6]
Assuming that I have shown
(above and in my referenced articles) the following two claims, I have shown
that premise (2a) is dubious:
- Whether (2a) is a historical fact comes down to the
question of whether the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark is historically
reliable.
- There are good reasons to believe that the Burial Story
in the Gospel of Mark is historically unreliable.
The argument for (2a) given by Kreeft and
Tacelli fails because it rests on a false premise, premise (B). A likely reply
to this objection is that instead of basing premise (2a) on evidence from
the Gospel of John, premise (2a) could be supported by evidence
from the other three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke).
If my arguments supporting
the above two bullet points are successful, then the attempt to base premise
(2a) on evidence from the other three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke)
also fails to show that (2a) is true, and we would thus have good reason to
conclude that premise (2a) is dubious and might well be false.
EVALUATION OF PREMISE (C)
Premise
(C) asserts a conditional claim. It has this form:
IF P, THEN
Q.
Another way
of stating a conditional claim is to say that the antecedent logically implies the
consequent:
P IMPLIES
Q.
So, we can restate premise (C) like this:
The statement,
“On Friday evening, after
Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, Jesus’ body was totally encased in
winding sheets (that included 100-plus pounds of spices and a gummy substance)
and Jesus’ body was placed into a stone tomb,”
logically
implies this statement:
“Even if
Jesus had survived his crucifixion, Jesus would have either quickly suffocated
in his tomb or quickly died in his tomb as a result of the cold damp air in his
tomb when Jesus’ body was placed into his tomb on Friday evening.”
However,
there are clear counterexamples that show that the first statement does not
logically imply the second statement. Therefore, the conditional claim made by
premise (C) is false, so the core argument of Objection #4 is unsound
and fails to refute the Swoon
Theory.
The first statement says nothing about the air in the tomb
being cold or damp. Therefore, the first statement could be true even if
the air in the tomb was warm and dry. But if the air in the tomb was warm and
dry, then obviously Jesus would not be quickly killed off “as a result of the
cold damp air in his tomb”.
Furthermore, no evidence has been provided for the
assumption that the air in the tomb was cold and damp. So, that assumption is dubious
and might well be false.
There are other assumptions being made here that also are not
implied by the first statement. Wrapping Jesus’ body with winding sheets that
“included 100-plus pounds of spices and a gummy substance” would not cause
Jesus to suffocate unless:
- The winding sheets were tightly wrapped around
Jesus’ head
- The winding sheets around Jesus’ head covered
his mouth and nose
- There were multiple layers of winding sheets around
Jesus’ head
- There were many pounds of spices and gummy substance included in
the layers of winding sheets wrapped
around Jesus’ head
If
some or all of these assumptions are false, then Jesus probably would not have
suffocated as a result of his body being “encased in winding sheets
(including 100-plus pounds of spices and a gummy substance)”.
The
first statement above–the antecedent of premise (C)–says nothing about the
winding sheets being wrapped tightly around Jesus’ head, nor about the winding
sheets covering his mouth and nose, nor about there being multiple layers of
winding sheets around Jesus’ head, nor about whether (or how much) spices and
gummy substance was included in layers of winding sheets around Jesus’ head.
Therefore, the first statement could be true even if some or all of the crucial
assumptions about the wrapping of winding sheets around Jesus’ head were false.
Thus, even if the first statement–the antecedent of premise (C)–was true, Jesus
might well have been able to breathe and not suffocate in the tomb.
Furthermore,
no evidence has been provided for the various assumptions above about
the winding sheets being wrapped around the head of Jesus, so those assumptions
are dubious and might well be false.
Finally,
the relevant passage in the Gospel
of John provides us with no details about the temperature of
the air in Jesus’ tomb, nor about the dampness of the air in Jesus’ tomb, nor
about how tightly the winding sheets were wrapped around Jesus’ head, nor about
how many layers of winding sheets were wrapped around Jesus’ head, nor about
whether the cloth covered Jesus mouth and nose, nor about whether (or how much)
of the spices and the gummy substance was used in the wrappings around Jesus’
head. So, the Gospel of
John does not provide information in support of any of the
crucial assumptions that are required to show the key premise (C) to be true.
Because
the antecedent of premise (C) says nothing about the temperature or dampness of
the air in Jesus’ tomb and says nothing about how Jesus’ head was tightly
wrapped with multiple layers of winding sheets, nor about how much spices and
gummy substance was used in the layers of winding sheets around Jesus’ head, it
is clear that the antecedent of premise (C) could be true and yet the consequent
of premise (C) be false. Thus, the key premise (C) is false.
EVALUATION OF OBJECTION #4 (WINDING
SHEETS & ENTOMBMENT)
The
core argument for Objection
#4 consists of three premises: (1b), (2a), and (C). I have
shown that the key premise (1b) is probably false, and that the key premise
(2a) is dubious. Those points give us good reason to reject the core argument
for Objection #4.
I
have also shown that the key premise (C) in the core argument for this
objection is false. That means the core argument is unsound, which by itself is
sufficient reason to reject the core argument for Objection #4.
Because
one key premise of the core argument is dubious, and one key premise of
the core argument is probably false, and because one key premise of the
core argument is false, it is clear that Objection #4 (Winding Sheets and
Entombment) against the Swoon Theory fails.
It
is no surprise that Kreeft and Tacelli provide zero evidence in support
of any of these crucial historical assumptions:
- The air inside the tomb was cold when Jesus was
placed in the tomb
- The air inside the tomb was damp when Jesus was
placed in the tomb
- The winding sheets were tightly wrapped around
Jesus’ head
- The winding sheets around Jesus’ head covered
his mouth and nose
- There were multiple layers of winding sheets around
Jesus’ head
- There were many pounds of spices and a gummy substance included
in the layers of winding sheets wrapped
around Jesus’ head
This
is not a surprise, because their original statement of this objection in HCA said
nothing about why Jesus being wrapped in winding sheets and placed
into a stone tomb would have caused him to quickly die, if Jesus had
survived the crucifixion.
I
believe that Kreeft and Tacelli borrowed Objection #4 from Josh McDowell.[7] However, they abbreviated McDowell’s version of this
objection and left out
the crucial elements about why wrapping Jesus in
winding sheets with lots of spices and gummy substance and placing him in a
stone tomb would have caused
Jesus to quickly die.
McDowell’s
version of this objection points to the idea that the winding sheets and spices
would have caused Jesus
to quickly suffocate, and to the idea that the cold, damp air in the
tomb would have caused
Jesus to quickly die (presumably in conjunction with Jesus’ various
wounds and loss of blood).
McDowell, however, also provides zero evidence
for any of the above crucial assumptions about the air in the tomb and about
how Jesus’ head was wrapped, so his version of Objection #4 against
the Swoon Theory clearly
fails for the reasons I give in the above post, which show that premise (C) is false.
END NOTES
1. See my post "The Unreliability of the 4th Gospel - Part 12: Chapter 19": https://tcaict.blogspot.com/2025/11/the-unreliability-of-4th-gospel-part-12.html
2. The empty tomb story in the Gospel of Luke also mentions linen wrappings (in Luke 24:12); however, there is controversy over whether that verse was part of the original text of the Gospel of Luke. That wording might well have been added by a copyist who was familiar with the burial and empty tomb stories in the Gospel of John.
3. For a more detailed discussion about the translation and interpretation of this verse, see my article “An
Attempt to Rescue Objection #4 (Winding Sheets & Entombment) Against the
Swoon Theory” on The Secular Frontier: https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2025/05/an-attempt-to-rescue-objection-4-winding-sheets-entombment-against-the-swoon-theory/
5.
See my post on “The Historical Unreliability of the Gospel of Luke”: https://tcaict.blogspot.com/2026/02/the-historical-unreliability-of-gospel.html
6. See my post on “The Historical Unreliability of the Passion Narrative in the Gospel of Mark: https://tcaict.blogspot.com/2026/02/the-historical-unreliability-of-passion.html
7. The Resurrection Factor, by Josh McDowell (San
Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers,1981), p. 98.
