William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 28: The Appearance to Saul of Tarsus

WHERE WE ARE

Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus is based on three key historical claims. The most important of these historical claims is this one:

HC2: Beginning on the first day of the week following Jesus' crucifixion, various individuals and groups experienced on different occasions and under varying circumstances appearances of Jesus alive. 

This historical claim is crucial to the success of Craig's case.  If this claim is false or dubious, then Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

In the core argument of Craig's case, premise (2) asserts that the above historical claim is a historical fact: 

2. Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts.

If Craig fails to show that (HC2) is a historical fact, then that will give us a good reason to doubt premise (2) and a good reason to reject Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus.

So far, we have examined five of the six examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus that William Craig puts forward as evidence for the most important historical claim in his case:

• Appearance to Peter
• Appearance to the Twelve
• Appearance to five hundred brethren
• Appearance to James (Jesus' brother)
• Appearance to "all the apostles."

We saw that none of those five examples provides significant evidence in support of (HC2) being a historical fact.[1] 

THE ALLEGED APPEARANCE OF JESUS TO SAUL/PAUL

We are now down to the sixth and final example of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus that Craig puts forward in an attempt to show that (HC2) is a historical fact:

• Appearance to Saul of Tarsus (i.e. Paul)

If the alleged appearance to Paul fails to show that (HC2) is a historical fact, then we will have a good reason to doubt premise (2), and we will have another good reason to conclude that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails. 

Paul is the author of about one-quarter of the New Testament (if we include all of the letters traditionally attributed to Paul; a number of the letters attributed to Paul are suspected by NT scholars as not being authentic letters that were written by Paul). 

Much of Christian theology is based on the letters of Paul, rather than on the teachings of Jesus found in the Gospels.  That is because Jesus mainly taught about how to live a devout and morally upright life, and he had little to say about himself, his role in God's plans, or about the theological implications of his own death.  Christian theology about Jesus, Jesus' role in God's plans, and the theological significance of the death and alleged resurrection of Jesus, come primarily from the letters of Paul.

Paul's Jewish name was "Saul":

Paul's Jewish name was "Saul" (Hebrew: שָׁאוּל, Modern: Sha'ûl, Tiberian: Šā'ûl), perhaps after the biblical King Saul, the first king of Israel and, like Paul, a member of the Tribe of Benjamin; the Latin name Paulus, meaning small, was not a result of his conversion as is commonly believed but a second name for use in communicating with a Greco-Roman audience.[2]

THE MAIN STORY ABOUT AN APPEARANCE TO PAUL 

The primary story that Craig focuses on about an alleged appearance of Jesus to Saul/Paul is from Chapter 9 of the book of Acts:

3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything. (Acts 9:3-9, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THIS ALLEGED APPEARANCE TO PAUL

There are some serious problems with this story as evidence for (HC2), so this final example fails to provide significant support for the most important historical claim in Craig's case, just like the previous five examples failed to provide significant support for (HC2).

First, there is nothing in this story that indicates that Paul SAW the risen Jesus. There is no statement in this story that Paul saw Jesus' face, or saw Jesus' body, or even that he saw the general outline of a human being. 

Second, the story strongly suggests that Paul DID NOT SEE the risen Jesus in this event.  Paul saw "a light from heaven" that "flashed around him" (Acts 9:3). But then Paul "fell to the ground" (Acts 9:4), presumably face down, since that is what people typically do when confronted with an angel in Bible stories. After the event, when Paul "got up from the ground", Paul "opened his eyes". This implies that when the bright light flashed around him, Paul fell to the ground and closed his eyes. If Paul had his eyes closed during this dramatic event, then he did NOT SEE JESUS.

Third, after the event, when Paul "got up from the ground", Paul "opened his eyes" but "he could see nothing." (Acts 9:8). The bright light apparently blinded him temporarily (Acts 9:8&9), so even if he had opened his eyes during the event, he would not have seen anything!

If Paul was blinded by the bright light, then he did NOT SEE JESUS.  If Paul had his eyes closed during this dramatic event, then he did NOT SEE JESUS. Thus, this account of the alleged appearance of Jesus to Paul implies that Paul did NOT SEE JESUS during this dramatic event on his way to Damascus. 

Fourth, the people who were travelling with Pual "did not see anyone" near Paul (Acts 9:7).  So, this story indicates that there was no physically embodied Jesus standing near Paul for Paul to have seen.

Fifth, Paul did not know the historical flesh-and-blood Jesus, so even if, contrary to the clear indications of this story, Paul did see the face and the body of a human person during this dramatic experience, Paul would have no way of IDENTIFYING this person as being Jesus of Nazareth.  Paul did not know Jesus, so he did not know what Jesus looked like.

Even if we assume that this story in Chapter 9 of Acts was an accurate and reliable account of this dramatic event, it is clear that this was NOT an "appearance" of the risen and physically embodied Jesus. Based upon the details contained in this story, this was NOT an "appearance of Jesus alive." 

Thus, this example of an alleged "appearance" of the risen Jesus to Paul fails to provide any significant evidence for (HC2), the most important historical claim in William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus. 

Because none of the six examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus presented by Craig provide significant support for (HC2), we have good reason to doubt premise (2) in the core argument of Craig's case, and we have yet another good reason to conclude that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

GOOD REASONS TO DOUBT THE HISTORICAL RELIABILITY OF THIS STORY

There are also good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of the story about Paul's dramatic experience on his journey to Damascus that is found in Chapter 9 of the book of Acts. 

First, we don't know the source of this story.  The author of Acts does not claim to have been present during the dramatic events that are described.  The author of Acts does not indicate who was the source of this story.  This story might well be second or third-hand, and not directly based on testimony from someone who was present during the event.

Second, the book of Acts was probably written about 75 to 85 CE[3], which is four to five decades after Paul converted to Christianity.[4]  Paul was executed around 65 CE[5], so Paul was already dead when the book of Acts was written. Thus, Paul was not around to correct any false or inaccurate information in the book of Acts about his life, his experiences, and the content of his speeches.

Third, the author of Acts is, according to NT scholars, the same as the author of the Gospel of Luke.[6] As I have argued previously, the main story of an appearance of the risen Jesus to his disciples found in the Gospel of Luke is probably a fictional story, because it contradicts the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew.[7] 

Since the main story of an appearance of the risen Jesus found in the Gospel of Luke is probably fictional, this casts significant doubt on the historical reliability of other alleged appearances of the risen Jesus presented by the author of the Gospel of Luke and in the book of Acts. In short, we have a good reason to doubt the historical reliability of the dramatic story of the alleged "appearance" of the risen Jesus to Paul presented in Chapter 9 of the book of Acts.

Fourth, there are two other passages in the book of Acts where this story is recounted (supposedly by Paul), but those other accounts are inconsistent with the account presented in Chapter 9.  This gives us another good reason to doubt the historical reliability of the account of this dramatic event in Chapter 9 of the book of Acts.

According to the story in Chapter 9 of Acts, the men with Paul heard the voice that spoke to Paul:

7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one. (Acts 9:7, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

But according to the story in Chapter 22 of Acts, the men with Paul did NOT hear the voice:

9 Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.(Acts 22:9, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

That is a rather significant contradiction between these two accounts. If the other people with Paul did NOT hear the voice that Paul heard, then that would be additional evidence that this was a subjective experience in Paul's mind, rather than an objective physical event.  Chapter 9 already indicated that this was a subjective experience in Paul's mind, because it states that the people with Paul "did not see anyone" standing near Paul.

Furthermore, there is another inconsistency in the account from Chapter 9, if we combine it with the account in Chapter 22.  If Paul was temporarily blinded by the bright light "from heaven" and if the others who were with Paul also "saw the light" (Acts 22:9), then how is it that the others were still able to see just fine after this event (Acts 9:8&9)?  The fact that the vision of those who were with Paul was not impacted suggests that the people who were with Paul did NOT see the bright light from heaven, and that too was just a subjective experience in Paul's mind, rather than an objectively observable physical event.

Another inconsistency is that in the accounts of Paul's dramatic experience on the way to Damascus found in Chapter 9 and Chapter 22 of Acts, Jesus says little to Paul in terms of what Jesus wants Paul to do.  But in the account in Chapter 26 of Acts, Jesus gives Paul significant instructions and guidance about what he wants Paul to do.

In Chapter 9, Jesus just curtly tells Paul that he will receive instructions later after arriving in Damascus:

5 He [Paul] asked, “Who are you, Lord?” The reply came, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 But get up and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” (Acts 9:5-6, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

In Chapter 22, Jesus also tells Paul he will be given instructions after he gets to Damascus:

8 I [Paul] answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ Then he said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.’ ...10 I asked, ‘What am I to do, Lord?’ The Lord said to me, ‘Get up and go to Damascus; there you will be told everything that has been assigned to you to do.’ (Acts 22:8&10, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

However, in Chapter 26, Jesus immediately starts to provide instructions to Paul about what he plans for Paul to do: 

15 I [Paul] asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ The Lord answered, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16 But get up and stand on your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and testify to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you. 17 I will rescue you from your people and from the gentiles—to whom I am sending you 18 to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’ (Acts 26:15-18, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

EITHER Jesus curtly told Paul that he would find out later in Damascus what plans Jesus had for him OR ELSE Jesus provided this detailed view of the plans Jesus had for Paul during Paul's dramatic experience on the way to Damascus. 

It makes no sense to suppose that all three of these accounts are true and accurate accounts of what Paul heard during his dramatic experience on the way to Damascus (unless Paul's mind created these illogical and inconsistent words and put them into the mouth of the risen Jesus). 

Finally, in Chapter 26, the experience of the light from heaven is described as being had by both Paul and his fellow travellers:

I [Paul] saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and my companions. 14 When we had all fallen to the ground... (Acts 26:13-14, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

Again, if all the people with Paul saw "a light from heaven, brighter than the sun" (Acts 26:16), then why did only Paul experience temporary blindness?  If Paul was instantly blinded, then how would he know that the others with him had "all fallen to the ground" (Acts 26:14)? 

And if the others who were with Paul had indeed "all fallen to the ground", why would Paul say that those others "stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one." (Acts 9:7)? They were not standing, they were on the ground, and since they had presumably fallen on their faces, they would not be looking around to see if someone was standing near Paul, and if they had all just seen "a light from heaven, brighter than the sun", then they too would have been temporarily blind.  Clearly, there are a number of inconsistencies between these three different accounts.

Because there are a number of good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of the story in Chapter 9 of Acts about Paul's dramatic experience on the way to Damascus, this story is not solid enough to provide significant evidence in support of Craig's claim that (HC2) is a historical fact.

CONCLUSIONS

The story in Chapter 9 of Acts about Paul's dramatic experience on the way to Damascus does not provide significant evidence in support of Craig's claim that (HC2) is a historical fact, because the story implies that Paul did NOT SEE JESUS (or anyone else), because even if we assume Paul saw someone during this experience, Paul would not have been able to IDENTIFY that person as being Jesus, and because there are good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of that story.

Because none of the previous five examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus provides significant support for the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact, and because this sixth and final example of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus also fails to provide significant support for the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact,  we now have good reason to doubt premise (2) in the core argument of Craig's case. Because (HC2) is crucial to Craig's case, we now have a fifth good reason to reject Craig's case, and to conclude that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

END NOTES 

1. See these previous blog posts for my critical examination of Craig's first five examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus:

• See Part 25 of this series for my critical examination of the alleged Appearance to the Twelve.
• See Part 26 of this series for my critical examination of the alleged Appearance to Peter.
• See Part 27 of this series for my critical examinations of these three alleged appearances:
• Appearance to the five hundred brethren 
• Appearance to James (the brother of Jesus)  
• Appearance to "all the apostles." 

2. "Paul the Apostle" article in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle (viewed 6/13/26)

3. References for the date of composition of the book of Acts: 

• Most would tend to date the two books [Luke and Acts] ca. A.D. 80-85. - Joseph Tyson, "Acts of the Apostles, The" in The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, revised edition (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), page 10.
• While certainty on the date of composition for Acts may not be achieved...it is reasonable to place it some time after Luke's Gospel, which may be dated 80-85 C.E. - Christopher Matthews, "Acts of the Apostles" in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), page 16.
• A date for the composition of the Gospel [of Luke] in the mid-eighties is based, therefore, on Luke's use of Mark, the absence of references to Paul's letters in Acts, and the Lukan form of Jesus' predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem. - R. Alan Culpepper, "The Gospel of Luke" in The New Interpreter's Bible, Volume IX (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), page 9. Note: Culpepper believes that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the same author at about the same time.

4. References for the date of Paul's conversion:

• ...Paul's apostolic call (ca. 31)... - Calvin Roetzel, "Paul" in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), page 1019.
• 34 [A.D.]...Conversion, Arabia, Damascus (3 years) [the first event, dated the same year in three alternative proposed chronologies based on Paul's letters and Acts] - L.C.A. Alexander, "Chronology of Paul" in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), pages122 to 123.
• 36 [A.D.]...Conversion of Saul/Paul (Acts 9) [an event listed in a chronological table about Paul's ministry] - Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Revised Edition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1998), page 395. 

5. References for the date of Paul's death: 

• The New Testament nowhere mentions his [Paul's] death, but reliable traditions depict him as a martyr in Rome, beheaded during the persecution of Nero in the mid 60s CE. - John W. Drane, "Paul" in The Oxford Companion to the Bible (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993),  page 576.
• Luke, however, does not tell us how Paul died; if he were beheaded in Rome, as the 3rd-century Acts of Paul suggests (10:5), his execution would have come before the end of 62. - Calvin Roetzel, "Paul" in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), page 1019.
• Although a tradition suggests that Paul had been released from Rome [i.e. Roman imprisonment], and visited Spain (1 Clem. 5:7), this tradition probably rests on Rom. 15:24, 28. More likely, Paul was executed at the end of his original Roman imprisonment, probably in A.D. 62. - William Baird, "Paul" in The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, Revised Edition (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), page 820.
• ...he came a second time to Rome and at that time suffered martyrdom together with Peter under Nero. In accordance with evidence discussed above (620-623), we accept June 29, A.D. 67, as the date of death of both apostles. - Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Revised Edition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1998), page 401.

6. See the following articles in various Bible reference works:

• Christopher Matthews, "Acts of the Apostles" in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), page 15.
• F.F. Bruce, "Acts of the Apostles" in The Oxford Companion to the Bible (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993), page 6.
• Joseph Tyson, "Acts of the Apostles, The" in The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, revised edition (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), page 10.

7. See Part 25 in this series, especially my critical examination in that post of the alleged appearance to "the Twelve." 

Key Historical Claims in Cases for the Resurrection of Jesus

Different Christian apologists present different cases for the resurrection of Jesus.  However, there are just a handful of key historical claims that most Christian apologists use as the historical foundation of their cases. 

To rationally evaluate a case for the resurrection of Jesus, it is important to be familiar with the key historical claims it is based upon, to determine whether those claims are historical facts, and to have a clear understanding of the implications of those historical claims.

In his book Reasonable Faith (3rd edition, hereafter: RF3), the Christian apologist William Craig focuses on three key historical claims:

...(1) the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers on the first day of the week following his crucifixion, (2) various individuals and groups thereafter experienced on different occasions and under varying circumstances appearances of Jesus alive, (3) the first disciples came sincerely to believe in Jesus resurrection... (RF3, page 360)

In their book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (hereafter: CRJ), the Christian apologists Gary Habermas and Michael Licona focus on five key historical claims:  

1. Jesus died by crucifixion (CRJ, page 48)

2. Jesus' disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them (CRJ, page 49)

3. The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed (CRJ, page 64)

4. The skeptic James, the brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed (CRJ, page 67)

5. The tomb was empty (CRJ, page 69)

The Christian apologist Josh McDowell has the longest list of key historical claims in his case for the resurrection of Jesus in his book The Resurrection Factor. However, there is some overlap between his key historical claims, and the key historical claims of Craig, Habermas and Licona, as we will soon see.  

McDowell has six key historical claims that he labels "Security Precautions" and seven key historical claims that he calls "Facts to Be Reckoned With" (his use of the term "facts" is question-begging):

Security Precautions Claims  (TRF, page 68):

1. Christ was put to death by crucifixion...

2. The body of Christ was buried in a solid rock tomb.

3. Christ's body was wrapped with more than 100 pounds of spices...

4. The stone rolled in front of the tomb entrance weighed about two tons.

5. A Roman security guard...was positioned to guard the tomb.

6. The tomb was sealed shut with the official authority and signature of Rome.

Claims to be Reckoned With (TRF, pages 81 & 82): 

1. The feared power of Rome was ignored by the breaking of the seal at the tomb. [related to Security Precaution #6]

2. Both the Jews and the Romans admitted that the tomb was empty. [related to Security Precaution #2]

3. A two-ton stone was somehow moved from the tomb entrance while a Roman guard stood watch. [related to Security Precautions #4 and #5]

4. A highly disciplined Roman military guard fled their watch and had to be bribed by the authorities to lie about what actually happened. [related to Security Precaution #5]

5. The undisturbed grave clothes no longer contained a body. [related to Security Precautions #2 and #3] 

6. Christ subsequently appeared to as many as 500 witnesses at one time in a variety of circumstances. 

7. Because of the low Jewish view of the reliability of women, manufacturers of a resurrection story would never have selected them to be the first witnesses to the fact. [i.e. the fact that Jesus was seen alive after he was buried in the tomb]

Note that there is also some overlap between McDowell's two lists of key historical claims.  The "Security Precautions" claims are often an assumption of a Claim "to be Reckoned With." 

OVERLAPS BETWEEN LISTS OF KEY CLAIMS IN CASES FOR THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS

A. Jesus Died by Crucifixion:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion (CRJ, page 48)

1. Christ was put to death by crucifixion... (TRF, page 68)

[Security Precaution] 2. The body of Christ was buried in a solid rock tomb.

[Security Precaution] 3. Christ's body was wrapped with more than 100 pounds of spices... 

B. The Tomb of Jesus was found Empty: 

...(1) the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers on the first day of the week following his crucifixion... (RF3, page 360)

 5. The tomb was empty (CRJ, page 69)

[Security Precaution] 2. The body of Christ was buried in a solid rock tomb. (TRF, page 68)

 [Claim to Be Reckoned With] 2. Both the Jews and the Romans admitted that the tomb was empty. (TRF, page 81)

[Security Precaution] 3. Christ's body was wrapped with more than 100 pounds of spices... (TRF, page 68)

[Claim to Be Reckoned With]  5. The undisturbed grave clothes no longer contained a body. (TRF, page 82)

 C. Various People and Groups Experienced an Appearance of the Risen Jesus:

...(2) various individuals and groups thereafter experienced on different occasions and under varying circumstances appearances of Jesus alive... (RF3, page 360)

2. Jesus' disciples believed that he...appeared to them (CRJ, page 49)

3. The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed (CRJ, page 64) [i.e. Paul converted and became a Christian believer]

4. The skeptic James, the brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed (CRJ, page 67) [i.e. James converted and became a Christian believer]

[Claim to Be Reckoned With] 6. Christ subsequently appeared to as many as 500 witnesses at one time in a variety of circumstances. (TRF, page 82)

[Claim to Be Reckoned With] 7. Because of the low Jewish view of the reliability of women, manufacturers of a resurrection story would never have selected them to be the first witnesses to the fact. [i.e. the fact that Jesus was seen alive after he was buried in the tomb] (TRF, page 82)

 D. Jesus Disciples and Others became convinced that Jesus had risen from the Dead:

(3) the first disciples came sincerely to believe in Jesus resurrection... (RF3, page 360)

2. Jesus' disciples believed that he rose... (CRJ, page 49) 

 3. The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed (CRJ, page 64) [i.e. Paul converted and became a Christian believer]

4. The skeptic James, the brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed (CRJ, page 67) [i.e. James converted and became a Christian believer]

There are some additional key historical claims that McDowell lists, but that are not found in the lists of key historical claims by Craig, and by Habermas & Licona: 

E. Claims about the Roman Guard and the Moved Stone

[Security Precaution] 4. The stone rolled in front of the tomb entrance weighed about two tons. (TRF, page 68)

[Security Precaution] 5. A Roman security guard...was positioned to guard the tomb. (TRF, page 68)

[Security Precaution] 6. The tomb was sealed shut with the official authority and signature of Rome. (TRF, page 68) 

[Claim to Be Reckoned With]  3. A two-ton stone was somehow moved from the tomb entrance while a Roman guard stood watch. [related to Security Precautions #4 and #5] 

[Claim to Be Reckoned With] 1. The feared power of Rome was ignored by the breaking of the seal at the tomb. [related to Security Precaution #6] 

4. A highly disciplined Roman military guard fled their watch and had to be bribed by the authorities to lie about what actually happened. [related to Security Precaution #5] 

William Craig's Argument about the Alleged Appearance to Five Hundred Brethren

THIS POST IS STILL IN WORK - Please check back in a few days. 

WHERE WE ARE

In a recent blog post called "William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 27: More Appearances", I showed that the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to "five hundred brethren" fails to provide any significant support to (HC2), the most important historical claim in Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus:

HC2: Beginning on the first day of the week following Jesus' crucifixion, various individuals and groups experienced on different occasions and under varying circumstances appearances of Jesus alive. 

However, Craig puts forward an argument about the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to "five hundred brethren", so I will critically examine that argument here in this current post.

CRAIG'S ARGUMENT ABOUT AN APPEARANCE TO 500 BRETHREN 

In the third edition of his book Reasonable Faith (hereafter: RF3), Craig puts forward the following argument about an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to five hundred brethren:

...Paul himself apparently had personal contact with these people, since he knew that some had died.  This is seen in Paul's parenthetical comment, "most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep."  Why does Paul add this remark? The great New Testament scholar of Cambridge University, C.H. Dodd, replies, "There can hardly be any purpose in mentioning the fact that the most of the 500 are still alive, unless Paul is saying, in effect, 'The witnesses are there to be questioned.' " Notice: Paul could never have said this if the event had never taken place and there were no witnesses.  But evidently there were witnesses to this event, and Paul knew that some of them had died in the meantime.  Therefore, the event must have taken place.  (RF3, pages 378 to 379)

Here are the claims Craig makes in the above paragraph: 

1. Paul had personal contact with these people.

2. Paul knew that some of these people had died.

3. Paul made the comment, "most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep".

4. Paul's comment implied that "The witnesses are there to be questioned."

5. Paul could never have said this if the event had never taken place and there were no witnesses.

6. But there were witnesses to this event.  

7. Paul knew that some of them had died in the meantime.  

8. The event must have taken place.

 

 

 

William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 27: More Appearances

THE MOST IMPORTANT HISTORICAL CLAIM IN CRAIG'S CASE

 Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus is based on three key historical claims. The most important of these historical claims is this one:

HC2: Beginning on the first day of the week following Jesus' crucifixion, various individuals and groups experienced on different occasions and under varying circumstances appearances of Jesus alive. 

Because this claim is crucial to the success of Craig's case, if Craig fails to show that (HC2) is a historical fact, then his case for the resurrection of Jesus also fails.

In Part 25, I showed that the best piece of historical evidence presented by Craig is weak and dubious and thus fails to provide any significant support for (HC2).

In Part 26, I showed that another key piece of evidence, the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to Peter, is also weak and defective evidence and thus fails to provide any significant evidence for (HC2).

In this current post, I will critically examine some more alleged appearances of the risen Jesus that Craig offers as evidence for (HC2).

THE ALLEGED APPEARANCE TO 500 BRETHREN

The third piece of evidence that Craig uses to support (HC2) is an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to five hundred brethren (RF3, pages 378-379).  Once again, Craig makes a very honest admission:

...we have no mention whatsoever of this appearance elsewhere in the New Testament. (RF3, page 378)

However, I don't think Craig realizes how devastating this admission is to his use of this evidence to support (HC2).

First, it is very unlikely that the authors of the four Gospels were aware of this alleged appearance of the risen Jesus, given that none of them chose to mention this astounding event.  Either the authors of the Gospels were completely unaware of this astounding event, or else they had heard about this alleged event but had serious doubts about it being a real historical event. In either case, the silence of all four Gospels plus Acts (and the rest of the New Testament, other than 1 Corinthians) raises significant doubts about the historicity of this alleged appearance of the risen Jesus.

Second, it is doubtful that the alleged appearance to five hundred brethren was part of the Christian creed or tradition that Paul was referencing.  The eminent N.T. scholar Raymond Brown states that there is disagreement among scholars about where in the passage from Chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians the Christian tradition ends and where Paul's own additions to that tradition begin.[1] 

Brown, himself, appears to favor the view that the list of appearances was NOT part of the Christian tradition which Paul was referencing:

...let us now turn to the list of six recipients (I Cor 15:5b-8) that Paul himself seemingly added to the primitive formula.[2] 

The N.T. scholar Elizabeth Fiorenza allows the first two appearances as being part of the traditional credal formula (because she has Paul's additions start at verse 6): 

...Paul reiterates the gospel that he has preached to them by quoting...a traditional credal formula in vv. 3b-5 that he expands in vv. 6-8.[3] 

That means she views the appearance to the five hundred as being something Paul added to the traditional credal formula. 

The N.T. scholar Stephen Barton agrees with Fiorenza that the traditional Christian confession ends with verse 5, and that verses 6 through 8 were additions by Paul:

To this early tradition, Paul adds resurrection appearances to "more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time," James (presumably the brother of Jesus), "all the apostles," and finally, "as to one untimely born...," Paul himself (vv.6-8)[4] 

If the appearance to the five hundred brethren was not part of the Christian tradition that Paul was referencing, then we cannot date this information to when Paul began preaching to the Corinthians; we can only date it as being as old as the writing of 1 Corinthians by Paul (around 55 CE).  This still dates the information to earlier than the writing of the Gospels.  However, such an early date makes it even more puzzling why there is no mention of this event in any of the Gospels, nor in Acts.

Third, as with the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to Peter, we have no story describing this alleged appearance to five hundred Christian believers, and we have no details about this alleged event:

• We don't know when this appearance took place: a few days after the crucifixion? a few weeks after the crucifixion? a few months after the crucifixion? a few years after the crucifixion?
• We don't know where this appearance took place: Jerusalem? Samaria? Galilee? Athens? Corinth? Rome? 
• We don't know the weather and lighting conditions during this event: was it on a dark night or at noon on a sunny day? or was it at dusk? or on a cloudy morning?
• We don't know the social and psychological circumstances of the people who had this alleged experience: was this during a long worship service? or during big public celebration? or in the middle of a severe rainstorm or windstorm? or during a long drought or famine?
• We don't know if anyone saw Jesus' face, or saw Jesus' body, or heard Jesus speak, or touched Jesus' body
• We don't know if anyone among the 500 had ever seen Jesus before his crucifixion and burial (if not, then how could they identify the person they "saw" as being Jesus?)
• We don't know how far away Jesus appeared to be from the people who allegedly had this experience: a few feet away? a few yards away? 50 yards away? 500 yards away? one mile up in the sky?
• We don't know how long this experience lasted: a few seconds? a few minutes? a few hours?
• We don't know if everyone in the crowd experienced this appearance of Jesus: or only the adults? only the men? only the Christian believers? only about half of the crowd of people? only one-third of the people?
• We don't know if everyone in the crowd had the same experience of Jesus: did some see Jesus in the sky and others see him standing on the ground? did some see Jesus about 50 yards away and others see him standing just a few feet away?  Did some hear Jesus speaking but others did not hear Jesus?  did some see Jesus in and white robe while others saw Jesus in a red robe or in some other kind of clothing?

Without such details, we cannot evaluate the significance of this alleged event.  Because we don't know where or when this alleged event took place, and because we don't have any details about the circumstances of this alleged event, we cannot determine if it occurred "on different occasions and under varying circumstances" compared with other alleged appearances of the risen Jesus.  

Therefore, this alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to five hundred brethren does NOT provide any significant support to (HC2).

Craig also puts forward a very bad argument in a desperate attempt to bolster this very weak bit of evidence. However, that argument hurts his case more than helps it, because the poor quality of the argument casts doubt on Craig's credibility as a serious thinker and scholar.[5] 

THE ALLEGED APPEARANCE TO JAMES 

The fourth piece of evidence used by Craig to support (HC2) is an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to James, the brother of Jesus.  This point also fails to provide any significant evidence for (HC2), because it suffers from the same problems that we saw with the alleged appearance to the five hundred brethren:

• Even though James was one of the top leaders of the early Christian church in Jerusalem, there is no mention in any of the Gospels or in Acts (or in the rest of the New Testament) of this alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to James.
• It is doubtful that the alleged appearance to James was part of the early Christian tradition that Paul referenced in 1 Corinthians 15.
• Because there is no story anywhere in the New Testament describing this alleged appearance to James, we have no details about when or where this took place, and no details about the circumstances of this alleged event.

Thus, the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to James is very weak and dubious evidence for (HC2).

THE ALLEGED APPEARANCE TO "ALL THE APOSTLES"

 

While the author of the Gospel of Luke uses the term "apostles" narrowly, to refer to "the Twelve" disciples that Jesus selected to be part of his inner circle of followers, Paul sometimes uses the term more broadly:

Besides the limited group of apostles (the twelve) in Jerusalem (1 Cor. 15.5; Gal. 1.17.19), Paul knew another circle of apostolic preachers (1 Cor. 9.5; 12.28; 2 Cor. 11.13; Rom. 16.7).  Therefore, one may distinguish between two types of New Testament apostles in Paul's view: those called through an appearance of the risen Lord; and charismatic preachers, who were delegated by a church such as that at Antioch (see Acts 13.1-3; Rev. 2.2; Did. 11.3-6), including both men and women (Rom. 16.7; see Junia).[6]

In 1 Corinthians chapter 15 verse 7, where Paul mentions the alleged appearance(s) of the risen Jesus to "all the apostles", it is clear that he has in mind some group other than "the twelve" disciples (minus Judas), because he had already mentioned an appearance to "the twelve" in verse 5.  

So "all the apostles" in I Corinthians 15:7 means something like "all the delegated Christian missionaries" or "all the designated preachers of the Gospel".  Since there were various Christian churches in different towns and cities, and since each church could send out evangelists or missionaries, the phrase "all the apostles" might well encompass several dozen people from many different churches.  Paul probably would NOT know all of these people, although he might have known several of them.

It is unlikely that such a large collection of Christian preachers and missionaries from a variety of different towns and cities would all gather together in one location and be able to have a simultaneous group experience of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus. 

Thus, Paul might well be referring to an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to a small subset of the several dozen Christian missionaries and evangelists sent out by various Christian churches, or he might well be referring to various individual alleged experiences of the risen Jesus that occurred to some of the people who were part of the larger collection of designated Christian missionaries and evangelists.

In any case, the same three problems exist with this claim about the alleged appearance(s) of the risen Jesus to "all the apostles" as we saw with the claim about the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to "the five hundred brethren":

• There is no other mention in any of the Gospels or in Acts (or in the rest of the New Testament) of the alleged appearance(s) of the risen Jesus to "all the apostles".
• It is doubtful that the alleged appearance(s) to "all the apostles" was part of the early Christian tradition that Paul referenced in 1 Corinthians 15.
• Because there is no story anywhere in the New Testament describing this alleged appearance to "all the apostles", we have no details about when or where this took place, and no details about the circumstances of this alleged event.

Once again, this is very weak and dubious evidence, and it fails to provide any significant support for (HC2).

CONCLUSION

We have now examined five out of the six key pieces of evidence that Craig provides in support of (HC2).  Each of those five pieces of evidence fails to provide any significant support for (HC2). Therefore, Craig has, so far, failed to show that (HC2) is a historical fact.  

If Craig's sixth key piece of evidence is as weak and dubious as the first five pieces of evidence, then he will have failed to show that (HC2) is a historical fact, and because (HC2) is a historical claim that is crucial to his case, this would mean that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

END NOTES

1. Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1997), footnote #64 on page 534. 

2. Raymond Brown,The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1973), page 92.

3. Elizabeth Fiorenza, "I Corinthians" in The HarperCollins Bible Commentary, Revised Edition (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 2000), page 1091. 

4. Stephen Barton, "I Corinthians" in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), page 1347.

5. See my blog post "William Craig's Argument about the Alleged Appearance to Five Hundred Brethren" where I critically examine this argument: https://tcaict.blogspot.com/2026/06/william-craigs-argument-about-alleged.html  

6. Otto Betz, "Apostle" in The Oxford Companion to the Bible (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993), page 42.

PLAN for Six Volumes of: Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus

 I am planning to publish six volumes of Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus:

DRAFT OUTLINE of Volume 3 of Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus

 Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, 

Volume 3: The Failure of William Craig's Case

The Case Against the Swoon Theory by Kreeft and Tacelli - Part 2: The Winding Sheets and Entombment Objection

 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/

4. See my post on “The Historical Unreliability of the Gospel of Matthew”: https://tcaict.blogspot.com/2026/01/the-historical-unreliability-of-matthew.html 

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.