END NOTES for: The Case Against the Resurrection of Jesus

1. William Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3rd Edition (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), Chapter 8.

2. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), Chapter 8.

3. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), Chapters 1 through 12, plus the Conclusion.

4. William Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3rd Edition, page 360. I modified this third historical claim, because I believe that Craig mistakenly conflated two different issues, which should be kept separate and distinct.  Here is the claim as Craig stated it:

…the first disciples came sincerely to believe in Jesus’ resurrection in the absence of sufficient antecedent historical influences from either Judaism or pagan religions.

Craig shoots himself in the foot by adding the italicized qualification to this claim. He makes it much more difficult for himself to show that this claim is a “historical fact” by adding the qualification. He doesn’t need the qualification to be part of this key historical claim at this point. He has jumped the gun here by getting into the question of the significance of the alleged belief of the first disciples in Jesus’ resurrection.  Instead, he should have clearly separated these two intellectual tasks: (1) showing that it is a historical fact that the first disciples of Jesus came sincerely to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, and (2) showing the significance of this belief of the disciples by arguing that the belief was not due to historical influences from either Christianity, Judaism or pagan religions.

5. From Encyclopedia Britannica article on “confirmation bias”:

confirmation bias, people’s tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with their existing beliefs. This biased approach to decision making is largely unintentional, and it results in a person ignoring information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. These beliefs can include a person’s expectations in a given situation and their predictions about a particular outcome. People are especially likely to process information to support their own beliefs when an issue is highly important or self-relevant. …

[…]

Research has shown that confirmation bias is strong and widespread and that it occurs in several contexts. In the context of decision making, once an individual makes a decision, they will look for information that supports it. Information that conflicts with a person’s decision may cause discomfort, and the person will therefore ignore it or give it little consideration. People give special treatment to information that supports their personal beliefs. …

Casad, Bettina J., Luebering, J.E.. "confirmation bias". Encyclopedia Britannica, 16 Sep. 2026, https://www.britannica.com/science/confirmation-bias. Accessed 2 October 2026.

6. If Jesus was God or the divine Son of God, then it might make sense to view his death as capable of bringing forgiveness and eternal salvation to all humankind, but if Jesus was not God and not the divine Son of God, if Jesus was just another flawed human being, then it would not make sense to believe his death could accomplish forgiveness and eternal salvation for all humankind. Thus, if Jesus was just a flawed human, God would not have performed the miracle of raising Jesus from the dead to show us that Jesus was the divine savior of humankind.

7. Here is Craig’s argument in support of a key premise of his case:

1.IF Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts and no plausible natural explanation can account for them as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead", THEN the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the most plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts.

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

3. No plausible natural explanation can account for Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead."

THEREFORE:

4. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the most plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts.

8. The first premise of this argument is this:

1. IF Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts and no plausible natural explanation can account for them as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead", THEN the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the most plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts.

(NOTE: A natural explanation is one that does not require or assume the existence of any supernatural being, force, or ability.)

This premise is true only if there are just two kinds of explanations of the relevant evidence concerning Jesus alleged death and resurrection: (1) various natural explanations and (2) just one supernatural explanation that “God raised Jesus from the dead”.  This ignores the fact that there are many possible supernatural explanations besides the traditional Christian one.

9. There are dozens of possible natural explanations, and most natural explanations can be transformed into a supernatural explanation by substituting God for a human agent.  For example, one natural explanation is this:

·       Somebody moved the body of Jesus to a different tomb but did not tell Jesus’ disciples about this.

A parallel supernatural explanation is this one:

·       God instantly teleported Jesus’ body to a different tomb, but did not tell Jesus’ disciples about this.

Furthermore, God is not the only possible supernatural being. According to Christian theology, there are a variety of supernatural beings, such as spirits, angels, demons, and the devil himself. Thus, any supernatural hypothesis in which God performs a key action can be revised and turned into a different supernatural hypothesis featuring some other supernatural being (or a natural being with supernatural powers):

·       An angel instantly teleported Jesus' body to a different tomb.

·       A demon instantly teleported Jesus' body to a different tomb.

·       A spirit instantly teleported Jesus' body to a different tomb.

·       The devil instantly teleported Jesus' body to a different tomb.

·       A finite deity (e.g., Zeus or Poseidon) instantly teleported Jesus' body to a different tomb.

·       A wizard or witch instantly teleported Jesus' body to a different tomb.

·       A powerful psychic instantly teleported Jesus' body to a different tomb.

There are, in fact, dozens of different possible supernatural hypotheses concerning Jesus' final fate, but Craig considers and evaluates only the one (preferred) supernatural hypothesis of God resurrecting Jesus. 

10. The discovery of the empty tomb doesn’t seem very significant, because there are various reasonable explanations for that alleged “fact”. In the Gospel of John, for example, when Mary Magdalene finds the tomb empty, she immediately infers that someone has moved Jesus’ dead body:

But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb, 12 and she saw two angels in white sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet. 13 They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” (John 20:11-13, NRSV Updated Edition)

The belief of Jesus’ disciples in his resurrection also doesn’t seem very significant, given that they were devout followers of Jesus for a year or more before he was crucified. The key historical claim by Craig that seems the most significant is the one about the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus.

11. William Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3rd edition, see pages 378-380. These six examples are from Paul's list of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.

12. William Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3^rd edition, page 378.

13. Furthermore, the author of the Gospel of Luke had a motivation to invent a Jerusalem appearance of Jesus to his disciples. A noted aspect of the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts is the emphasis on sacred geography. The plot of these writings is organized in terms of the spread of the Good News first from Galilee in northern Palestine, to Jerusalem in southern Palestine, and then outward from the church in Jerusalem to other countries and nations, especially in the Roman Empire, and to Rome itself.

14. Reginald Fuller, an NT scholar who specialized in the resurrection, believed that the first appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples were visions that took place in Galilee, not in Jerusalem:

Probably this [the confirmation of the empty tomb by Jesus’ male disciples] followed the disciples’ return to Jerusalem, after their visions in Galilee; they must have welcomed the empty tomb as congruous with the Easter faith, which they had already arrived at through the visions.  

“Resurrection of Christ” in The Oxford Companion to the Bible (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993), page 648.

The leading New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders believes that Jesus’ disciples fled to Galilee when Jesus was crucified, and later returned to Jerusalem:

According to Matthew (hinted at also in Mark), Jesus appeared to the women and then later to the disciples in Galilee.

[…]

…According to Matthew and Mark, the disciples went to Galilee and saw Jesus there; according to Luke, they did not leave the environs of Jerusalem.

The Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P. Sanders (New York, NY: Penguin Books USA Inc., 1993), page 276.

I have views about parts of it [the Gospel accounts of the resurrection], such as the movement of the disciples: they fled to Galilee and then returned to Jerusalem.  Luke’s view, that they never left the environs of Jerusalem, is explained by the ‘Jerusalemo-centric’ character of his two-volume work, Luke-Acts.

The Historical Figure of Jesus, page 278.

Sanders’ comments imply that the story in the Gospel of Luke (where the disciples stay in Jerusalem and experience appearances of the risen Jesus there) is fiction.

15. In Acts 9:3-9, as Paul is on a journey to Damascus a bright light from heaven flashed around him, and Paul is blinded for a few days. But the people with Paul were not blinded by a light from heaven. Paul allegedly hears Jesus speaking to him after the bright light flashed around him, but the people who were with Paul did not see anyone with Paul. If there was an actual flash of bright light from the sky, why was only Paul blinded? If Jesus was physically present and talking to Paul, why didn’t Paul’s companions see someone talking to Paul? This description of Paul’s experience makes it seem like a subjective experience that was in Paul’s mind, not an experience of objective physical things or events that others who were with Paul also experienced.

16. Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks, When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990), page 120.

17. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), page 48.

18. Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence for the Resurrection (Ventura, CA: Regal, 2009), page 159.

19. The Christian philosophers William Craig and Gary Habermas (along with N.T. expert Michael Licona) both raise objections against the “Wrong Tomb Theory”, as does Josh McDowell:

·       William Craig, The Son Rises (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1981), pages 40 to 42.

·       Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), pages 97 to 99.

·       Josh McDowell, The Resurrection Factor (San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, Inc., 1981), pages 78 to 80.

20. The Christian apologist Josh McDowell criticizes the Body Moved by Authorities Theory. McDowell’s description of this theory limits the possible movers of Jesus’ body to “Roman or Jewish authorities”. William Craig mentions a specific instance of this theory where a Jewish authority, namely Joseph of Arimathea, moved the body of Jesus from the tomb where it had been placed on Friday evening. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona also mention this theory, but describe it in a broader way than McDowell: the theory that anyone other than the disciples moved the body of Jesus.

·       Josh McDowell, The Resurrection Factor (San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, Inc., 1981), page 95. 

·       William Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3rd Edition (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), pages 376 to 377.

·       Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), page 95.

21. There is a third skeptical theory related to the alleged tomb of Jesus. This theory is called the Unknown Tomb Theory, and it was criticized by Josh McDowell.    

·       Josh McDowell, The Resurrection Factor (San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, Inc., 1981), page 77. 

22. The Myth Theory, as defined by Kreeft and Tacelli, is a different theory than the Legend Theory that is discussed by Josh McDowell and William Craig. Habermas and Licona divide the category of “Legend Theories” into three different skeptical theories. One of those three theories is basically the same as the Myth Theory discussed by Kreeft and Tacelli, but one of the other skeptical theories is basically the same as what McDowell and Craig call the Legend Theory.

·       Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), page 182.

·       Josh McDowell, The Resurrection Factor (San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, Inc., 1981), pages 80 to 81.

·       William Craig, The Son Rises (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1981), pages 42 to 43.

·       Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), pages 84 to 87.

23. Habermas and Licona point out that the disciples’ belief that Jesus had risen from the dead could also be skeptically explained as being delusional beliefs.

·       Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), page 109.

24. One plausible interpretation of a “vision of Jesus” is that this would involve “a real experience of something without a body.” Habermas and Licona refer to this as an “objective vision”. Some of Jesus’ disciples could have experienced objective visions of a living Jesus even though there was no physical or embodied Jesus near them, and even though they did not see the living Jesus with their eyes. Such an event would be supernatural, involving something like ESP.

·       Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), page 110.

25. Josh McDowell criticizes the Spiritual Resurrection Theory. The key idea is that Jesus did not come back to life with a physical (visible and tangible) body, but that Jesus came back to life as a ghost or spirit.

·       Josh McDowell, The Resurrection Factor (San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, Inc., 1981), pages 81 to 82.

26. The Mistaken Identity Theory is criticized by the Christian philosopher Norman Geisler. On this theory, the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus were all cases where someone who looked and/or sounded like Jesus was wrongly taken to be the risen Jesus.    

·       Norman Geisler, "Resurrection, Alternate Theories of" in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), page 646.

27. The Substitution Theory (or Wrong Person Theory) is criticized by the Christian apologist D. James Kennedy. On this theory, the Romans intended to execute Jesus, but there was a mix-up, and they crucified the wrong person. 

·       James Kennedy with Jerry Newcome, Who Is This Jesus: Is He Risen? (Fort Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge Ministries, 2002), page 14.

28. For more details on there being at least dozens of skeptical theories about the alleged resurrection of Jesus, see my two blog posts summarizing problems with the case by Kreeft and Tacelli:

The Complete FAILURE of Peter Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection – Part 1

The Complete FAILURE of Peter Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection – Part 2

29. The Conspiracy Theory is the idea that the eleven remaining disciples agreed with each other that they would try to fool other people into believing that God raised Jesus from the dead (and gave Jesus an immortal body) by lying about having seen and talked with the risen Jesus after he was crucified. 

In HCA, Kreeft and Tacelli raise seven objections against the Conspiracy Theory. See this article with links to the fourteen blog posts I wrote defending the Conspiracy Theory against seven objections by Kreeft and Tacelli:

Defending the Conspiracy Theory – INDEX 

The Hallucination Theory is basically the view that the disciples of Jesus experienced hallucinations of Jesus after he was crucified, and those experiences persuaded them to mistakenly believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead.

In HCA, Kreeft and Tacelli raise fourteen objections against the Hallucination Theory. See my INDEX article with links to the forty-five blog posts I wrote defending the Hallucination Theory against fourteen objections by Kreeft and Tacelli:     

Defending the Hallucination Theory - Index 

See also my INDEX article with links to the eleven blog posts I wrote defending the Hallucination Theory against seven objections by Josh McDowell:  

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? INDEX

The Myth Theory, according to Kreeft and Tacelli, is the view that Jesus' disciples told stories about Jesus rising from the dead, but they did not intend for those stories to be taken as actual historical events. Early Christian belief in a literal resurrection of Jesus resulted from a misunderstanding of stories told by Jesus' original disciples. 

In HCA, Kreeft and Tacelli raise six objections against the Myth Theory. Five out of the six objections are clearly irrelevant to the Myth Theory and are thus easily dismissed.  Only the sixth objection has any relevance to the question at issue, and the sixth objection, though relevant, fails to address the central issue of whether the disciples were myth makers.  Thus, the sixth objection has no hope of showing the Myth Theory to be false.  See my blog post, “Defending the Myth Theory: COMPLETED“ at The Secular Frontier: 

Defending the Myth Theory: COMPLETED

30. Here are two scholars with expertise on the crucifixion who agree with this point: 

Often crucified people lingered for days…

John R. Donahue, “Crucifixion” in Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), p.299.  

Among the torturous penalties noted in the literature of antiquity, crucifixion was particularly heinous. The act itself damaged no vital organs, nor did it result in excessive bleeding. Hence death came slowly, sometimes after several days…  

Joel B. Green, “Death of Jesus” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), p.147. 

31. According to the Gospel of Mark, Jesus was crucified about 9am, “died” about 3pm, and was buried about 6pm (Mark 15:25, 15:33-37, and 15:42-46). But according to the Gospel of John, Jesus was condemned shortly after 12pm, implying that Jesus was crucified about 1pm (John 19:13-18). These times are clearly approximations at best, so each time given should be understood to be plus-or-minus one hour (except for Jesus’ burial at sunset which would have been about 6pm). 

So, according to the Gospel of Mark, Jesus was crucified between 8am and 10am, and died between 2pm and 4pm. According to the Gospel of John, Jesus was crucified between about 12pm and 2pm. An hour or two would be needed to remove Jesus from the cross, transport his body to the tomb, and prepare and entomb his body, so Jesus would have been removed from the cross between about 3pm and 5pm in order to allow time to complete burial by sunset.

The earliest time for Jesus to have been crucified is 8am, and the latest time is 2pm.  The earliest time he would have been removed from the cross would be 3pm, and the latest time would be 5pm. Therefore, the longest duration on the cross would have been 9 hours (from 8am to 5pm), and the shortest duration on the cross would have been just 1 hour (from 2pm to 3pm), but that seems improbably short, so the shortest duration on the cross is probably better understood to be 2 hours (from 1pm to 3pm or 2pm to 4pm).

 32. Here is the account by the Jewish historian Josephus:

I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintances. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.

Flavius Josephus, The Life of Flavius Josephus, section 75, at Christian Classics Ethereal Library:  

The Life Of Flavius Josephus 

If three people were crucified by Roman soldiers, hung on their crosses for a few hours, were removed from their crosses, and one of the three survived, then that is a good reason to believe that Jesus could have been crucified, hung on the cross for a few hours, and yet survived his crucifixion.

33. Here is an excerpt from Carey’s account:

Four persons were crucified [in Burma, as a form of execution for a crime]…Those which I saw were liberated at the end of three or four days.

Felix Carey, “Punishments Practiced by the Burmans” in The Baptist Magazine, Volume 7 (London: W. Button & Son, 1815), page 67.

The Baptist magazine

Viewed 7/30/26

Carey had in a previous paragraph described an event in which six people had been crucified in Burma, where two of the condemned criminals “died in the course of four days,” and where “the rest were liberated, but died of mortification on the sixth or seventh day.” So, his failure to mention any deaths following seeing some other crucified people “liberated at the end of three or four days” implies that those people survived their attempted executions. 

34. Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on “Ringer Edwards”:

Herbert James "Ringer" Edwards (26 July1913 – June 2000) was an Australian soldier during World War II. As a prisoner of war (POW), he survived being crucified for 63 hours by Japanese soldiers on the Burma Railway.

Ringer Edwards   viewed 7/30/26

35. Here is an excerpt from a newspaper article about the crucifixion of a man by Isis:

A man has survived being crucified by Isis in Syria, after the jihadists raided his village and nailed him to a cross for eight hours.

The unnamed man from Al-Bab, near the border with Turkey, was crucified as a punishment, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

He managed to survive the ordeal.

Harriet Alexander, “Isis crucifies nine people in Syrian villages” in The Telegraph, June 29, 2014.

Isis crucifies nine people in Syrian villages                  Viewed 7/30/26

36. See the short addendum at the end of my article, “Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 37: Initial Evaluation of Premise (1a)”: 

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 37

37. Here are some relevant medical facts and medical tools that Roman soldiers who lived two thousand years ago did not know about:

·       Human bodies and human organs are composed of microscopic cells.

·       The heart acts as a pump to circulate blood through the human body.

·       The lungs remove carbon dioxide from blood and take oxygen from air and add it to blood in the human body.

·       The main function of the kidneys is to filter waste products and excess fluids from our blood.

·       The circulation of blood carries oxygen and nutrients to the cells that make up a human body.

·       The cells of the human body require oxygen and nutrients to stay alive.

·       The death of most of the cells in a human organ constitutes the death of the organ.

·       The death of the human brain constitutes the death of a human person.

·       Most diseases are caused by tiny microscopic organisms, like bacteria and viruses.

·       Thermometers can be used to measure the temperature of a human body.

·       Stethoscopes can be used to detect or evaluate the heartbeat of a human.

·       Sphygmomanometers can be used to measure blood pressure of a human.

·       Electrocardiograms (ECGs) can be used to detect or evaluate the heartbeat of a human.

·       Electroencephalograms (EEGs) can be used to detect or evaluate electrical activity in a human brain.

    In short, Roman soldiers who lived two thousand years ago were completely ignorant of modern medical knowledge about the human body and about modern medical tools used to evaluate the medical status of a human being.

38. The Gospel of John is a historically unreliable source of information about the life, ministry, and death of Jesus. There are a number of good reasons supporting this skeptical view of the Gospel of John:

·       The Gospel of John was the last of the four canonical gospels to be written, according to most NT scholars.

·       The Gospel of John was written about 90-100 C.E., sixty to seventy years after Jesus was crucified, according to most NT scholars.

·       The Gospel of John was probably not written by an eyewitness of the life, ministry, and crucifixion of Jesus, according to most NT scholars.

·       The Gospel of John disagrees with the earlier Gospels on a number of points (e.g. what Jesus said about himself, exorcisms by Jesus, whether Jesus was crucified on Passover, and whether the first time the risen Jesus appeared to his disciples took place in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday or in Galilee a week or more after Jesus was crucified).

·       The “sermons” of Jesus in the earlier Gospels are just collections of various short sayings of Jesus, while the “sermons” of Jesus in the Gospel of John are actually long, coherent sermons. Short sayings repeatedly spoken by Jesus could have been accurately remembered by his followers, but it is very unlikely that his followers would be able to accurately remember a long sermon that Jesus delivered only once or twice. Most NT scholars do not believe that the “sermons” of Jesus presented in the Gospel of John represent accurate memories of what Jesus actually said.

·       The Gospel of John features a number of dramatic one-on-one conversations between Jesus and specific individuals. An omniscient narrator tells us about these private conversations, which is a lovely literary device, but this casts serious doubt on the historicity of those private conversations. Who was there to hear and remember these conversations?

·       The Gospel of John contains some of the finest writing in the NT and is known for its extensive use of theological metaphor and symbolism.  Some of the most notable passages in this gospel, especially in John’s passion narrative, were clearly written as short plays, with distinct scenes. The pronounced theological and dramatic emphasis of this gospel indicate that historical accuracy was not a high priority for the author of the Gospel of John.

·       For nearly two centuries, scholars who specialize in studying the historical Jesus have focused their attention on the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and have largely ignored the Gospel of John because they view the Gospel of John as historically unreliable.

For a more in-depth case for the historical unreliability of the Gospel of John, see my posts on this subject:

The Unreliability of the 4th Gospel -Part 14: Summary and INDEX 

39. In addition to there being a number of good reasons to regard the Gospel of John as being a historically unreliable source about the life, ministry, and death of Jesus, there are good reasons to doubt the historicity of this specific passage in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John:

·       The alleged request of “the Jews” to have the legs of the crucified men broken and their bodies removed from the crosses on Friday evening is only found in the Gospel of John (John 19:31)

·       The alleged breaking of the legs of the other crucified men is only found in the Gospel of John (John 19:32)

·       The presence of “the beloved disciple” at the crucifixion (the alleged eyewitness of the breaking of the legs) is only found in the Gospel of John (19:26-27)

·       The wounding of Jesus with a spear by a Roman soldier is only found in the Gospel of John (John 19:33-34)

·       The flow of blood and water from a wound in Jesus’ side is only found in the Gospel of John (John 19:34)

·       The presence of a wound in the side of the risen Jesus is only found in the Gospel of John (John 20:19-20)

·       The story of the risen Jesus inviting doubting Thomas to touch the wound in his side is only found in the Gospel of John (John 20:24-27)

None of the other Gospels corroborate any of these seven points that are closely related to the story of the Roman soldiers allegedly breaking the legs of the other crucified men but failing to do the same to Jesus.

Furthermore, the Gospel of John states that these events fulfill two Old Testament prophecies:

36 These things occurred so that the scripture might be fulfilled, “None of his bones shall be broken.” 37 And again another passage of scripture says, “They will look on the one whom they have pierced.”

John 19:36-37, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

Many NT scholars doubt many of the details the Gospels provide about the trials and crucifixion of Jesus precisely because those details appear to have been generated on the basis of Old Testament passages. This is called “prophecy historicized”.

The fact that the author of the Gospel of John views the breaking of the legs of the other crucified men, the failure of the soldiers to break the legs of Jesus, and the wounding of Jesus with a spear as fulfillments of Old Testament prophecy raises significant doubt about the historicity of these particular historical claims.

The claims might well be the result of early Christians “learning” details about the trials and crucifixion of Jesus not from eyewitnesses, but from reading passages in the Old Testament as divine predictions about what would happen to Jesus. In short, the events in this particular passage of the Gospel of John might well be completely fictional and unhistorical. 

Finally, the scholars of The Jesus Seminar make this comment about the location of Jesus’ tomb according to the Gospel of John (John 19:41-42):

If the place of execution was the location of frequent crucifixions, it is unlikely that a private cemetery was close by.  Christian memory, however, did not like the thought that Jesus had been buried in a common grave, so storytellers made it a private burial plot. Christian memory liked even less the notion that Jesus had not been buried at all.  The fact is, Christian storytellers may well not have known what happened to Jesus' body.

The Acts of Jesus by Robert Funk and The Jesus Seminar (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1998), p.440.

For more details about historical problems with Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John, see my post on that issue:

The Unreliability of the 4th Gospel - Part 12: Chapter 19

40. For example, the leading New Testament and Jesus scholar E.P. Sanders wrote this about the Gospel of John in comparison with the other Gospels:

The synoptic gospels [Matthew, Mark, and Luke] are to be preferred as our basic source of information about Jesus. Yet their authors too were theologians and were capable of creativity. …There are no sources that give us the ‘unvarnished truth’; the varnish of faith in Jesus covers everything. Yet the synoptic authors did not homogenize their material, as John did. The joints and seams are visible, and the contents are quite diverse. There is nothing like the sameness of the Johannine monologues. The synoptic authors, that is, revised traditional material much less thoroughly than did John.

E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York, NY: Penguin Books USA Inc., 1993), page 73.

41. No Gospel, aside from the Gospel of John, indicates that:

·     the Jewish authorities were concerned about the crucified men being left on their crosses overnight

·     the Jewish authorities requested that the legs of the crucified men be broken

·     the legs of any of the crucified men were broken by Roman soldiers

·     a Roman soldier stabbed Jesus in the side with a spear

·     Jesus had a wound in his side while on the cross

·     Jesus had a beloved disciple

·     the beloved disciple was present near the crucified Jesus

·     blood and water came from a wound in Jesus’ side

·     the risen Jesus had a wound in his side

·     the risen Jesus showed a wound in his side to his disciples

·     the risen Jesus invited his disciple Thomas to touch the wound in his side

42. Medical experts who view the blood and water from the wound in Jesus’ side as evidence that Jesus had previously died of asphyxiation believe this only because they already believed the Asphyxiation Theory to be the correct general explanation of how crucifixion causes death. Thus, if the Asphyxiation Theory is false, the conclusion of those medical experts about the blood and water being evidence that Jesus had already died of asphyxiation is based on their acceptance of a false theory about how crucifixion causes death in general.  Therefore, if the Asphyxiation Theory is probably false, then the opinion of those medical experts about the death of Jesus is cast into serious doubt.

Medical experts disagree about what caused Jesus’ death. There are at least nine different medical theories about the cause of Jesus’ death:

This table is from: “Medical Theories on the Cause of Death in Crucifixion” by Matthew Maslen and Piers Mitchell, in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 99, April 2006, p.186.

43. Thomas W. McGovern, MD, David A. Kaminskas, MD, and Eustace S. Fernandes, MD, “Did Jesus Die by Suffocation?: An Appraisal of the Evidence” in The Linacre Quarterly, 2023, Vol. 90(1), p. 64–79. This article also raises other objections to the Asphyxiation Theory:

·     In scientific experiments reenacting crucifixion (not using nails to attach subjects to a cross) subjects did not experience difficulty breathing.

·     “Since the asphyxiation theory requires that suffocation would rapidly lead to death if victims did not repeatedly raise themselves on their feet, and if even healthy reenactment subjects could not even do it once under less strenuous conditions, how can we believe that tortured victims could do it the hundreds or thousands of times necessary to remain alive for a day or longer…?”

·     “in a review of …virtually all known descriptions of crucified individuals…we see breath and breathing spoken of multiple times. Yet never once is difficulty in breathing mentioned. Nor is movement of victims in a rhythmic up-and down fashion noted, as would be expected of at least some victims if the asphyxiation theory is correct.”

44. Here is Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory as presented by Kreeft and Tacelli:

The body was totally encased in winding sheets and entombed (Jn 19:38-42).

(HCA, p.183)

Because the argument presented by Kreeft and Tacelli was just one brief sentence, and because I believe they borrowed this objection from Josh McDowell, I have used McDowell’s version of this objection to supplement the argument presented by Kreeft and Tacelli.

45. I believe that Kreeft and Tacelli borrowed this objection from Josh McDowell, but they ruined the objection by leaving out McDowell’s explanation of WHY winding sheets and entombment are relevant to the Swoon Theory. The explanation of the relevance of these alleged facts is suggested by these statements from McDowell:

This theory [the Swoon Theory] would have to say that: …(7) 100-plus pounds of spices and a gummy substance was encased around His body—He must have breathed through it all; (8) He was put into a cold, damp tomb…

Then an incredible thing happened, according to this theory. The cool damp air of the tomb, instead of killing Him, healed him. …

Josh McDowell, The Resurrection Factor (San Burnardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, Inc., 1981), page 98.

46. The passage in the Gospel of John about Nicodemus says that “Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes”; it does not say that they used the entire amount of the mixture for Jesus’ burial. Joseph and Nicodemus might well have used only a portion of the mixture that Nicodemus brought to the tomb. Also, the passage does not state that the mixture was placed exclusively inside the burial cloth in which Jesus’ body was wrapped. A significant portion of the mixture would probably have been used to cover the stone bench where Jesus’ body was to be placed.

The spices used for the preparation of a body in a Jewish burial back in the time of Jesus were also used for another purpose besides inclusion in the burial cloth:

The spices will have been spread the length of the wrappings, and these wound round the body of Jesus. They will also have been spread on the bank of the tomb.

George Beasley-Murray, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 36: John, 2nd edition (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999), p. 360.

What Beasley-Murray means here by spreading spices on the bank of the tomb, is that the spices were used to blanket the surface that the wrapped body would be placed upon, as suggested by the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:

brought…myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pounds weight—an immense quantity, betokening the greatness of their love, but part of it probably intended as a layer for the spot on which the body was to lie.

This quote from the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary was taken from this webpage (see the comments on John 19:39):

JOHN 19 Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary     viewed 1/31/25

McDowell’s claim that 100-plus pounds of spice mixture was included in Jesus’ burial cloth is false, even if we assume that the passage from the Gospel of John that this claim is based on (John 19:39) was historically accurate. The translation of that passage is problematic, so there are at least three different plausible interpretations of the amount of spice mixture that Nicodemus allegedly brought to Jesus’ tomb:

·     About 100 Roman pounds = about 75 US pounds

·     About 100 Greek pounds = about 65 US pounds

·     About 100 Hebrew “logs” = about 30 liters (which would be roughly 35 pounds of spice mixture)

The Greek text says 100 litra (#3046 λίτρα). There is some dispute about the exact weight, because if the Greek word litra was being used as a literal Greek weight, then the weight of the spices was about 65 pounds, but if the word litra was being used in the Greek text to represent the common Roman pound of 12 ounces (which is possible since Nicodemus was neither Greek nor Roman), then the weight of the spices was about 75 pounds (a Roman pound is 12 ounces while the American pound is 16 ounces, so 100 Roman pounds is 75 American pounds).

From an online commentary on the Revised English Version:

John 19:39 Commentary      viewed 9/1/26

The Evangelical NT scholar Craig Keener suggests a third interpretation of the Greek word litras in John 19:39, namely that this refers to an Old Testament measure of volume, called a log. Craig Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), pages 314 to 315.

According to Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, a log is a measure of volume that is equal to 0.3 liters.

Michael Homan, “Weights and Measures” in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), page 1374.

Given these qualifications, even assuming that the key passage (John 19:39) was historically accurate, my calculations show that the amount of spice mixture included in the burial cloth of Jesus would have probably fallen somewhere in the range of 2 pounds to 56 pounds. McDowell’s claim that 100-plus pounds of spice mixture was included in Jesus’ burial cloth is clearly false, if one assumes that John 19:39 is historically accurate.

In order to determine the minimal amount of the spice mixture that was included in the burial cloth wrapped around Jesus, we should consider the interpretation where “about 100 logs” of the mixture was brought to the tomb (about 30 liters, implying about 35 pounds), where only 1/4 of the mixture was used for Jesus’ burial (8.75 pounds), and where 3/4 of that amount was spread on the bench and only 1/4 was included in the burial cloth.  In that case, only about 2 pounds of the mixture would have been included in the burial cloth wrapped around Jesus.

In order to determine the maximal amount of the spice mixture that was included in the burial cloth, we should consider the interpretation where “about 100 Roman pounds” of the mixture was brought to the tomb (about 75 pounds), and where all of the mixture was used for Jesus’ burial, and where only 1/4 of that mixture was spread out on the stone bench and 3/4 of it was included in the burial cloth. In this case, about 56 pounds would have been included in the burial cloth wrapped around Jesus.

For my data and calculations on the weight of the spice mixture, see my blog post on the Secular Frontier called “Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 10: The Weight of the Spices in John 19:39”:

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 10

However, there are good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of John 19:39:

•   There are good reasons to doubt that Jesus was buried in a stone tomb on Friday evening by Joseph of Arimathea.

•   Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John is a historically unreliable account of the Roman trial, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus. (See End Notes 38 and 39).

•   No other Gospel corroborates the claim that Nicodemus helped Joseph of Arimathea to bury Jesus, the existence of Nicodemus, that someone helped Joseph bury Jesus, or that a mixture of myrrh and aloes was used in the burial of Jesus.

In fact, the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke provide a good reason to doubt this claim:

¹ When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. (Mark 16:1, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

⁵⁵ The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how his body was laid. ⁵⁶ Then they returned and prepared spices and ointments. (Luke 23:55-56, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

If these women who were followers of Jesus watched Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus prepare the body of Jesus for burial on Friday evening with an expensive mixture of myrrh and aloes, it is unlikely that the women would have prepared spices and ointments to anoint Jesus’ body on Sunday morning. Joseph and Nicodemus had already taken care of that task, according to the Gospel of John.

See my blog post “Reasons to Doubt the Burial Stories”:

Reasons to Doubt the Burial Stories

McDowell’s view that Jesus would have quickly suffocated in his tomb because of the large amount of spice mixture that was included in his burial cloth requires some additional questionable assumptions:

•   The burial cloth was wrapped tightly in multiple layers around Jesus’ head.

•   The burial cloth had no gap or opening near Jesus’ nose or mouth.

•   The burial cloth around Jesus’ head included a few pounds of the spice mixture.

But Chapter 19 of John does not state or indicate that any of these assumptions are true, and no other Gospel even mentions Nicodemus or the use of the spice mixture in Jesus’ burial.

47. McDowell’s view that Jesus would have quickly died as a result of the tomb being cold and damp is based on this questionable assumption:

•   The air inside the tomb of Jesus was cold enough and damp enough to cause Jesus to die quickly (in a matter of a few hours).

What was the temperature inside of Jesus’ tomb?  What was the humidity inside Jesus’ tomb? Nobody measured the temperature or humidity inside of that tomb on that evening. Furthermore, if Jesus had been wrapped in a burial cloth, the cloth would have acted like a blanket and would have helped Jesus to avoid hypothermia.

Finally, Jerusalem is not particularly cold or humid in April, at least not in this century. Jerusalem averages about 50% humidity in April, and the temperature ranges from a low of 51 degrees Fahrenheit to a high of 76 degrees Fahrenheit (in this century):

53. See section 2.4 in my DRAFT Chapter 2 of my book about The Resuscitation of the Swoon Theory:

Chapter 2 of my book Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, Volume 2

In section 2.4, I provide reasons for doubting these alleged wounds and injuries of Jesus:

·     The alleged severe scourging of Jesus by a Roman soldier

·     The alleged multiple lacerations to Jesus’ scalp from the alleged Crown of Thorns

·     The alleged nailing of Jesus’ hands/wrists to the cross

·     The alleged nailing of Jesus’ feet/ankles to the cross

·     The alleged deep spear wound in Jesus side

54. See my discussion of their “Blood and Water” objection to the Swoon Theory.

55. For example, the Gospel accounts do no answer these basic questions:

·     Did Jesus receive a light, moderate, or severe flogging or scourging?

·     How many blows or strikes did Jesus receive during the flogging or scourging?

·     How many minutes did the flogging or scourging of Jesus take?

·     Did the scourge or whip have any metal weights or hooks or bits of bone attached to the straps or cords or to the ends of the straps or cords?

·     How long were the straps or cords of the scourge or whip?

·     How many straps or cords did the scourge or whip have?

·     Was Jesus back or legs lacerated by the flogging or scourging?

·     How many lacerations occurred from the scourging or flogging, and how deep were the lacerations?

·     How much blood did Jesus lose from the lacerations inflicted by the scourging or flogging?

·     How many sharp thorns were in Jesus’ crown of thorns?

·     How many sharp thorns were pointed inwards towards Jesus’ scalp?

·     How long were the thorns that pointed inwards towards Jesus’ scalp?

·     Was the crown of thorns pushed down forcefully onto Jesus’ head?

·     How many lacerations were there in Jesus’ scalp from the crown of thorns?

·     How much blood did Jesus lose from lacerations in his scalp?

·     How deep was the spear wound in Jesus’ side?

·     How wide was the spear wound in Jesus’ side?

·     Which side of Jesus’ body was the spear wound?

·     How much blood came out of the spear wound?

56. The Christian apologist William Craig admits that many scholars are skeptical about the historicity of the story in the Gospel of Matthew about the soldiers guarding Jesus’ tomb:

Matthew's account has been nearly universally rejected as an apologetic legend by the critics. 

Craig argues in support of the historicity of the soldiers guarding Jesus’ tomb, but he admits that this is a controversial issue and that it is not an established fact that there were soldiers guarding Jesus’ tomb:

So although there are reasons to doubt the existence of the guard at the tomb, there are also weighty considerations in its favor. It seems best to leave it an open question. 

Above quotations are from William Craig’s article “The Guard at the Tomb” (published :

The Guard at the Tomb    Viewed 9/1/26

57. Here are more relevant scenarios that are compatible with the Swoon Theory:

After Jesus’ crucifixion and a few weeks of appearing to his disciples…

·     Jesus traveled to another country and changed his identity to avoid being arrested and crucified again

·     Jesus traveled to another country and changed his identity so that his disciples would learn how to manage their own spiritual growth

·     Jesus died as a result of a contagious disease or an injury

·     Jesus was arrested for being a troublemaker by a Roman soldier who did not recognize him, and Jesus was imprisoned for the rest of his life

·     Jesus traveled to another country to preach, and was arrested for being a troublemaker, and Jesus was imprisoned in that country for the rest of his life

58. See my post on Gary Habermas:

Gary Habermas is the Leading Defender of the Resurrection of Jesus

59. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), see Chapters 1 through 8, Chapter 12, and the Conclusion.

60. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, page 33. 

61. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, page 30 to33. See my post on “Reasonable Historical Certainty”:

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Habermas and Licona - Part 5 

62. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, pages 135 and 183. 

63. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Chapter 3 covers the first two “minimal facts”, Chapter 4 covers three more “minimal facts”.  Lists of these “minimal facts” are found on pages 75 to 76, page 149, page 208, pages 213 to 214, and pages 220 to 225.

64. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, page 135:

…while science perhaps cannot measure God’s activity, there is no reason why we cannot consider non-supernatural portions of claims concerning the Resurrection.  For example, did Jesus die? Was he seen alive at some later time? The scientist or historian could evaluate the conclusion: ‘Jesus was seen alive after his death.’ 

65. The claim that Jesus was severely scourged before being crucified is not a historical fact, nor is the claim that Jesus’ hands and feet were nailed to a cross. See section 2.4 in the DRAFT Chapter 2 of my book about The Resuscitation of the Swoon Theory:

Chapter 2 of my book Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, Volume 2