In his book The Son Rises, the Christian apologist William Craig raises three objections against the Swoon Theory:

Craig’s Objection #1: Jesus’ Physical Injuries
Craig’s Objection #2: The Deceptive Jesus Objection
Craig’s Objection #3: The Sickly Jesus Objection

Craig makes dozens of historical claims in support of Objection #1, but fails to provide historical evidence in suppor of those claims. This is sufficient reason to reject Objection #1 and to conclude that this objection fails.

However, there are good reasons to doubt the historicity or historical reliability of most, if not all, of the dozens of historical claims asserted by Craig. For example, the first eight historical claims made by Craig concern an alleged Jewish trial of Jesus:

HC1. Jesus was arrested on a Thursday night (by ?).
HC2. Jesus was tried illegally by a night session of the Jewish court.
HC3. During the Jewish night trial, “they” (?) spit on Jesus.
HC4. During the Jewish night trial, “they” (?) blindfolded Jesus.
HC5. During the Jewish night trial, “they” (?) hit Jesus in the face with their fists.
HC6. “They” (?) turned Jesus over to “the guards” (?).
HC7. “The guards” (?) beat Jesus further.
HC8. Jesus was up all night without sleep (on that Thursday of the night session of the Jewish court).

Claim (HC2), as Craig is probably aware, raises significant doubts about the historicity of this alleged Jewish trial of Jesus. Here is a comment on the alleged night session of the Jewish court by a prominent historical Jesus scholar, James Charlesworth:

It is certain that no official meeting of the Sanhedrin (an official court of seventy-one Jews [mSanhedrin 1:6]) condemned Jesus to death. …Even if the Sanhedrin had the power to condemn Jesus to death, it could not have met officially. It did not meet at night, as Mark implies (Mark 14:53-15:1). We should discard into the dustbin of misconceptions the possibility that the Sanhedrin sentenced Jesus to death; it never met at night…[6]

Other Jesus scholars have expressed doubts about the historicity or historical reliability of the alleged Jewish trial(s) of Jesus:

⦁ Geza Vermes
⦁ Gerard Sloyan
⦁ Simon Légasse
⦁ Paula Fredriksen
⦁ Marcus Borg
⦁ Fraçois Bovon
⦁ Bart Ehrman

Here are some relevant quotations about the alleged Jewish trial from those Jesus scholars:

…the reliability of the account of Jesus’ appearance before the Sanhedrin and his condemnation to death is seriously undermined by the repeated contradictions and historical and legal improbabilities of Mark’s account, which has been copied in substance by Matthew. Luke and John further muddy the waters. John ignores any trial of Jesus by a Jewish court, and Luke omits the night session of the Sanhedrin.[7]

Geza Vermes

As modern reporters, they [the Gospel authors] were a flat failure. As ancient dramatists they were quite successful…
[…]
It is little wonder that the heinousness of the Sanhedrin’s action grew in the minds of Jesus’ followers. They who should have believed had not, while the Roman prefect, of whom nothing was expected, had been able to ask, “What evil has he done?” (Mark 15:14) and say, “I have found him guilty of no capital crime.” (Luke 23:22). The two opposed views of Jesus before his judges were not historical in the ordinary sense. Believers in Jesus probably did not possess enough hard facts for that kind of history writing. They worked up four dramatizations on a biblical model, saying that the enemies of God were his own people while the despised gentile had acted more nobly. …
…Pilate’s motive for sentencing Jesus, if indeed Jesus was subjected to a formal trial, is not known. …Neither the four evangelists [Gospel authors] (nor the book of Acts, Luke’s volume two) nor the sources they drew on knew what went on when Jesus appeared before Judean and Roman justice.[8]

Gerard Sloyan

The high priest cries ‘Blasphemy!’, [in the Jewish trial of Jesus] and we can understand this when we realize that Jesus’ reply is none other than the confession of faith of the first Christians. For a Jew, to declare oneself Messiah is not a blasphemy. …this dialogue is Christian; it is an ad hoc composition aimed at bringing out the mystery of Christ the Son of God… .
But the whole scene derives from a Christian hand. For in reality this ‘trial’ is in fact a kind of Christological compendium provided for the believing reader to reflect on…
In fact, there is little in this narrative [about the Jewish trial] which can be said to have a historical origin. …That is the case in Mark, and neither Matthew nor Luke offer any additional support at the historical level. The former (25.59-66) recasts the Markan narrative. As for Luke (22.66-71)…his account has no historical verisimilitude… [9]

Simon Légasse

…the nocturnal session of the Sanhedrin is totally unhistorical.[10]

Simon Légasse

Perhaps Jesus was led before the [Jewish] High Priest or his father-in-law, though this is unlikely. Between their duties at the Temple and their festive meals at home [for Passover], these men would have put in a long day already; and besides, what need? Perhaps Jesus was interrogated briefly by Pilate, though this, too, is unlikely. There was no point. His death warrant had already been signed by the very crowd that had clamored around him, responding to his message of impending redemption. Pilate’s soldiers had their orders, and they knew what to do.[11]

Paula Fredriksen

About the events reported between arrest and execution, including the trials before Jewish and Roman authorities, I have little historical confidence. The reason: whatever happened was not witnessed by Jesus’ followers; they had fled and were not there. …
In particular, I am uncertain about whether there were any formal trials of Jesus before either the high priest or the Roman governor. It is easy to imagine that the order for the arrest and execution of a peasant could have been given and carried out without Jesus ever appearing personally before the highest authorities. And even if there was a trial by either Jewish or Roman authority (or both), I find it difficult to imagine how Jesus’ followers could have known what was said: they were not there.[12]

Marcus Borg

The entire Sanhedrin probably met during the day, following Jesus’ evening arrest. Early in the morning, the assembly had Jesus brought forward. With what did it charge him? Since the Gospel of John says nothing in this respect, any information must come from the Synoptic Gospels [Matthew, Mark, and Luke]. Before turning to those accounts, however, an important question arises: how exactly did early Christians learn the matter of this investigation? Conservative exegetes make reference to Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, who would have been present, arguing further that assemblies of this sort never succeed in keeping their affairs secret. Critical exegetes, among which include this author, deem rather that, here as elsewhere, the Gospel narratives reflect the desire of the Christian community more than the historical reality.[13]

Fraçois Bovon

Unfortunately, we have no reliable way of knowing what happened when Jesus appeared before Caiaphas. In part we are hampered by our own sources: according to the accounts themselves, the only persons present were Jesus…and the Jewish rulers. Where, then, did our sources get their information? There wasn’t a court stenographer whose records could be consulted.
The real problem, though, is that it is difficult to understand the trial proceeding, if it actually happened as narrated. …when Jesus affirms he is [the Messiah]…the high priest cries out “Blasphemy,” and calls for his execution (Mark 14:62-64). The problem is that if this, in fact, is what Jesus said, then he didn’t commit any blasphemy.
[…]
It seems unlikely, then, that the trial proceeded the way that it’s described in Mark, our earliest source. In addition, as scholars have long noted, the trial appears to be illegal on a large number of counts… In light of these difficulties…perhaps it is best to conclude that Jesus must have appeared before some body of Jewish rulers…, but that we don’t know exactly what happened at the proceeding.[14]

Bart Ehrman

Many historical Jesus scholars have doubts concerning the historicity or historical reliability of the Gospel accounts about the alleged Jewish trial(s) of Jesus. If there was no Jewish trial, then most of Craig’s first eight historical claims above are false. If the Gospel accounts of a Jewish trial are historically unreliable, then Craig’s first eight historical claims are dubious.

END NOTES

6. James Charlesworth, The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2008), p.111-112.
7. Geza Vermes, The Passion (New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2005), p.49.
8. Gerard Sloyan, Why Jesus Died (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2004), p.58-60.
9. Simon Légasse, The Trial of Jesus (London: SCM Press Ltd,1997), p.41.
10. Simon Légasse, The Trial of Jesus, p.48.
11. Paula Fredriksen, Jesus Of Nazareth, King of the Jews (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999), p.258.
12. Marcus Borg, “Why Was Jesus Killed?” in The Meaning of Jesus (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999), p.87-88.
13. Fraçois Bovon, The Last Days of Jesus (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), p.39.
14. Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999), p.220-221.