The Christian apologist William Craig has made two different cases against the Swoon Theory (the skeptical theory that Jesus survived his crucifixion and later appeared to some of his disciples).  Craig made a 20th-century case against the Swoon Theory in his book The Son Rises (and also in Reasonable Faith, revised edition). 

In my upcoming book Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, Volume 1: The Resuscitation of the Swoon Theory (hereafter: TCAR1), I show that all three objections that constitute Craig’s 20th-century case against the Swoon Theory fail.  Thus, Craig’s 20th-century case against the Swoon Theory fails.

In the last decade of the 20^th century, Craig revised his case for the resurrection of Jesus and also revised his cases against various skeptical theories, including his case against the Swoon Theory. Craig’s 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory can be found in the 3^rd edition of his book Reasonable Faith (hereafter: RF3).  This new case contains eight significant objections:

William Craig’s 21st-Century Case Against the Swoon Theory

However, six of Craig’s eight objections correspond to objections made by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA).  In my upcoming book TCAR1, I show that all of the objections against the Swoon Theory by Kreeft and Tacelli in HCA fail, so my book shows that six out of eight of the objections in Craig’s 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory fail. 

That leaves us with only these two objections to consider from Craig’s 21st-century case:

• Craig’s Objection #1: Jesus’ Physical Injuries (also in his 20th-century case)
• Craig’s Contrary to Jewish Thought Objection (the only new and unique objection in his 21st-century case)

In Chapter 6 of my book TCAT1, I show that Craig’s Objection #1 (Jesus’ Physical Injuries) fails.  I consider this to be the most important objection against the Swoon Theory:

https://thinkingcriticallyabout.podbean.com/e/chapter-6-three-objections-to-the-swoon-theory-by-william-craig

Therefore, the only significant objection in Craig’s 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory that I have not shown to fail (in my book TCAT1) is Craig’s Contrary to Jewish Thought objection (hereafter: Craig’s CJT Objection).

I have carefully analyzed and clarified Craig’s CJT Objection here at The Secular Frontier:

Careful Analysis of Objections to the Swoon Theory: Objection #10 (Jewish Thought)

More recently, in posts here at The Secular Frontier, I have shown that Craig’s CJT Objection fails, just like all of Craig’s other objections against the Swoon Theory fail:

Critical Evaluation of William Craig’s 21st-Century Case against the Swoon Theory – Part 1

Critical Evaluation of William Craig’s 21st-Century Case against the Swoon Theory – Part 2

Critical Evaluation of William Craig’s 21st-Century Case against the Swoon Theory – Part 3

CONCLUSIONS

William Craig’s 20th-century case against the Swoon Theory consists of three objections, and in my book TCAR1, I show that all three of those objections fail, including Craig’s Objection #1 (Jesus’ Physical Injuries), which I consider to be the most important objection against the Swoon Theory. Therefore, Craig’s 20th-century case against the Swoon Theory fails.

William Craig’s 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory consists of eight objections, and in my book TCAR1, I show that seven of those objections fail, and in posts here at The Secular Frontier, I have shown that Craig’s CJT Objection also fails. Therefore, Craig’s 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory fails, just like his 20th-century case fails.