THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (B)
The core argument in Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus in his book Reasonable Faith (3rd edition, hereafter: RF3) is a
sub-argument in support of the key premise (B):
1c. 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.
C. Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts AND 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:
B. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the most plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts.
In Part 24 of this series (see the section called: "THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (B) IS UNSOUND"), I showed that premise (1c) is false, and that means this sub-argument for the key premise (B) is unsound. This gave us a good reason to conclude that William Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.
EVALUATING PREMISE (C)
The other
premise in the core argument of Craig’s case is premise (C). If premise (C) is
false or dubious, then that would give us another good reason to reject
the sub-argument for the key premise (B) and a fifth good reason to conclude
that Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus fails (in addition to the three good reasons that I gave in Part 24 and a fourth good reason that I present in Part 30).
Premise (C)
is a conjunction of two other claims, so in order to evaluate premise (C), we
need to critically examine this sub-argument for (C):
2. Craig's three key historical claims can
be established as being historical facts.
A1. 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:
C. Craig's three key historical claims can be
established as being historical facts AND 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."
THE MOST IMPORTANT HISTORICAL CLAIM IN CRAIG’S CASE
Craig’s case is based upon three
key historical claims. As I argued in Part 25 of this series, the most
important historical claim of those three 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.
If Craig is unable to show that (HC2)
is a historical fact, then that would give us a good reason to
believe that premise (2) is false, and that would also give us a good reason
to believe that premise (C) is false, because premise (C) asserts that premise (2) is
true.
If we have a
good reason to believe that premise (C) is false, then this would give us a
second good reason to reject the sub-argument for (B), and a fifth good
reason to conclude that William Craig’s case for the resurrection of
Jesus fails.
CRAIG'S MAIN EVIDENCE FOR (HC2) BEING A HISTORICAL FACT
The main evidence presented by Craig in an attempt to show that (HC2) is a historical fact is his first line of evidence which consists of six examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus that are mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians (Chapter 15:3-8):
- Appearance to Peter
- Appearance to the Twelve
- Appearance to five hundred brethren
- Appearance to James (Jesus' brother)
- Appearance to "all the apostles."
- Appearance to Saul of Tarsus (i.e., Paul)
In previous posts, I have shown that none of these examples provides significant support for the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact.[1] This gives us a good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, which gives us a good reason to believe that premise (C) is false. That means we have a second good reason to reject the sub-argument for the key premise (B), and a fifth good reason to conclude that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.
CRAIG'S SECOND LINE OF EVIDENCE FOR (HC2)
However, Craig has a second line of evidence in support of the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact. So, although the failure of Craig's six examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus gives us a good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, we cannot be fully confident that (2) is false until we consider Craig's second line of evidence. So, that is what I will do for the rest of this post.
According to Craig:
The Gospel accounts provide multiple, independent attestation of postmortem appearances of Jesus. (RF3, page 380)
For this reason, Craig believes that we can,
...infer the historicity of some of the specific appearances. (RF3, page 381)
Craig provides four examples in his second line of evidence (RF3, page 381):
- The appearance to Peter
- The appearance to the Twelve
- The appearance to the women disciples
- That Jesus appeared to his disciples in Galilee
After presenting these four examples, Craig confidently asserts that,
The evidence makes it certain that on separate occasions different individuals and groups had experiences of seeing Jesus alive from the dead. (RF3, page 381)
THE FIRST TWO EXAMPLES
The first two examples of the four examples given by Craig seem very familiar:
- The appearance to Peter
- The appearance to the Twelve
These examples seem familiar because Craig already presented them in his first line of evidence! They were the first two examples that Craig discussed from Paul's list of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus in 1 Corinthians (Chapter 15:3-8).
So, Craig is double-dipping here. He is padding his second set of examples with evidence that he already presented in his first set of examples. Does Craig think his readers are so dim-witted that they would have already forgotten that he presented these same two examples on page 378, just three pages before presenting them again on page 381? Restating the same two examples doesn't add any new evidence for his conclusion. This only makes Craig look desperate and undermines his credibility.
Those two examples were weak and flawed when Craig first presented them back on page 378, so they are still weak and flawed examples on page 381. They did not magically transform into strong and solid evidence just because Craig repeats them again three pages later!
One could try to defend Craig by pointing out that in his second line of evidence, Craig emphasizes the fact that there is "multiple, independent attestation" of those examples of appearances.
However, when he presented "the appearance to the Twelve" in his first line of evidence, Craig asserted this was "the best-attested" example of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus (RF3, page 378), and he specifically pointed out that this example was "independently described by both Luke and John." (RF3, page 378). So, Craig is just repeating this same example to puff up his second line of evidence to make it seem more substantial than it actually is.
Also, when Craig presents the example of the alleged appearance to Peter in his first line of evidence, he clearly mentions that this example is supported both by Paul in Chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians as well as by a passage in Chapter 24 of the Gospel of Luke (RF3, page 378). Craig's first presentation of this example specifically points out that it had multiple attestation. So, Craig is just repeating this example to make his second line of evidence seem more significant than it actually is.
I have previously shown that these two examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus fail to provide significant support for Craig's belief that (CH2) is a historical fact.[1] So, there is no need to critically examine those examples again. They still fail to support his view that (CH2) is a historical fact.
Thus, half of Craig's four examples are Dead On Arrival. That leaves Craig's second line of evidence with just two examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus.
THE APPEARANCE TO THE WOMEN DISCIPLES
According to Craig, two Gospels independently report the appearance to the women disciples:
The appearance to the women disciples is attested by Matthew and John (Matt. 28:9-10; John 20:11-17) and enjoys, as well, ratification by the criterion of embarrassment, given the low credibility accorded to the testimony of women. (RF3, page 381)
There are some serious historical problems here that make this example weak and defective evidence for Craig's claim that (HC2) is a historical fact. So, this example of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus also fails to provide significant evidence in support of that key claim.
First, the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the ministry, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus. Even if we set aside the empty tomb and appearance stories in the Gospel of John and consider only the contents of Chapters 1 through 19, it is clear that those Chapters are historically unreliable.[2] Those nineteen chapters amount to 90% of the chapters in the Gospel of John. So, even without taking a close look at the empty tomb and appearance stories in the Gospel of John, we have good reason to believe that those stories are also historically unreliable. Therefore, corroboration from a passage in the Gospel of John of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus found in the Gospel of Matthew is historically insignificant.
Second, the main story of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus in the Gospel of John is the appearance to his disciples in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday. But, as I have previously shown, that story is probably a fictional story.[1] Given that Chapters 1 to 19 of the Gospel of John are historically unreliable, and given that the main story of an alleged Easter-Sunday appearance of the risen Jesus to his disciples in Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John is probably a fictional story, we have very good reason to believe that the appearance stories in the Gospel of John are historically unreliable. Therefore, "corroboration" from a passage in the Gospel of John of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus found in the Gospel of Matthew is historically insignificant.
Third, the story of the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to the disciples along with "doubting Thomas" in Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John is also probably a fictional story, as I have previously argued.[3] Given that Chapters 1 to 19 of the Gospel of John are historically unreliable, and given that the main Easter-Sunday appearance story in Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John is probably fictional, and given that the doubting-Thomas appearance story found in Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John is also probably fictional, it would be unreasonable to the point of being irrational to believe that the Mary-Magdalene appearance story in Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John provides significant historical evidence in support of the story of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary found in the Gospel of Matthew.
Furthermore, there are several inconsistencies between the story of the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary found in the Gospel of John and the accounts of Mary's visit to the tomb found in the other gospels.[4] These inconsistencies cast significant doubt on the historical reliability of the story of the alleged appearance to Mary found in the Gospel of John.
Finally, Craig assumes that the stories in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John about an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary are independent of each other. But the Gospel of John was composed about a decade after the Gospel of Matthew, so it is quite possible that the story about this event in the Gospel of John was based upon the story found in the story of this alleged appearance found in the Gospel of Matthew, and if this is the case, then these stories are NOT independent accounts of this alleged appearance.
Craig has failed to provide any reason to believe that the story about an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary in the Gospel of John is actually independent from the Gospel of Matthew.
Many New Testament scholars now believe that the Gospel of John sometimes borrows from the other gospels[5], and this casts significant doubt on Craig's assumption that the appearance stories in the Gospel of John are independent from the other Gospels. Some NT scholars believe that the story about the appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary found in the Gospel of John was borrowed from, or is dependent on, the Gospel of Matthew.[6] If that is correct, then this is NOT an example of the Gospels providing multiple independent accounts of the same alleged appearance of the risen Jesus.
Given that the Gospel of John was composed about a decade after the Gospel of Matthew, given that many NT scholars believe that the Gospel of John sometimes borrows from the other gospels, including from the Gospel of Matthew, given that some NT scholars believe that the story about the appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary was borrowed by the Gospel of John from the Gospel of Matthew, and given that Craig has provided no reason to believe that the Gospel of John's account of this alleged appearance to Mary was independent of the Gospel of Matthew, we have good reason to doubt Craig's assumption that the story of the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary in the Gospel of Johh was independent of the story of an alleged appearance of Jesus to Mary found in the Gospel of Matthew.
THAT JESUS APPEARED TO HIS DISCIPLES IN GALILEE
The fourth and final example of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus in Craig's second line of evidence is this:
Finally, that Jesus appeared to the disciples in Galilee is independently attested by Mark, Matthew, and John (Mark 16:7; Matthew 28:16-17; John 21). (RF3, page 381)
It is significant that Craig has dropped the use of the definite article "the" in his characterization of this fourth example. He characterized all three of the previous examples using the definite article "the" (RF3, page 381):
The appearance to the Twelve
The appearance to the women disciples
But for this final example in Craig's second line of evidence, the language changes (RF3, page 381, emphasis added):
that Jesus appeared to the disciples in Galilee
Craig does not describe this fourth example as:
the appearance to the disciples in Galilee
Why the shift in wording? Craig has changed the wording because this evidence is NOT about an alleged specific appearance of the risen Jesus.
Craig had previously characterized his second line of evidence as consisting of examples of alleged specific appearances of the risen Jesus, where the evidence would allow us to:
...infer the historicity of some of the specific appearances. (RF3, page 381)
But this fourth example is not about an alleged specific appearance of the risen Jesus; it is about there being some sort of appearance or other of the risen Jesus to his disciples that took place somewhere in Galilee. In other words, the three Gospel passages that Craig references about this final example do not provide multiple independent attestation of the same alleged specific event.
If you stop for just a minute or two and actually read the passages that Craig mentions (i.e. Mark 16:7, Matthew 28:16-17; John 21), it is obvious that those passages are talking about different alleged events.
Let's start with the passage from the Gospel of Mark:
5 As they [Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome] entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. 6 But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you." (Mark 16:5-7, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)
First this is only a prediction that an appearance of the risen Jesus will happen sometime in the future, somewhere in Galilee. No specific location is mentioned, and no specific time or date is mentioned. There is no indication whether the predicted appearance of Jesus will be experienced by individual disciples or by a group of disciples. There is no description of the circumstances in which this experience (or these experiences) will occur. There is no indication of whether this appearance of the risen Jesus would last for a few seconds, a few minutes, or a few hours.
The only thing we can infer from this passage in the Gospel of Mark is that the author of this gospel believed that some sort of experience of the risen Jesus had occurred to some of Jesus' disciples at some point in time (a week or more after the crucifixion) in some location or other in the general area of Galilee. Because there are no details, we simply cannot match this vague belief of the author of the Gospel of Mark with any specific alleged appearance of the risen Jesus.
The passage that Craig mentions from the Gospel of Matthew has more details:
16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him, but they doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit... (Matthew 28:16-19, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)
This passage specifies that the appearance took place on a "mountain" in Galilee and that this was a group experience that happened to "the eleven disciples" (i.e. the Twelve disciples minus Judas Iscariot). The experience presumably lasted for at least one minute, possibly for several minutes, given the events that took place. Given these details, we can determine whether some other Gospel account of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus matches up with this one.
However, it is these very details in Chapter 28 of the Gospel of Matthew that clearly show that the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus in Galilee described in Chapter 21 of the Gospel of John is a different event:
1 After these things Jesus showed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias, and he showed himself in this way. 2 Gathered there together were Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples. 3 Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.” They said to him, “We will go with you.” They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.
4 Just after daybreak, Jesus stood on the beach, but the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. 5 Jesus said to them, “Children, you have no fish, have you?” They answered him, “No.” 6 He said to them, “Cast the net to the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul it in because there were so many fish. 7 That disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment, for he had taken it off, and jumped into the sea. 8 But the other disciples came in the boat, dragging the net full of fish, for they were not far from the land, only about a hundred yards off.
9 When they had gone ashore, they saw a charcoal fire there, with fish on it, and bread. 10 Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish that you have just caught.” 11 So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, a hundred fifty-three of them, and though there were so many, the net was not torn. 12 Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” Now none of the disciples dared to ask him, “Who are you?” because they knew it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them and did the same with the fish. (John 21: 1-13, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)
There are plenty of details in this appearance story. Seven disciples are involved, NOT the eleven disciples mentioned in the appearance story from Chapter 28 of the Gospel of Matthew. The appearance takes place on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias (also known as the Sea of Galilee), NOT on a mountain in Galilee. Jesus feeds the disciples breakfast, and there is no mention of this in the appearance story in Chapter 28 of the Gospel of Matthew. In the alleged appearance by the Sea of Galilee, Jesus does not issue a general command for the disciples to go out "make disciples of all nations" or any other such general commands or guidance, as Jesus does in the appearance story in Chapter 28 of the Gospel of Matthew.
Clearly, the alleged appearance of Jesus in Chapter 28 of the Gospel of Matthew is a different event than the alleged appearance of Jesus in Chapter 21 of the Gospel of John. The number of disciples is different; the location is different; the ideas communicated by Jesus are different. The events described in Chapter 21 of the Gospel of John would probably have taken about an hour or two, while the events described in Chapter 28 of the Gospel of Matthew could have lasted for as little as five minutes.
This is a serious problem for this fourth and final "example" of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to his disciples in Galilee. Because the evidence Craig provides is NOT about a specific event or a specific appearance of the risen Jesus, this "example" fails to support any specific event, other than the vague notion that there was some sort of appearance of the risen Jesus to some of his disciples that took place somewhere in Galilee and that occurred sometime after Jesus was crucified under some sort of circumstances or other.
Let's grant this vague historical claim to Craig. This does not provide any significant support for (CH2) being a historical fact. Recall that (CH2) asserts that:
...various individuals and groups...experienced on different occasions and under varying circumstances appearances of Jesus alive. (RF3, page 360)
Without having some specific details about who had the alleged experience, when the experience took place, the circumstances in which the experience took place, and the specific location of the experience, we have no basis for determining that alleged appearances of the risen Jesus happened to "various individuals and groups" on "different occasions" and "under varying circumstances".
Thus, the vague belief that some sort of appearance of the risen Jesus to some of his disciples took place somewhere in Galilee that occurred sometime after Jesus was crucified under some sort of circumstances or other fails to provide significant support for the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact.
Craig's third example of an alleged appearance fails to correspond with Craig's characterization of his second line of evidence (because the evidence is not from two or more different Gospels)[7], and this fourth example also fails to correspond with Craig's characterization of his second line of evidence. The fourth and final example is NOT an example of an alleged specific appearance of the risen Jesus.
Craig is either being very sloppy here, or he is revealing his desperation to puff up his list of examples for his second line of evidence by using any example that only partially satisfies his wish for the existence of examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus where multiple Gospels independently report the same specific appearance event. But the reality is that only one of his four examples comes close to fitting Craig's idealistic characterization: the alleged appearance to the Twelve.
However, that example was already used in Craig's first line of evidence, so it cannot be reused in his second line of evidence. Furthermore, I have already shown that the example of the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to the Twelve fails to provide significant support for Craig's claim that (HC2) is a historical fact.
EVALUATION OF CRAIG'S SECOND LINE OF EVIDENCE
The first two examples that Craig gives in his second line of evidence are the same as the first two examples he used in his first line of evidence. But (a) repeating the same example does not add any new evidence to what he already presented in his first line of evidence, and (b) we have already seen that those two examples fail to provide significant support for Craig's claim that (HC2) is a historical fact.
The next two examples are new, but they fail to match the characterization that Craig gave of his second line of evidence, and like the first two examples, they fail to provide significant support for Craig's claim that (HC2) is a historical fact.
Therefore, Craig's four examples constituting his second line of evidence fail to provide significant support for the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact, just like the six examples in his first line of evidence failed to provide significant support for the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact.
Craig has now made two different attempts to present examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus to various people and groups of people, and yet Craig has failed to present a single example that provides significant support for his claim that (HC2) is a historical fact.
Since Craig is a professional philosopher, a New Testament scholar, and a Christian apologist who has studied the resurrection of Jesus for decades, and who has published books and articles arguing in support of the resurrection of Jesus for decades (at the time RF3 was published), his failure to come up with a single solid example to support the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact gives us a very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false:
2. Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts.
And this also gives us a very good reason to believe that premise (C) is false:
C. Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts AND 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."
That means that we have a second and a very good reason to believe that the core argument of Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus is an unsound argument, and thus we should reject that core argument. We now have a fifth and a very good reason to conclude that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.
END NOTES
1. I critically examined the alleged appearance to the Twelve in Part 25, the alleged appearance to Peter in Part 26, the alleged appearances to five hundred brethren, to James (Jesus' brother), and to "all the apostles" in Part 27, and the alleged appearance to Saul/Paul in Part 28.
2. See my series of blog posts on the unreliability of the 4th Gospel. Links to those posts are provided here:
3. The story of the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to doubting Thomas is probably a fictional story. See my blog posts related to this issue:
4. There are a number of inconsistencies between the account of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary found in the Gospel of John and accounts of Mary's visit to the tomb found in the other gospels:
5. Many NT scholars now believe that the Gospel of John does sometimes borrow from other gospels:
Recent scholarship has tended to turn against positing hypothetical sources for John. While a few scholars support old ideas about debated sources like the "signs source" and the "sayings source", or develop new theories, it is widely considered that John incorporated synoptic traditions into his own composition instead. For much of the twentieth century, the consensus was that John was independent of the Synoptics, but most scholars now accept the Synoptics as sources for John. ("Gospel of John" article in Wikipedia, viewed 6/20/26)
6. Some NT scholars believe that the story about the appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary in the Gospel of John has a dependency on the Gospel of Matthew. In his scholarly commentary on the Gospel of John, the NT scholar Frank Schleritt comments on the passage where Jesus appears to Mary (in John 20:14-18):
These verses presuppose the Matthaen redactional composition Matt. 28.9f. and therefore have no historical value. "The Gospel of John" in Jesus After Two Thousand Years (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001) page 581.
7. Craig's second line of evidence was supposed to consist of examples where we can:
...infer the historicity of some of the specific appearances. (RF3, page 381, emphasis added)
Such an inference was supposed to be justified because:
The Gospel accounts provide multiple, independent attestation of postmortem appearances of Jesus. (RF3, page 380)
But the appearance to Peter is found in only ONE Gospel, the Gospel of Luke. There is no mention of an appearance to Peter in the Gospel of Mark. There is no mention of an appearance to Peter in the Gospel of Matthew. There is no mention of an appearance to Peter in the Gospel of John.
In order to show multiple attestation of this alleged appearance to Peter, Craig had to go outside of the Gospels and point to a passage from one of Paul's letters. So, this example doesn't fit the general category of examples that Craig had described as being the focus of his second line of evidence.
