William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 25: Craig's Three Key Historical Claims

 THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (B)

In Part 24 of this series, I argued that the sub-argument for the key premise (B) in Craig's case was dubious because it contains a dubious premise:

1c. IF Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts and no plausible nautural 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 nautural 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.

I argued that premise (1c) is dubious because it is based on a False Dilemma.  Craig failed to take into account other supernatural hypotheses besides the one he favors: "God raised Jesus from the dead."  Furthermore, premise (1c) might be simply false, if I am correct that there are other supernatural hypotheses that provide explanations of Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts that are more plausible than the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead."

I also suspect that premise (C) is dubious or false, because I have doubts about both of the claims asserted by premise (C). If premise (C) is dubious or false, then that will give us another good reason to reject Craig's sub-argument for premise (B), and further confirmation that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (C)

Here is the sub-argument that supports premise (C):

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

A1. No plausible nautural 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 nautural explanation can account for Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead."

I suspect that premise (2) is false.  If I am correct, then this sub-argument for premise (C) is unsound, and Craig has failed to give us a good reason to believe that premise (C) is true.  

Furthermore, since premise (C) is the conjunction of both premise (2) and premise (A1), the falsehood of premise (2) would imply that premise (C) is itself false. And if premise (C) is false, then Craig's sub-argument for the key premise (B) would be an unsound argument, and we would have another good reason to reject Craig's sub-argument for (B), and we would have further confirmation that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails. 

CRAIG'S THREE KEY HISTORICAL CLAIMS

Before we can determine whether premise (C) is true or false, probable or improbable, we need to figure out precisely what the phrase "Craig's three key historical claims" means.

In the second paragraph of the longer summary of his case,  Craig spells out the three key historical claims that he uses to show that the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" provides the best explanation of the evidence relevant to Jesus' final fate: 

In my estimation the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate.  The inductive grounds for the inference of this explanation consist primarily of the evidence of three independently established facts: (1) the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers on the first day of the week following his crucifixion, (2) various individuals and groups thereafter experienced on different occasions and under varying circumstances appearrances of Jesus alive, and (3) the first disciples came sincerely to believe in Jesus' resurrection in the absence of sufficient antecedent historical influences from either Judaism or pagan religions. ... (Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed., p.360) 

In the context of this paragraph, the phrase "Craig's three key historical claims" refers to the following three historical claims that are asserted in the above quotation:

HC1:The tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers on the first day of the week following his crucifixion.

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. 

HC3: The first disciples of Jesus came sincerely to believe in Jesus' resurrection.

Note that for (HC3) I removed this qualification: "...in the absence of sufficient antecedent historical influences from either Judaism or pagan religions."  Craig has confused his relevant historical claim with his argument about the significance of that alleged fact, but those two ideas should be kept separated and distinct. Craig has an argument against some possible natural explanations of WHY the first disciples of Jesus came sincerely to believe in Jesus' resurrection, but that is a separate issue from WHETHER the first disciples of Jesus came to sincerely believe in Jesus' resurrection.  Craig muddied the water by combining those two different issues together into a single statement.

In terms of (HC1) and (HC2), Craig keeps the issue of WHETHER those key historical claims are established facts separate and distinct from the issue of WHY those facts are what they are.  But with (HC3) Craig anxiously jumps the gun and launches into the question of WHY the first disciples of Jesus came to sincerely believe in Jesus' resurrection before he has properly dealt with the question of WHETHER it is an established fact that the first disciples of Jesus came to sincerely believe in Jesus' resurrection. This is confused and unclear thinking.  So, I have clarified Craig's reasoning by keeping these two different issues separate and distinct.

This does not in any way prevent Craig from putting forward his arguments about WHY the first disciples of Jesus came to sincerely believe in Jesus' resurrection.  But those arguments are of no relevance unless and until Craig has shown that it is an established fact that the first disciples of Jesus came to sincerely believe in Jesus' resurrection. Craig needs to slow down and take one step at a time concerning (HC3).

MY INITIAL EVALUATION OF CRAIG'S THREE CLAIMS

My initial evaluation is that NONE of Craig's three key historical claims is a historical fact. Because of the difficulty of knowing anything about the historical Jesus, it would be unreasonable to claim to know that any of these three claims was false. However, I am inclined to believe that each of the three claims is either dubious or probably false. 

If all three claims are dubious, then it is probable that at least one of these claims is false, and if all three claims are probably false, then it is very probable that at least one of these claims is false. Thus, my initial evaluation of these three claims is clearly contrary to Craig's assertion that each of these claims constitutes an established historical fact.

CRAIG'S MOST IMPORTANT HISTORICAL CLAIM

Let's begin with what is probably the most important historical claim that Craig makes in his case for the resurrection of Jesus, his claim about alleged appearances of the risen Jesus:

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

I view this as the most important claim of Craig's three key historical claims. 

The first claim is about Jesus' tomb being found empty, but even if that claim were shown to be an established historical fact, that would NOT be strong evidence for a miracle claim, namely the claim that "God raised Jesus from the dead".  There are many possible explanations for why the tomb of Jesus might have been found to be empty, and the resurrection of Jesus doesn't seem to be a particularly compelling explanation for such a fairly ordinary alleged event. Thus, (HC1) seems to be the weakest piece of evidence for Craig's conclusion that "God raised Jesus from the dead".

The third historical claim that the first disciples of Jesus came to sincerely believe in Jesus' resurrection is of greater significance than the first historical claim, (HC1).  However, people are often unreasonable or foolish and believe magical or fantastical claims on the basis of weak and dubious evidence, so it is possible that the disciples of Jesus did come to sincerely believe in Jesus' resurrection but that they were mistaken about this belief.  So, although (HC3) seems to be better evidence than (HC1) for the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead", it still seems to be weak and insufficient evidence for such a strong claim.

If Craig's case is to be a strong and compelling one, then he will need to show that his claim about alleged appearances of the risen Jesus is an established historical fact.  Failing to show that (HC2) is a historical fact would give us a very good reason to reject the key premise (2), and another good reason to conclude that his case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.  

Given the importance of (HC2) for his case, it is a surprisingly vague claim. Who were these "various individuals and groups"?  No names are mentioned.  When did these alleged appearances of Jesus happen?  Where did these alleged appearances take place? What were the circumstances when these appearances occurred? Time of day? Weather conditions? Indoors or outdoors? What was the social and psychological context? What precisely did these "various individuals and groups" see or experience? 

Craig's second historical claim is rather vague and lacking in important details. But this is a common problem with the arguments of Christian apologists.  When it comes to really important and crucial claims, Christian apologists often become rather vague and unclear.

THE MAIN HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR (HC2)

However, when Craig presents his evidence for this vague claim, he makes more specific claims and adds some specific details.  In RF3, Craig presents three main pieces of evidence in support of his vague historical claim about alleged appearances of the risen Jesus. 

Let's focus our attention on what Craig tells us is "the best-attested resurrection appearance of Jesus." (RF3, p.378):

Undoubtedly, the reference here [in a quote of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8] is to that original group of disciples who had been chosen by Jesus during his ministry--less, of course, Judas, whose absenced did not affect the formal title of the group [i.e., "the Twelve" in 1 Corinthians 15:5]. This is the best attested resurrection appearance of Jesus. It, too, is included in the very early traditional formula that Paul cites, and Paul himself had contact with members of the Twelve.  Moreover, we have independent stories of this appearance in Luke 24:36-42 and John 20:19-20. ...There can be little doubt that such an appearance occurred, for it is attested in the old Christian tradition [quoted in 1 Corinthians 15], vouched for by Paul [the author of 1 Corinthians], who had personal contact with the Twelve, and is independently described by both Luke and John. (RF3, p.378)

If this "best-attested" appearance of the risen Jesus turns out to be dubious or false, then Craig's most important historical claim (HC2) is dubious or false, and we will have another good reason to conclude that his case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

An important part of Craig's evidence for this alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to "the Twelve" disciples (minus Judas Iscariot) consists of these two Gospel passages:

• Luke 24:36-42 
• John 20:19-20

According to these two Gospel passages, the risen Jesus appeared to "the Twelve" disciples (minus Judas Iscariot) in Jerusalem on Sunday evening, about 48 hours after Jesus was removed from the cross.

We can immediately set aside the passage from Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John as being of little historical significance, because the Gospel of John is an historically unreliable account of the life and the words of Jesus.[1]  

Furthermore, there are a number of specific historical problems with the content of the Passion Narrative in the Gospel of John in Chapter 18 and Chapter 19[2], as well as additional specific historical problems with the content of Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John[3], and those various historical problems cast further doubt on the historical reliability of the passage that Craig points to in Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John.

That leaves us with the other Gospel passage from Chapter 24 of the Gospel of Luke. This evidence is weak and unpersuasive.  In fact, it is not merely the case that this alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to his disciples in Jerusalem on the first Easter Sunday is historically dubious based on the relevant historical evidence; this alleged appearance of the risen Jesus is probably fictional.  It is probably the case the "the best-attested resurrection appearance of Jesus" did NOT actually happen.

Craig fails to mention that there is powerful evidence against the historicity of the alleged appearance of Jesus to "the Twelve" disciples (minus Judas Iscariot) in Jerusalem on the first Easter that is described in Chapter 24 of the Gospel of Luke, even though Craig is fully aware of this evidence. His failure to mention this contrary evidence destroys his credibility on the issue of whether "God raised Jesus from the dead".  In remaining silent about the obvious contrary evidence, he sacrificed his intellectual integrity and objectivity, presumably for the purpose of promoting his version of Christianity to poorly informed readers of RF3.

The problem is that the story about the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to "the Twelve" disciples (minus Judas Iscariot) in Jerusalem on the first Easter Sunday is that this story contradicts both the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew. For this reason, it is probably the case that this story in Chapter 24 of the Gospel of Luke about an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to his disciples in Jerusalem on the first Easter is a fictional story.

The Gospel of Mark was the first of the four Gospels to be written, and most N.T. scholars believe that the author of the Gospel of Matthew and the author of the Gospel of Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a primary source of information about the life of Jesus, including his trials, crucifixion, burial, and alleged resurrection. For these reasons, the account in the Gospel of Mark of what happened to Jesus after his crucifixion should be viewed as more likely to be historically reliable and accurate than the account of what happened to Jesus after his crucifixion that we find in the Gospel of Luke.  

Furthermore, the author of the Gospel of Matthew follows the Gospel of Mark on this matter, and it also contradicts the appearance story found in Luke 24:36-42.  So, we have two Gospels that both contradict this alleged appearance of the risen Jesus found in the Gosel of Luke. 

Both the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew imply that the first appearance of the risen Jesus to Jesus' male disciples took place in Galilee, after the disciples returned from Jerusalem to Galilee, which means that this first appearance of the risen Jesus to his disciples took place about a week or more AFTER Jesus was crucified, and thus this did NOT take place in Jerusalem about 48 hours after Jesus was taken down from his cross.

In addition to the fact that the Gospel of Mark was written earlier than the Gosepl of Luke, and in addition to the fact that the Gospel of Mark was used as a primary source of information about Jesus by the author of the Gospel of Luke and by the author of the Gospel of Matthew, and in addition to the fact that the Gospel of Matthew agrees with the Gospel of Mark that the first appearance of the risen Jesus to his male disciples took place in Galilee about a week or more after Jesus was crucified, there is the additional problem that the author of the Gospel of Luke clearly had a dramatic and theological motivation to alter the time an place of the first appearance of the risen Jesus to his male disciples.

The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts are a two-volume set written by the same author. Together, these two volumes are organized in relation to sacred geography: the plot is shaped by the geographical spread of the movement initiated by Jesus: 

1. Jesus announces the Good News of the coming kingdom of God in Galilee (northern Palestine).

2. Jesus takes the Good News to the sacred city of Jerusalem (southern Palestine) where he is rejected by his fellow Jews and is killed.

3. Jesus rises from the dead in Jerusalem and turns over the preaching of the Good News to "the Twelve" disciples, who found the Christian church in Jerusalem.

4. Jesus' disciples spread out beyond Palestine to the known world, and spread the Good News to nations and peoples other than just the Jews.

5. The apostle Paul takes the Good News to Rome, the capital of the Roman Empire.

This plot involving the geography of the spread of the Good News is clearly important to the author of the Gospel of Luke, and this provides a motivation for the author to alter the story about what happened to Jesus and his disciples after Jesus was crucified.  Instead of having "the Twelve" disciples (minus Judas Iscariot) head back to Galilee in northern Palestine after the crucifixion of Jesus, Luke changes the story found in the Gospel of Mark, and has "the Twelve" disciples remain in Jerusalem for several weeks.

That the author of the Gospel of Luke intentionally altered the story found in the earlier Gospel of Mark is particularly obvious in how the author of the Gospel of Luke changes a passage from the Gospel of Mark where Jesus gives a message to the women who visited his tomb:

THIS POST IS STILL IN WORK

END NOTES

1. See my blog posts about the historical unreliability of the Gospel of John.  Links to those various posts can be found in this post: The Unreliability of the 4th Gospel - Part 14: Summary and INDEX

2. See my blog posts focusing on historical problems in Chapter 18 and Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John:

The Unreliability of the 4th Gospel – Part 11: Chapter 18

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

3. See my blog post on historical problems in Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John: The Unreliability of the 4th Gospel - Part 13: Chapter 20

William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 24: Craig's Case is still Dead on Arrival

 WHERE WE ARE

In Part 23 of this series, I made a fresh start in analyzing and clarifying William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus.  Instead of focusing on Craig's two-paragraph summary of his case on page 360 of the 3rd edition of his book Reasonable Faith (hereafter: RF3), which is a bit confused and unclear, I started with his clearer and shorter one-paragraph summary at the bottom of page 360 and the top of page 361.

The one-paragraph summary presents the sub-arguments supporting the key claim (B). But (B) is not the ultimate conclusion of Craig's case.  To determine the additional inferences and the ultimate conclusion, I had to draw on key claims made in Craig's two-paragraph summary. 

When I completed my fresh-start analysis of Craig's case, it turned out that his case consists of four inferences or sub-arguments. All four inferences are valid deductive inferences (three are modus ponens inferences). So, any problems with Craig's case, as I have analyzed and clarified it, will be problems with the truth of the premises.

THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF CRAIG'S CASE

Here is an argument diagram, showing the logical structure of Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus:

Each red arrow in the above argument diagram represents one of the four inferences in Craig's case.

OVERVIEW OF MY EVALUATION OF CRAIG'S CASE

The last two sub-arguments are unsound arguments, and the third sub-argument for premise (B) is dubious, giving us three good reasons to declare Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus Dead On Arrival.  I believe that the remaining sub-argument, which is the sub-argument for premise (C), is also an unsound or dubious argument, but I have not worked out my objections to that fourth sub-argument yet.

THE FINAL SUB-ARGUMENT IS UNSOUND

Here is the final sub-argument of Craig's case:

E. IF the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate, THEN it is more likely than not that the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is true.

3. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate. 

THEREFORE:

 4a. It is more likely than not that the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is true.

This argument is unsound because premise (E) is clearly false. Also, because the argument supporting premise (3) is unsound (which I will show later in this post), we have no good reason to believe that premise (3) is true, and since premise (3) is not obviously true nor a self-evident truth, we may reasonably conclude that premise (3) is dubious.  Because premise (E) is false, and premise (3) is dubious, we should reject this sub-argument for the conclusion (4a) as a bad argument. Thus, Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails and is Dead On Arrival, because the final sub-argument of his case fails.

Premise (E) is clearly false, because even if it were the case that the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" was the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate, there would still be a significant chance that this hypothesis was NOT more likely than not to be true.

For example, consider the case where the relevant historical evidence shows the following hypotheses to have these probabilities of being true:

• God raised Jesus from the dead: Probability = .30
• The disciples of Jesus conspired to lie about Jesus' rising from the dead: Probability = .25
• Somebody moved Jesus' body but didn't tell his disciples: Probability = .25
• Jesus only appeared to die on the cross, but was actually still alive when taken down from the cross:  Probability = .20 

In this case, the "God raised Jesus from the dead" hypothesis would be more probable than any other hypothesis, based on the relevant historical evidence. That means that the "God raised Jesus from the dead" hypothesis would be more plausible than any other hypothesis, based on the relevant historical evidence.  

But, the probability of the "God raised Jesus from the dead" hypothesis would, in this case, be significantly less than .50.  Therefore, although the "God raised Jesus from the dead" hypothesis would be the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate, this hypothesis would NOT be more likely than not to be true.

Furthermore, on the above scenario, the probability that one or the other of the natural hypotheses is true would be .70 (significantly greater than .50), while the probability that the supernatural hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is true would be only .30 (significantly less than .50).  Wouldn't it be more reasonable, in this case, to believe that one or the other of the natural hypotheses is true than to believe that the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is true?

Many other counterexample scenarios could be constructed, showing that there is a significant chance that it is both the case that the "God raised Jesus from the dead" hypothesis was the best explanation of the relevant historical data, and yet also the case that this hypothesis was NOT more likely than not to be true. Therefore, premise (E) is clearly false, and the final sub-argument in Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus is an unsound argument.

THE NEXT-TO-LAST SUB-ARGUMENT IS UNSOUND

The next-to-last sub-argument is the argument supporting premise (3) of the final sub-argument (which we just examined):

D. IF the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the most plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts, THEN the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate.

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

THEREFORE: 

3. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate.

This sub-argument is unsound because premise (D) is false. Also, because the sub-argument supporting premise (B) is dubious (as I will argue later in this post), and because premise (B) is neither obviously true nor is (B) a self-evident truth, we may reasonably conclude that premise (B) is itself dubious. 

Premise (D) is false, because it is not possible for Craig's three key historical claims/facts to fairly and accurately represent all of the actual historical evidence that is relevant to Jesus' final fate. 

Craig's selection of just three alleged historical facts is a clear example of confirmation bias. He focuses on just three historical claims that he believes will support his conclusion that "God raised Jesus from the dead" and he completely ignores several historical facts that cast significant doubt on this conclusion.

If the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" does provide the best explanation for Craig's three key historical claims, that is because Craig selected those claims precisely in order to obtain that result. 

As with the final sub-argument, one premise of this next-to-last sub-argument is false, namely premise (D), and the other premise, premise (B), is dubious. This sub-argument fails to give us a good reason to believe that premise (3) is true, and this gives us a second good reason to conclude that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails and is Dead On Arrival.

WHAT IS CONFIRMATION BIAS?

Google AI provides a good explanation of confirmation bias, so I will present a part of that information here:

The complete Google AI response on confirmation bias is included in an endnote below.[1] 

RELEVANT FACTS NOT INCLUDED BY CRAIG

Here are some other relevant facts that are not included in Craig's three key historical facts:

F1. People who were crucified by the Romans would usually hang on the cross for at least two or three days before dying.

F2. The authors of the Gospels believed that Jesus was removed from the cross after hanging on the cross for less than half of a day (i.e., for somewhere between 2 hours and 10 hours).

F3. Three friends of the Jewish historian Josephus were crucified, and hung on crosses for a few hours and then were removed from their crosses while they were still alive.  Two of the crucified people died hours or days later while under the care of a physician, but one survived and recovered.

F4. There are a number of different medical theories about how Roman crucifixion caused people to die; we don't actually know how Roman crucifixion caused death. 

F5. Victims of Roman crucifixion were usually burried in mass graves and were not permitted to have an honorable burial. 

F6. The authors of the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew believed that the first appearances of the allegedly risen Jesus to his male disciples took place in Galilee about a week or more after Jesus was crucified. 

F7. The authors of the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John believed that the first appearances of the allegedly risen Jesus to his male disciples took place in Jerusalem about 48 hours after Jesus had been crucified and buried. 

F8. Jesus was a sexist, who worshipped and obeyed Jehovah, the sexist god of the Israelites.

F9. Jesus worshipped and obeyed Jehovah, the genocidal god of the Israelites, who (according to Moses) commanded the massive slaughter of men, women, children, and babies of the inhabitants of Palestine.

F10. Jesus worshipped and obeyed Jehovah, the god of the Israelites who (according to Moses) commanded the theft of land from the inhabitants of Palestine.

F11. Jesus worshipped and obeyed Jehovah, the god of the Israelites who (according to Moses) demanded that they practice slavery.

F12. Jesus believed and taught that the end of the world would take place sometime in his generation (i.e., within a few decades of his death).

F13. Jesus believed that mental illness and physical disabilities were often caused by demons. 

F14. Jesus believed that Adam and Eve were the first humans to exist, and that Adam and Eve lived a few thousand years before his time.

In my view, these are all historical facts that are relevant to Jesus' final fate. Yet not one of these historical facts is included in Craig's three historical claims.

The first seven historical facts above are obviously relevant to Jesus' final fate.  However, some people might question the relevance of the last seven historical facts in the above list.  

Those other facts are relevant to Jesus' final fate, because they provide evidence that Jesus was a morally and intellectually flawed human being, and thus NOT the Son of God, NOT God incarnate, and that the beliefs and values of Jesus did NOT come from clear communication between God (who is all-knowing and perfectly good, by definition) and Jesus. 

If Jesus was a morally and intellectually flawed human, and thus Jesus was NOT the Son of God and NOT God incarnate, then it would have been a great deception by God to have raised Jesus from the dead, because such a miracle, as Christian apologists themselves assert, would be an indication from God that Jesus was a true prophet, the Messiah, and the Son of God or God incarnate (assuming Jesus had claimed be the Son of God or God incarnate). God, if God exists, is all-knowing and perfectly good, so God would not ever perform a miracle that would cause a great deception.

Therefore, historical facts that provide evidence for the claim that Jesus was a morally and intellectually flawed human are historical facts that are relevant to Jesus' final fate.

Why is it that NONE of the fourteen historical facts above are included in Craig's three key facts? It seems fairly obvious that the reason why Craig does not consider these to be key historical facts is that these facts tend to run against the conclusion that he firmly believes and that he is trying to promote.  

In short, none of the above fourteen historical facts are included in Craig's three key facts because his selection of historical facts was influenced by confirmation bias.  

THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (B) IS DUBIOUS

The third sub-argument is the argument supporting premise (B) of the next-to-last sub-argument (which we just examined):

1c. IF Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts and no plausible nautural 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 nautural 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.

This sub-argument for premise (B) is dubious because premise (1c) is dubious.  I also suspect that premise (C) is false or dubious, because I have significant doubts about both of the claims asserted by (C).  However, I have not worked out my objections to the two claims asserted by (C), so for now, I will reject the sub-argument for (B) based on the fact that premise (1c) is dubious.

Premise (1c) is dubious because it is based on a False Dilemma.[2] Craig is making the following assumption:

EITHER Craig's three key historical "facts" are best explained by a natural hypothesis OR Craig's three key "facts" are best explained by the supernatural hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead".

This assumption is clearly false, because it ignores the possibility that there is a supernatural hypothesis other than "God raised Jesus from the dead" that is the best explanation of Craig's three key historical "facts".

In his book RF3, Craig considers and evaluates only ONE supernatural hypothesis about Jesus' final fate: "God raised Jesus from the dead." But there are many other possible supernatural hypotheses, and Craig does not consider or evaluate any of them.

Just about any natural hypothesis can be revised and transformed into a supernatural hypothesis.  For example, consider this natural hypothesis about Jesus' final fate:

Somebody moved Jesus' body to a different tomb but did not tell his disciples about this. 

This natural hypothesis can be easily revised and transformed into a supernatural hypothesis:

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

So, for just about any natural hypothesis, there is a corresponding supernatural hypothesis where God is the primary cause of the key event.[3] 

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 but did not tell Jesus' disciples about this.
• A demon instantly teleported Jesus' body to a different tomb but did not tell Jesus' disciples about this.
• A spirit instantly teleported Jesus' body to a different tomb but did not tell Jesus' disciples about this.
• The devil instantly teleported Jesus' body to a different tomb but did not tell Jesus' disciples about this.
• A finite deity (e.g., Zeus or Poseidon) instantly teleported Jesus' body to a different tomb but did not tell Jesus' disciples about this.
• A wizard or witch instantly teleported Jesus' body to a different tomb but did not tell Jesus' disciples about this.
• A powerful psychic instantly teleported Jesus' body to a different tomb but did not tell Jesus' disciples about this.

There are many different possible supernatural hypotheses concerning Jesus' final fate, but Craig considers and evaluates only ONE supernatural hypothesis. Premise (D) is dubious, because it is based on a False Dilemma.

I believe that supernatural hypotheses that feature human beings who possess and make use of supernatural powers are better explanations of the relevant historical evidence about Jesus' final fate than the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead". If I am correct on this point, then not only is premise (D) dubious (because based on a False Dilemma), but it is false.  I will explore this idea further in a future post.  

END NOTES

1. Here is the complete Google AI response to the question "What is confirmation bias?":

2. Peter Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus also fails because of a False Dilemma (also called the Either/Or Fallacy), as does Josh McDowell's case for the resurrection of Jesus. For details on this problem in the reasoning of Christian apologists, see Part 21 in this series of posts.

3. In Part 22 of this series of posts, I provide more examples where I transform a natural hypothesis into a supernatural hypothesis where God is the primary agent. See the section called: "GENERATING SUPERNATURAL HYPOTHESES THAT PARALLEL NATURAL HYPOTHESES".

William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 23: A Fresh Start

A FRESH START ON CRAIG'S CASE

William Craig presents a two-paragraph summary of his case for the resurrection of Jesus on page 360 of the 3rd edition of his book Reasonable Faith (hereafter: RF3).  That summary is a bit confused and unclear. However, Craig also provides a shorter and clearer summary of his case in a single paragraph that starts at the bottom of page 360 and continues on to the top of page 361.  

I am going to make a fresh start now, by focusing on that single-paragraph summary of his case, and I will also add in details, as required, from the previous two-paragraph summary on page 360.

CLARIFICATION OF THE ONE-PARAGRAPH SUMMARY

Here is Craig's one-paragraph summary of his case for the resurrection of Jesus:

As alluded to above, the case for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus seems to me to rest upon the evidence for three great, independently established facts: the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith. If these three facts can be established and no plausible nautural explanation can account for them as well as the resurrection hypothesis, then one is justified in inferring Jesus' resurrection as the most plausible explanation of the data. (RF3, p.306-361) 

The first sentence refers to three historical claims that Craig thinks are key claims in his case.  The second sentence refers to a comparison of the explanatory power of various natural explanations in relation to the "resurrection hypothesis", which Craig believes to be the most plausible explanation.   

Here is a key premise of Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus:

1. IF these three facts can be established and no plausible nautural explanation can account for them as well as the resurrection hypothesis, THEN one is justified in inferring Jesus' resurrection as the most plausible explanation of the data.

HISTORICAL CLAIMS VS. HISTORICAL FACTS 

Because the word "facts" carries the implication that the claims made by Craig are KNOWN to be true, and this implies that the claims in question are firmly established on the basis of evidence, it is question-begging for Craig to use the term "facts" in his initial characterization of his three historical claims.  The use of the word "facts" is reasonable only AFTER he has presented evidence that firmly establishes the truth of the three key historical claims that Craig asserts.  To avoid a question-begging use of the word "facts", I will replace the phrase "these three facts" with the phrase "Craig's three key historical claims".

1a. IF Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts and no plausible nautural explanation can account for them as well as the resurrection hypothesis, THEN Jesus' resurrection is the most plausible explanation of the data. 

I have also eliminated the phrase "one is justified in inferring..." because this is a long-winded and unnecessary inference indicator, which I will replace later by using the standard inference indicator: "Therefore". 

We need to clarify the meaning of the phrase "the resurrection hypothesis" in this key premise, and we can do so based on what Craig has stated in his previous two-paragraph summary of his case:

In my estimation the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate. (RF3, p.360)

Now we can clarify the meaning of the phrase "the resurrection hypothesis":

1b. IF Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts and no plausible nautural 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 the data. 

WHAT DOES THE PHRASE "THE DATA" MEAN? 

What does Craig mean by the phrase "the data" in this key premise? There are at least three different possible interpretations of this phrase, given the context of Craig's two summaries of his case.  In the first paragraph of his longer summary, Craig says the following:

According to this approach, we begin with the evidence available to us and then infer what would, if true, provide the best explanation of the evidence. (RF3, p.360, emphasis added)

At the beginning of the second paragraph of his longer summary, Craig describes the scope of the evidence slightly differently:

In my estimation the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate.                     (RF3, p.360, emphasis added)

So, the phrase "the data" in Craig's key premise might well refer to "the evidence available to us" that is "historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate."

The concept of "the evidence available to us" is somewhat problematic, because some people have less evidence available to them than other people, even if we set aside the fact that people who lived in previous centuries had less historical evidence than we have in the 21st century (because various archeological artefacts and ancient texts have been discovered in recent centuries). 

Even if we just compare two people who both live in the 21st century, one person might have carefully studied the historical evidence relevant to Jesus' final fate for many years, while another person might have never seen or considered any such historical evidence. The second person has virtually no historical evidence available to consider, at least no evidence that he or she has ever seen or read about.

We can, on the other hand, understand the idea of "the evidence available to us" more broadly to refer to ALL of the evidence that a person could see or read about if they chose to investigate this question seriously for several months and had no physical, mental, social, or financial obstacles that would prevent serious study of relevant historical evidence about Jesus' final fate.

It takes more than just a few months, however, to master the reconstruction, translation, and interpretation of ancient Greek texts, such as the Gospels and other New Testament writings.  However, one can lean on experts in ancient history, in the transmission and translation of ancient Greek texts, in the interpretation of the Gospels and other New Testament writings, in order to learn the relevant historical information about Jesus' final fate.

I think we can ignore the fact that some people are completely ignorant about the historical evidence that is relevant to Jesus' final fate, and understand the phrase "the evidence available to us" to mean "all of the historical evidence that is relevant to Jesus' final fate that is generally available to people in the 21st century".

However, Craig has also focused upon "three great, independently established facts: the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith." (RF3, p.360-361). So, the phrase "the data" in Craig's key premise might instead refer only to those three historical "facts" or claims.

There is also another possible meaning of the phrase "the data" in Craig's key premise.  Craig might be referring to the historical evidence that is relevant to his three key historical claims. In order to establish that these three claims are historical FACTS, Craig makes a case for each of those three claims and that case involves presenting various pieces of historical evidence. Even if Craig focuses primarily on his three historical claims, those claims are themselves based upon historical evidence. Thus, it could be that the phrase "the data" includes not only the three key historical claims but also all of the historical evidence upon which those claims are based.

There is clearly a big difference between these three different sets of historical data:

HD1: All of the historical evidence that is relevant to Jesus' final fate that is generally available to people in the 21st century.

HD2: Craig's three key historical "facts" (or claims) about: the empty tomb, the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus, and the origin of the Christian faith.

HD3: Craig's three key historical "facts" (or claims) mentioned in (HD2) plus the historical evidence relevant to determining whether those three historical claims are historical facts.

(HD1) includes a large amount of historical evidence, while (HD2) might contain no historical evidence at all, since it is, strictly speaking, just a set of three historical claims, and historical claims are NOT the same as historical evidence.  (HD3) contains some historical evidence, but not nearly as much historical evidence as contained in (HD1). 

Let's consider the possibility that Craig meant the phrase "the data" to refer to his three key historical "facts" (which are actually historical claims unless and until he shows that the historical evidence firmly establishes that those three claims are true, and thus deserve to be called "facts").  Here then is the further clarification of his key premise: 

1c. IF Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts and no plausible nautural 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.

This key premise of Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus is a conditional claim; it has this logical form:

IF P, THEN Q. 

The other sentence in Craig's one-paragraph summary of his case makes this claim:

As alluded to above, the case for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus seems to me to rest upon the evidence for three great, independently established facts: the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith. (RF3, p.360-361)

In saying that his three key historical claims are "independently established facts", Craig is claiming that the relevant historical evidence shows that his three key historical claims are clearly and definitely true.  In other words, Craig is clearly implying this claim:

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

This is one part of the condition specified in the conditional statement that Craig asserts in premise (1c). The other part of the condition specified in premise (1c) is this:

A. No plausible nautural explanation can account for them as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead."

The word "them" in premise (A) can be clarified by replacing this word with the previous phrase that it references from premise (1c):

A1. No plausible nautural 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 CORE ARGUMENT OF CRAIG'S CASE

In order to make use of his key premise (1c), Craig must assert both parts of the condition stated in that conditional claim. That way, he can logically infer the consequent of the conditional claim asserted by (1c):

1c. IF Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts and no plausible nautural 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.

A1. No plausible nautural 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.

Claim (B) is not, however, the ultimate conclusion of Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus.  He makes a stronger claim than (B) in his two-paragraph summary:

In my estimation the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate. (RF3, p.360)

Here is the stronger claim that Craig infers from (B):

3. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate.

Claim (3) refers to a broader scope of evidence that goes beyond Craig's three key historical claims/historical facts.  It refers to "the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate" which clearly includes much more evidence than just Craig's three key historical claims/facts.  

Claim (3), however, is still not the ultimate conclusion of Craig's case.  The idea that the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the best explanation of the historical evidence relevant to Jesus' final fate is an interesting claim, but the central question at issue is whether this hypothesis is TRUE.  Thus, in his two-paragraph summary, Craig connects his case to this central question at issue by asserting a claim about the truth of this hypothesis:

I think that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is such that a well-informed investigator ought to agree that it is more likely than not to have occurred. (RF3, p.360)

We can shorten this claim by setting aside the long and unnecessary inference indicator:

4. The resurrection of Jesus is more likely than not to have occurred.

What Craig means by the phrase "the resurrection of Jesus" is spelled out in the other premises of his argument:

4a. It is more likely than not that the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is true.

THE CLARIFIED STATEMENT OF CRAIG'S CASE

We can now outline the main premises of Craig's case:

1c. IF Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts and no plausible nautural 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.

A1. No plausible nautural 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.

THEREFORE:

3. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate.

 THEREFORE:

4a. It is more likely than not that the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is true.

SOME MINOR CLARIFICATIONS OF THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF CRAIG'S CASE

The above statement of Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus is O.K. as it stands, but I would like to make a few minor revisions in order to make the logical structure of the argument a bit clearer and more obvious.  

Craig's one-paragraph summary is the basis for the initial sub-argument in support of premise (B).  I propose that the sub-argument be represented as a standard modus ponens inference.  To do this, we need to combine premise (2) and premise (A1) into a conjunction:

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

A1. No plausible nautural 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 nautural 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 conjunction asserted in premise (C) can then be combined with premise (1c) to form a straightforward modus ponens inference:

1c. IF Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts and no plausible nautural 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 nautural 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.

Although the final two inferences in Craig's case do not have to be represented as modus ponens inferences, I think it makes the argument clearer by explicitly stating the assumptions required to represent these as valid modus ponens inferences.  Here is the second-to-last inference in Craig's case, put into the form of a modus ponens: 

D. IF the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the most plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts, THEN the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate.

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

THEREFORE: 

3. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate.

Here is the final inference of Craig's case, also put into the form of a valid modus ponens inference: 

E. IF the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate, THEN it is more likely than not that the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is true.

3. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate. 

THEREFORE:

 4a. It is more likely than not that the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is true.

THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF CRAIG'S CASE FOR THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS