William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 35: Craig's Other Points in Support of (HC3)

WHERE WE ARE 

William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus is based primarily on three key historical claims.  An important premise of Craig's case is premise (2):

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

We are now critically examining Craig's third key historical claim:

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

If Craig's attempt to show that this key historical claim is a historical fact fails, then we will have another very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, and another very good reason to believe that premise (C) is false, which will further confirm that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

In order to rationally evaluate (HC3), we need to first have a clear understanding of what this claim means.  In Part 32 of this series, I clarified the phrase "The first disciples". In Part 33 of this series, I clarified this claim further by determining the meaning of the phrase "to believe in Jesus' resurrection". Here is the fully clarified version of (HC3):

HC3b: The twelve disciples of Jesus (minus Judas Iscariot), who were chosen by Jesus to be part of an inner circle of his followers, came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

In Part 34 of this series, I argued that in order to show that (HC3) is a historical fact, Craig would need to provide strong historical evidence showing that each of the following eleven historical claims was a historical fact:

(HC3-1) Simon (to whom Jesus gave the name Peter) came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-2) James (son of Zebedee) came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead.

(HC3-3) John (the brother of James) came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-4) Andrew came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-5) Philip came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-6) Bartholomew came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-7) Matthew came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-8) Thomas came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-9) James (son of Alphaeus) came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-10) Thaddeaus came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead.

 

(HC3-11) Simon (the Cananaean) came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

However, in the very meager two pages that Craig devotes to showing that (HC3) is a historical fact, he does not even attempt to show that ten of these claims are historical facts, which explains why Craig only devotes two pages to supporting his view that (HC3) is a historical fact. So, it is clear that Craig has completely failed to show that (HC3) is a historical fact.  This gave us a very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, and thus that premise (C) is false, and this further confirmed that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

Craig did make a few points in his extremely brief attempt to support his view that (HC3) is a historical fact. Here is the first point Craig made in support of his third key historical claim (HC3):

Even skeptical New Testament scholars admit that the earliest disciples at least believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead. (RF3, page 387)

 

I pointed out six serious problems with this point by Craig, that show that this point fails to provide significant support for his view that (HC3) is a historical fact.

In this current post, I will address a few other points made by Craig in his extremely brief attempt to show that (HC3) is a historical fact.

BELIEF IN JESUS' RESURRECTION WAS THE BASIS OF THE DISCIPLES' BELIEF THAT HE WAS THE MESSIAH

Craig's second point in support of (HC3) being a historical fact is this:

It was on the basis of belief in his [Jesus'] resurrection that the disciples could believe that Jesus was the Messiah. (RF3, page 388)

First, as stated by Craig, this point begs the question at issue. 
This statement ASSUMES that the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus came to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.  But that is precisely what Craig needs to argue for on the basis of strong historical evidence.

Second, belief in Jesus' resurrection by the eleven remaining disciples is not sufficient to support (HC3), because in context (HC3) asserts that the disciples came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. The belief that Jesus rose from the dead (i.e. came back to life) is NOT the same as the specific theological belief that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

Third, setting aside Peter (i.e. Simon), Craig provides no specific historical evidence here that James, John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James (son of Alphaeus), Thaddeaus, or Simon (the Cananaean) came sincerely to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

Fourth, setting aside Peter (i.e. Simon), Craig provides no specific historical evidence that James, John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James (son of Alphaeus), Thaddeaus, or Simon (the Cananaean) came sincerely to believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

Fifth, setting aside Peter (i.e. Simon), Craig provides no specific historical evidence that James, John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James (son of Alphaeus), Thaddeaus, or Simon (the Cananaean) came to believe that Jesus was the Messiah only AFTER they came sincerely to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. 

Sixth, setting aside Peter (i.e. Simon), Craig provides no specific historical evidence that the crucifixion of Jesus created serious doubts in the minds of the eleven remaining disciples about the belief that Jesus was the Messiah.

Even if we grant Craig's assumption that first-century Palestinian Jews would usually take the crucifixion and death of a Jew as powerful evidence that the crucified Jew was not the Messiah, that does not make it a historical fact that each of Jesus' eleven remaining disciples would reason the exact same way.  Some of the eleven disciples might have held non-standard theological or ideological beliefs.

Afterall, the eleven disciples were devout followers of Jesus, unlike most of their fellow Jews.  Also, although Jesus' teachings were within the broad range of theological and ideological views of first-century Palestinian Jews, Jesus clearly had some unique theological and ideological beliefs that did not sit well with many of his fellow Jews, but his disciples were willing to give the non-standard beliefs of Jesus serious consideration. So, the disciples of Jesus cannot simply be assumed to share all of the standard theological and ideological beliefs of their fellow first-century Palestinian Jews.

Based on the above six serious problems with Craig's second point, this point fails to provide significant support for his view that (HC3) is a historical fact.

1 CORINTHIANS 15 MAKES IT PROBABLE THAT BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS GOES BACK TO THE FIRST CHURCH IN JERUSALEM

Craig's third point in support of (HC3) being a historical fact is this:

...the traditional formula quoted in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 in which the "gospel" is defined as the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of Christ makes it probable that this understanding of the gospel goes right back to the very beginning of the church in Jerusalem. (RF3, page 388)

First, just as the theological and ideological beliefs of all of the eleven remaining disciples do not necessarily correspond perfectly with the standard theological and ideological beliefs of first-century Palestinian Jews, so the theological and ideological beliefs all of the eleven remaining disciples do not necessarily correspond perfectly with the standard theological and ideological beliefs of the first generation of Christians in Jerusalem.

Some of the eleven disciples might well have held theological or ideological beliefs that differed from the standard beliefs of the first generation of Christians in Jerusalem.  In fact, it is unclear that there were standard theological and ideological beliefs among the first generation of Christians in Jerusalem.

Second, the claim is only that 1 Corinthians 15 "makes it probable" that belief in Jesus' resurrection goes back to the very beginning of the Christian church in Jerusalem.  

So, now we have two probabilities to take into consideration, and those probabilities must be multiplied together to determine the probability that all eleven of the remaining disciples of Jesus came sincerely to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.  

Suppose there was a 70% chance that the first generation of Christians in Jerusalem generally believed that Jesus rose from the dead as a part of their Christian faith.  Suppose that if this were a standard theological belief of the first generation of Christians in Jerusalem, there would be a 70% chance that all eleven remaining disciples came to sincerely believe that Jesus rose from the dead.  These two probabilities should be multiplied together:

.70 x .70 = .49

On these reasonable assumptions, the probability that all eleven disciples came sincerely to believe that Jesus rose from the dead would be about .50, which means there would only be about a 50/50 chance that all eleven disciples came sincerely to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.  That probability is far short of the high probability required to establish that (HC3) is a historical fact.

Even if we bump both of the probability estimates to a very generous 80% chance, the multiplication of probabilities still makes the resulting probability too low for (HC3) to be considered a historical fact:

.80 x .80 = .64

A probability between .60 and .70 is too low to conclude that (HC3) is a historical fact.

Third, the belief that Jesus rose from the dead is not the same as the more specific theological belief that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead.  The early Christian tradition that Paul wrote down in 1 Corinthians only asserts the belief that Jesus rose from the dead:

3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures 4 and that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. (1 Corinthians 15:3-5)

The early Christian tradition does NOT specify that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead.  In fact, this tradition does not mention the alleged discovery of the empty tomb by some of Jesus' women followers.  Thus, this early Christian tradition only "makes it probable" that the first generation of Christians in Jerusalem believed that Jesus rose from the dead.  It does not indicate that the first generation of Christians in Jerusalem generally believed that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead.

Because the early Christian tradition does not specify the theological belief that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead, the probability of this being the general belief of the first generation of Christians in Jerusalem must be significantly lower than previous estimation.  It would be reasonable to lower the probability to about a 50% chance:

.50 x .80 = .40

The evidence that Craig has provided thus suggests that the probability that all eleven remaining disciples of Jesus came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead is about .40, less than a 40% chance.

In view of the above problems with this third point by Craig, it is clear that this point fails to provide significant evidence for his view that (CH3) is a historical fact.

CRAIG'S RESPONSES TO SKEPTICAL OBJECTIONS

Craig actually writes less than one page where he makes a positive case for his view that (HC3) is a historical fact.  This is because he expends more than one page responding to two skeptical objections against (HC3).  While it is relevant to respond to skeptical objections against (HC3), that is not the same as building a positive case for (HC3) being a historical fact. 

It was already absurd for Craig to attempt to show that (HC3) was a historical fact in just two pages, but to spend more than half of that ridiculously short case for (HC3) being a historical fact on responding to objections against (HC3), means that Craig's attempt to make a positive case for (HC3) being a historical fact consists of less than one page.

I don't agree with Craig's responses to the skeptical objections that he discusses, but it is not worth the time and effort to discuss those issues, given that Craig has the burden of proof here, not those who are skeptical about his claims.  Craig has asserted that (HC3) is a historical fact, but in devoting only one page to making a positive case for this strong claim, he doomed himself to failure, and we have seen that his extremely brief attempts do in fact fail.

CONCLUSIONS

Craig failed to provide strong historical evidence for each of the eleven historical claims implied by (HC3) about the theological beliefs of each of the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus, which he needed to do in order to show that all eleven of those historical claims were historical facts. 

Thus, Craig has completely failed to show that (HC3) is a historical fact.  Therefore,  we have a very good reason to believe that premise (2) of his case is false, and thus a very good reason to believe that premise (C) in the core argument of his case is false, and this provides further confirmation that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails. 

P.S.

In Part 34 of this series, I mentioned that there are a couple of names in the list of names of the twelve disciples found in the Gospel of Mark that are problematic. The two problematic names are: Thaddeaus and Matthew.  

In the Gospel of Luke, Acts, and the Gospel of John, the name "Thaddeaus" is replaced in the lists of Jesus' twelve disciples by the name "Judas", an additional Judas besides Judas Iscariot. The traditional view is that "Thaddeaus" and "Judas" are two names for the same person. However, according to the prominent Jesus and NT scholar John Meier, there is no good reason to identify these as names of the same person: 

Since, in Luke and Acts, Jude of James occupies the slot filled by Thaddeus in the Marcan and Matthean lists, Christian imagination was quick to harmonize and produce a Jude Thaddeus, a conflation that has no basis in reality. (A Marginal Jew, Volume III, page 200)

Since these might well be two different people, Craig would need to provide strong historical evidence showing that this additional implication of (HC3) is a historical fact:

(HC3-12) Judas (son of James) came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead.

There also appears to be some confusion about the disciple named "Matthew".  In the Gospel of Mark (Mark 2:13-15) and the Gospel of Luke (Luke 5:27-29), Jesus calls a tax-collector named "Levi" to be his disciple. But in the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 9:9-10), the tax-collector called by Jesus is named "Matthew". 

The traditional view is that "Matthew" and "Levi" are two names for the same person, but the prominent Jesus and NT scholar John Meier is skeptical about this view:

It is the Matthean Gospel that creates a cross-reference and identification, first by changing Levi's name to Matthew in the story of Jesus' call of a toll collector (Matt 9:9) and then by adding to Matthew's name in the list of the Twelve the description "the toll collector" (Matt 10:3).  Whatever reasons the First Evangelist [the author of the Gospel of Matthew] may have had for his editorial alterations, the change of names is a redactional intervention of a Christian evangelist toward the end of the 1st century and tells us nothing about an original member of the Twelve named Matthew. (A Marginal Jew, Volume III, page 201)

So, it might well be the case that "Matthew" and "Levi" are two different people.  Although the name "Levi" does not appear in any of the lists of the Twelve disciples, this could be the result of confusion about the names "Mattthew" and "Levi", so it is quite possible that "Levi" was a different person than "Matthew", and that at some point in time, "Levi" was one of the Twelve disciples.  

Again, to make sure that (HC3) is actually a historical fact, Craig would need to provide strong historical evidence showing that the following additional historical claim was a historical fact:

(HC3-13) Levi (the tax collector) came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead.

William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 34: Craig's Third Key Historical Claim

WHERE WE ARE

William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus is based primarily on three key historical claims.  An important premise of Craig's case is premise (2):

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

In previous posts in this series, I showed that Craig's attempts to show that his second key historical claim (HC2) was a historical fact failed completely, giving us a very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, which means that we have a very good reason to believe that premise (C) in the core argument of Craig's case is false, which means that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

We are now critically examining Craig's third key historical claim:

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

If Craig's attempt to show that this key historical claim is a historical fact fails, then we will have another very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, and another very good reason to believe that premise (C) is false, which will further confirm that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

In order to rationally evaluate (HC3), we need to first have a clear understanding of what this claim means.  In Part 32 of this series, we clarified the phrase "The first disciples":

HC3a: The twelve disciples of Jesus (minus Judas Iscariot), who were chosen by Jesus to be part of an inner circle of his followers, came sincerely to believe in Jesus' resurrection. 

In Part 33 of this series, I clarified this claim further by determining the meaning of the phrase "to believe in Jesus' resurrection":

HC3b: The twelve disciples of Jesus (minus Judas Iscariot), who were chosen by Jesus to be part of an inner circle of his followers, came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

THE IMPLICATIONS OF CRAIG'S THIRD KEY HISTORICAL CLAIM (HC3)

Craig's third key historical claim is a claim about the twelve disciples of Jesus (minus Judas Iscariot), so this claim is about eleven disciples of Jesus.  Thus, if Craig is only able to show that it is a historical fact that six of Jesus' twelve disciples "came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead", then Craig will have failed to show that (HC3b) is a historical fact, and thus he will have failed to show that his third key historical claim (HC3) is a historical fact. 

Furthermore, if Craig is only able to show that it is a historical fact that nine or ten of Jesus' twelve disciples (minus Judas Iscariot) "came to sincerely believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead", then Craig will have failed to show that (HC3b) is a historical fact, and thus he will have failed to show that his third key historical claim (HC3) is a historical fact. 

In order for Craig to show that (HC3) is a historical fact, he needs to show that all  eleven of Jesus' twelve disciples (not counting Judas) "came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead."  If Craig is not able to do this, then he will have failed to show that (HC3) is a historical fact, and that would give us a very good reason to believe that premise (2) of his case is false, which means we would have a very good reason to believe that premise (C) of his core argument is false, which would give us further confirmation that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

The Gospel of Mark gives us a list of the twelve disciples:

14 And he [Jesus] appointed twelve to be with him and to be sent out to preach 15 and to have authority to cast out demons. 16 So he appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter), 17 James son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder), 18 and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, 19 and Judas Iscariot, who handed him over.  (Mark 3:14-19, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

Here are the names of the twelve disciples, according to the Gospel of Mark:

1. Simon (to whom Jesus gave the name Peter)
2. James (son of Zebedee)
3. John (the brother of James)
4. Andrew
5. Philip
6. Bartholomew
7. Matthew
8. Thomas
9. James (son of Alphaeus)
10. Thaddeaus
11. Simon (the Cananaean)
12. Judas Iscariot (who handed Jesus over)

There are two names on this list that are historically problematic, but let's set that issue aside for now, and assume this list from the Gospel of Mark is correct.  In that case, (HC3) implies the following eleven historical claims:

(HC3-1) Simon (to whom Jesus gave the name Peter) came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-2) James (son of Zebedee) came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead.

(HC3-3) John (the brother of James) came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-4) Andrew came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-5) Philip came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-6) Bartholomew came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-7) Matthew came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-8) Thomas came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-9) James (son of Alphaeus) came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-10) Thaddeaus came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-11) Simon (the Cananaean) came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

Because (HC3) implies the above eleven historical claims, in order for Craig to show that (HC3) is a historical fact, Craig must show that each of the above eleven  historical claims is a historical fact.  If Craig fails to show that one (or more) of these claims is a historical fact, then he will have failed to show that (HC3) is a historical fact.  If Craig fails to show that (HC3) is a historical fact, then we will have a very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, that premise (C) is false, and that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

CRAIG SHOWED ZERO OF THE ELEVEN CLAIMS TO BE HISTORICAL FACTS

In Chapter 8 of RFE Craig writes only about two pages in support of his claim that (HC3) is a historical fact. In Chapter 8, Craig shows ZERO of the above eleven historical claims to be historical facts. Thus, Craig has utterly and completely failed to show that (HC3) is a historical fact.  This gives us a very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, that premise (C) is false, and therefore we have further confirmation that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

In Craig's discussion where he attempts to show that (HC3) is a historical fact, he only talks about the religious  beliefs of ONE of the eleven disciples: Simon (to whom Jesus gave the name Peter). Craig only mentions the names of two of the eleven disciples: "Peter" (i.e. Simon) and Matthew.  But Craig does not specifically talk about Matthew's beliefs.  Rather he talks about the beliefs of the people in Matthew's church, which might or might not reflect Matthew's personal beliefs.

So, Craig does not speciically discuss the religious beliefs of these ten disciples:

• James (son of Zebedee)
• John (the brother of James)
• Andrew
• Philip
• Bartholomew
• Matthew
• Thomas
• James (son of Alphaeus)
• Thaddeaus
• Simon (the Cananaean)

How can Craig show that the ten historical claims about the religious beliefs of these ten specific disciples are historical facts without even mentioning these ten disciples?

The one brief paragraph where Craig mentions an event where Peter allegedly preached about the resurrection of Jesus is clearly insufficient to show that it is a historical fact that Peter (i.e. Simon) came to sincerely believe that God had raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. So, Craig fails to show that the following historical claim is a historical fact:

(HC3-1) Simon (to whom Jesus gave the name Peter) came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

But even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that Craig could, with some additional effort, show that (HC3-1) was a historical fact, that would still leave the remaining ten historical claims about the other ten disciples up in the air, without any argument for those claims being historical facts. This is why Craig's discussion in support of (HC3) being a historical fact takes up only about two pages.  Craig doesn't bother to discuss ten out of the eleven implications of (HC3).

Thus, it seems fairly clear that Craig has failed to show that his third key historical claim (HC3) is a historical fact.  However, he does present some points in support of (HC3) on pages 387 to 389, so I will now critically examine those points.

WHAT EVEN SKEPTICAL NEW TESTAMENT SCHOLARS ADMIT

Here is the first point Craig makes in support of his third key historical claim (HC3):

Even skeptical New Testament scholars admit that the earliest disciples at least believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead. (RF3, page 387)

First, Craig does not quote a single skeptical New Testament scholar to support this point, nor does he provide a footnote pointing to statements on this question by any skeptical New Testament scholar.  This is an unacceptable omission.  Nobody should simply believe this claim just on Craig's say-so, especially when he is attempting to show his third historical claim to be a historical fact. Such sloppy scholarship falls short of the serious burden of proof that Craig has here.

Second, Craig is unclear whether this admission is made by just a couple of skeptical NT scholars or by several skeptical NT scholars or by a large majority of skeptical NT scholars.  So, the vagueness of quantification in this claim impacts its significance.

Third, the phrase "the earliest disciples" is in general unclear.  I have been able to clarify what Craig means by this phrase in the context of Chapter 8 of RF3, but that does not mean that skeptical NT scholars who talk about "the earliest disciples" use this phrase exactly the way Craig does. They might not have in mind all eleven of the twelve disciples of Jesus (minus Judas Iscariot), when they talk about "the earliest disciples".  We would have to look at the context of the quotations where these skeptical scholars allegedly make this admission.  

But Craig has provided no quotations, and no references, so we have no way to determine what those skeptical NT scholars mean by the phrase "the earliest disciples" (or whatever particular phrase they actually use). This illustrates WHY it is unacceptable for Craig to make the claim about what skeptical NT scholars admit without bothering to provide any quotes or references to such alleged admissions by such scholars.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the phrase "believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead" in Craig's claim about what skeptical NT scholars admit, is unclear. Specifically, it is not clear from this statement that skeptical NT scholars admit that the earliest disciples believed that God had raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead.  

Even if several skeptical NT scholars admit that all eleven disciples of Jesus (the twelve minus Judas) believed that "Jesus had been raised from the dead", they might NOT agree that all eleven disciples of Jesus believed that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead.

Fifth, there is a problem of vague quantification in the alleged admission of skeptical NT scholars.  Do they admit that 100% of "the earliest disciples" believed that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead? or that about 90% of "the earliest disciples" believed this? or that about 80% of "the earliest disciples" believed this? or that a majority of "the earliest disciples" believed this? If the skeptical NT scholars only admit that a majority of "the earliest disciples believed that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead, that is compatible with it being the case that only six out of the eleven disciples listed above came to sincerely hold that belief. That is significantly less than what Craig is claiming, which is that all of the eleven disciples named above came to sincerely believe that God had raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead.

In order for Craig to make a significant claim about what skeptical NT scholars admit, he would have needed to say something like this:

About 80% of skeptical New Testament scholars admit that 100% of the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus (the twelve minus Judas) came to sincerely believe that God had raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead.

Craig does not make such a clear and strong claim.  I suspect that is because he knows that (a) he cannot show this claim to be true, and (b) such a clear and strong claim would cause readers to expect Craig to provide significant evidence to back this claim up, which he could not do.

Sixth, even if Craig had made the clear and strong claim above and had actually provided the evidence required to show this claim to be true, that would still be insufficient to show that (HC3) was a historical fact.  In order to show (HC3) to be a historical fact, Craig would have to provide strong historical evidence showing that each of the eleven historical claims implied by (HC3) are historical facts.  

Showing that a large majority of skeptical New Testament scholars believe that (HC3) is true is NOT sufficient to show that (HC3) is a historical fact.  To establish that historical claim X is a historical fact requires one to actually produce strong historical evidence in support of historical claim X. Craig has not even attempted to do this for ten of the eleven historical claims implied by (HC3).

Because of the above six serious problems, this point by Craig fails to provide significant support for his claim that (HC3) is a historical fact.

TO BE CONTINUED...

Craig makes other points in support of his claim that (HC3) is a historical fact. I will address those other points in the next part of this series.

William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 33: Belief in the Resurrection

WHERE WE ARE

William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus is based primarily on three key historical claims.  An important premise of Craig's case is premise (2):

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

In previous posts in this series, I showed that Craig's attempts to show that his second key historical claim (HC2) was a historical fact failed completely, giving us a very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, which means that we have a very good reason to believe that premise (C) in the core argument of Craig's case is false, which means that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

We are now critically examining Craig's third key historical claim:

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

If Craig's attempt to show that this key historical claim is a historical fact fails, then we will have another very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, and another very good reason to believe that premise (C) is false, which will further confirm that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

In order to rationally evaluate (HC3), we need to first have a clear understanding of what this claim means.  In Part 32 of this series, we clarified the phrase "The first disciples":

HC3a: The twelve disciples of Jesus (minus Judas Iscariot), who were chosen by Jesus to be part of an inner circle of his followers, came sincerely to believe in Jesus' resurrection. 

In this current post, I will work on clarifying this claim further by determining the meaning of the phrase "to believe in Jesus' resurrection".

"JESUS' RESURRECTION" MEANS "GOD RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD"

 The claim that the twelve disciples came "to believe in Jesus' resurrection" is somewhat vague.  But Craig makes comments that help to clarify this phrase.  When Craig initially states (HC3) in Chapter 8 of RF3, he provides context that makes the meaning of the phrase "to believe in Jesus' resurrection" clearer:

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 consists primarily in 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 appearances of Jesus alive, and (3) the first disciples came sincerely to believe in Jesus' resurrection... (RF3, page 360)

Because the hypothesis that Craig is trying to support is that "God raised Jesus from the dead", and because this goal is stated by Craig in the same paragraph where he puts forward (HC3), it is reasonable to understand the phrase "Jesus' resurrection" in (HC3) as meaning "God raised Jesus from the dead."  In other words, according to Craig, the sincere belief of the twelve disciples (minus Judas) was not just that Jesus came back to life after dying on the cross, but that this happened because God caused this to happen.

This interpretation is further confirmed by the following three statements by Craig, later in Chapter 8 of RF3:

But the belief in the resurrection of Jesus reversed the catastrophe of the crucifixion. Because God had raised Jesus from the dead, he was seen to be the Messiah after all. ...It was on the basis of belief in his resurrection that the disciples could believe that Jesus was the Messiah. (RF3, page 388, emphasis added)

Thus, the origin of Christianity hinges on the belief of th earliest disciples that God had raised Jesus from the dead. (RF3, page 389, emphasis added)

The origin of Christianity owes itself to the belief of the earliest disciples that God had raised Jesus from the dead. (RF3, page 395, emphasis added).

Thus, it is clear that when Craig asserts that the twelve disciples (minus Judas) "came to sincerely believe in Jesus' resurrection", he means that they came to sincerely believe that "God raised Jesus from the dead."

RESURRECTION MEANS "RAISED PHYSICALLY AND BODILY FROM THE DEAD"

Craig clearly believes that Jesus was raised physically and bodily from the dead by God.  More importantly for his case, Craig implies that the twelve disciples believed that Jesus was raised physically and bodily from the dead by God.  So, when Craig claims that the twelve disciples (minus Judas) came sincerely "to believe in Jesus' resurrection", he means that they came sincerely "to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead."

Craig praises the Jesus scholar NT Wright on the specific subject of the origin of Christianity:

The third fact from which the resurrection of Jesus may be inferred is the very origin of the Christian faith. This facts takes pride of place in Wright's historical argument for Jesus's resurrection. Indeed, Wright's entire book The Resurrection of the Son of God is probably best understood as the fullest and most sophisticated development of this third point of the overall case, for he actually argues for the historicity of Jesus' empty tomb and postmortem appearances on the basis of the origin of the disciples' belief in Jesus' resurrection. (RF3, page 387)

So, when Craig summarizes Wright's case for the resurrection, it is reasonable to infer that Craig agrees with the main claims in that case, including this first main claim:

1. Early Christians believed in Jesus' (physical and bodily) resurrection. (RF3, page 351) 

The twelve disciples (minus Judas) were "early Christians", so this statement implies that the twelve disciples (minus Judas) believed in the physical and bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Another point by Wright that Craig agrees with is that the term "resurrection" implied physical and bodily resurrection for both Jews and early Christians:

One of the greatest merits of N.T. Wright's exhaustive study of pre-Christian and Christian beliefs about resurrection is his demonstration that "resurrection" always meant physical, bodily resurrection. He insists, "...'Resurrection'...meant bodily resurrection; and that is what the early Christians affirmed." (RF3, page 361)

If the term "resurrection" always meant physical, bodily resurrection for early Christians, then the affirmation of Jesus' resurrection by the twelve apostles (minus Judas) implies that they believed in the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus.

One final indication that Craig's claim about the belief of the twelve disciples (minus Judas) was that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead is his comments about how if Jesus had not actually risen from the dead, they would have KNOWN that Jesus had not risen:

...we return to the first horn of the dilemma: that the disciples were deceivers. This alternative encompasses any hypothesis holding that the disciples knew that the miracles and resurrection of Jesus did not take place, but that they nevertheless claimed that they did. (RF3, page 338)

Vernet thinks it is inconceivable that one of the disciples should suggest to the others that they say that Jesus was risen when both he and they knew the precise opposite to be true. (RF3, page 341)

In order to infer that "the disciples" (i.e. the twelve disciples minus Judas) would have KNOWN that the resurrection of Jesus did not take place if it had not actually occurred, one must assume that the "resurrection of Jesus" means a physical, bodily resurrection.  The absence of a physical and bodily resurrection could be KNOWN by seeing the corpse of Jesus.  But in the case of a spiritual "resurrection" where Jesus continues to be alive while his body remains dead, means that the twelve disciples would have no way to disconfirm such an alleged resurrection.  The presense of Jesus' dead body would NOT count as disproof of a spiritual "resurrection" of Jesus.

Therefore, in commenting about how the twelve disciples (minus Judas) as deceivers would have KNOWN that Jesus had not risen from the dead, Craig assumes that the twelve disciples understood belief in Jesus' resurrection to be belief in the physical and bodily resurrection of Jesus.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above considerations, Craig's claim about the belief of the twelve disciples (minus Judas) concerning Jesus' alleged resurrection should be understood to be that they believed that Jesus had been physically and bodily resurrected.  We can now finish the clarification of Craig's third key historical claim:

HC3b: The twelve disciples of Jesus (minus Judas Iscariot), who were chosen by Jesus to be part of an inner circle of his followers, came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 32: The Disciples Belief in Jesus' Resurrection

THE CORE ARGUMENT OF CRAIG'S CASE

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 very good reason to conclude that William Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

In order to evaluate premise (C), we needed to critically examine the sub-argument for that premise:

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."

Craig put forward two lines of evidence in support of his view that his second key historical claim, namely (HC2), could be shown to be a historical fact.  But both those lines of evidence failed to provide significant support for (HC2) being a historical fact.[1] 

The failure of both of those lines of evidence gave us a very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, which means we have a very good reason to believe that premise (C) is false (since (C) asserts that (2) is true), which means we have a second very good reason to believe that the core argument in Craig's case is unsound.  Therefore, we have a very good fifth reason to conclude that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

CRAIG'S THIRD KEY HISTORICAL CLAIM

Craig's case rests on three key historical claims. If any of those three key claims cannot be shown to be a historical fact, then premise (2) is false, and premise (C) is false, and the core argument of Craig's case is unsound, meaning that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

We already have a very good reason to believe that premise (C) is false, because Craig's attempts to show that (HC2) is a historical fact failed. If Craig's attempt to show that his third key historical claim is a historical fact also fails, then that will give us another good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, and another good reason to believe that premise (C) is false, and another good reason to conclude that the core argument of Craig's case is unsound, meaning that we will have yet another good reason to conclude that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

Here is the third key historical claim that is part of the foundation of Craig's case:

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

Note that for (HC3) I removed a qualification from the end of the sentence: "...in the absence of sufficient antecedent historical influences from either Judaism or pagan religions." I explain and justify this modification of Craig's third historical claim in Part 25 of this series. In short, Craig has confused his attempt to demonstrate a key historical fact with showing the significance of that fact in terms of its relevance to the alleged resurrection of Jesus. 

Craig shot himself in the foot by adding the qualification to his third historical claim. Removing that qualification helps his case by making it much easier for Craig to show that (HC3) is a historical fact. 

WHAT DOES "THE FIRST DISCIPLES" MEAN?

Before we can rationally evaluate (HC3), we need to have a clear understanding of what it means. The subject of this sentence is somewhat unclear, so we need to clarify what it means in order to be in a position to evaluate this claim.

First, the term "disciples" can be used in a very broad way.  It basically means "students". So, "disciples of Jesus" means "students of Jesus".  But Jesus was not a school teacher or a tutor.  He was a Jewish religious preacher and teacher.  So, to be a "student of Jesus" was to be a follower of the religious and ethical teachings of Jesus. In this broad sense, anyone who claims to be a Christian, claims to be a "disciple" or follower of Jesus. 

This broad sense of the word "disciple" is clearly seen in the famous "Great Commission" passage at the end of the Gospel of Matthew:

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 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. (Matthew 28:16-20, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition) 

So, the term "disciple" can refer to any Christian in any country and in any century.

Craig has, however, qualified the term "disciples" with the prior phrase "The first..." This narrows the reference down a bit, but still leaves the subject of his key claim open to a variety of interpretations:

Group 1: the people who began following Jesus face-to-face during Jesus' public ministry

Group 2: the twelve disciples of Jesus (minus Judas Iscariot), who were chosen by Jesus to be part of an inner circle of his followers 

Group 3: the people in (Group 2) plus people who were  followers of Jesus during his public ministry AND who in the days and weeks immediately following the crucifixion of Jesus came to believe God had raised Jesus from the dead and that Jesus was the Messiah

Group 4: the people in (Group 3) plus other people who had NOT been followers of Jesus during his public ministry AND who in the days and weeks immediately following the crucifixion of Jesus came to believe God had raised Jesus from the dead and that Jesus was the Messiah

Group 5: the people in (Group 4) plus other people who had NOT been followers of Jesus during his public ministry AND who in the days and weeks immediately following the crucifixion of Jesus did NOT come to believe God had raised Jesus from the dead and that Jesus was the Messiah, but who in the months and years later in the first century came to believe God had raised Jesus from the dead and that Jesus was the Messiah

Although Craig does not define what he means by the phrase "the disciples" or by the phrase "the first disciples" he does use the phrase "the disciples" frequently in Chapter 8 of RF3, where he presents his case for the resurrection of Jesus.  So, there are many clues about what Craig means by that phrase. 

"THE DISCIPLES" MEANS "THE APOSTLES"

At the beginning of Chapter 8, Craig devotes several pages (about 15 pages) to a discussion of "the historical apologetic for the resurrection" or "the traditional apologetic". The phrase "the disciples" occurs frequently in that opening portion of Chapter 8. 

Craig often uses the phrase "the disciples" interchangeably with the phrase "the apostles":

• RF3, page 334 ("the apostolic authorship" followed by "written by the disciples"), 
• RF3, page 335, 
• RF3, page 336 ("the disciples" followed by "the original apostles"), 
• RF3, page 337, 
• RF3, page 338, 
• RF3, page 339 ("the disciples" on page 338, followed by "those first apostles" on page 339, and "the disciples" followed by "these early apostles"), 
• RF3, page 340, 
• RF3, page 341 (where "the disciples" repeatedly refers back to "the apostles" on page 340), 
• RF3, page 342 (where "the apostles" refers back to "the disciples" mentioned on page 341)

In Chapter 8 of RF3, Craig also provides a number of characterizations of "the disciples" and "the apostles" that indicate what he means by these phrases.

"THE FIRST DISCIPLES" WERE FIRST-CENTURY PALESTINIAN JEWS

When Craig initially discusses the Conspiracy Hypothesis, which claims that "the disciples stole the body of Jesus and lied about his postmortem experience, thus faking the resurrection" (RF3, page 371), he assumes that "the disciples" had certain characteristics:

...the overriding problem [with the Conspiracy Hypothesis] is the anachronism of first-century Jews' intending to hoax Jesus' resurrection. (RF3, page 372, emphasis added)

Craig's objection to the Conspiracy Hypothesis assumes that "the disciples" were first-century Jews.

When Craig criticizes the Wrong Tomb Hypothesis, he also bases his objection on the same assumption about "the disciples":

It is also anacrhonistic in its explanation of the origin of the disciples' belief in Jesus resurrection. Merely going to the wrong tomb and seeing a man there telling them that Jesus is not there would hardly lead a first-century Jew to conclude that Jesus was risen from the dead... (RF3, pages 374 to 375, emphasis added)

This objection only works if one assumes that "the disciples" were first-century Jews.  

When discussing the significance of (HC3), in RF3 pages 390 to 395, Craig considers the alternative views that "the disciples" got the idea of the resurrection of Jesus from Christian influences, or Jewish influences, or from pagan influences, as opposed to Craig's view that "the disciples" got this idea from experiencing the risen Jesus. 

When discussing this subject, Craig makes the following assertion:

Jesus and his disciples were first-century Palestinian Jews... (RF3, page 391)

Because this is part of Craig's discussion of the significance of (HC3), we may reasonably infer that this statement applies to the subject of that key historical claim:

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

Thus, we may reasonably infer that the scope of "The first disciples" is restricted to "first-century Palestinian Jews".  

The phrase "The first disciples" excludes second-century (and later) followers of Jesus, and it excludes non-Jews who were followers of Jesus, and it excludes followers of Jesus who lived outside of Palestine.

"THE FIRST DISCIPLES" WERE A GROUP OF MEN

Clearly, there were followers of Jesus who were "first-century Palestinian Jews" who were women, but there are a number of statements in Chapter 8 of RF3 where Craig indicates that "the disciples" refers to a group of men. 

Craig quotes from William Paley's defense of the reliability of the Gospels:

Since...the accounts of the Gospels do stem from their apostolic authors,  Paley concludes, then the story [about the resurrection of Jesus] must be true. For the apostles could not be deceivers.  He asks:

Would men in such circumstances pretend to have seen what they never saw; assert facts which they had not knowledge of, go about lying to teach virtue...  

   (RF3, page 340, emphasis added) 

Craig is talking about "the apostles" which is a phrase he uses interchangably with "the disciples", and he quotes Paley who is taling about a group of "men".  This is an indication that the phrase "the disciples," as used by Craig, refers to a group of men.

Craig also refers to a claim made by another traditional historical Christian apologist about "the disciples":

A second popular argument against the disciples being deceivers was that their character precludes their being liars. Humphrey Ditton observes that the apostles were simple, common men, not cunning deceivers. They were men of unquestioned moral integrity...  (RF3, page 340, emphasis added)

 Again, Craig here refers to "the disciples" and "the apostles" as being "common men" and "men of unquestioned moral integrity".  This is another indication that the phrase "The first disciples" refers to a group of men.

Continuing his discussion about the skeptical view that "the disciples" were deceivers, Craig again refers to "the disciples" as being men:

In the light of their character so described, asks Ditton, why not believe the testimony of these men? (RF3, page 341)

Craig also mentions an argument by another traditional historical apologist, Jacob Vernet, against the idea that "the disciples" were deceivers who took part in a conspiracy about the resurrection of Jesus:

Vernet thinks it inconceivable that one of the disciples should suggest to the others that they say Jesus was risen when both he and they knew the precise opposite to be true.  How could he possibly rally his bewildered colleagues into so detestable a project? And are we then to believe that these men would stand before judges declaring the truth of this product of their imaginations?  (RF3, page 341)

Craig here refers to an arbitrary "one of the disciples" using the masculine pronoun "he" and Craig refers to "the disciples" in general as "these men".  This is another indication that Craig understands the phrase "The first disciples" in (HC3) to be a group of men.

It is also significant to note that Craig distinguishes the women who were followers of Jesus, and who allegedly discovered Jesus' tomb to be empty, from "the disciples":

Mark...foreshadows appearances of Jesus to the disciples in Galilee when the women are commanded to tell the disciples that they will see Jesus.  When Mark says, "They said nothing to anyone" (Mark 16:8), he obviously means "as they fled back to the disciples."  (RF3, page 368, emphasis added)

Some scholars have said the men were not available [to check on Jesus' tomb] because they had all fled. Such a claim is wholly unconvincing, since it depends on the implausible hypothesis that the disciples, fleeing from the garden [where Jesus was arrested], returned all the way back to Galilee... (RF3, page 368, emphasis added)

If the disciples stole Jesus' corpse, then it would be utterly daft to fabricate a story of women's finding the tomb to be empty. Such a story would not be the sort of tale Jewish men would invent. (RF3, page 371) 

After their initial fright [about not finding Jesus in his tomb], wouldn't the women have attempted to retrace their steps by the light of day? Certainly the disciples themselves would have wanted to verify the empty tomb.  (RF3, page 375, emphasis added) 

Although Craig knew that there were women who were followers of Jesus, he generally avoids calling these women "disciples", presumably because he typically uses the phrase "the disciples" to refer to a group of men (at least in Chapter 8 of RF3):

(1) the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers... (RF3, page 360, emphasis added)

...the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers... (RF3, page 361, emphasis added)

...Jesus' tomb was indeed found empty on the first day of the week by a group of his women followers. (RF3, page 370, emphasis added)

...the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers. (RF3, page 395, emphasis added)

Thus, it is clear that Craig uses the phrase "The first disciples" in (HC3) to refer to a group of men.

"THE FIRST DISCIPLES" REFERS TO PEOPLE WHO WERE ALREADY FOLLOWERS OF JESUS WHEN HE WAS CRUCIFIED

We can also narrow down the time frame for "The first disciples" because in Chapter 8 of RF3, Craig uses the phrases "the disciples" and "the apostles" to refer to people who were already followers of Jesus when Jesus was crucified. 

For example, when Craig discusses William Paley's response to the skeptical view that "the disciples" were deceivers, there are clear time frame indications:

But it is equally incredible to suppose the disciples could have stolen the body and perpetrated a hoax.  Furthermore, it would have been impossible for Christianity to come into being in Jerusalem if Jesus' body were still in the grave. The Jewish authorities could certainly have produced it as the shortest and completest answer to the whole affair. But all they could do was claim that the disciples had stolen the body. (RF3, page 338, emphasis added)

In order for "the disciples" to have stolen the body of Jesus from the tomb where Jesus' body had been placed, so that the tomb was empty a few days after Jesus had been crucified, "the disciples" must have already been followers of Jesus at the time Jesus was crucified. 

If "the disciples" were not yet followers of Jesus at the time Jesus was crucified, they would have had no reason to steal the body of Jesus from the tomb. Thus, in order for the Jewish authorities to claim (with any plausibility) that "the disciples" had "stolen the body" of Jesus, the Jewish authorities must have known that "the disciples" were already followers of Jesus at the time Jesus was crucified.  

In a remark about the skeptical view about the disciples being deceptive, Craig implies that the disciples saw various events in Jesus' ministry:

...the first horn of the dilemma: that the disciples were deceivers. This alternative encompasses any hypothesis holding that the disciples knew that the miracles and resurrection of Jesus did not take place, but that they nevertheless claimed what they did. (RF3, page 338)

The only way that "the disciples" could KNOW that the alleged miracles of Jesus and the alleged resurrection of Jesus did not take place, would be if "the disciples" were people who travelled around with Jesus during his ministry, and who were hanging around Jesus in Jerusalem around the time when Jesus was crucified. This implies that "the disciples" were followers of Jesus before he was crucified.  

Craig mentions an objection by Jacob Vernet about the skeptical view that "the disciples" engaged in a conspiracy to trick others to believe in the resurrection of Jesus:

Vernet thinks it inconceivable that one of the disciples should suggest to the others that they say Jesus was risen when both he and they knew the precise opposite to be true. (RF3, page 341, emphasis added)

Again, in order to KNOW that Jesus had NOT risen from the dead, "the disciples" must have been associating with Jesus in Jerusalem during the week that Jesus was crucified. This strongly suggests that "the disciples" were already followers of Jesus before Jesus was crucified. 

Craig mentions an argument by Gottfried Less about how "the disciples" were preaching about the resurrection of Jesus shortly after the crucifixion:

The fact that the disciples were able to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem in the face of their enemies a few weeks after the crucifixion shows what they proclaimed was true, for they could never have proclaimed the resurrection under such circumstances had it not occurred. (RF3, page 341, emphasis added)

If "the disciples" were preaching the resurrection of Jesus so soon after Jesus had been crucified, that strongly suggests that "the disciples" were already followers of Jesus at the time that Jesus was crucified. 

Craig mentions the skeptical views of Hermann Samuel Reimarus about "the disciples" being deceivers.  Of course, Craig disagrees with the idea that "the disciples" lied about Jesus rising from the dead, but Craig does not raise an objection to an important assumption of Reimarus skeptical viewpoint:

But the disciples stole Jesus corpse and spread the story of Jesus' resurrection, touting him as a spiritual Messiah so that they could continue to the easy life of preaching that they had enjoyed with Jesus while he was alive.

Although Craig would probably object that the "life of preaching...with Jesus while he was alive" was NOT an easy life, Craig does not balk at the assumption here that "the disciples" were engaged in preaching with Jesus "while he was alive" (i.e. before Jesus was crucified). This implies that "the disciples" were already followers of Jesus before Jesus was crucified. 

CONCLUSIONS

In view of the various comments by Craig about "the disciples" in Chapter 8 of RF3, the following are implications of the phrase "The first disciples" in the subject of Craig's third historical claim (HC3):

• they were apostles
• they were first-century Palestinian Jews
• they were a group of men
• they were already followers of Jesus at the time Jesus was crucified

Based on these characteristics, it seems very likely that what Craig means by "The first disciples" is the twelve disciples of Jesus (minus Judas Iscariot) who Jesus had personally selected to be in his inner circle of followers.  

This is (Group 2) of the five alternative possible interpretations that I spelled out earlier in this post:

Group 2: the twelve disciples of Jesus (minus Judas Iscariot), who were chosen by Jesus to be part of an inner circle of his followers 

This interpretation of the subject of (HC3) is further confirmed by this comment by Craig about an argument from Jacob Vernet on the origin of Christianity:

Suppose, Vernet suggests, that no resurrection or miracles occurred: how then could a dozen men, poor, coarse, and apprehensive, turn the world upside down?...Because such a scenario is simply unbelievable, the message of the apostles, which gave birth to Christianity, must be true. (RF3, page 342)

Craig uses "the apostles" interchangeably with "the disciples", so this remark about "a dozen men" who were "the apostles" with a message that "gave birth to Christianity" implies that "the disciples" were a group of "a dozen men" who were followers of Jesus. This comment implies that "the disciples" are basically the twelve disciples of Jesus (minus Judas Iscariot), as specified in (Group 2).

We can now revise (HC3) to make the subject of the claim significantly clearer:

HC3a: The twelve disciples of Jesus (minus Judas Iscariot), who were chosen by Jesus to be part of an inner circle of his followers, came sincerely to believe in Jesus' resurrection. 

END NOTES

1. 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)

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. I have shown that these examples do not provide significant support for the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact. This gave us a good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, which gave us a good reason to believe that premise (C) is false.

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

In Part 29 of this series, I have shown that these examples do not provide significant support for the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact. Because both of Craig's lines of evidence fail to provide significant support for the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact, we have a very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false.