William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 29: Craig's Second Line of Evidence for (HC2)

THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (B) 

The core argument in Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus is a sub-argument in support of the key premise (B):

1c. IF Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts and no plausible natural explanation can account for them as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead", THEN the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the most plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts.

C. Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts AND no plausible natural explanation can account for Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead."

THEREFORE:

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

In Part 24 of this series (see the section called: "THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (B) IS UNSOUND"), I showed that premise (1c) is false, and that means this sub-argument for the key premise (B) is unsound. This gave us a good reason to conclude that William Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

EVALUATING PREMISE (C)

The other premise in the core argument of Craig’s case is premise (C). If premise (C) is false or dubious, then that would give us another good reason to reject the sub-argument for the key premise (B) and a fifth good reason to conclude that Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus fails (in addition to the four previous good reasons that I gave in Part 24).

Premise (C) is a conjunction of two other claims, so in order to evaluate premise (C), we need to critically examine this sub-argument for (C):

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

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

THEREFORE:

C. Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts AND no plausible natural explanation can account for Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead."

THE MOST IMPORTANT HISTORICAL CLAIM IN CRAIG’S CASE

Craig’s case is based upon three key historical claims. As I argued in Part 25 of this series, the most important historical claim of those three is this one:

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

If Craig is unable to show that (HC2) is a historical fact, then that would give us a good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, and that would also give us a good reason to believe that premise (C) is false, because premise (C) asserts that premise (2) is true.

If we have a good reason to believe that premise (C) is false, then this would give us a second good reason to reject the sub-argument for (B), and a fifth good reason to conclude that William Craig’s argument for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

CRAIG'S MAIN EVIDENCE FOR (HC2) BEING A HISTORICAL FACT

The main evidence presented by Craig in an attempt to show that (HC2) is a historical fact is his first line of evidence: six examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus that are mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians (Chapter 15:3-8):

• Appearance to Peter
• Appearance to the Twelve
• Appearance to five hundred brethren
• Appearance to James (Jesus' brother)
• Appearance to "all the apostles."
• Appearance to Saul of Tarsus (i.e., Paul)

In previous posts, I have shown that none of these examples provides significant support for the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact.[1]  This gives us a good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, which gives us a good reason to believe that premise (C) is false. That means we have a second good reason to reject the sub-argument for the key premise (B), and a fifth good reason to conclude that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

CRAIG'S SECOND LINE OF EVIDENCE FOR (HC2)

However, Craig has a second line of evidence in support of the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact. So, although the failure of Craig's six examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus gives us a good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, we cannot be fully confident that (2) is false until we consider Craig's second line of evidence.  So, that is what I will do for the rest of this post.

According to Craig: 

The Gospel accounts provide multiple, independent attestation of postmortem appearances of Jesus. (RF3, page 380)

For this reason, Craig believes that we can,

...infer the historicity of some of the specific appearances. (RF3, page 381)

Craig provides four examples in this second line of evidence (RF3, page 381): 

• The appearance to Peter
• The appearance to the Twelve
• The appearance to the women disciples
• That Jesus appeared to his disciples in Galilee

After presenting these four examples, Craig confidently asserts that,

The evidence makes it certain that on separate occasions different individuals and groups had experiences of seeing Jesus alive from the dead.    (RF3, page 381) 

THE FIRST TWO EXAMPLES

The first two examples of the four examples given by Craig seem very familiar:

• The appearance to Peter
• The appearance to the Twelve

These examples seem familiar because Craig already presented them in his first line of evidence!  They were the first two examples that Craig discussed from Paul's list of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus in 1 Corinthians (Chapter 15:3-8).

So, Craig is double-dipping here.  He is padding his second set of examples with evidence that he already presented in his first set of examples. Does Craig think his readers are so dim-witted that they would have already forgotten that he presented these same two examples on page 378, just three pages before presenting them again on page 381? Restating the same two examples doesn't add any new evidence for his conclusion. This only makes Craig look desperate and undermines his credibility.

Those two examples were weak and flawed when Craig first presented them back on page 378, so they are still weak and flawed examples on page 381.  They did not magically transform into strong and solid evidence just because Craig repeats them again three pages later!

One could try to defend Craig by pointing out that in his second line of evidence, Craig emphasizes the fact that there is "multiple, independent attestation" of those examples of appearances. 

However, when he presented "the appearance to the Twelve" in his first line of evidence, Craig asserted this was "the best-attested" example of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus (RF3, page 378), and he specifically pointed out that this example was "independently described by both Luke and John." (RF3, page 378). So, Craig is just repeating this same example to puff up his second line of evidence to make it seem more substantial than it actually is.

Also, when Craig presents the example of the alleged appearance to Peter in his first line of evidence, he clearly mentions that this example is supported both by Paul in Chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians as well as by a passage in Chapter 24 of the Gospel of Luke (RF3, page 378). Craig's first presentation of this example specifically points out that it had multiple attestation. So, Craig is just repeating this example to  make his second line of evidence seem more significant than it actually is.

Finally, Craig's second line of evidence was supposed to be examples where we can:

...infer the historicity of some of the specific appearances. (RF3, page 381, emphasis added)

Such an inference is supposed to be justified because:

The Gospel accounts provide multiple, independent attestation of postmortem appearances of Jesus. (RF3, page 380)

But the appearance to Peter is found in only ONE Gospel, the Gospel of Luke. There is no mention of an appearance to Peter in the Gospel of Mark. There is no mention of an appearance to Peter in the Gospel of Matthew.  There is no mention of an appearance to Peter in the Gospel of John. 

In order to show multiple attestation of this alleged appearance to Peter, Craig had to go outside of the Gospels and point to a passage from one of Paul's letters.  So, this example doesn't fit the general category of examples that Craig had described as being the focus of his second line of evidence.

I have previously shown that these two examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus fail to provide significant support for Craig's belief that (CH2) is a historical fact.[1]  So, there is no need to critically examine those examples again. They still fail to support his view that (CH2) is a historical fact.

Thus, half of Craig's four examples are Dead On Arrival. That leaves Craig's second line of evidence with just two examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus. 

THE APPEARANCE TO THE WOMEN DISCIPLES

According to Craig, two Gospels independently report the appearance to the women disciples:

The appearance to the women disciples is attested by Matthew and John (Matt. 28:9-10; John 20:11-17) and enjoys, as well, ratification by the criterion of embarrassment, given the low credibility accorded to the testimony of women. (RF3, page 381)

There are some serious historical problems here that make this example weak and defective evidence for Craig's claim that (HC2) is a historical fact.  So, this example of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus also fails to provide significant evidence in support of that key claim.

First, the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the ministry, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus. Even if we set aside the empty tomb and appearance stories in the Gospel of John and consider only the contents of Chapters 1 through 19, it is clear that those Chapters are historically unreliable.[2] Those nineteen chapters amount to 90% of the chapters in the Gospel of John. So, even without taking a close look at the empty tomb and appearance stories in the Gospel of John, we have good reason to believe that those stories are also historically unreliable. Therefore, corroboration from a passage in the Gospel of John of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus found in the Gospel of Matthew is historically insignificant.

Second, the main story of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus in the Gospel of John is the appearance to his disciples in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday. But, as I have previously shown, that story is probably a fictional story.[1]  Given that Chapters 1 to 19 of the Gospel of John are historically unreliable, and given that the main story of an alleged Easter-Sunday appearance of the risen Jesus to his disciples in Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John is probably a fictional story, we have very good reason to believe that the appearance stories in the Gospel of John are historically unreliable. Therefore, "corroboration" from a passage in the Gospel of John of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus found in the Gospel of Matthew is historically insignificant.

Third, the story of the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to the disciples and to "doubting Thomas" in Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John is also probably a fictional story, as I have previously argued.[3]  Given that Chapters 1 to 19 of the Gospel of John are historically unreliable, and given that the main Easter-Sunday appearance story in Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John is probably fictional, and given that the doubting-Thomas appearance story found in Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John is also probably fictional, it would be unreasonable to the point of irrational to believe that the Mary-Magdalene appearance story in Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John provides significant historical evidence in support of the story of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary found in the Gospel of Matthew.

Furthermore, there are several inconsistencies between the story of the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary found in the Gospel of John and the accounts of Mary's visit to the tomb found in the other gospels.[4] These inconsistencies cast significant doubt on the historical reliability of the story of the alleged appearance to Mary found in the Gospel of John.  

Finally, Craig assumes that the stories in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John about an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary are independent of each other.  But the Gospel of John was composed about a decade after the Gospel of Matthew, so it is quite possible that the story about this event in the Gospel of John was based upon the story found in the story of this alleged appearance found in the Gospel of Matthew, and if this is the case, then these stories are NOT independent accounts of this alleged appearance.

In any case, Craig has failed to provide any reason to believe that the story about an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary in the Gospel of John is actually independent from the Gospel of Matthew.

Many, NT scholars now believe that the Gospel of John does sometimes borrow from the other gospels[5], and this casts significant doubt on Craig's assumption that the appearance stories in the Gospel of John are independent from the other Gospels. Some NT scholars believe that the story about the appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary found in the Gospel of John was borrowed from the Gospel of Matthew.[6] If that is correct, then this is NOT an example of the Gospels providing multiple independent accounts of the same alleged appearance of the risen Jesus.

Given that the Gospel of John was composed about a decade after the Gospel of Matthew, given that many NT scholars believe that the Gospel of John sometimes borrows from the other gospels, including from the Gospel of Matthew, given that some NT scholars believe that the story about the appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary was borrowed by the Gospel of John from the Gospel of Matthew, and given that Craig has provided no reason to believe that the Gospel of John's account of this alleged appearance to Mary was independent of the Gospel of Matthew, we have good reason to doubt Craig's assumption that the story of the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary in the Gospel of Johh was independent of the story of an alleged appearance of Jesus to Mary found in the Gospel of Matthew.

THAT JESUS APPEARED TO HIS DISCIPLES IN GALILEE

The fourth and final example of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus in Craig's second line of evidence is this:

Finally, that Jesus appeared to the disciples in Galilee is independently attested by Mark, Matthew, and John (Mark 16:7; Matthew 28:16-17; John 21). (RF3, page 381) 

It is significant that Craig has dropped the use of the definite article "the" in his characterization of this fourth example. He characterized all three of the previous examples using the definite article "the" (RF3, page 381):

The appearance to Peter

The appearance to the Twelve

The appearance to the women disciples

 

But for this final example in Craig's second line of evidence, the language changes (RF3, page 381, emphasis added):

that Jesus appeared to the disciples in Galilee

Craig does not describe this fourth example as: 

the appearance to the disciples in Galilee 

Why the shift in wording? Craig has changed the wording because this evidence is not about an alleged specific appearance of the risen Jesus. 

Craig had previously characterized his second line of evidence as consisting of examples of alleged specific appearances of the risen Jesus, where the evidence would allow us to:

...infer the historicity of some of the specific appearances. (RF3, page 381) 

But this fourth example is not about an alleged specific appearance of the risen Jesus; it is about there being some sort of appearance or other of the risen Jesus to his disciples that took place in Galilee. In other words, the three Gospel passages that Craig references about this final example do not provide multiple independent attestation of the same alleged specific event.

This is a serious problem for this fourth and final "example" of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to his disciples in Galilee. Because the evidence Craig provides is NOT about a specific event or a specific appearance of the risen Jesus, this "example" fails to provide any specific details, other than the vague notion that there was some sort of appearance of the risen Jesus to some of his disciples that took place somewhere in Galilee that occurred sometime after Jesus was crucified under some sort of circumstances or other. 

Let's grant this vague claim to Craig.  This does not provide any significant support for (CH2) being a historical fact. Recall that (CH2) asserts that various individuals and groups: 

...various individuals and groups experienced on different occasions and under varying circumstances appearances of Jesus alive. 

Apart from having some specific details about who had the alleged experience, when the experience took place, the circumstances in which the experience took place, and the specific location of the experience, we have no basis for determining that alleged appearances of the risen Jesus happened to "various individuals and groups" on "different occasions" and "under varying circumstances.  

Thus, the vague belief that some sort of appearance of the risen Jesus to some of his disciples took place somewhere in Galilee that occurred sometime after Jesus was crucified under some sort of circumstances or other fails to provide significant support for the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact.   

Just as Craig's third example of an alleged appearance fails to correspond with Craig's characterization of his second line of evidence (because the evidence is not from two or more different Gospels), this fourth example also fails to correspond with Craig's characterization of his second line of evidence.  The fourth and final example is not an example of an alleged specific appearance of the risen Jesus.

Craig is either being very sloppy here, or he is revealing his desperation to puff up his list of examples for his second line of evidence by using any example that only partially satisfies his wish for the existence of examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus where multiple Gospels independently report the same specific appearance event. But the reality is that only one of his four examples comes close to fitting Craig's idealistic characterization: the appearance to the Twelve.  

However, that example was already used in Craig's first line of evidence, so it cannot be reused in his second line of evidence. Furthermore, I have already shown that the example of the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to the Twelve fails to provide significant support for Craig's claim that (HC2) is a historical fact. Repeating the presentation of this example in his second line of evidence does not magically turn this weak and defective example into a strong and solid example.

EVALUATION OF CRAIG'S SECOND LINE OF EVIDENCE

The first two examples that Craig gives in his second line of evidence are the same as the first two examples he used in his first line of evidence. But (a) repeating the same example does not add any new evidence to what he already presented in his first line of evidence, and (b) we have already seen that those two examples fail to provide significant support for Craig's claim that (HC2) is a historical fact.

The next two examples are new, but they fail to match the characterization that Craig gave of his second line of evidence, and like the first two examples, they fail to provide significant support for Craig's claim that (HC2) is a historical fact.

Therefore, Craig's four examples constituting his second line of evidence fail to provide significant support for the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact, just like the six examples in his first line of evidence failed to provide significant support for the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact.

Craig has now made two different attempts to present examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus to various people and groups of people, and yet Craig has failed to present a single example that provides significant support for his claim that (HC2) is a historical fact.  

Since Craig is a professional philosopher, a New Testament scholar, and a Christian apologist who has studied the resurrection of Jesus, and who has published books and articles arguing in support of the resurrection of Jesus, and he has done so for a number of decades, his failure to come up with a single example to support the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact gives us a very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false:

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

And this also gives us a very good reason to believe that premise (C) is false:

C. Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts AND no plausible natural explanation can account for Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead."

That means that we have a very good reason to believe that the core argument of Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus is an unsound argument, and that we should reject that core argument.  We now have a very good fifth reason to conclude that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.  

END NOTES

1. I critically examined the alleged appearance to the Twelve in Part 25, the alleged appearance to Peter in Part 26, the alleged appearances to five hundred brethren, to James (Jesus' brother), and to "all the apostles" in Part 27, and the alleged appearance to Saul/Paul in Part 28.

2. See my series of blog posts on the unreliability of the 4th Gospel. Links to those posts are provided here:

The Unreliability of the 4th Gospel - Part 14: Summary and INDEX

3. The story of the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to doubting Thomas is probably a fictional story.  See my blog posts related to this issue:

The Unreliability of the 4th Gospel - Part 13: Chapter 20

The Unreliability of the 4th Gospel – Part 7: More One-On-One Dialogues

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

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

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

4. There are a number of inconsistencies between the account of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary found in the Gospel of John and accounts of Mary's visit to the tomb found in the other gospels:

The Unreliability of the 4th Gospel – Part 7: More One-On-One Dialogues  (see the section called: "THE ALLEGED DIALOGUE BETWEEN JESUS AND MARY MAGDALENE")

The Unreliability of the 4th Gospel - Part 13: Chapter 20       (see the section called: "II. Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene")

5. Many NT scholars now believe that the Gospel of John does sometimes borrow from other gospels: 

Recent scholarship has tended to turn against positing hypothetical sources for John. While a few scholars support old ideas about debated sources like the "signs source" and the "sayings source", or develop new theories, it is widely considered that John incorporated synoptic traditions into his own composition instead. For much of the twentieth century, the consensus was that John was independent of the Synoptics, but most scholars now accept the Synoptics as sources for John. ("Gospel of John" article in Wikipedia, viewed 6/20/26)

6. Some NT scholars believe that the story about the appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary in the Gospel of John has a dependency on the Gospel of Matthew. In his scholarly commentary on the Gospel of John, the NT scholar Frank Schleritt comments on the passage where Jesus appears to Mary (in John 20:14-18): 

These verses presuppose the Matthaen redactional composition Matt. 28.9f. and therefore have no historical value. "The Gospel of John" in Jesus After Two Thousand Years (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001) page 581.

William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 28: The Appearance to Saul of Tarsus

WHERE WE ARE

Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus is based on three key historical claims. The most important of these historical claims is this one:

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

This historical claim is crucial to the success of Craig's case.  If this claim is false or dubious, then Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

In the core argument of Craig's case, premise (2) asserts that the above historical claim is a historical fact: 

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

If Craig fails to show that (HC2) is a historical fact, then that will give us a good reason to doubt premise (2) and a good reason to reject Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus.

So far, we have examined five of the six examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus that William Craig puts forward as evidence for the most important historical claim in his case:

• Appearance to Peter
• Appearance to the Twelve
• Appearance to five hundred brethren
• Appearance to James (Jesus' brother)
• Appearance to "all the apostles."

We saw that none of those five examples provides significant evidence in support of (HC2) being a historical fact.[1] 

THE ALLEGED APPEARANCE OF JESUS TO SAUL/PAUL

We are now down to the sixth and final example of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus that Craig puts forward in an attempt to show that (HC2) is a historical fact:

• Appearance to Saul of Tarsus (i.e. Paul)

If the alleged appearance to Paul fails to show that (HC2) is a historical fact, then we will have a good reason to doubt premise (2), and we will have another good reason to conclude that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails. 

Paul is the author of about one-quarter of the New Testament (if we include all of the letters traditionally attributed to Paul; a number of the letters attributed to Paul are suspected by NT scholars as not being authentic letters that were written by Paul). 

Much of Christian theology is based on the letters of Paul, rather than on the teachings of Jesus found in the Gospels.  That is because Jesus mainly taught about how to live a devout and morally upright life, and he had little to say about himself, his role in God's plans, or about the theological implications of his own death.  Christian theology about Jesus, Jesus' role in God's plans, and the theological significance of the death and alleged resurrection of Jesus, come primarily from the letters of Paul.

Paul's Jewish name was "Saul":

Paul's Jewish name was "Saul" (Hebrew: שָׁאוּל, Modern: Sha'ûl, Tiberian: Šā'ûl), perhaps after the biblical King Saul, the first king of Israel and, like Paul, a member of the Tribe of Benjamin; the Latin name Paulus, meaning small, was not a result of his conversion as is commonly believed but a second name for use in communicating with a Greco-Roman audience.[2]

THE MAIN STORY ABOUT AN APPEARANCE TO PAUL 

The primary story that Craig focuses on about an alleged appearance of Jesus to Saul/Paul is from Chapter 9 of the book of Acts:

3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything. (Acts 9:3-9, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THIS ALLEGED APPEARANCE TO PAUL

There are some serious problems with this story as evidence for (HC2), so this final example fails to provide significant support for the most important historical claim in Craig's case, just like the previous five examples failed to provide significant support for (HC2).

First, there is nothing in this story that indicates that Paul SAW the risen Jesus. There is no statement in this story that Paul saw Jesus' face, or saw Jesus' body, or even that he saw the general outline of a human being. 

Second, the story strongly suggests that Paul DID NOT SEE the risen Jesus in this event.  Paul saw "a light from heaven" that "flashed around him" (Acts 9:3). But then Paul "fell to the ground" (Acts 9:4), presumably face down, since that is what people typically do when confronted with an angel in Bible stories. After the event, when Paul "got up from the ground", Paul "opened his eyes". This implies that when the bright light flashed around him, Paul fell to the ground and closed his eyes. If Paul had his eyes closed during this dramatic event, then he did NOT SEE JESUS.

Third, after the event, when Paul "got up from the ground", Paul "opened his eyes" but "he could see nothing." (Acts 9:8). The bright light apparently blinded him temporarily (Acts 9:8&9), so even if he had opened his eyes during the event, he would not have seen anything!

If Paul was blinded by the bright light, then he did NOT SEE JESUS.  If Paul had his eyes closed during this dramatic event, then he did NOT SEE JESUS. Thus, this account of the alleged appearance of Jesus to Paul implies that Paul did NOT SEE JESUS during this dramatic event on his way to Damascus. 

Fourth, the people who were travelling with Pual "did not see anyone" near Paul (Acts 9:7).  So, this story indicates that there was no physically embodied Jesus standing near Paul for Paul to have seen.

Fifth, Paul did not know the historical flesh-and-blood Jesus, so even if, contrary to the clear indications of this story, Paul did see the face and the body of a human person during this dramatic experience, Paul would have no way of IDENTIFYING this person as being Jesus of Nazareth.  Paul did not know Jesus, so he did not know what Jesus looked like.

Even if we assume that this story in Chapter 9 of Acts was an accurate and reliable account of this dramatic event, it is clear that this was NOT an "appearance" of the risen and physically embodied Jesus. Based upon the details contained in this story, this was NOT an "appearance of Jesus alive." 

Thus, this example of an alleged "appearance" of the risen Jesus to Paul fails to provide any significant evidence for (HC2), the most important historical claim in William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus. 

Because none of the six examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus presented by Craig provide significant support for (HC2), we have good reason to doubt premise (2) in the core argument of Craig's case, and we have yet another good reason to conclude that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

GOOD REASONS TO DOUBT THE HISTORICAL RELIABILITY OF THIS STORY

There are also good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of the story about Paul's dramatic experience on his journey to Damascus that is found in Chapter 9 of the book of Acts. 

First, we don't know the source of this story.  The author of Acts does not claim to have been present during the dramatic events that are described.  The author of Acts does not indicate who was the source of this story.  This story might well be second or third-hand, and not directly based on testimony from someone who was present during the event.

Second, the book of Acts was probably written about 75 to 85 CE[3], which is four to five decades after Paul converted to Christianity.[4]  Paul was executed around 65 CE[5], so Paul was already dead when the book of Acts was written. Thus, Paul was not around to correct any false or inaccurate information in the book of Acts about his life, his experiences, and the content of his speeches.

Third, the author of Acts is, according to NT scholars, the same as the author of the Gospel of Luke.[6] As I have argued previously, the main story of an appearance of the risen Jesus to his disciples found in the Gospel of Luke is probably a fictional story, because it contradicts the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew.[7] 

Since the main story of an appearance of the risen Jesus found in the Gospel of Luke is probably fictional, this casts significant doubt on the historical reliability of other alleged appearances of the risen Jesus presented by the author of the Gospel of Luke and in the book of Acts. In short, we have a good reason to doubt the historical reliability of the dramatic story of the alleged "appearance" of the risen Jesus to Paul presented in Chapter 9 of the book of Acts.

Fourth, there are two other passages in the book of Acts where this story is recounted (supposedly by Paul), but those other accounts are inconsistent with the account presented in Chapter 9.  This gives us another good reason to doubt the historical reliability of the account of this dramatic event in Chapter 9 of the book of Acts.

According to the story in Chapter 9 of Acts, the men with Paul heard the voice that spoke to Paul:

7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one. (Acts 9:7, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

But according to the story in Chapter 22 of Acts, the men with Paul did NOT hear the voice:

9 Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.(Acts 22:9, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

That is a rather significant contradiction between these two accounts. If the other people with Paul did NOT hear the voice that Paul heard, then that would be additional evidence that this was a subjective experience in Paul's mind, rather than an objective physical event.  Chapter 9 already indicated that this was a subjective experience in Paul's mind, because it states that the people with Paul "did not see anyone" standing near Paul.

Furthermore, there is another inconsistency in the account from Chapter 9, if we combine it with the account in Chapter 22.  If Paul was temporarily blinded by the bright light "from heaven" and if the others who were with Paul also "saw the light" (Acts 22:9), then how is it that the others were still able to see just fine after this event (Acts 9:8&9)?  The fact that the vision of those who were with Paul was not impacted suggests that the people who were with Paul did NOT see the bright light from heaven, and that too was just a subjective experience in Paul's mind, rather than an objectively observable physical event.

Another inconsistency is that in the accounts of Paul's dramatic experience on the way to Damascus found in Chapter 9 and Chapter 22 of Acts, Jesus says little to Paul in terms of what Jesus wants Paul to do.  But in the account in Chapter 26 of Acts, Jesus gives Paul significant instructions and guidance about what he wants Paul to do.

In Chapter 9, Jesus just curtly tells Paul that he will receive instructions later after arriving in Damascus:

5 He [Paul] asked, “Who are you, Lord?” The reply came, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 But get up and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” (Acts 9:5-6, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

In Chapter 22, Jesus also tells Paul he will be given instructions after he gets to Damascus:

8 I [Paul] answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ Then he said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.’ ...10 I asked, ‘What am I to do, Lord?’ The Lord said to me, ‘Get up and go to Damascus; there you will be told everything that has been assigned to you to do.’ (Acts 22:8&10, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

However, in Chapter 26, Jesus immediately starts to provide instructions to Paul about what he plans for Paul to do: 

15 I [Paul] asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ The Lord answered, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16 But get up and stand on your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and testify to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you. 17 I will rescue you from your people and from the gentiles—to whom I am sending you 18 to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’ (Acts 26:15-18, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

EITHER Jesus curtly told Paul that he would find out later in Damascus what plans Jesus had for him OR ELSE Jesus provided this detailed view of the plans Jesus had for Paul during Paul's dramatic experience on the way to Damascus. 

It makes no sense to suppose that all three of these accounts are true and accurate accounts of what Paul heard during his dramatic experience on the way to Damascus (unless Paul's mind created these illogical and inconsistent words and put them into the mouth of the risen Jesus). 

Finally, in Chapter 26, the experience of the light from heaven is described as being had by both Paul and his fellow travellers:

I [Paul] saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and my companions. 14 When we had all fallen to the ground... (Acts 26:13-14, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

Again, if all the people with Paul saw "a light from heaven, brighter than the sun" (Acts 26:16), then why did only Paul experience temporary blindness?  If Paul was instantly blinded, then how would he know that the others with him had "all fallen to the ground" (Acts 26:14)? 

And if the others who were with Paul had indeed "all fallen to the ground", why would Paul say that those others "stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one." (Acts 9:7)? They were not standing, they were on the ground, and since they had presumably fallen on their faces, they would not be looking around to see if someone was standing near Paul, and if they had all just seen "a light from heaven, brighter than the sun", then they too would have been temporarily blind.  Clearly, there are a number of inconsistencies between these three different accounts.

Because there are a number of good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of the story in Chapter 9 of Acts about Paul's dramatic experience on the way to Damascus, this story is not solid enough to provide significant evidence in support of Craig's claim that (HC2) is a historical fact.

CONCLUSIONS

The story in Chapter 9 of Acts about Paul's dramatic experience on the way to Damascus does not provide significant evidence in support of Craig's claim that (HC2) is a historical fact, because the story implies that Paul did NOT SEE JESUS (or anyone else), because even if we assume Paul saw someone during this experience, Paul would not have been able to IDENTIFY that person as being Jesus, and because there are good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of that story.

Because none of the previous five examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus provides significant support for the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact, and because this sixth and final example of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus also fails to provide significant support for the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact,  we now have good reason to doubt premise (2) in the core argument of Craig's case. Because (HC2) is crucial to Craig's case, we now have a fifth good reason to reject Craig's case, and to conclude that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

END NOTES 

1. See these previous blog posts for my critical examination of Craig's first five examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus:

• See Part 25 of this series for my critical examination of the alleged Appearance to the Twelve.
• See Part 26 of this series for my critical examination of the alleged Appearance to Peter.
• See Part 27 of this series for my critical examinations of these three alleged appearances:
• Appearance to the five hundred brethren 
• Appearance to James (the brother of Jesus)  
• Appearance to "all the apostles." 

2. "Paul the Apostle" article in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle (viewed 6/13/26)

3. References for the date of composition of the book of Acts: 

• Most would tend to date the two books [Luke and Acts] ca. A.D. 80-85. - Joseph Tyson, "Acts of the Apostles, The" in The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, revised edition (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), page 10.
• While certainty on the date of composition for Acts may not be achieved...it is reasonable to place it some time after Luke's Gospel, which may be dated 80-85 C.E. - Christopher Matthews, "Acts of the Apostles" in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), page 16.
• A date for the composition of the Gospel [of Luke] in the mid-eighties is based, therefore, on Luke's use of Mark, the absence of references to Paul's letters in Acts, and the Lukan form of Jesus' predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem. - R. Alan Culpepper, "The Gospel of Luke" in The New Interpreter's Bible, Volume IX (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), page 9. Note: Culpepper believes that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the same author at about the same time.

4. References for the date of Paul's conversion:

• ...Paul's apostolic call (ca. 31)... - Calvin Roetzel, "Paul" in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), page 1019.
• 34 [A.D.]...Conversion, Arabia, Damascus (3 years) [the first event, dated the same year in three alternative proposed chronologies based on Paul's letters and Acts] - L.C.A. Alexander, "Chronology of Paul" in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), pages122 to 123.
• 36 [A.D.]...Conversion of Saul/Paul (Acts 9) [an event listed in a chronological table about Paul's ministry] - Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Revised Edition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1998), page 395. 

5. References for the date of Paul's death: 

• The New Testament nowhere mentions his [Paul's] death, but reliable traditions depict him as a martyr in Rome, beheaded during the persecution of Nero in the mid 60s CE. - John W. Drane, "Paul" in The Oxford Companion to the Bible (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993),  page 576.
• Luke, however, does not tell us how Paul died; if he were beheaded in Rome, as the 3rd-century Acts of Paul suggests (10:5), his execution would have come before the end of 62. - Calvin Roetzel, "Paul" in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), page 1019.
• Although a tradition suggests that Paul had been released from Rome [i.e. Roman imprisonment], and visited Spain (1 Clem. 5:7), this tradition probably rests on Rom. 15:24, 28. More likely, Paul was executed at the end of his original Roman imprisonment, probably in A.D. 62. - William Baird, "Paul" in The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, Revised Edition (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), page 820.
• ...he came a second time to Rome and at that time suffered martyrdom together with Peter under Nero. In accordance with evidence discussed above (620-623), we accept June 29, A.D. 67, as the date of death of both apostles. - Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Revised Edition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1998), page 401.

6. See the following articles in various Bible reference works:

• Christopher Matthews, "Acts of the Apostles" in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), page 15.
• F.F. Bruce, "Acts of the Apostles" in The Oxford Companion to the Bible (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993), page 6.
• Joseph Tyson, "Acts of the Apostles, The" in The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, revised edition (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), page 10.

7. See Part 25 in this series, especially my critical examination in that post of the alleged appearance to "the Twelve." 

Key Historical Claims in Cases for the Resurrection of Jesus

Different Christian apologists present different cases for the resurrection of Jesus.  However, there are just a handful of key historical claims that most Christian apologists use as the historical foundation of their cases. 

To rationally evaluate a case for the resurrection of Jesus, it is important to be familiar with the key historical claims it is based upon, to determine whether those claims are historical facts, and to have a clear understanding of the implications of those historical claims.

In his book Reasonable Faith (3rd edition, hereafter: RF3), the Christian apologist William Craig focuses on three key historical claims:

...(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, (3) the first disciples came sincerely to believe in Jesus resurrection... (RF3, page 360)

In their book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (hereafter: CRJ), the Christian apologists Gary Habermas and Michael Licona focus on five key historical claims:  

1. Jesus died by crucifixion (CRJ, page 48)

2. Jesus' disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them (CRJ, page 49)

3. The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed (CRJ, page 64)

4. The skeptic James, the brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed (CRJ, page 67)

5. The tomb was empty (CRJ, page 69)

The Christian apologist Josh McDowell has the longest list of key historical claims in his case for the resurrection of Jesus in his book The Resurrection Factor. However, there is some overlap between his key historical claims, and the key historical claims of Craig, Habermas and Licona, as we will soon see.  

McDowell has six key historical claims that he labels "Security Precautions" and seven key historical claims that he calls "Facts to Be Reckoned With" (his use of the term "facts" is question-begging):

Security Precautions Claims  (TRF, page 68):

1. Christ was put to death by crucifixion...

2. The body of Christ was buried in a solid rock tomb.

3. Christ's body was wrapped with more than 100 pounds of spices...

4. The stone rolled in front of the tomb entrance weighed about two tons.

5. A Roman security guard...was positioned to guard the tomb.

6. The tomb was sealed shut with the official authority and signature of Rome.

Claims to be Reckoned With (TRF, pages 81 & 82): 

1. The feared power of Rome was ignored by the breaking of the seal at the tomb. [related to Security Precaution #6]

2. Both the Jews and the Romans admitted that the tomb was empty. [related to Security Precaution #2]

3. A two-ton stone was somehow moved from the tomb entrance while a Roman guard stood watch. [related to Security Precautions #4 and #5]

4. A highly disciplined Roman military guard fled their watch and had to be bribed by the authorities to lie about what actually happened. [related to Security Precaution #5]

5. The undisturbed grave clothes no longer contained a body. [related to Security Precautions #2 and #3] 

6. Christ subsequently appeared to as many as 500 witnesses at one time in a variety of circumstances. 

7. Because of the low Jewish view of the reliability of women, manufacturers of a resurrection story would never have selected them to be the first witnesses to the fact. [i.e. the fact that Jesus was seen alive after he was buried in the tomb]

Note that there is also some overlap between McDowell's two lists of key historical claims.  The "Security Precautions" claims are often an assumption of a Claim "to be Reckoned With." 

OVERLAPS BETWEEN LISTS OF KEY CLAIMS IN CASES FOR THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS

A. Jesus Died by Crucifixion:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion (CRJ, page 48)

1. Christ was put to death by crucifixion... (TRF, page 68)

[Security Precaution] 2. The body of Christ was buried in a solid rock tomb.

[Security Precaution] 3. Christ's body was wrapped with more than 100 pounds of spices... 

B. The Tomb of Jesus was found Empty: 

...(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... (RF3, page 360)

 5. The tomb was empty (CRJ, page 69)

[Security Precaution] 2. The body of Christ was buried in a solid rock tomb. (TRF, page 68)

 [Claim to Be Reckoned With] 2. Both the Jews and the Romans admitted that the tomb was empty. (TRF, page 81)

[Security Precaution] 3. Christ's body was wrapped with more than 100 pounds of spices... (TRF, page 68)

[Claim to Be Reckoned With]  5. The undisturbed grave clothes no longer contained a body. (TRF, page 82)

 C. Various People and Groups Experienced an Appearance of the Risen Jesus:

...(2) various individuals and groups thereafter experienced on different occasions and under varying circumstances appearances of Jesus alive... (RF3, page 360)

2. Jesus' disciples believed that he...appeared to them (CRJ, page 49)

3. The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed (CRJ, page 64) [i.e. Paul converted and became a Christian believer]

4. The skeptic James, the brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed (CRJ, page 67) [i.e. James converted and became a Christian believer]

[Claim to Be Reckoned With] 6. Christ subsequently appeared to as many as 500 witnesses at one time in a variety of circumstances. (TRF, page 82)

[Claim to Be Reckoned With] 7. Because of the low Jewish view of the reliability of women, manufacturers of a resurrection story would never have selected them to be the first witnesses to the fact. [i.e. the fact that Jesus was seen alive after he was buried in the tomb] (TRF, page 82)

 D. Jesus Disciples and Others became convinced that Jesus had risen from the Dead:

(3) the first disciples came sincerely to believe in Jesus resurrection... (RF3, page 360)

2. Jesus' disciples believed that he rose... (CRJ, page 49) 

 3. The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed (CRJ, page 64) [i.e. Paul converted and became a Christian believer]

4. The skeptic James, the brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed (CRJ, page 67) [i.e. James converted and became a Christian believer]

There are some additional key historical claims that McDowell lists, but that are not found in the lists of key historical claims by Craig, and by Habermas & Licona: 

E. Claims about the Roman Guard and the Moved Stone

[Security Precaution] 4. The stone rolled in front of the tomb entrance weighed about two tons. (TRF, page 68)

[Security Precaution] 5. A Roman security guard...was positioned to guard the tomb. (TRF, page 68)

[Security Precaution] 6. The tomb was sealed shut with the official authority and signature of Rome. (TRF, page 68) 

[Claim to Be Reckoned With]  3. A two-ton stone was somehow moved from the tomb entrance while a Roman guard stood watch. [related to Security Precautions #4 and #5] 

[Claim to Be Reckoned With] 1. The feared power of Rome was ignored by the breaking of the seal at the tomb. [related to Security Precaution #6] 

4. A highly disciplined Roman military guard fled their watch and had to be bribed by the authorities to lie about what actually happened. [related to Security Precaution #5]