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

 WHERE WE ARE

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

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

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

THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF CRAIG'S CASE

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

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

OVERVIEW OF MY EVALUATION OF CRAIG'S CASE

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

THE FINAL SUB-ARGUMENT IS UNSOUND

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

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

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

THEREFORE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE NEXT-TO-LAST SUB-ARGUMENT IS UNSOUND

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

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

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

THEREFORE: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT IS CONFIRMATION BIAS?

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

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

RELEVANT FACTS NOT INCLUDED BY CRAIG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (B) IS UNSOUND

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

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

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

 THEREFORE:

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

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

Premise (1c) is false, because it is based on a False Dilemma. Craig is making the following assumption:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, for just about any natural hypothesis, there is a corresponding supernatural hypothesis where God is the primary cause of the key event.[2] 

Furthermore, God is NOT the only possible supernatural being.  According to Christian theology, there are a variety of supernatural beings, such as spirits, angels, demons, and the devil himself.  Thus, any supernatural hypothesis in which God performs a key action, can be revised and turned into a different supernatural hypothesis featuring some other supernatural being (or natural being with supernatural powers):

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

END NOTES

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

2. In Part XX of this series of posts, I provide more examples where I transform a natural hypothesis into a supernatural hypothesis where God is the primary agent.

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

A FRESH START ON CRAIG'S CASE

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

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

CLARIFICATION OF THE ONE-PARAGRAPH SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

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

HISTORICAL CLAIMS VS. HISTORICAL FACTS 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT DOES THE PHRASE "THE DATA" MEAN? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IF P, THEN Q. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE CORE ARGUMENT OF CRAIG'S CASE

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

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

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

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

THEREFORE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE CLARIFIED STATEMENT OF CRAIG'S CASE

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

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

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

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

THEREFORE:

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

THEREFORE:

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

 THEREFORE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

THEREFORE:

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

The conjunction asserted in premise (C) can then be combined with premise (1c) to form a straightforward modus ponens inference:

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

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

 THEREFORE:

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

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

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

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

THEREFORE: 

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

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

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

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

THEREFORE:

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

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

The Case Against the Swoon Theory by Kreeft and Tacelli - Part 1: Objections from the Gospel of John

In their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), the Christian philosophers Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli make a case for the resurrection of Jesus.  

Their case can be summarized in a brief two-premise argument:

1. IF Kreeft and Tacelli refuted the four alternative skeptical theories, THEN Kreeft and Tacelli have proved that the Christian Theory of the resurrection of Jesus is true (i.e., God raised Jesus from the dead).

2. Kreeft and Tacelli refuted (in HCA) the four alternative skeptical theories (i.e., the Swoon Theory, the Conspiracy Theory, the Hallucination Theory, and the Myth Theory).

THEREFORE:

3. Kreeft and Tacelli have proved that the Christian Theory of the resurrection of Jesus is true.  

Their case for the resurrection of Jesus fails completely because both premises of this argument are false.

The first premise is false because there are at least dozens of different skeptical theories about Jesus' final fate, not just four skeptical theories and the Christian Theory[1].  The second premise is false because their objections against the Swoon Theory are all weak and defective[2], as are their objections against the Conspiracy Theory[3], the Hallucination Theory[4], and the Myth Theory[5]. They failed to refute ANY of the four skeptical theories that they criticized in HCA.

Because both premises of their argument are clearly false, the case for the resurrection of Jesus put forward by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in HCA fails completely.

In this current post, I will summarize my criticism of four of the objections made by Kreeft and Tacelli against the Swoon Theory.  

OBJECTIONS BASED ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

I devoted Chapter 3 of my upcoming book (Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, Volume 1: The Failure of Peter Kreeft's Case) to an analysis and critical evaluation of four objections against the Swoon Theory from Kreeft and Tacelli in their book HCA:

Kreeft and Tacelli also raise other objections to the Swoon Theory, but these four are based on the Gospel of John, and these are the objections I will discuss in this current post.

Because I have carefully analyzed and evaluated these objections in my upcoming book, in this post, I will just summarize the problems I found with these four objections.

OBJECTION #2: BREAK THEIR LEGS

Here is how Kreeft and Tacelli state their second objection to the Swoon Theory:

The fact that the Roman soldier did not break Jesus’ legs, as he did to the other two crucified criminals (Jn 19:31-33), means that the soldier was sure Jesus was dead. Breaking the legs hastened the death so that the corpse could be taken down before the sabbath (v. 31). (HCA, p.183)

It is likely that the account of Roman soldiers breaking the legs of the other crucified men and not breaking Jesus' legs is unhistorical. Thus, the "Break Their Legs" objection is based on dubious historical claims:

• The Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus.[6]
• The Passion Narrative in the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the alleged arrest, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus.[7]
• Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John in particular provides a historically unreliable account of Jesus' alleged trial before Pilate, Jesus' crucifixion, and the burial of Jesus.[8]
• The author of the Gospel of John believed that the decision of the soldiers to not break Jesus' legs fulfilled an O.T. messianic prophecy (John 19:36), and this casts doubt on the historicity of that alleged event, because the prophecy might well have been the basis for the alleged event, rather than eyewitness testimony.

Furthermore, the Gospel of John differs from the other three Gospels in these relevant details:

• Only the Gospel of John reports that one of Jesus' disciples was "the beloved disciple" of Jesus (John 13:21-25 and John 19:26-27).
• Only the Gospel of John reports that "the beloved disciple" was present at Jesus' crucifixion to witness these alleged events (John 19:26-27).
• Only the Gospel of John reports that Jesus spoke to his mother and to one of his disciples from the cross (John 19:25-27).
• Only the Gospel of John reports that the Jewish leadership was concerned about the crucified men being left on their crosses over the Sabbath day (John 19:31).
• Only the Gospel of John reports that the Jewish leadership asked Pilate to order his soldiers to break the legs of the crucified men (John 19:31).
• Only the Gospel of John reports that the Roman soldiers broke the legs of some of the crucified men but not the legs of Jesus (John 19:32-33).

The inference from the dubious historical claims (about the breaking of the legs of the other crucified men and the decision of the Roman soldiers to not break Jesus' legs) to the conclusion that the soldiers were "sure Jesus was dead" is a dubious inference. If the soldiers were "sure Jesus was dead," then they would not have poked or stabbed Jesus in the side with a spear to check to see if he was alive (or to make sure that he would die from that wound), as reported by the Gospel of John.  

Finally, there was no modern scientific biology or scientific medicine two thousand years ago, and Roman soldiers were unaware of the basic facts of modern biology and medical science. They had no modern medical devices or equipment to check Jesus for signs of life.  Thus, the inference from the claim that the soldiers were "sure Jesus was dead" to the conclusion that Jesus was in fact dead, is also a dubious inference.

The "Break Their Legs" objection by Kreeft and Tacelli against the Swoon Theory clearly fails because it is based on  historical claims that are probably false, and because it is also based on at least two dubious inferences.

OBJECTION #3: BLOOD AND WATER

Here is how Kreeft and Tacelli state their third objection to the Swoon Theory:

John, an eyewitness, certified that he saw blood and water come from Jesus’ pierced heart (Jn 19:34-35). This shows that Jesus’ lungs had collapsed and he had died of asphyxiation.  Any medical expert can vouch for this.    (HCA, p. 183)

Like the "Break Their Legs" objection, this objection is based on historical claims that are probably false. All of the problems of historical unreliability with the Gospel of John mentioned concerning the "Break Their Legs" objection apply to this objection as well, including the fact that the author of the Gospel of John believed that the poking or stabbing of Jesus' side was predicted in an O.T. messianic prophecy (John 19:37).

Furthermore, the Gospel of John differs from the other Gospels in the previously mentioned ways, and also in these other relevant ways:

• Only the Gospel of John reports that a Roman soldier poked or stabbed Jesus in the side with a spear.
• Only the Gospel of John reports that Jesus had a wound in his side while he was on the cross.
• Only the Gospel of John reports that blood and water came from a wound in Jesus' side while he was on the cross.
• Only the Gospel of John reports that a disciple of Jesus saw a Roman soldier poke or stab Jesus' side with a spear while Jesus was on the cross.
• Only the Gospel of John reports that a disciple of Jesus saw blood and water come from a wound in Jesus' side while Jesus was on the cross.
• Only the Gospel of John reports that the risen Jesus had a wound in his side when he appeared to his disciples.
• Only the Gospel of John reports that the risen Jesus told his disciple Thomas to touch a wound in his side.

Each of these differences between the Gospel of John and the other three Gospels casts doubt on the historical claims that are the basis of the "Blood and Water" objection.

Also, it is simply false that "an eyewitness, certified that he saw blood and water come from Jesus’ pierced heart".  First, whether a clear liquid is water, and whether a reddish liquid is blood, cannot be determined merely by seeing these fluids.  Second, the Gospel of John says nothing about an eyewitness seeing liquids "come from Jesus' pierced heart".  It only claims that a disciple of Jesus saw liquids come out of a wound in Jesus' side. 

There are no details given in the Gospel of John about the precise location, width, depth, or shape of the wound in Jesus' side, so the assumption that Jesus' heart was pierced by the spear is speculation, not a fact.

Finally, it is false that "any medical expert can vouch for" the idea that blood and water flowing from a wound in Jesus' side "shows that...he [Jesus] had died of asphyxiation," because (a) one widely-read article about Jesus' death written by a medical doctor comments that this evidence shows that Jesus did NOT die of asphyxiation[9], and because (b) there are several different medical theories about what caused Jesus' death that have been put forward by different medical doctors.[10] The asphyxiation theory is just one of many medical theories about the cause of Jesus' death.  

The "Blood and Water" objection to the Swoon Theory by Kreeft and Tacelli clearly fails, because the historical claims it is based upon are probably false, and because the inference from those alleged historical facts to a particular medical theory (the asphyxiation theory) about Jesus' death is clearly a controversial and dubious inference.

OBJECTION #4: WINDING SHEETS AND ENTOMBMENT

******THIS POST IS STILL IN WORK*******

END NOTES

1. See Chapter 6 of my upcoming book, Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, Volume 1: The Failure of Peter Kreeft's Case.  Here is a DRAFT version of that chapter:

CHAPTER 6: More than Five Theories

2. For full details on the failure of Kreeft and Tacelli to refute the Swoon Theory, see Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of my upcoming book, Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, Volume 1: The Failure of Peter Kreeft's Case.  Here are DRAFT versions of those chapters:

CHAPTER 3: Objections to the Swoon Theory Based on John

CHAPTER 4: Objections to the Swoon Theory Based on Other Gospels

CHAPTER 5: Objections to the Swoon Theory NOT based on the Gospels

3. See my INDEX article with links to the fourteen blog posts I wrote defending the Conspiracy Theory against seven objections by Kreeft and Tacelli:

https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2019/06/defending-the-conspiracy-theory-index/

4. See my INDEX article with links to the forty-five blog posts I wrote defending the Hallucination Theory against fourteen objections by Kreeft and Tacelli:

https://tcaict.blogspot.com/2022/02/defending-hallucination-theory-summary.html

See also my INDEX article with links to the eleven blog posts I wrote defending the Hallucination Theory against seven objections by Josh McDowell:

https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2021/06/did-jesus-rise-from-the-dead-index/

5. See my blog post, “Defending the Myth Theory: COMPLETED“ at The Secular Frontier:

https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2022/04/defending-the-myth-theory-completed/

6. See page 62 of DRAFT Chapter 3 of my upcoming book:

CHAPTER 3: Objections to the Swoon Theory Based on John

For a more in-depth discussion, see my series of posts on the historical unreliability of the Gospel of John: 

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

7. See these posts related to the historical unreliability of the Passion Narrative in the Gospel of John: 

The Unreliability of the 4th Gospel – Part 6: One-On-One Dialogues 

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

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

8. See my post on the unreliability of Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John:

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

9. Dr. C. Truman Davis wrote this comment: 

The 34th verse of the 19th chapter of the Gospel according to John: “And immediately there came out blood and water”. Thus there was an escape of watery fluid from the sac surrounding the heart and blood from the interior of the heart. We, therefore, have rather conclusive post-mortem evidence that Our Lord died, not the usual crucifixion death by suffocation, but of heart failure due to shock and constriction of the heart by fluid in the pericardium.

This quote is from “The Passion of Christ from a Medical Point of View” by Dr. C. Truman Davis, in Arizona Medicine, March 1965. Here is a copy of that article:

https://www.dtodayarchive.org/images/file/Crucifixion_Medical.pdf

10. One review of relevant medical articles on this topic found that there have been at least nine different theories as to the cause of Jesus’ death, plus one medical doctor argued that Jesus did not die on the cross. See the table of different medical theories in this article: “Medical Theories on the Cause of Death in Crucifixion” by Matthew Maslen and Piers Mitchell, in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 99, April 2006, p.186.