THE CORE ARGUMENT OF CRAIG'S CASE
The core argument in Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus in his book Reasonable Faith (3rd edition, hereafter: RF3) is a sub-argument in support of the key premise (B):
1c. IF Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts and no plausible natural explanation can account for them as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead", THEN the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the most plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts.
C. Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts AND no plausible natural explanation can account for Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead."
THEREFORE:
B. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the most plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts.
In Part 24 of this series (see the section called: "THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (B) IS UNSOUND"), I showed that premise (1c) is false, and that means this sub-argument for the key premise (B) is unsound. This gave us a very good reason to conclude that William Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.
In order to evaluate premise (C), we needed to critically examine the sub-argument for that premise:
2. Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts.
A1. No plausible natural explanation can account for Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead."
THEREFORE:
C. Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts AND no plausible natural explanation can account for Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead."
Craig put forward two lines of evidence in support of his view that his second key historical claim, namely (HC2), could be shown to be a historical fact. But both those lines of evidence failed to provide significant support for (HC2) being a historical fact.[1]
The failure of both of those lines of evidence gave us a very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, which means we have a very good reason to believe that premise (C) is false (since (C) asserts that (2) is true), which means we have a second very good reason to believe that the core argument in Craig's case is unsound. Therefore, we have a very good fifth reason to conclude that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.
CRAIG'S THIRD KEY HISTORICAL CLAIM
Craig's case rests on three key historical claims. If any of those three key claims cannot be shown to be a historical fact, then premise (2) is false, and premise (C) is false, and the core argument of Craig's case is unsound, meaning that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.
We already have a very good reason to believe that premise (C) is false, because Craig's attempts to show that (HC2) is a historical fact failed. If Craig's attempt to show that his third key historical claim is a historical fact also fails, then that will give us another good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, and another good reason to believe that premise (C) is false, and another good reason to conclude that the core argument of Craig's case is unsound, meaning that we will have yet another good reason to conclude that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.
Here is the third key historical claim that is part of the foundation of Craig's case:
HC3: The first disciples came sincerely to believe in Jesus' resurrection.
Note that for (HC3) I removed a qualification from the end of the sentence: "...in the absence of sufficient antecedent historical influences from either Judaism or pagan religions." I explain and justify this modification of Craig's third historical claim in Part 25 of this series. In short, Craig has confused his attempt to demonstrate a key historical fact with showing the significance of that fact in terms of its relevance to the alleged resurrection of Jesus.
Craig shot himself in the foot by adding the qualification to his third historical claim. Removing that qualification helps his case by making it much easier for Craig to show that (HC3) is a historical fact.
WHAT DOES "THE FIRST DISCIPLES" MEAN?
Before we can rationally evaluate (HC3), we need to have a clear understanding of what it means. The subject of this sentence is somewhat unclear, so we need to clarify what it means in order to be in a position to evaluate this claim.
First, the term "disciples" can be used in a very broad way. It basically means "students". So, "disciples of Jesus" means "students of Jesus". But Jesus was not a school teacher or a tutor. He was a Jewish religious preacher and teacher. So, to be a "student of Jesus" was to be a follower of the religious and ethical teachings of Jesus. In this broad sense, anyone who claims to be a Christian, claims to be a "disciple" or follower of Jesus.
This broad sense of the word "disciple" is clearly seen in the famous "Great Commission" passage at the end of the Gospel of Matthew:
16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him, but they doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. (Matthew 28:16-20, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)
So, the term "disciple" can refer to any Christian in any country and in any century.
Craig has, however, qualified the term "disciples" with the prior phrase "The first..." This narrows the reference down a bit, but still leaves the subject of his key claim open to a variety of interpretations:
Group 1: the people who began following Jesus face-to-face during Jesus' public ministry
Group 2: the twelve disciples of Jesus (minus Judas Iscariot), who were chosen by Jesus to be part of an inner circle of his followers
Group 3: the people in (Group 2) plus people who were followers of Jesus during his public ministry AND who in the days and weeks immediately following the crucifixion of Jesus came to believe God had raised Jesus from the dead and that Jesus was the Messiah
Group 4: the people in (Group 3) plus other people who had NOT been followers of Jesus during his public ministry AND who in the days and weeks immediately following the crucifixion of Jesus came to believe God had raised Jesus from the dead and that Jesus was the Messiah
Group 5: the people in (Group 4) plus other people who had NOT been followers of Jesus during his public ministry AND who in the days and weeks immediately following the crucifixion of Jesus did NOT come to believe God had raised Jesus from the dead and that Jesus was the Messiah, but who in the months and years later in the first century came to believe God had raised Jesus from the dead and that Jesus was the Messiah
Although Craig does not define what he means by the phrase "the disciples" or by the phrase "the first disciples" he does use the phrase "the disciples" frequently in Chapter 8 of RF3, where he presents his case for the resurrection of Jesus. So, there are many clues about what Craig means by that phrase.
"THE DISCIPLES" MEANS "THE APOSTLES"
At the beginning of Chapter 8, Craig devotes several pages (about 15 pages) to a discussion of "the historical apologetic for the resurrection" or "the traditional apologetic". The phrase "the disciples" occurs frequently in that opening portion of Chapter 8.
Craig often uses the phrase "the disciples" interchangeably with the phrase "the apostles":
- RF3, page 334 ("the apostolic authorship" followed by "written by the disciples"),
- RF3, page 335,
- RF3, page 336 ("the disciples" followed by "the original apostles"),
- RF3, page 337,
- RF3, page 338,
- RF3, page 339 ("the disciples" on page 338, followed by "those first apostles" on page 339, and "the disciples" followed by "these early apostles"),
- RF3, page 340,
- RF3, page 341 (where "the disciples" repeatedly refers back to "the apostles" on page 340),
- RF3, page 342 (where "the apostles" refers back to "the disciples" mentioned on page 341)
In Chapter 8 of RF3, Craig also provides a number of characterizations of "the disciples" and "the apostles" that indicate what he means by these phrases.
"THE FIRST DISCIPLES" WERE FIRST-CENTURY PALESTINIAN JEWS
When Craig initially discusses the Conspiracy Hypothesis, which claims that "the disciples stole the body of Jesus and lied about his postmortem experience, thus faking the resurrection" (RF3, page 371), he assumes that "the disciples" had certain characteristics:
...the overriding problem [with the Conspiracy Hypothesis] is the anachronism of first-century Jews' intending to hoax Jesus' resurrection. (RF3, page 372, emphasis added)
Craig's objection to the Conspiracy Hypothesis assumes that "the disciples" were first-century Jews.
When Craig criticizes the Wrong Tomb Hypothesis, he also bases his objection on the same assumption about "the disciples":
It is also anacrhonistic in its explanation of the origin of the disciples' belief in Jesus resurrection. Merely going to the wrong tomb and seeing a man there telling them that Jesus is not there would hardly lead a first-century Jew to conclude that Jesus was risen from the dead... (RF3, pages 374 to 375, emphasis added)
This objection only works if one assumes that "the disciples" were first-century Jews.
When discussing the significance of (HC3), in RF3 pages 390 to 395, Craig considers the alternative views that "the disciples" got the idea of the resurrection of Jesus from Christian influences, or Jewish influences, or from pagan influences, as opposed to Craig's view that "the disciples" got this idea from experiencing the risen Jesus.
When discussing this subject, Craig makes the following assertion:
Jesus and his disciples were first-century Palestinian Jews... (RF3, page 391)
Because this is part of Craig's discussion of the significance of (HC3), we may reasonably infer that this statement applies to the subject of that key historical claim:
HC3: The first disciples came sincerely to believe in Jesus' resurrection.
Thus, we may reasonably infer that the scope of "The first disciples" is restricted to "first-century Palestinian Jews".
The phrase "The first disciples" excludes second-century (and later) followers of Jesus, and it excludes non-Jews who were followers of Jesus, and it excludes followers of Jesus who lived outside of Palestine.
"THE FIRST DISCIPLES" WERE A GROUP OF MEN
Clearly, there were followers of Jesus who were "first-century Palestinian Jews" who were women, but there are a number of statements in Chapter 8 of RF3 where Craig indicates that "the disciples" refers to a group of men.
Craig quotes from William Paley's defense of the reliability of the Gospels:
Since...the accounts of the Gospels do stem from their apostolic authors, Paley concludes, then the story [about the resurrection of Jesus] must be true. For the apostles could not be deceivers. He asks:
Would men in such circumstances pretend to have seen what they never saw; assert facts which they had not knowledge of, go about lying to teach virtue...
(RF3, page 340, emphasis added)
Craig is talking about "the apostles" which is a phrase he uses interchangably with "the disciples", and he quotes Paley who is taling about a group of "men". This is an indication that the phrase "the disciples," as used by Craig, refers to a group of men.
Craig also refers to a claim made by another traditional historical Christian apologist about "the disciples":
A second popular argument against the disciples being deceivers was that their character precludes their being liars. Humphrey Ditton observes that the apostles were simple, common men, not cunning deceivers. They were men of unquestioned moral integrity... (RF3, page 340, emphasis added)
Again, Craig here refers to "the disciples" and "the apostles" as being "common men" and "men of unquestioned moral integrity". This is another indication that the phrase "The first disciples" refers to a group of men.
Continuing his discussion about the skeptical view that "the disciples" were deceivers, Craig again refers to "the disciples" as being men:
In the light of their character so described, asks Ditton, why not believe the testimony of these men? (RF3, page 341)
Craig also mentions an argument by another traditional historical apologist, Jacob Vernet, against the idea that "the disciples" were deceivers who took part in a conspiracy about the resurrection of Jesus:
Vernet thinks it inconceivable that one of the disciples should suggest to the others that they say Jesus was risen when both he and they knew the precise opposite to be true. How could he possibly rally his bewildered colleagues into so detestable a project? And are we then to believe that these men would stand before judges declaring the truth of this product of their imaginations? (RF3, page 341)
Craig here refers to an arbitrary "one of the disciples" using the masculine pronoun "he" and Craig refers to "the disciples" in general as "these men". This is another indication that Craig understands the phrase "The first disciples" in (HC3) to be a group of men.
It is also significant to note that Craig distinguishes the women who were followers of Jesus, and who allegedly discovered Jesus' tomb to be empty, from "the disciples":
Mark...foreshadows appearances of Jesus to the disciples in Galilee when the women are commanded to tell the disciples that they will see Jesus. When Mark says, "They said nothing to anyone" (Mark 16:8), he obviously means "as they fled back to the disciples." (RF3, page 368, emphasis added)
Some scholars have said the men were not available [to check on Jesus' tomb] because they had all fled. Such a claim is wholly unconvincing, since it depends on the implausible hypothesis that the disciples, fleeing from the garden [where Jesus was arrested], returned all the way back to Galilee... (RF3, page 368, emphasis added)
If the disciples stole Jesus' corpse, then it would be utterly daft to fabricate a story of women's finding the tomb to be empty. Such a story would not be the sort of tale Jewish men would invent. (RF3, page 371)
After their initial fright [about not finding Jesus in his tomb], wouldn't the women have attempted to retrace their steps by the light of day? Certainly the disciples themselves would have wanted to verify the empty tomb. (RF3, page 375, emphasis added)
Although Craig knew that there were women who were followers of Jesus, he generally avoids calling these women "disciples", presumably because he typically uses the phrase "the disciples" to refer to a group of men (at least in Chapter 8 of RF3):
(1) the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers... (RF3, page 360, emphasis added)
...the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers... (RF3, page 361, emphasis added)
...Jesus' tomb was indeed found empty on the first day of the week by a group of his women followers. (RF3, page 370, emphasis added)
...the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers. (RF3, page 395, emphasis added)
Thus, it is clear that Craig uses the phrase "The first disciples" in (HC3) to refer to a group of men.
"THE FIRST DISCIPLES" REFERS TO PEOPLE WHO WERE ALREADY FOLLOWERS OF JESUS WHEN HE WAS CRUCIFIED
We can also narrow down the time frame for "The first disciples" because in Chapter 8 of RF3, Craig uses the phrases "the disciples" and "the apostles" to refer to people who were already followers of Jesus when Jesus was crucified.
For example, when Craig discusses William Paley's response to the skeptical view that "the disciples" were deceivers, there are clear time frame indications:
But it is equally incredible to suppose the disciples could have stolen the body and perpetrated a hoax. Furthermore, it would have been impossible for Christianity to come into being in Jerusalem if Jesus' body were still in the grave. The Jewish authorities could certainly have produced it as the shortest and completest answer to the whole affair. But all they could do was claim that the disciples had stolen the body. (RF3, page 338, emphasis added)
In order for "the disciples" to have stolen the body of Jesus from the tomb where Jesus' body had been placed, so that the tomb was empty a few days after Jesus had been crucified, "the disciples" must have already been followers of Jesus at the time Jesus was crucified.
If "the disciples" were not yet followers of Jesus at the time Jesus was crucified, they would have had no reason to steal the body of Jesus from the tomb. Thus, in order for the Jewish authorities to claim (with any plausibility) that "the disciples" had "stolen the body" of Jesus, the Jewish authorities must have known that "the disciples" were already followers of Jesus at the time Jesus was crucified.
In a remark about the skeptical view about the disciples being deceptive, Craig implies that the disciples saw various events in Jesus' ministry:
...the first horn of the dilemma: that the disciples were deceivers. This alternative encompasses any hypothesis holding that the disciples knew that the miracles and resurrection of Jesus did not take place, but that they nevertheless claimed what they did. (RF3, page 338)
The only way that "the disciples" could KNOW that the alleged miracles of Jesus and the alleged resurrection of Jesus did not take place, would be if "the disciples" were people who travelled around with Jesus during his ministry, and who were hanging around Jesus in Jerusalem around the time when Jesus was crucified. This implies that "the disciples" were followers of Jesus before he was crucified.
Craig mentions an objection by Jacob Vernet about the skeptical view that "the disciples" engaged in a conspiracy to trick others to believe in the resurrection of Jesus:
Vernet thinks it inconceivable that one of the disciples should suggest to the others that they say Jesus was risen when both he and they knew the precise opposite to be true. (RF3, page 341, emphasis added)
Again, in order to KNOW that Jesus had NOT risen from the dead, "the disciples" must have been associating with Jesus in Jerusalem during the week that Jesus was crucified. This strongly suggests that "the disciples" were already followers of Jesus before Jesus was crucified.
Craig mentions an argument by Gottfried Less about how "the disciples" were preaching about the resurrection of Jesus shortly after the crucifixion:
The fact that the disciples were able to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem in the face of their enemies a few weeks after the crucifixion shows what they proclaimed was true, for they could never have proclaimed the resurrection under such circumstances had it not occurred. (RF3, page 341, emphasis added)
If "the disciples" were preaching the resurrection of Jesus so soon after Jesus had been crucified, that strongly suggests that "the disciples" were already followers of Jesus at the time that Jesus was crucified.
Craig mentions the skeptical views of Hermann Samuel Reimarus about "the disciples" being deceivers. Of course, Craig disagrees with the idea that "the disciples" lied about Jesus rising from the dead, but Craig does not raise an objection to an important assumption of Reimarus skeptical viewpoint:
But the disciples stole Jesus corpse and spread the story of Jesus' resurrection, touting him as a spiritual Messiah so that they could continue to the easy life of preaching that they had enjoyed with Jesus while he was alive.
Although Craig would probably object that the "life of preaching...with Jesus while he was alive" was NOT an easy life, Craig does not balk at the assumption here that "the disciples" were engaged in preaching with Jesus "while he was alive" (i.e. before Jesus was crucified). This implies that "the disciples" were already followers of Jesus before Jesus was crucified.
CONCLUSIONS
In view of the various comments by Craig about "the disciples" in Chapter 8 of RF3, the following are implications of the phrase "The first disciples" in the subject of Craig's third historical claim (HC3):
- they were apostles
- they were first-century Palestinian Jews
- they were a group of men
- they were already followers of Jesus at the time Jesus was crucified
Based on these characteristics, it seems very likely that what Craig means by "The first disciples" is the twelve disciples of Jesus (minus Judas Iscariot) who Jesus had personally selected to be in his inner circle of followers.
This is (Group 2) of the five alternative possible interpretations that I spelled out earlier in this post:
Group 2: the twelve disciples of Jesus (minus Judas Iscariot), who were chosen by Jesus to be part of an inner circle of his followers
This interpretation of the subject of (HC3) is further confirmed by this comment by Craig about an argument from Jacob Vernet on the origin of Christianity:
Suppose, Vernet suggests, that no resurrection or miracles occurred: how then could a dozen men, poor, coarse, and apprehensive, turn the world upside down?...Because such a scenario is simply unbelievable, the message of the apostles, which gave birth to Christianity, must be true. (RF3, page 342)
Craig uses "the apostles" interchangeably with "the disciples", so this remark about "a dozen men" who were "the apostles" with a message that "gave birth to Christianity" implies that "the disciples" were a group of "a dozen men" who were followers of Jesus. This comment implies that "the disciples" are basically the twelve disciples of Jesus (minus Judas Iscariot), as specified in (Group 2).
We can now revise (HC3) to make the subject of the claim significantly clearer:
HC3a: The twelve disciples of Jesus (minus Judas Iscariot), who were chosen by Jesus to be part of an inner circle of his followers, came sincerely to believe in Jesus' resurrection.
END NOTES
1. The main evidence presented by Craig in an attempt to show that (HC2) is a historical fact is his first line of evidence, which consists of six examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus that are mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians (Chapter 15:3-8):
- Appearance to Peter
- Appearance to the Twelve
- Appearance to five hundred brethren
- Appearance to James (Jesus' brother)
- Appearance to "all the apostles."
- Appearance to Saul of Tarsus (i.e., Paul)
I critically examined the alleged appearance to the Twelve in Part 25, the alleged appearance to Peter in Part 26, the alleged appearances to five hundred brethren, to James (Jesus' brother), and to "all the apostles" in Part 27, and the alleged appearance to Saul/Paul in Part 28. I have shown that these examples do not provide significant support for the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact. This gave us a good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, which gave us a good reason to believe that premise (C) is false.
Craig provides four examples in his second line of evidence (RF3, page 381):
- The appearance to Peter
- The appearance to the Twelve
- The appearance to the women disciples
- That Jesus appeared to his disciples in Galilee
In Part 29 of this series, I have shown that these examples do not provide significant support for the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact. Because both of Craig's lines of evidence fail to provide significant support for the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact, we have a very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false.
