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

THE CORE ARGUMENT OF CRAIG'S CASE

The core argument in Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus in his book Reasonable Faith (3rd edition, hereafter: RF3) is a sub-argument in support of the key premise (B):

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

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

THEREFORE:

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

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

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

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

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

THEREFORE:

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

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

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

CRAIG'S THIRD KEY HISTORICAL CLAIM

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

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

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

HC3: The first disciples of Jesus 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 OF JESUS" 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 phrase "disciples of Jesus" 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 of Jesus" or by the phrase "the first disciples of Jesus" 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 OF JESUS" 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 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 of Jesus came sincerely to believe in Jesus' resurrection.

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

The phrase "The first disciples of Jesus" 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 OF JESUS" 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 of Jesus" 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 of Jesus" 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 of Jesus" in (HC3) to refer to a group of men.

"THE FIRST DISCIPLES OF JESUS" 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 of Jesus" 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 who 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 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 viewpoint, 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.

Craig might 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

The following are implications of the phrase "The first disciples of Jesus" 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 of Jesus" 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 supported 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).

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.

William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 31: Physical, Bodily Appearances

 WHERE WE ARE

In Part 24 of this series, I gave three good reasons for the conclusion that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus was Dead on Arrival, and thus three good reasons to conclude that Craig's case fails.

In Part 30 of this series, I showed that there is a fourth good reason for concluding that Craig's case was Dead on Arrival. The problem is that the three key historical claims that are the foundation of Craig's case are missing a crucial historical claim, and this dooms his case to failure. The missing crucial historical claim is this:

(HC4) Jesus died on the cross.

Without establishing Jesus' death on the cross, Craig has no hope of establishing that Jesus rose from the dead after his crucifixion. Death is a prerequisite for resurrection.

So, there are at least four good reasons for the conclusion that Craig's case was Dead On Arrival, and at least four good reasons to conclude that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

Craig presents two main lines of evidence in support of his claim that (HC2), the most important historical claim in his case, is a historical fact:

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. 

The first line of evidence consists of six alleged examples of appearances of the risen Jesus that are mentioned by Paul in his letter 1 Corinthians (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.

Because NONE of those six examples provided significant support for Craig's claim that (HC2) is a historical fact, Craig's first line of evidence fails to show that (HC2) is a historical fact. The failure of this attempt by Craig to establish (HC2) as a historical fact gives us a good reason to believe that premise (2) is false:

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

Because premise (C) asserts that premise (2) is true, we also have a good reason to believe that premise (C) is false. Premise (C) is a premise in the core argument of Craig's case, so this gives us a second good reason to reject the core argument in Craig's case[1], and a fifth good reason to conclude that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

Craig's second line of evidence in support of his claim that (HC2) is a historical fact consists of four examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus: (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 showed that NONE of these four examples provides significant support for (HC2) being a historical fact. Because Craig's second line of evidence in support of (HC2) being a historical fact fails, we have a second good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, and thus we have a very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false (both of his attempts to show that (HC2) is a historical fact failed).

This gives us a very good reason to believe that premise (C) is false, and thus we now have a second very good reason to believe that the core argument of Craig's case is unsound. Because we have a very good reason to believe that the core argument of Craig's case is unsound, our fifth good reason to conclude that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails is a very good reason.

CRAIG'S THIRD LINE OF EVIDENCE ABOUT ALLEGED APPEARANCES

I have shown that Craig's first and second lines of evidence for his claim that (HC2) is a historical fact fail to provide a single example of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus that provides significant support for this claim. However, Craig has a third line of evidence about the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus.

The third line of evidence does not attempt to show that (HC2) is a historical fact. So, the third line of evidence is not relevant to the question of the truth or falsehood of premise (2). The point of Craig's third line of evidence is to argue that the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus were of a certain nature:

3) The resurrection appearances were physical, bodily appearances. (RF3, page 382)

 Craig acknowledges that this is a different issue from whether the alleged appearances actually happened:

So far the evidence I've presented does not depend on the nature of the post-mortem appearances of Jesus. I've left it open whether they were visionary or physical in nature. (RF3, page 382)

It is important to Craig to show that not only was Jesus alive again on Easter Sunday, but that God had raised Jesus from the dead with a physical and immortal body.

However, because (HC2) does not assert or imply that Jesus was raised with a physical and immortal body, Craig's third line of evidence is irrelevant to the question of whether (HC2) is a historical fact.  

Thus, only Craig's first and second lines of evidence concerning the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus are relevant to determining whether (HC2) is a historical fact.  Therefore, the failure of Craig's first two lines of evidence provides us with a very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, and that premise (C) is false, and that the core argument of 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. 

END NOTES

1. In Part 24, I showed that premise (1c) is false, which gave us a very good reason to reject the core argument of Craig's case.

William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 30: A Fourth Reason Why Craig's Case is DOA

WHERE WE ARE

In Part 24 of this series, I gave three good reasons for the conclusion that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus was Dead On Arrival.  I used that blog post as a main source of material for the DRAFT Chapter 3 of Volume 3 of my upcoming series of books on the resurrection. While writing that DRAFT Chapter 3, I came up with a fourth good reason for the conclusion that Craig's case was Dead On Arrival.[1] In this post, I will present the fourth good reason why Craig's case is DOA.

CRAIG’S THREE KEY HISTORICAL CLAIMS

Craig’s case is based on a foundation of three key historical claims:

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

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

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

In Part 25 of this series, I argued that (HC2) was the most important historical claim of these three claims.

A CRUCIAL MISSING HISTORICAL CLAIM

Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that these three claims are historical facts, there is a crucial historical claim that is missing here: 

HC4: Jesus died on the cross.

This is a serious problem with Craig’s case. Unlike other Christian philosophers and apologists, Craig fails to understand that this historical claim is crucial to any case for the resurrection of Jesus.

OTHER APOLOGISTS UNDERSTAND THAT (HC4) IS CRUCIAL

The Christian philosophers and apologists Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks understand how crucial this historical claim is to making a case for the resurrection of Jesus:

Before we can show that Jesus rose from the dead, we need to show that He really did die. The Koran claims that Jesus only pretended to be dead (Surah IV:157), and many skeptics have said that He appeared to be dead, possibly being drugged, but revived while in the tomb.  It is no miracle for a live man to walk out of a tomb. For the Resurrection to have any significance, Jesus had to be dead first.[2]

The Christian apologists Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, who are leaders on the issue of the resurrection of Jesus, appear to agree with Geisler and Brooks on this point. Habermas and Licona present a case for the resurrection of Jesus that is similar to Craig’s case, because their case is based on just five historical claims that they argue are historical facts.  The very first historical claim in their set of five claims is this:

The first fact: Jesus died by crucifixion.[3]

Because Habermas and Licona base their case on just five historical claims, and because their very first historical claim is about the death of Jesus by crucifixion, it is clear that they view this historical claim as being crucial for their case.

Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell are two well-known Christian apologists, and although they do not limit their case for the resurrection to just a handful of historical claims (the way that Habermas, Licona, and Craig do), it is clear that they view the death of Jesus on the cross as crucial to their case for the resurrection of Jesus:

So in this chapter, we will look at the events surrounding the death of Christ and special precautions taken by those who crucified him to ensure that his death was accomplished. As we will see, ascertaining the historical fact of his death is a prerequisite to our conviction about his resurrection.[4]

Norman Geisler, Ronald Brooks, Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, Josh McDowell, and Sean McDowell all understand that the historical claim that Jesus died on the cross is a crucial historical claim needed for any plausible case for the resurrection of Jesus. 

But William Craig does NOT understand this basic point, and as a result, he fails to include (HC4) as part of the historical foundation of his case. The absence of (HC4) from Craig’s key historical claims gives us a fourth good reason to conclude that his case is Dead On Arrival, and to conclude that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

END NOTES

1. Volume 3 is called: Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, Volume 3: The Failure of William Craig's Case. Chapter 3 of that volume is called "Craig's Case is Dead On Arrival". You can get a copy of the DRAFT of Chapter 3 of Volume 3 here: https://thinkingcriticallyabout.podbean.com/e/craigs-case-is-dead-on-arrival/ 

2. Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks, When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990), page 120.

3. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), page 48.

4. Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence for the Resurrection (Ventura, CA: Regal, 2009), page 159.

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 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 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 three good reasons that I gave in Part 24 and a fourth good reason that I present in Part 30).

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 case 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 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)

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 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

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.

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 along with "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 being 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.

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 New Testament scholars now believe that the Gospel of John sometimes borrows 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, or is dependent on, 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 somewhere 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.

If you stop for just a minute or two and actually read the passages that Craig mentions (i.e. Mark 16:7, Matthew 28:16-17; John 21), it is obvious that those passages are talking about different alleged events. 

Let's start with the passage from the Gospel of Mark:

5 As they [Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome] entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. 6 But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you." (Mark 16:5-7, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

First this is only a prediction that an appearance of the risen Jesus will happen sometime in the future, somewhere in Galilee.  No specific location is mentioned, and no specific time or date is mentioned.  There is no indication whether the predicted appearance of Jesus will be experienced by individual disciples or by a group of disciples. There is no description of the circumstances in which this experience (or these experiences) will occur. There is no indication of whether this appearance of the risen Jesus would last for a few seconds, a few minutes, or a few hours.

The only thing we can infer from this passage in the Gospel of Mark is that the author of this gospel believed that some sort of experience of the risen Jesus had occurred to some of Jesus' disciples at some point in time (a week or more after the crucifixion) in some location or other in the general area of Galilee.  Because there are no details, we simply cannot match this vague belief of the author of the Gospel of Mark with any specific alleged appearance of the risen Jesus.

The passage that Craig mentions from the Gospel of Matthew has more details:

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... (Matthew 28:16-19, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

This passage specifies that the appearance took place on a "mountain" in Galilee and that this was a group experience that happened to "the eleven disciples" (i.e. the Twelve disciples minus Judas Iscariot). The experience presumably lasted for at least one minute, possibly for several minutes, given the events that took place. Given these details, we can determine whether some other Gospel account of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus matches up with this one.

However, it is these very details in Chapter 28 of the Gospel of Matthew that clearly show that the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus in Galilee described in Chapter 21 of the Gospel of John is a different event:

1 After these things Jesus showed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias, and he showed himself in this way. 2 Gathered there together were Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples. 3 Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.” They said to him, “We will go with you.” They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing. 

 4 Just after daybreak, Jesus stood on the beach, but the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. 5 Jesus said to them, “Children, you have no fish, have you?” They answered him, “No.” 6 He said to them, “Cast the net to the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul it in because there were so many fish. 7 That disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment, for he had taken it off, and jumped into the sea. 8 But the other disciples came in the boat, dragging the net full of fish, for they were not far from the land, only about a hundred yards off.

9 When they had gone ashore, they saw a charcoal fire there, with fish on it, and bread. 10 Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish that you have just caught.” 11 So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, a hundred fifty-three of them, and though there were so many, the net was not torn. 12 Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” Now none of the disciples dared to ask him, “Who are you?” because they knew it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them and did the same with the fish. (John 21: 1-13, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

There are plenty of details in this appearance story.  Seven disciples are involved, NOT the eleven disciples mentioned in the appearance story from Chapter 28 of the Gospel of Matthew.  The appearance takes place on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias (also known as the Sea of Galilee), NOT on a mountain in Galilee.  Jesus feeds the disciples breakfast, and there is no mention of this in the appearance story in Chapter 28 of the Gospel of Matthew. In the alleged appearance by the Sea of Galilee, Jesus does not issue a general command for the disciples to go out "make disciples of all nations" or any other such general commands or guidance, as Jesus does in the appearance story in Chapter 28 of the Gospel of Matthew.

Clearly, the alleged appearance of Jesus in Chapter 28 of the Gospel of Matthew is a different event than the alleged appearance of Jesus in Chapter 21 of the Gospel of John.  The number of disciples is different; the location is different; the ideas communicated by Jesus are different.  The events described in Chapter 21 of the Gospel of John would probably have taken about an hour or two, while the events described in Chapter 28 of the Gospel of Matthew could have lasted for as little as five minutes.   

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 support any specific event, 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 and that occurred sometime after Jesus was crucified under some sort of circumstances or other. 

Let's grant this vague historical 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...experienced on different occasions and under varying circumstances appearances of Jesus alive. (RF3, page 360)  

Without 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.   

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)[7], and 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 alleged 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. 

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 for decades, and who has published books and articles arguing in support of the resurrection of Jesus for decades (at the time RF3 was published), his failure to come up with a single solid 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 second and a very good reason to believe that the core argument of Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus is an unsound argument, and thus we should reject that core argument.  We now have a fifth and a very good 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.

7. Craig's second line of evidence was supposed to consist of examples where we can:

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

Such an inference was 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.