The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Habermas & Licona - Part 2: The Conclusion of the Case

 CASES VS. ARGUMENTS

A case for the resurrection of Jesus is basically an argument for the resurrection of Jesus.  The difference between a case and an argument is that a case is a complex argument. The main thing that makes a case complex is that it involves arguments within an argument.  

A simple argument involves one or more premises and just one conclusion. The following argument has two premises and one conclusion:

1. Either the butler killed Mr. Smith or the maid killed Mr. Smith.

2. The maid did not kill Mr. Smith.

THEREFORE:

3. The butler killed Mr. Smith.

Suppose that a homicide detective presents this argument to the head of the detective department, and his boss asks, "How do you know that it must have been either the butler or the maid who killed Mr. Smith? What about the cook, a neighbor, or Mrs. Smith?" If the detective replies to this objection, the detective will probably give another argument:

4. Mr. Smith was stabbed to death in the dining room of his home.

5. Based on video evidence, the only other people in the house at the time of the killing were the butler and the maid.

THEREFORE:

1. Either the butler killed Mr. Smith or the maid killed Mr. Smith.

Now we have an argument for premise (1) of the original simple argument.  The detective's boss might also ask, "How do you know that the maid is not the killer?"  Again, the detective will probably reply by giving an argument for premise (2) of the original simple argument. The detective has now started building a case, a complex argument where the premises of a "core argument" are supported by other arguments.

Another complexity of cases is that they usually include replies to objections and objections to alternative views. A person making a case for a claim will usually present a positive case for the claim, and then also respond to anticipated objections to that claim, and reply to anticipated objections to the arguments in their positive case, and also raise objections to alternative views.  The combination of a positive case, replies to objections, and objections to alternative views constitutes a typical case for a claim. 

You can see this structure of cases in the first two volumes of Habermas's On the Resurrection series. Volume 1: Evidences presents a positive case for the resurrection of Jesus, and Volume 2: Refutations presents replies to objections and objections to alternative views.

 CLARITY IS A BASIC STANDARD OF CRITICAL THINKING

In order to think critically about a claim or belief or argument, one must continually strive to conform one's thinking to the standards of critical thinking.  One of the most basic and important standards is: CLARITY.  

Before one can critically evaluate a case or an argument, one must obtain a clear understanding of the case or argument: Don't criticize what you don't understand.  That is a fundamental principle of critical thinking.

There are two main kinds of clarification needed when one is analyzing a case or an argument: 

• clarification of vague or unclear words and phrases
• clarification of the logical structure of the case or argument

THE FIRST STEP IN CLARIFYING A CASE 

A case consists of more than one argument and more than one premise. Usually, a case, like an argument, will have just one conclusion. The first step of clarifying a case or an argument is to identify the statement or claim that is the conclusion of the case or argument.  That is a clarification of the logical structure.  Most of the statements or claims will be reasons or premises, and usually only one statement or claim will be the conclusion.

The second step of clarifying a case or an argument is to get a clear understanding of the meaning of the statement or claim that appears to be the conclusion.  This may require clarification of vague or unclear words and phrases in that statement or claim.  It is often necessary to revise the wording of the conclusion to make its intended meaning clear.

THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASE BY HABERMAS & LICONA

One clue about the conclusion of the case by Habermas and Licona is the title of their book:

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

Their case is in support of "the Resurrection of Jesus".  However, "the Resurrection of Jesus" is just a phrase; it is not a complete sentence.  A conclusion asserts a claim, and a claim is expressed by a complete sentence.  We need both a subject and a predicate in order to have a clearly expressed claim. 

But it is easy to see what they had in mind.  We can just add a couple of words to turn the phrase "the Resurrection of Jesus" into a complete sentence:

The resurrection of Jesus actually happened.

This is a claim, and this is the conclusion of their case. This statement or claim is not entirely clear, however, so we should look at other statements in their book to see if they provide a clearer statement of their conclusion.

Here are some quotes from their book that contain alternative statements of the above claim:

The message [of Paul in Romans 10:8-9] was that, in order to have eternal life, one must acknowledge and be committed to Jesus as the Son of God, the Sovereign over all things, and the Savior who died for us and was raised from the dead by God. (CRJ, page 26, emphasis added) 

The conclusion of their case, as indicated in the above quote is this: 

Jesus was raised from the dead by God.

;lakdjfa;sdlkfj 

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Habermas & Licona - Part 1: Introduction

According to the apostle Paul, whether one will live eternally in heaven depends on whether one believes that God raised Jesus from the dead (Romans 10:9). Paul also asserted this:

17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. (1 Corinthians 15:17-19)

The alleged death of Jesus on a cross, and his alleged resurrection a couple of days later, are the most important events in human history, from a Christian point of view. 

So, if it turns out that either (a) Jesus did not die on the cross, or (b) Jesus died on the cross but stayed dead, then the Christian faith is worthless, and Christian believers are to be pitied for foolishly believing in Jesus' alleged death and resurrection.

If you want to figure out whether Jesus actually rose from the dead, you should probably read and study some cases for the resurrection of Jesus written by leading Christian defenders of the resurrection of Jesus, and also read and study some well-informed skeptical views on this question.

The best case for the resurrection of Jesus currently available in the English language is presented by Dr. Gary Habermas in the first two volumes of his series On the Resurrection, Volume 1: Evidences, and Volume 2: Refutations.[1]  The first volume makes a positive case, and the second volume focuses on responses to skeptical objections, especially responses to alternative theories that attempt to explain the relevant historical evidence in terms of natural causes (by non-supernatural, non-miraculous explanations). 

However, On the Resurrection, Volume 1 is over a thousand pages! And On the Resurrection, Volume 2 is over 850 pages.  Most people are not going to read, study, and think critically about a case for the resurrection of Jesus that is nearly 2,000 pages long.

Fortunately, there is a shorter case for the resurrection of Jesus that was written by Gary Habermas along with another Christian scholar named Michael Licona.  So, you can get a good feel for the best case by Habermas by reading, studying, and thinking critically about The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, which is a little over 200 pages (not including a long Appendix and a long End Notes section).

For those who are unsure whether to invest the time and effort to read, study, and think critically about the 218-page case by Habermas and Licona, you can dip your toes in the water by continuing to read this series of articles, where I will summarize their case, and also present some skeptical objections and skeptical evaluations of it.

I will keep the total content of this series of blog posts to under 20 pages, so that readers can become acquainted with the best case for the resurrection of Jesus along with some skeptical comments and objections in about 1/10 the time and effort required to read and study The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, and about 1/100th the time and effort required to read and study the first two volumes of On the Resurrection.  

END NOTES

1. See my post on this at The Secular Frontier: Gary Habermas is the Leading Defender of the Resurrection of Jesus

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

WHERE WE ARE 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

In Part 34 of this series, I pointed out six serious problems with this point by Craig, that show that this point fails to provide significant support for his view that (HC3) is a historical fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.70 x .70 = .49

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

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

.80 x .80 = .64

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

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

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

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

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

.50 x .80 = .40

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

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

CRAIG'S RESPONSES TO SKEPTICAL OBJECTIONS

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

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

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

CONCLUSIONS

Craig failed to provide strong historical evidence for each of the eleven historical claims implied by (HC3) about the theological beliefs of each of the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus, which he needed to do in order to show that all eleven of those historical claims were historical facts. Furthermore, Craig made no attempt to provide specific historical evidence in support of ten of the eleven historical claims implied by (HC3).

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

P.S.

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

In the Gospel of Luke and in Acts, the name "Thaddeaus" is replaced in the lists of Jesus' twelve disciples by the name "Judas", an additional Judas besides Judas Iscariot. The traditional view is that "Thaddeaus" and "Judas" are two names for the same person. 

However, according to the prominent Jesus and NT scholar John Meier, there is no good reason to identify these as names of the same person: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHERE WE ARE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CRAIG SHOWED ZERO OF THE ELEVEN CLAIMS TO BE HISTORICAL FACTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT EVEN SKEPTICAL NEW TESTAMENT SCHOLARS ADMIT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TO BE CONTINUED...

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

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

WHERE WE ARE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In my estimation the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate. The inductive grounds for the inference of this explanation consists primarily in the evidence of three independently established facts: (1) the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers on the first day of the week following his crucifixion, (2) various individuals and groups thereafter experienced on different occasions and under varying circumstances appearances of Jesus alive, and (3) the first disciples came sincerely to believe in Jesus' resurrection... (RF3, page 360)

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESURRECTION MEANS "RAISED PHYSICALLY AND BODILY FROM THE DEAD"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In order to infer that "the disciples" (i.e. the twelve disciples minus Judas) would have KNOWN that the resurrection of Jesus did not take place if it had not actually occurred, one must assume that the "resurrection of Jesus" means a physical, bodily resurrection.  

The absence of a physical and bodily resurrection could be KNOWN by seeing the corpse of Jesus.  But in the case of a spiritual "resurrection", where Jesus continues to be alive while his body remains dead, the twelve disciples would have no way to disconfirm such an alleged resurrection.  The presense of Jesus' dead body would NOT count as disproof of a spiritual "resurrection" of Jesus.

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

CONCLUSION

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

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