THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (B)
In Part 24 of this series, I argued that the sub-argument for the key premise (B) in Craig's case was dubious because it contains a dubious premise:
1c. IF Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts and no plausible nautural explanation can account for them as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead", THEN the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the most plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts.
C. Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts AND no plausible nautural explanation can account for Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead."
THEREFORE:
B. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the most plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts.
I argued that premise (1c) is dubious because it is based on a False Dilemma. Craig failed to take into account other supernatural hypotheses besides the one he favors: "God raised Jesus from the dead." Furthermore, premise (1c) might be simply false if I am correct that there are other supernatural hypotheses that provide explanations of Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts that are more plausible than the the explanation provided by the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead." Premise (1c) would also be false if, contrary to Craig's view, some natural hypotheses can account for his three key historical claims/facts as well as, or better than, the "God raised Jesus from the dead" miracle hypothesis.
I also suspect that premise (C) is dubious or false, because I have doubts about both of the claims asserted by premise (C). If premise (C) is dubious or false, then that will give us another good reason to reject Craig's sub-argument for premise (B), and further confirmation that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.
THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (C)
Here is the sub-argument that supports premise (C):
2. Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts.
A1. No plausible nautural explanation can account for Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead."
THEREFORE:
C. Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts AND no plausible nautural explanation can account for Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead."
I suspect that premise (2) is false. If I am correct, then this sub-argument for premise (C) is unsound, and Craig has failed to give us a good reason to believe that premise (C) is true.
Furthermore, since premise (C) is the conjunction of both premise (2) and premise (A1), the falsehood of premise (2) would imply that premise (C) is itself false. And if premise (C) is false, then Craig's sub-argument for the key premise (B) would be an unsound argument, and we would have another good reason to reject Craig's sub-argument for (B), and we would have further confirmation that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.
CRAIG'S THREE KEY HISTORICAL CLAIMS
Before we can determine whether premise (C) is true or false, probable or improbable, we need to figure out precisely what the phrase "Craig's three key historical claims" means.
In the second paragraph of the longer summary of his case, Craig spells out the three key historical claims that he uses to show that the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" provides the best explanation of the evidence relevant to Jesus' final fate:
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 consist primarily of 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 appearrances of Jesus alive, and (3) the first disciples came sincerely to believe in Jesus' resurrection in the absence of sufficient antecedent historical influences from either Judaism or pagan religions. ... (Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed., p.360)
In the context of this paragraph, the phrase "Craig's three key historical claims" refers to the following three historical claims that are asserted in the above quotation:
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.
Note that for (HC3) I removed this qualification from the end of the sentence: "...in the absence of sufficient antecedent historical influences from either Judaism or pagan religions."
Craig has confused his relevant historical claim with his argument about the significance of that alleged fact, but those two ideas should be kept separate and distinct. Craig has an argument against some possible natural explanations of WHY the first disciples of Jesus came sincerely to believe in Jesus' resurrection, but that is a separate issue from WHETHER the first disciples of Jesus came to sincerely believe in Jesus' resurrection. Craig muddied the water by combining those two different issues together into a single statement.
In terms of (HC1) and (HC2), Craig keeps the issue of WHETHER those key historical claims are established facts separate and distinct from the issue of WHY those facts are what they are. But with (HC3) Craig anxiously jumps the gun and launches into the question of WHY the first disciples of Jesus came to sincerely believe in Jesus' resurrection, before he had properly dealt with the question of WHETHER it is an established fact that the first disciples of Jesus came to sincerely believe in Jesus' resurrection. This is confused and unclear thinking. So, I have clarified Craig's reasoning by keeping these two different issues separate and distinct.
This does not in any way prevent Craig from putting forward his arguments about WHY the first disciples of Jesus came to sincerely believe in Jesus' resurrection. But those arguments are of no relevance unless and until Craig has shown that it is an established fact that the first disciples of Jesus came to sincerely believe in Jesus' resurrection. Craig needs to slow down and take one step at a time concerning (HC3).
MY INITIAL EVALUATION OF CRAIG'S THREE CLAIMS
My initial evaluation is that NONE of Craig's three key historical claims is a historical fact. Because of the difficulty of knowing anything about the historical Jesus, it would be unreasonable to claim to know that any of these three claims was false. However, I am inclined to believe that each of the three claims is either dubious or probably false.
If each of the three claims is dubious, then it is probable that at least one of these claims is false, and if each of the three claims is probably false, then it is very probable that at least one of these claims is false. Thus, my initial evaluation of these three claims is clearly contrary to Craig's assertion that each of these claims constitutes an established historical fact.
CRAIG'S MOST IMPORTANT HISTORICAL CLAIM
Let's begin with what is probably the most important historical claim that Craig makes in his case for the resurrection of Jesus, his claim about alleged appearances of the risen Jesus:
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.
I view this as the most important claim of Craig's three key historical claims.
The first claim is about Jesus' tomb being found empty, but even if that claim were shown to be an established historical fact, that would NOT be strong evidence for a miracle claim, namely the claim that "God raised Jesus from the dead". There are many possible explanations for why the tomb of Jesus might have been found to be empty, and the resurrection of Jesus doesn't seem to be a particularly compelling explanation for such a fairly ordinary event. Thus, (HC1) seems to be the weakest piece of evidence for Craig's conclusion that "God raised Jesus from the dead".
The third historical claim that the first disciples of Jesus came to sincerely believe in Jesus' resurrection is of greater significance than the first historical claim, (HC1). However, people are often unreasonable or foolish and believe magical or fantastical claims on the basis of weak and dubious evidence, so it is possible that the disciples of Jesus did come to sincerely believe in Jesus' resurrection but that they were mistaken about this belief. So, although (HC3) seems to be better evidence than (HC1) for the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead", it still seems to be weak and insufficient evidence for such a strong claim.
If Craig's case is to be a strong and compelling one, then he will need to show that his claim about alleged appearances of the risen Jesus is an established historical fact. Failing to show that (HC2) is a historical fact would give us a very good reason to reject the key premise (2), and another good reason to conclude that his case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.
Given the importance of (HC2) for his case, it is a surprisingly vague claim. Who were these "various individuals and groups"? No names are mentioned. When did these alleged appearances of Jesus happen? Where did these alleged appearances take place? What were the circumstances when these appearances occurred? Time of day? Weather conditions? Indoors or outdoors? What was the social and psychological context? What precisely did these "various individuals and groups" see or experience?
Craig's second historical claim is rather vague and lacking in important details. But this is a common problem with the arguments of Christian apologists. When it comes to really important and crucial claims, Christian apologists often become rather vague and unclear.
THE MAIN HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR (HC2)
However, when Craig presents his evidence for this vague claim, he makes more specific claims and adds some specific details. In RF3, Craig presents three main pieces of evidence in support of his vague historical claim about alleged appearances of the risen Jesus.
Let's focus our attention on what Craig tells us is "the best-attested resurrection appearance of Jesus." (RF3, p.378):
Undoubtedly, the reference here [in a quote of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8] is to that original group of disciples who had been chosen by Jesus during his ministry--less, of course, Judas, whose absenced did not affect the formal title of the group [i.e., "the Twelve" in 1 Corinthians 15:5]. This is the best attested resurrection appearance of Jesus. It, too, is included in the very early traditional formula that Paul cites, and Paul himself had contact with members of the Twelve. Moreover, we have independent stories of this appearance in Luke 24:36-42 and John 20:19-20. ...There can be little doubt that such an appearance occurred, for it is attested in the old Christian tradition [quoted in 1 Corinthians 15], vouched for by Paul [the author of 1 Corinthians], who had personal contact with the Twelve, and is independently described by both Luke and John. (RF3, p.378)
If this "best-attested" appearance of the risen Jesus turns out to be dubious or false, then Craig's most important historical claim (HC2) is dubious or false, and we will have another good reason to conclude that his case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.
An important part of Craig's evidence for this alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to "the Twelve" disciples (minus Judas Iscariot) consists of these two Gospel passages:
- Luke 24:36-42
- John 20:19-20
That leaves us with the other Gospel passage from Chapter 24 of the Gospel of Luke. This evidence, however, is weak and unpersuasive. In fact, it is not merely the case that this alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to his disciples in Jerusalem on the first Easter Sunday is historically dubious based on the relevant historical evidence; this alleged appearance of the risen Jesus is probably fictional. It is probably the case that "the best-attested resurrection appearance of Jesus" did NOT actually happen!
Craig fails to mention that there is powerful evidence against the historicity of the alleged appearance of Jesus to "the Twelve" disciples (minus Judas Iscariot) in Jerusalem on the first Easter, even though Craig is fully aware of this evidence. His failure to mention this contrary evidence damages his credibility on the issue of whether "God raised Jesus from the dead". In remaining silent about the obvious contrary evidence, he sacrificed his intellectual integrity and objectivity, presumably for the purpose of promoting his version of Christianity to poorly informed readers of RF3.
The problem is that the story about the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to "the Twelve" disciples (minus Judas Iscariot) in Jerusalem on the first Easter Sunday is that this story contradicts both the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew. For these reasons, it is probably the case that this story in Chapter 24 of the Gospel of Luke about an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to his disciples in Jerusalem on the first Easter is a fictional story.
The Gospel of Mark was the first of the four Gospels to be written, and most N.T. scholars believe that the author of the Gospel of Matthew and the author of the Gospel of Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a primary source of information about the life of Jesus, including his trials, crucifixion, burial, and alleged resurrection. For these reasons, the account in the Gospel of Mark of what happened to Jesus after his crucifixion should be viewed as more likely to be historically reliable than the account of what happened to Jesus after his crucifixion that we find in the Gospel of Luke.
Furthermore, the author of the Gospel of Matthew follows the Gospel of Mark on this matter, so it also contradicts the appearance story found in Luke 24:36-42. Thus, we have two Gospels that both contradict this story about an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to his disciples from the Gospel of Luke.
Both the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew imply that the first appearance of the risen Jesus to Jesus' male disciples took place in Galilee, after the disciples returned from Jerusalem to Galilee, which means that this first appearance of the risen Jesus to his disciples took place about a week or more AFTER Jesus was crucified, and thus this did NOT take place in Jerusalem about 48 hours after Jesus was taken down from his cross.
In addition to the fact that the Gospel of Mark was written earlier than the Gosepl of Luke, and in addition to the fact that the Gospel of Mark was used as a primary source of information about Jesus by the author of the Gospel of Luke and by the author of the Gospel of Matthew, and in addition to the fact that the Gospel of Matthew agrees with the Gospel of Mark that the first appearance of the risen Jesus to his male disciples took place in Galilee about a week or more after Jesus was crucified, there is the additional problem that the author of the Gospel of Luke clearly had a dramatic and theological motivation to alter the time an place of the first appearance of the risen Jesus to his male disciples.
The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts are a two-volume set written by the same author. Together, these two volumes are organized in relation to sacred geography. The plot is shaped by the geographical spread of the movement initiated by Jesus:
1. Jesus announces the Good News of the coming kingdom of God in Galilee (northern Palestine):Luke 4:14-21.
2. Jesus takes the Good News to the sacred city of Jerusalem (southern Palestine) where he is rejected by his fellow Jews and is killed: Luke 21:37-23:49.
3. Jesus rises from the dead in Jerusalem and turns over the preaching of the Good News to "the Twelve" disciples, who found the Christian church in Jerusalem: Luke 23:50-24:53.
4. Jesus' disciples first spread the Good News and the Jesus movement in Palestine: Acts 1:6- Acts XX:YY.
5. Peter had a vision and became convinced that the Good News should be preached to non-Jews and then beyond Palestine Acts XX:YY -, esp. Acts 23:11.
5. The apostle Paul takes the Good News to Rome, the capital of the Roman Empire.
This plot involving the geography of the spread of the Good News and the movement initiated by Jesus is clearly important to the author of the Gospel of Luke, and this provides a motivation for the author to alter the story about what happened to Jesus and his disciples after Jesus was crucified. Instead of having "the Twelve" disciples (minus Judas Iscariot) head back to Galilee in northern Palestine after the crucifixion of Jesus, Luke changes the story found in the Gospel of Mark, and has "the Twelve" disciples remain in Jerusalem for several weeks.
That the author of the Gospel of Luke intentionally altered the story found in the earlier Gospel of Mark is particularly obvious in how the author of the Gospel of Luke changes a passage from the Gospel of Mark where a message is given to the women who visited his tomb on Sunday morning:
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)
The Gospel of Matthew agrees with the Gospel of Mark about the message given to the women at Jesus' tomb:
5 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here, for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’ This is my message for you.” (Matthew 28:5-7, New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition)
In both the Gospel of Mark and in the Gospel of Matthew, the message given to the women at the tomb is that Jesus is already headed to Galilee in northern Palestine and that the disciples will see the risen Jesus when they also return to Galilee.
Note how the author of the Gospel of Luke alters the message given to the women:
5 The women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here but has risen. 6 Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, 7 that the Son of Man must be handed over to the hands of sinners and be crucified and on the third day rise again.” (Luke 24:5-7, New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition)
Instead of a message instructing the women to tell Jesus' male disciples to head back to Galilee to meet up with the risen Jesus, the women are told to remember something Jesus had told them "while he was still in Galilee". The author of the Gospel of Luke retained the reference to "Galilee," but changed the message so that it no longer spoke of Jesus already being on his way back to Galilee.
Finally, according to the Gospel of Luke when the risen Jesus appears to his disciples in Jerusalem, he instructs them to preach the Gospel "to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem," and tells them to stay in Jerusalem until he sends the Holy Spirit to empower them:
No such message was given to Jesus' disciples while they were still in Jerusalem, according to the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew. In fact, they were told to head back to Galilee so that they could see and meet with the risen Jesus. This is further confirmation that the author of the Gospel of Luke has altered the earlier account found in the Gospel of Mark, shaping it to conform to the geographical plot scheme of the two-volume work of Luke/Acts.46 and he said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And see, I am sending upon you what my Father promised, so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” (Luke 24:46-49, New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition)
Anyone who has studied the Gospel passages about the alleged resurrection of Jesus knows about this contradiction between, on the one hand, the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew, and, on the other hand, the Gospel of Luke. So, I'm confident that Craig is familiar with this contradiction between the Gospel accounts, but he does not bother to mention this powerful evidence against the historicity of the story of the alleged appearance of Jesus to "the Twelve" disciples (minus Judas Iscariot) found in Chapter 24 of the Gospel of Luke.
Craig's failure to mention that the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew contradict the story about the alleged appearance of Jesus to "the Twelve" (minus Judas) in Jerusalem on the first Easter Sunday is either a deliberate deception by Craig, or else it is a striking example of the powerful influence of confirmation bias in Craig's thinking about the issue of whether "God raised Jesus from the dead."
In any case, the two Gospel passages cited by Craig fail to show that the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to "the Twelve" (minus Judas Iscariot) in Jerusalem on the first Easter Sunday is a historical fact. Furthermore, the relevant evidence from the four Gospels shows that this story in Chapter 24 of the Gospel of Luke is probably fiction.
THE EVIDENCE FROM 1 CORINTHIANS
According to Craig,
There can be little doubt that such an appearance occurred, for it is attested in the old Christian tradition... (RF3, p.378).
In other words, the story of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to "the Twelve" disciples (minus Judas) in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday, the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus that is described in Luke 24:36-42, is confirmed by evidence from an earlier source than the Gospel of Luke.
Paul's letter to the Corinthians that is called "I Corinthians" is not only earlier than the Gospel of Luke, it is also earlier than the first Gospel, the Gospel of Mark. 1 Corinthians was probably written between 53 and 55 C.E., which means that it was written about 15 years before the Gospel of Mark. In Chapter 15 of I Corinthians, Paul refers to a Christian creed or teaching that he had previously taught and preached in Corinth:
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, New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition)
Since Paul had "received" or learned this creed or teaching before teaching and preaching it at Corinth, it must have existed before Paul visited Corinth and preached there. So, Craig is correct in characterizing the above passage as containing "the old Christian tradition". This creed or teaching that Paul had learned must not only predate his writing of 1 Corinthians, but also his previous visit to Corinth when he preached about the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Paul had previously visited Corinth for a year and a half from 50 to 52 CE. That means that "the old Christian tradition" that Craig points to, already existed in 50 C.E., which is only about 20 years after Jesus was crucified. This Christian tradition thus was in existence about 20 years before the Gospel of Mark was written, so this is very early information about the beliefs of the first Christians.
However, the Christian creed or tradition that Paul references in Chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians is too vague and sketchy to provide confirmation of the appearance story provided in Luke 24:36-42. There is no indication of WHEN Jesus appeared "to the twelve", and there is no indication of WHERE Jesus appeared "to the twelve". The Christian tradition does NOT state that Jesus appeared "to the twelve" in Jerusalem, and it does NOT state that Jesus appeared "to the twelve" on the first Easter Sunday, about 48 hours after Jesus was removed from the cross.
Furthermore, it is not clear in "the old Christian tradition" that Jesus appeared to "the twelve" all at the same time and in the same place. If Jesus had appeared to his disciples one at a time and in different places, it would still be correct to say that Jesus "appeared to the twelve."
Thus, "the old Christian tradition" fails to confirm the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to "the Twelve" disciples (minus Judas) in Jerusalem on the first Easter Sunday, when those disciples were all gathered together. Thus, "the old Christian tradition" fails to confirm the story of the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus that is presented in Luke 24:36-42.
THE EVIDENCE FROM PAUL HIMSELF
The last piece of evidence Craig gives in support of this alleged appearance of Jesus to "the Twelve" disciples (minus Judas) in Jerusalem on Sunday, about 48 hours after Jesus had been removed from the cross, is that Paul "vouches" for this appearance:
There can be little doubt that such an appearance occurred, for it is attested in the old Christian tradition, vouched for by Paul, who had personal contact with the Twelve... (RF3, p.378, emphasis added).
There is an ambiguity here about what precisely it is that Paul is "vouching for" in Chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians. Is Paul "vouching for" the historicity and accuracy of the appearance story found in Chapter 24 of the Gospel of Luke? That is not possible, because Paul wrote 1 Corinthians in about 54 CE, but the Gospel of Luke did not yet exist at that time, and would not be written until about three decades later.
Paul could have "vouched for" the belief that the risen Jesus appeared to "the Twelve" disciples (minus Judas) in Jerusalem on Sunday about 48 hours after Jesus had been taken down from the cross. But Paul does not mention such an appearance of the risen Jesus in I Corinthians, or in any other letter that Paul wrote.
What Paul "vouched for" when he preached and taught in Corinth, and when he wrote I Corinthians, is "the old Christian tradition" about the death and resurrection of Jesus. But as we have seen above, that tradition is too vague to provide significant confirmation of the appearance story presented in Luke 24:36-42. Therefore, the vouching that Paul does in 1 Corinthians fails to confirm the appearance story presented in Luke 24:36-42.
EVALUATION OF THE MAIN HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR (HC2)
According to Craig, the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to "the Twelve" disciples (minus Judas Iscariot) in Jerusalem on the first Easter Sunday is "the best-attested resurrection appearance of Jesus." (RF3, p.378). However, the evidence that Craig provides to support this alleged appearance of the risen Jesus clearly FAILS to show that this event is an established historical fact.
Furthermore, an honest and objective examination of the evidence from the four Gospels shows that the story of this alleged appearance of the risen Jesus (found in Luke 24:36-42) is probably a fictional story.
Therefore, if Craig is correct that this particular alleged appearance of the risen Jesus is "the best-attested resurrection appearance of Jesus", then Craig has failed to show that (HC2), the most important historical claim in his case for the resurrection of Jesus, is a historical fact.
END NOTES
1. See my blog posts about the historical unreliability of the Gospel of John. Links to those various posts can be found in this post: The Unreliability of the 4th Gospel - Part 14: Summary and INDEX
2. See my blog posts focusing on historical problems in Chapter 18 and Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John:
The Unreliability of the 4th Gospel - Part 11
The Unreliability of the 4th Gospel - Part 12
3. See my blog post on historical problems in Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John: The Unreliability of the 4th Gospel - Part 13: Chapter 20
