The Case Against the Swoon Theory by Kreeft and Tacelli - Part 2: The Winding Sheets and Entombment Objection

 WHERE WE ARE

In Part 1 of this series, I pointed out that an important part of the case for the resurrection of Jesus by the Christian philosophers Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) is their attempt to refute the Swoon Theory.  Because they fail to refute the Swoon Theory, their case for the resurrection of Jesus also fails.

Four of their objections to the Swoon Theory are based on the Gospel of John:

In Part 1 of this series, I showed that Objection #2 and Objection #3 are both weak and defective objections. In this current post, I will critically examine Objection #4.

OBJECTION #4: WINDING SHEETS AND ENTOMBMENT

Here is what I take to be the core argument of Objection #4 (Winding Sheets & Entombment):

1b. On Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, it was totally encased in winding sheets (that included 100-plus pounds of spices and a gummy substance).

2a. On Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, it was placed into a stone tomb.

C. IF on Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, Jesus’ body was totally encased in winding sheets (that included 100-plus pounds of spices and a gummy substance) and Jesus’ body was placed into a stone tomb, THEN even if Jesus had survived his crucifixion Jesus would have either quickly suffocated in his tomb or quickly died in his tomb as a result of the cold damp air in his tomb when Jesus’ body was placed into his tomb on Friday evening.

THEREFORE:

D. IF Jesus had survived his crucifixion, THEN Jesus would have either quickly suffocated in his tomb or quickly died in his tomb as a result of the cold damp air in his tomb when Jesus’ body was placed into his tomb on Friday evening.

This core argument is a logically VALID argument because it can be re-stated as a modus ponens inference by simply combining premise (1b) and premise (2a) into a single claim or premise. None of the three premises of this core argument is obviously true, so all three premises require support by further arguments.

THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (1b)

Because Kreeft and Tacelli provide an argument in support of the key premise (1b), we need to consider that argument:

3b. According to the Gospel of John (Jn 19:38-42), on Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, it was totally encased in winding sheets (that included 100-plus pounds of spices and a gummy substance).

B. The Gospel of John provides a reliable and accurate account of the life of Jesus, including what happened to Jesus’ body after he was crucified.

THEREFORE:

1b. On Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, it was totally encased in winding sheets (that included 100-plus pounds of spices and a gummy substance).

As I argued previously, the Gospel of John is not a reliable and accurate account of the life of Jesus, and we have also seen specific reasons to doubt the historical reliability of the descriptions of some events related to the crucifixion of Jesus in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John. Thus, premise (B) is false. Therefore, this sub-argument for (1b) is unsound and should be rejected. We may reasonably conclude that the key premise (1b) is dubious and might well be false.

Furthermore, the passage referenced in premise (3b) has some specific problems that cast significant doubt on the historical reliability of that particular passage. No other Gospel mentions the involvement of Nicodemus in the burial of Jesus. In fact, no other Gospel ever mentions Nicodemus. No other Gospel indicates that a large quantity of spices was used to prepare the body of Jesus for burial. No other Gospel indicates that “winding sheets” were used in the burial of Jesus.

The other Gospels say that Joseph of Arimathea wrapped Jesus’ body in a linen cloth (Mark 15:46, Matthew 27:59, Luke 23:53). Some women who followed Jesus allegedly watched Joseph prepare the body of Jesus for burial, so if a large amount of myrrh and aloes were incorporated into the cloth wrapped around Jesus, the women would have known that was done and would not have purchased or planned to use more expensive spices to do further preparation of Jesus’ body, but that is what they did according to the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke (Mark 15:46-16:1, Luke 23:55-56), and the Gospel of Matthew also confirms that some women who followed Jesus were present when Jesus’ body was placed into the tomb (Matthew 27:59-61).

Given the failure of the other three Gospels to corroborate key details of this passage in the Gospel of John, given the inconsistencies between this passage and the accounts of the other three Gospels, and given other previously mentioned historical problems with the stories in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John, we have good reason to doubt the historical claims made in the passage of the Gospel of John that is referenced in premise (3b). So, it is probably false that Nicodemus brought 100 pounds of spices to the tomb of Jesus. Therefore, the key premise (1b) is probably false.

Finally, premise (3b) is false because the passage referenced from the Gospel of John does NOT indicate that “100-plus pounds of spices and a gummy substance” were used in encasing the body of Jesus in winding sheets.

The “100-plus pounds” weight is based on a faulty translation of John 19:39, probably the King James Version or the American Standard Version or the Revised Standard Version:

And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

(John 19:39, King James Version)

And there came also Nicodemus, he who at the first came to him by night, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds.

(John 19:39, American Standard Version)

Nicode′mus also, who had at first come to him by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds’ weight.

(John 19:39, Revised Standard Version)

Probably the best translation of this verse is found in the New American Standard Bible:

Nicodemus, who had first come to Him by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred litras weight.

(John 19:39, New American Standard Bible)

The New American Standard Bible leaves the Greek term “litras” untranslated. The Greek term “litras” is typically understood to be equivalent to the Roman Latin term “libras”, as is indicated in a footnote in the New American Standard Bible:

John 19:39 I.e., Roman libras (about 75 lb. or 34 kg)

Roman libras or “pounds” were smaller than a pound in the US system of weight. A Roman pound was about 12 ounces (a standard pound in the US is 16 ounces). So a Roman pound weighs about 3/4 of a pound (US). So, 100 libras = 100 x .75 pounds = 75 pounds.

Therefore, the translation in the New International Version “about seventy-five pounds” is accurate, assuming that the Greek term “litras” means the same as the Roman Latin term “libras”:

He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.

(John 19:39, New International Version)

Therefore, premise (3b) is false. The relevant Gospel passage does not state that “100-plus pounds” of spices and a gummy substance were incorporated into the encasement of Jesus’ body with winding sheets.

Also, since the passage states (at most) that Nicodemus brought about 75 pounds of spices to Jesus’ tomb, it is probably false that Nicodemus actually brought 100 pounds of spices to Jesus’ tomb. Therefore, we have another good reason to conclude that premise (1b) is probably false.

Since both premise (B) and premise (3b) in the sub-argument for the key premise (1b) are false, it is clear that this sub-argument is unsound and should be rejected. Thus, Kreeft and Tacelli have failed to provide us with a good reason to believe premise (1b). Therefore, the key premise (1b) is dubious and might well be false. That is a good reason to conclude that Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory fails.

But as I argued above, we also have good reasons to believe that the key premise (1b) is probably false. So, we clearly have a good reason for concluding that Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory fails.

AN ATTEMPTED RESCUE OF OBJECTION #4

Premise (3b) is clearly false. So, the sub-argument for the key premise (1b) is unsound and should be rejected. An obvious way to try to get around this problem is to weaken the claim made in (3b).  If one does so, then the claim made in (1b) must also be similarly modified so that it follows logically from the weaker version of (3b).

I have attempted elsewhere to rescue Objection #4 by trying various weaker versions of premises (3b) and (1b).[9] In the end, I was forced to significantly qualify and weaken these claims. Here is the resulting argument:

3g. According to the Gospel of John (Jn 19:38-42), on Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, it was totally encased in winding sheets (that included between 6 pounds and 90 pounds of spices and a gummy substance).

B. The Gospel of John provides a reliable and accurate account of the life of Jesus, including what happened to Jesus’ body after he was crucified.

THEREFORE:

1g. On Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, it was totally encased in winding sheets (that included between 6 pounds and 90 pounds of spices and a gummy substance).

Because the meaning of the relevant passage from the Gospel of John includes the possibility that as little as six pounds of spices and gummy substance were included in the winding sheets, premise (1g), the modified version of premise (1b), is so weak that it provides insignificant support for the key premise (D), leaving premise (D) dubious.

Furthermore, there still remains the very serious problem that premise (B) is false, leaving the revised sub-argument for (1g) unsound. There also still remains the serious problem that there are various good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of the particular passage from the Gospel of John that is referenced in premise (3g).  Therefore, Objection #4 cannot be rescued from failure by weakening claims (3b) and (1b).

THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (2A)

Premise (2a) is a key premise in the core argument for Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli provide a sub-argument in support of premise (2a), so we need to consider that argument:

4a. According to the Gospel of John (Jn 19:38-42), on Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, it was placed into a stone tomb.

B. The Gospel of John provides a reliable and accurate account of the life of Jesus, including what happened to Jesus’ body after he was crucified.

THEREFORE:

2a. On Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, it was placed into a stone tomb.

EVALUATION OF THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR KEY PREMISE (2A)

Although the passage referenced in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John does not specifically state that the tomb was a stone tomb, that seems to be implied by the passage, and I’m not aware of there being any other kinds of “tombs” available in Jerusalem at that time. So, premise (4a) appears to be true.

As I argued previously, the Gospel of John is not a reliable and accurate account of the life of Jesus, and we have also seen specific reasons to doubt the historical reliability of the descriptions of some events related to the crucifixion of Jesus in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John. Thus, premise (B) is false. Therefore, this sub-argument for (2a) is unsound and should be rejected. Kreeft and Tacelli have failed to provide us with a good reason to believe that the key premise (2a) is true.

EVIDENCE FOR PREMISE (2A) FROM THE OTHER GOSPELS

Although we should not take the referenced passage from Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John as sufficient evidence to establish the key premise (2a), the other three Gospels agree with the claim asserted by premise (2a). An obvious reply to my objection that the sub-argument for (2a) is unsound, is that there is evidence in the other three Gospels that supports premise (2a). So, in order to evaluate premise (2a), we need to consider the evidence for (2a) from the other three Gospels.

EVALUATION OF THE KEY PREMISE (2A)

The key premise (2a) might be true. All four of the canonical gospels agree on the point made by that premise. Nobody can prove that premise (2a) is false. However, as I have previously argued, the evidence from the Gospel of John is worthless for the purpose of showing that (2a) asserts a historical fact.

Furthermore, there are two key points that taken together show that (2a) does not assert a historical fact and that there is a significant chance that (2a) is false. l will argue that premise (2a) is dubious because:

·        Whether (2a) is a historical fact comes down to the question of whether the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark is historically reliable.

·        There are good reasons to believe that the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark is historically unreliable.

For nearly two centuries scholars who study the historical Jesus have ignored the Gospel of John because it is historically unreliable. I have previously outlined some of the key reasons for concluding that the Gospel of John is an unreliable account of the life, ministry, and crucifixion of Jesus.

The Gospel of Matthew is of value to the study of the historical Jesus primarily in terms of the sayings and parables of Jesus but is of little historical value in terms of the stories it tells about what Jesus did and about what happened to Jesus. This Gospel is of historical value concerning the words and sayings of Jesus because it includes alleged sayings of Jesus that come from Q, an early source of the words and sayings of Jesus. In general, the sayings of Jesus that are found in both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark are believed by most NT scholars to come from an early written source called Q.

Most of the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew come from the Gospel of Mark. So, if the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable, then so are most of the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. On the other hand, if the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Mark are historically reliable, then the Gospel of Matthew also has historically reliable stories about Jesus, but little to offer beyond the stories we find in the Gospel of Mark.

There are some general considerations about the Gospel of Matthew that show there is a good chance that when the Gospel of Matthew adds or changes events or details in stories that it borrows from the Gospel of Mark, those revisions are historically unreliable. When the author of Matthew adds new stories about Jesus that do not come from the Gospel of Mark, those stories are usually historically dubious. For example, the Gospel of Matthew adds a Birth Story about Jesus which is historically dubious. I argue these points in a series of posts called “The Historical Unreliability of the Gospel of Matthew”.[10]

Furthermore, when the author of the Gospel of Matthew revises stories about Jesus that come from the Passion Narrative in the Gospel of Mark, those changes are usually driven by theological or dramatic or literary purposes rather than by historical evidence. The additions and changes that the author of the Gospel of Matthew makes to stories from the Passion Narrative in the Gospel of Mark are historically dubious. I also argue this point in a series of posts called “The Historical Unreliability of the Gospel of Matthew”.[10]

For the above reasons, a determination of whether premise (2a) is a historical fact cannot be based on the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. This determination must rest primarily on the Gospel of Mark and/or the Gospel of Luke.

However, the Gospel of Luke has problems similar to that of the Gospel of Matthew. Like the Gospel of Matthew, there are general considerations that show there is a good chance that what the author of the Gospel of Luke adds to or revises in stories about Jesus that come from the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable changes. The Gospel of Luke has a Birth Story, and like the Gospel of Matthew, the Birth Story is historically dubious. The Gospel of Luke also adds stories about alleged appearances of the risen Jesus in Jerusalem on the first Easter Sunday, but those stories are probably all fictional.

Furthermore, like the Gospel of Matthew, when the author of the Gospel of Luke borrows a story about Jesus from the Passion Narrative of the Gospel of Mark and adds or changes an event or detail in that story, the change is usually historically dubious. I argue these points in a series of posts called “The Historical Unreliability of the Gospel of Luke”.[10]

For these reasons, the Gospel of Luke has little to offer in terms of historically reliable stories about Jesus, beyond the information we already have from the Gospel of Mark. Thus, a determination of whether premise (2a) is a historical fact cannot be based on stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Luke. And since we have previously eliminated the Gospel of Matthew for similar reasons, premise (2a) must be evaluated primarily on the basis of the contents of the Gospel of Mark.

There are good reasons to believe that the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark is historically unreliable.  Here are four good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark:

• First, there are some general considerations that provide a good reason for doubting the historical reliability of the Gospel of Mark.
• A second good reason for doubting the historical reliability of the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark is that the Passion Narrative in the Gospel of Mark is a historically unreliable account of the arrest, trials, and crucifixion of Jesus.
• A third good reason for doubting the historical reliability of the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark is based on the specific content of that story.
• A fourth good reason for doubting the historical reliability of the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark is that the empty tomb story in the Gospel of Mark is historically dubious.

I argue for these points in a series of posts called “The Historical Unreliability of the Passion Narrative in Mark”.[10]

Assuming that I have shown (above and in my referenced articles) the following two claims, I have shown that premise (2a) is dubious:

• Whether (2a) is a historical fact comes down to the question of whether the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark is historically reliable.
• There are good reasons to believe that the Burial Story in the Gospel of Mark is historically unreliable.

The argument for (2a) given by Kreeft and Tacelli fails, because it rests on a false premise, premise (B). A likely reply to this objection is that instead of basing premise (2a) on evidence from the Gospel of John, premise (2a) could be supported by evidence from the other three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke).

If my arguments supporting the above two bullet points are successful, then the attempt to base premise (2a) on evidence from the other three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) also fails to show that (2a) is true, and we would thus have good reason to conclude that premise (2a) is dubious and might well be false.

EVALUATION OF PREMISE (C)

Premise (C) asserts a conditional claim. It has this form:

IF P, THEN Q.

Another way of stating a conditional claim is to say that the antecedent logically implies the consequent:

P IMPLIES Q.

So, we can restate premise (C) like this:

The statement,

“On Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, Jesus’ body was totally encased in winding sheets (that included 100-plus pounds of spices and a gummy substance) and Jesus’ body was placed into a stone tomb,”

logically implies this statement:

“Even if Jesus had survived his crucifixion, Jesus would have either quickly suffocated in his tomb or quickly died in his tomb as a result of the cold damp air in his tomb when Jesus’ body was placed into his tomb on Friday evening.”

However, there are clear counterexamples that show that the first statement does not logically imply the second statement. Therefore, the conditional claim made by premise (C) is false, so the core argument of Objection #4 is unsound and fails to refute the Swoon Theory.

The first statement says nothing about the air in the tomb being cold or damp. Therefore, the first statement could be true even if the air in the tomb was warm and dry. But if the air in the tomb was warm and dry, then obviously Jesus would not be quickly killed off “as a result of the cold damp air in his tomb”.

Furthermore, no evidence has been provided for the assumption that the air in the tomb was cold and damp. So, that assumption is dubious and might well be false.

There are other assumptions being made here that also are not implied by the first statement. Wrapping Jesus’ body with winding sheets that “included 100-plus pounds of spices and a gummy substance” would not cause Jesus to suffocate unless:

·        the winding sheets were tightly wrapped around Jesus’ head

·        the winding sheets around Jesus’ head covered his mouth and nose

·        there were multiple layers of winding sheets around Jesus’ head

·        there were many pounds of spices and gummy substance included in the layers of winding sheets wrapped around Jesus’ head

If some or all of these assumptions are false, then Jesus probably would not have suffocated as a result of his body being “encased in winding sheets (including 100-plus pounds of spices and a gummy substance)”.

The first statement above–the antecedent of premise (C)–says nothing about the winding sheets being wrapped tightly around Jesus’ head, nor about the winding sheets covering his mouth and nose, nor about there being multiple layers of winding sheets around Jesus’ head, nor about whether (or how much) spices and gummy substance was included in layers of winding sheets around Jesus’ head. Therefore, the first statement could be true even if some or all of the crucial assumptions about the wrapping of winding sheets around Jesus’ head were false. Thus, even if the first statement–the antecedent of premise (C)–was true, Jesus might well have not suffocated in the tomb.

Furthermore, no evidence has been provided for the various assumptions above about the winding sheets being wrapped around the head of Jesus, so those assumptions are dubious and might well be false.

Finally, the relevant passage in the Gospel of John provides us with no details about the temperature of the air in Jesus’ tomb, nor about the dampness of the air in Jesus’ tomb, nor about how tightly the winding sheets were wrapped around Jesus’ head, nor about how many layers of winding sheets were wrapped around Jesus’ head, nor about whether the cloth covered Jesus mouth and nose, nor about whether (or how much) of the spices and the gummy substance was used in the wrappings around Jesus’ head. So, the Gospel of John does not provide information in support of any of the crucial assumptions that are required to show the key premise (C) to be true.

Because the antecedent of premise (C) says nothing about the temperature or dampness of the air in Jesus’ tomb and says nothing about how Jesus’ head was tightly wrapped with multiple layers of winding sheets, nor about how much spices and gummy substance was used in the layers of winding sheets around Jesus’ head, it is clear that the antecedent of premise (C) could be true and yet the consequent of premise (C) be false. Thus, the key premise (C) is false.

EVALUATION OF OBJECTION #4 (WINDING SHEETS & ENTOMBMENT)

The core argument for Objection #4 consists of three premises: (1b), (2a), and (C). I have shown that the key premise (1b) is probably false, and that the key premise (2a) is dubious. Those points give us good reason to reject the core argument for Objection #4.   

I have also shown that the key premise (C) in the core argument for this objection is false. That means the core argument is unsound, which by itself is sufficient reason to reject the core argument for Objection #4.

Because one key premise of the core argument is dubious, and one key premise of the core argument is probably false, and because one key premise of the core argument is false, it is clear that Objection #4 (Winding Sheets and Entombment) against the Swoon Theory fails.

It is no surprise that Kreeft and Tacelli provide zero evidence in support of any of these crucial historical assumptions:

·        the air inside the tomb was cold when Jesus was placed in the tomb

·        the air inside the tomb was damp when Jesus was placed in the tomb

·        the winding sheets were tightly wrapped around Jesus’ head

·        the winding sheets around Jesus’ head covered his mouth and nose

·        there were multiple layers of winding sheets around Jesus’ head

·        there were many pounds of spices and a gummy substance included in the layers of winding sheets wrapped around Jesus’ head

This is not a surprise, because their original statement of this objection in HCA said nothing about why Jesus being wrapped in winding sheets and placed into a stone tomb would have caused him to quickly die, if Jesus had survived the crucifixion.

I believe that Kreeft and Tacelli borrowed Objection #4 from Josh McDowell.[11] However, they abbreviated McDowell’s version of this objection and left out the crucial elements about why wrapping Jesus in winding sheets with lots of spices and gummy substance and placing him in a stone tomb would have caused Jesus to quickly die.

McDowell’s version of this objection points to the idea that the winding sheets and spices would have caused Jesus to quickly suffocate, and to the idea that the cold damp air in the tomb would have caused Jesus to quickly die (presumably in conjunction with Jesus’ various wounds and loss of blood). McDowell, however, also provides zero evidence for any of the above crucial assumptions about the air in the tomb and about how Jesus’ head was wrapped, so his version of Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory clearly fails for the reasons I give in the above post, which show that premise (C) is false.

William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 26: The Alleged Appearance to Peter

 WHERE WE ARE

In Part 25 of this series, I showed that Craig's best and strongest evidence for the most important historical claim in his case fails to establish that the historical claim is a historical fact. 

Here is the most important historical claim in Craig's case for the resurrection of 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. 

What Craig calls "the best-attested resurrection appearance of Jesus" (RF3, p.378) is the alleged appearance of the risen Jesus described in Luke 24:36-42 and in John 20:19-20. However, the appearance story from the Gospel of John is of little historical significance because the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the ministry, trials, crucifixion, burial, and teachings of Jesus.

The story of this alleged appearance of the risen Jesus in Chapter 24 of the Gospel of Luke is insufficient evidence to show that this alleged appearance actually occurred, because this story is contradicted by the Gospel of Mark and by the Gospel of Matthew.  

The evidence from Chapter 15 of I Corinthians also fails to establish this alleged appearance, because the claim about an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to his disciples found in I Corinthians is too vague to confirm the appearance story presented in the Gospel of Luke.

An honest and objective examination of the relevant historical evidence shows that the appearance story that Craig points us to in Chapter 24 of the Gospel of Luke is probably a fictional story.

CRAIG'S THREE LINES OF EVIDENCE FOR (HC2)

Craig puts forward three lines of evidence in support of (HC2), the most important historical claim in his case:

1. Paul's list of eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection appearances [in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8]... (RF3, pages 378-380)

2. The Gospel accounts provide multiple, independent attestation of postmortem appearances of Jesus. (RF3, pages 380-381)

3. The resurrection appearances were physical, bodily appearances. (RF3, pages 382-384)

We have already begun examination of Craig's first line of evidence for (HC2), the evidence of Paul's list of eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection appearances.

Here are the items Craig includes in that first line of evidence (RF3, pages 378-380):

a) Appearance to Peter.               
b) Appearance to the Twelve.
c) Appearance to five hundred brethren.
d) Appearance to James.
e) Appearance to "all the apostles."
f) Appearance to Saul of Tarsus.

Item (b) is what Craig calls "the best-attested resurrection appearance of Jesus" (RF3, p.378). But we have seen that this alleged appearance probably did not occur; the story about this appearance is probably a fictional story.

We still have to consider the five other alleged appearances of the risen Jesus. This other evidence is no better than the appearance to "the Twelve" that was discussed in Part 25. 

The Alleged Appearance to Peter

In 1 Corinthians Chapter 15, Paul refers to a Christian tradition about alleged appearances of the risen Jesus. That tradition asserts that there was an appearance of the risen Jesus to his disciple Peter:

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, emphasis added)

"Simon" was the original name of one of the twelve disciples of Jesus, whom Jesus nicknamed "Cephas":

41 He [Andrew] first found his brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” ... 42 He brought Simon to Jesus, who looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You are to be called "Cephas" (which is translated Peter). (John 1:41-42, New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition)

In Aramaic, "cephas" means "rock" and in Greek, "petros" means "rock".  So, when Simon's nickname "Cephas" was translated from Aramaic to Greek, his nickname became "Peter". In Chapter 2 of Galations, Paul sometimes uses the name "Peter" and sometimes uses the name "Cephas" to refer to the disicple of Jesus who was originally named "Simon".

Craig makes an honest admission about the alleged appearance of Jesus to Peter:

William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 25: Craig's Three Key Historical Claims

 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

According to these two Gospel passages, the risen Jesus appeared to "the Twelve" disciples (minus Judas Iscariot) in Jerusalem on Sunday evening, about 48 hours after Jesus was removed from the cross.

We can immediately set aside the passage from Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John as being of little historical significance, because the Gospel of John provides an historically unreliable account of the life and the words of Jesus.[1]  

Furthermore, there are a number of specific historical problems with the content of the Passion Narrative in the Gospel of John in Chapter 18 and Chapter 19[2], as well as additional specific historical problems with the content of Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John[3], and those various historical problems cast further doubt on the historical reliability of the passage that Craig points to in Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John.

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 (in northern Palestine):Luke 4:14-9:50. 

2. Jesus' takes the Good News and his ministry  south, heading towards Jerusalem: Luke 9:51-19:27.

3. At the end of his ministry, Jesus takes the Good News to the sacred city of Jerusalem (in southern Palestine) where he is rejected by his fellow Jews and is killed: Luke 19:28-23:49.

4. Jesus then allegedly rises from the dead in Jerusalem and turns over the preaching of the Good News and the spread of his movement to "the Twelve" disciples (minus Judas), who found the Christian church in Jerusalem: Luke 23:50-24:53 and Acts 1:1-26.

5. Jesus' disciples first spread the Good News and build the Jesus movement in Jerusalem and then in  Palestine in general: Acts 2:1- 8:40.

6. Peter had a vision and became convinced that the Good News should be preached to non-Jews and taken beyond Palestine:  Acts 9:32 -11:18.

7. The apostle Paul takes the Good News to non-Jews and beyond Palestine, and eventually to Rome, the capital of the Roman Empire: Acts 11:19-28:31, esp. 23:11.

This plot involving the geography of the spread of the Good News and of the religious 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 story from the Gospel of Mark where a message is given to the women who visited Jesus' tomb on Sunday morning. Here is the relevant 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, emphasis added)

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, emphasis added)

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, emphasis added) 

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: 

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, emphasis added)

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. 

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 VIEW OF LEADING NEW TESTAMENT SCHOLARS

My view that the first appearances of the risen Jesus to "the Twelve" (minus Judas) took place in Galilee a week or more after the crucifixion of Jesus is NOT an idiosyncratic view held by just a handful of atheists and skeptics. Rather, this has been the view of many New Testament scholars, and it is the view of a number of leading New Testament scholars who are experts on the Gospels and/or on the historical Jesus.  For example: E.P. Sanders, Raymond Brown, and Reginald Fuller.

The leading N.T. scholar E.P. Sanders notes that the Gospel accounts about the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus are contradictory:

According to Matthew and Mark, when the women returned to the tomb a day and a half later to care for Jesus' body...they found that the tomb was empty.  According to Matthew (hinted at also in Mark) Jesus appeared to the women and then later to the disciples in Galilee. ...

...According to Matthew and Mark, the disciples went to Galilee and saw Jesus there; according to Luke, they did not leave the environs of Jerusalem.[4]

Sanders concludes that we cannot reconstruct the actual historical sequence of events because of the conflicting accounts found in the Gospels: 

Faced with accounts of this nature--sharply diverging stories of where and to whom Jesus appeared, lack of agreement and clarity on what he was like...we cannot reconstruct what really happened.  Throughout this book I have offered suggestions about what lies behind passages in the gospels. On the present topic, however, I do not see how to improve on the evidence, or how to get behind it. I have views about parts of it, such as the movement of the disciples: they fled to Galilee and then returned to Jerusalem.  Luke's view, that they never left the environs of Jerusalem, is explained by the 'Jerusalemo-centric' character of his two-volume work, Luke-Acts. But I do not pretend to know what they saw or just who saw it.[5] 

Note that Sanders sides with the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew and against the Gospel of Luke concerning the movement of Jesus' disciples after his crucifixion.  

After his arrest, Jesus' disciples fled to Galilee; they did not remain in Jerusalem for several weeks, as the Gospel of Luke claims. That implies that the first appearances of the risen Jesus to "the Twelve" (minus Judas) took place in Galilee, not in Jerusalem, and that those appearances took place a week or more after Jesus was crucified. Therefore, the story about an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to his disciples in Jerusalem on the first Easter Sunday, the appearance story we find in Luke 24:36-42, is probably a fictional story.

The eminent New Testament and historical Jesus scholar Raymond Brown came to a similar conclusion as E.P. Sanders. Brown notes the contradictions between the Gospels on this matter:

Just as the Jerusalem tradition leaves little or no room for subsequent Galilean appearances, the Galilean narratives seem to rule out any prior appearances of Jesus to the Twelve in Jerusalem. The angel's directive in Mark 16:7 and Matt 28:7 bids the disciples to go to Galilee to see Jesus--a command that would make little sense were they to see him first in Jerusalem!  When Jesus does appear to the disciples on the mountain in Galilee (Matt 28:16-17), they express doubt; and such hesitancy is associated elsewhere with initial appearances (Luke 24:37, John 20:25, Mark 16:13,14). There would be no reason for doubt if the disciples had already seen Jesus in Jerusalem and knew of his resurrection.[6]

Like Sanders,  Brown sides with the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew against the Gospel of Luke on the matter of where the first appearances of the risen Jesus to "the Twelve" (minus Judas) took place:

Let me offer the following hypothesis which has gained a certain favor among critical scholars. The basic appearance to the Twelve did not take place in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday--if it had taken place and they had been commissioned to a missionary endeavor, their subsequent return to their homes in Galilee would be difficult to explain. Rather, the Twelve fled Jerusalem and made their way back to Galilee, discouraged by the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus. ...As Simon Peter returned to his occupation of fishing, Jesus appeared to him on the shores of Sea of Tiberius, and resurrection faith was born....Subsequently, Jesus appeared to the Twelve, confirming perhaps the inchoate faith stirred by Peter's report.[7] 

Brown, like Sanders, concludes that the first appearances of the risen Jesus to "the Twelve" disciples (minus Judas) took place in Galilee a week or more after the crucifixion of Jesus.  Brown has significant doubts about the appearance story in Luke 24:36-42.  Brown doubts that there was an appearance of the risen Jesus to "the Twelve" disciples (minus Judas) that happened in Jerusalem on Sunday about 48 hours after Jesus was removed from the cross. 

Reginald Fuller is a scholar who is a recognized expert on the New Testament accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. He authored the reference-work article "Resurrection of Christ" in The Oxford Companion to the Bible[8] as well as the reference-work article "resurrection" in HarperCollins Bible Dictionary[9].  Fuller concluded that the "appearances" of the risen Jesus were visions experienced by some of Jesus' disciples and followers.  Fuller, like Sanders and Brown, also concluded that the first appearances of the risen Jesus were experienced in Galilee, not Jerusalem:

There is also indication that the disciples verified the women's discovery [of the empty tomb] (Luke 24.12,24; John 20.3-10). Probably this followed the disciples return to Jerusalem, after their visions in Galilee; they must have welcomed the empty tomb as congruous with the Easter faith, which they had already arrived at through the visions.  The empty tomb did not create the Easter faith, and in any case it is in itself an ambiguous fact, susceptible of other explanations alluded to in the New Testament itself (e.g., Matt. 27.64; John 20.15).[8]

In his very scholarly two-volume commentary (nearly 1,300 pages long) on the Gospel of Luke, the New Testament scholar John Nolland gives his view on this issue. First, he notes some conflicts between the various Gospel accounts about alleged appearances of Jesus:

The question of the relationship between appearances in Jerusalem and Galilee requires a little more discussion. On the face of it, the angelic message in 16:7 [of the Gospel of Mark] would leave no room for initial Jerusalem appearances...while Luke 24:49 would leave no room for subsequent Galilean appearances.[9]

Then Nolland puts his own view forward, which is similar to that of Sanders, Brown, and Fuller:

Probably the best harmonization would be achieved by locating the decisive initial appearance(s) in Galilee... with a subsequent set of appearances in Jerusalem, to which the disciple band had returned for the feast of Pentecost...[9] 

Thus, Nolland prefers the accounts in the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew over the account in Chapter 24 of the Gospel of Luke in which the risen Jesus appears to "the Twelve" disciples (minus Judas) in Jerusalem on the first Easter Sunday, about 48 hours after Jesus was taken down from the cross. Nolland believes that it is more likely that the first appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples took place in Galilee, a week or more after the crucifixion of Jesus.

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

4. E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York, NY: Penguin Books USA Inc., 1993), p.276.

5. E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, p.278, emphasis added (except for the word "what" in the final sentence of the quotation). 

6. Raymond Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York, NY: Paulist Press,1973), p.105.

7. Raymond Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, p.108-109. 

8. Reginald Fuller, "Resurrection of Christ" in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan (New York, NY: Oxford University Press,1993), p.648. 

9. John Nolland, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 35C (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1993), p.1181.