William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 1: An Overview of Craig's Case

 WHO IS WILLIAM CRAIG?

Here is how Craig is described by a fellow Christian philosopher and apologist:

It is hard to overstate the impact of William Lane Craig has had for the cause of Christ. He is simply the finest Christian apologist of the last half century, and his academic work justifies ranking him among the top one percent of practicing philosophers in the Western world. I do not know of a single thinker who has done more to raise the bar of Christian scholarship in our generation than Craig.  He is one of a kind and I thank God for his life and work. - J.P. Moreland, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Talbot School of Theology

(from the back cover of the 3rd edition of Reasonable Faith)

If Craig is the finest Christian apologist of the last half century, and if his academic work justifies ranking him among the top one percent of practicing philosophers in the Western world, then Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus should be taken very seriously. 

Furthermore, if Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails, then that would be significant evidence for the claim that it is probable that no Christian apologist has ever provided a strong and solid case for the resurrection of Jesus.  If Craig cannot do the job in the 21st century, then it is unlikely that any other Christian apologist has ever managed to do the job.

A SKEPTICAL ARGUMENT ABOUT THE RESURRECTION

Here is one of my skeptical arguments about the resurrection of Jesus:

1. If William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails, then it is probable that no Christian apologist has ever produced a strong and solid case for the resurrection of Jesus.

2. William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

THEREFORE:

3. It is probable that no Christian apologist has ever produced a strong and solid case for the resurrection of Jesus.

I have previously written a book (not yet published), showing that the case for the resurrection of Jesus made by the philosopher and Christian apologist Peter Kreeft fails.[1] Based on that conclusion, we could make the above skeptical argument stronger: 

1a. If Peter Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails and William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails, then it is probable that no Christian apologist has ever produced a strong and solid case for the resurrection of Jesus.

2a. Peter Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails and William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

THEREFORE:

3a. It is probable that no Christian apologist has ever produced a strong and solid case for the resurrection of Jesus.

In the future, I plan to write another book showing that the case for the resurrection of Jesus made by the philosopher and Christian apologist Gary Habermas fails.  

Since Gary Habermas has made what appears to be the best and strongest case for the resurrection ever made by any Christian apologist[2], showing that his case fails would allow me to further enhance the above skeptical argument:

1b. If Peter Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails and William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails and Gary Habermas's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails, then it is very probable that no Christian apologist has ever produced a strong and solid case for the resurrection of Jesus.

2b. Peter Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails and William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails and Gary Habermas's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

THEREFORE:

3b. It is very probable that no Christian apologist has ever produced a strong and solid case for the resurrection of Jesus.

It will be a year or two before I can make this enhanced version of my skeptical argument, because that requires me to provide a strong justification of the claim that Gary Habermas's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.  However, for now, I will focus on showing that William Craig's case fails. 

THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF CRAIG'S CASE

Before we can reasonably evaluate or criticize Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus, we must first have a clear understanding of his case.  A clear understanding of Craig's case requires understanding the logical structure of his case and understanding the basic assumptions and claims of his case.

Craig presents his case for the resurrection of Jesus in many different books and articles.  I will focus on one of the more recent presentations of his case, specifically on the case he makes in Chapter 8 of the 3rd edition of his book Reasonable Faith.[3]

Craig nicely lays out the high-level logical structure of his case:

Any historical argument for Jesus' resurrection will have two steps, even if they are not clearly delineated: (1) to establish the facts which will serve as historical evidence and (2) to argue that the hypothesis of Jesus' resurrection is the best or most probable explanation of those facts. Step (1) will involve an investigation of the historicity of events such as the discovery of Jesus' empty tomb; step (2) will assess the comparative merits of rival hypotheses offered as explanations of the facts established in step (1).  (Reasonable Faith, 3rd edition, p. 350) 

THE CLAIMS OR PREMISES OF CRAIG'S CASE 

Craig also summarizes his case for the resurrection of Jesus, including his main premises, in one paragraph:

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. If these three facts can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence (and it seems to me they can) and if alternative naturalistic explanations for these facts can be shown to be implausible (and the consensus of scholarship is that they can), then unless the resurrection hypothesis is shown to be even more implausible than its failed competitors (and my experience in debating the comparative merits of the hypotheses convinces me that it cannot), then the preferred explanation ought to be the one given in the documents [of the New Testament] themselves: God raised Jesus from the dead. ...                     (Reasonable Faith, 3rd edition, p.360) 

Based on these two paragraphs by Craig, we can spell out the core argument of Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus[4]:

1. It is an established historical fact that 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. It is an established historical fact that 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. 

3. It is an established historical fact that the first disciples of Jesus came sincerely to believe in Jesus' resurrection in the absence of sufficient antecedent historical influences from either Judaism or pagan religions.

4. Alternative explanations (i.e., alternatives to the Christian resurrection hypothesis) for claims (1), (2), and (3) can be shown to be implausible.

5. The Christian resurrection hypothesis (i.e., God raised Jesus from the dead) has not been shown to be more implausible than alternative explanations. 

THEREFORE:

6. The best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate is the Christian resurrection hypothesis (i.e., God raised Jesus from the dead).

Here is the argument diagram for this core argument:

I suspect that the logical structure of the core argument might be a bit more complex than this diagram indicates, but this diagram will suffice for now. 

In future posts, I will examine the logic and the premises of this core argument, and this will include analysis and evaluation of the sub-arguments that Craig gives in support of the premises of the above core argument in his case. 

 END NOTES

1. See this blog post about the book on the resurrection that I'm working on getting published: 

Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, Volume 1

2. See this blog post about Gary Habermas's case for the resurrection of Jesus:

Gary Habermas is the Leading Defender of the Resurrection of Jesus

3. William Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3rd edition (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008).

4. It should be noted that Craig's current case for the resurrection of Jesus, which is now (in 2026) presented on his Reasonable Faith website, includes one additional historical claim:

After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. 

"The Resurrection of Jesus", an article by William Craig on the Reasonable Faith website (viewed 4/6/26):

The Resurrection of Jesus