William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 15: The Transition from Historical Claims to Historical Facts

HISTORICAL CLAIMS VS. HISTORICAL FACTS

In Part 13 of this series, I figured out how to make the logical transition between premises talking about Craig's three key historical claims and premises talking about Craig's three key established historical facts.  However, when I recently clarified and revised the sub-argument for premise (5c), I lost track of that important bit of reasoning in Craig's core argument.  

Here is the way I represented that bit of reasoning in Part 13:

2c. Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate can be historically established as highly likely to be true, AND the Resurrection Hypothesis is a more plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate than the alternative naturalistic hypotheses.

 A1. A historical claim C is an established historical fact IF AND ONLY IF historical claim C can be historically established as highly likely to be true.

THEREFORE:

B. The Resurrection Hypothesis is a more plausible explanation of Craig's three key established historical facts concerning Jesus' final fate than the alternative naturalistic hypotheses.

NOTE: Sometimes Craig refers to naturalistic explanations, and sometimes he refers to naturalistic hypotheses. To make the logic of his core argument clearer, I have now regularized the vocabulary so that the argument consistently refers to naturalistic hypotheses. 

I think it would be clearer and helpful to separate the two claims made in premise (2c) into two premises:

2d. Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate can be historically established as highly likely to be true.

2e. The Resurrection Hypothesis is a more plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate than the alternative naturalistic hypotheses.

Premise (2e) can now be the premise that is supported by the two lines of reasoning that I described in Part 14 (one focused on comparative plausibility and the other focused on categorical plausibility), instead of premise (B).  

Given these revisions, we also need to revise the premises in the sub-arguments for (2e) so that they refer to Craig's three key historical claims, rather than to his three established historical facts. 

THE REVISED COMPARATIVE-PLAUSIBILITY SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (2e)

Here is the revised comparative-plausibility sub-argument for premise (2e):

10a. The Resurrection Hypothesis is a more plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate than the Conspiracy Hypothesis.  

11a. The Resurrection Hypothesis is a more plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate than the Apparent Death Hypothesis. 

  

12a. The Resurrection Hypothesis is a more plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate than the Wrong Tomb Hypothesis. 

 

13a. The Resurrection Hypothesis is a more plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate than the Displaced Body Hypothesis. 

 

14a. The Resurrection Hypothesis is a more plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate than the Hallucination Hypothesis.

K. The alternative naturalistic hypotheses that are competing with the Resurrection Hypothesis are: the Conspiracy Hypothesis, the Apparent Death Hypothesis, the Wrong Tomb Hypothesis, the Displaced Body Hypothesis, and the Hallucination Hypothesis.

THEREFORE: 

2e. The Resurrection Hypothesis is a more plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate than the alternative naturalistic hypotheses.

NOTE: I have added premise (K) to this sub-argument because that premise is needed to get from the five numbered premises about specific naturalistic hypotheses, to the conclusion (2e) with makes a claim about "the alternative naturalistic hypotheses" in general.

THE REVISED CATEGORICAL-PLAUSIBILITY SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (2e)

Here is the revised categorical-plausibility sub-argument for premise (2e):

15a. The alternative naturalistic hypotheses are categorically-implausible explanations of Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate.

16a. The Resurrection Hypothesis is a categorically- plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate.

E1. IF a hypothesis X is a categorically-plausible explanation of a specific set of historical claims, and  a hypothesis Y is a categorically implausible explanation for the same specific set of historical claims, THEN hypothesis X is a more plausible explanation for that specific set of historical claims than hypothesis Y.

THEREFORE:

 2e. The Resurrection Hypothesis is a more plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate than the alternative naturalistic hypotheses.

The premises of the sub-argument supporting premise (15a) also need to be revised to talk about historical claims rather than established historical facts:

F1. The Conspiracy Hypothesis is a categorically-implausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate. 

 
G1. The Apparent Death Hypothesis is a categorically-implausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate. 

 
H1. The Wrong Tomb Hypothesis is a categorically-implausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate. 

I1. The Displaced Body Hypothesis is a categorically-implausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate. 

J1. The Hallucination Hypothesis is a categorically-implausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate. 

K. The alternative naturalistic hypotheses that are competing with the Resurrection Hypothesis are: the Conspiracy Hypothesis, the Apparent Death Hypothesis, the Wrong Tomb Hypothesis, the Displaced Body Hypothesis, and the Hallucination Hypothesis.

THEREFORE: 

15a. The alternative naturalistic hypotheses are categorically-implausible explanations of Craig's three key historical claims concerning Jesus' final fate.

NOTE: I have added premise (K) to this sub-argument because that premise is needed to get from the five other premises about specific naturalistic hypotheses, to the conclusion (15a) with makes a claim about "the alternative naturalistic hypotheses" in general.

THE REVISED ARGUMENT DIAGRAM SHOWING THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR (5c)