William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 23: A Fresh Start

A FRESH START ON CRAIG'S CASE

William Craig presents a two-paragraph summary of his case for the resurrection of Jesus on page 360 of the 3rd edition of his book Reasonable Faith (hereafter: RF3).  That summary is a bit confused and unclear. However, Craig also provides a shorter and clearer summary of his case in a single paragraph that starts at the bottom of page 360 and continues on to the top of page 361.  

So, I am going to make a fresh start now, by focusing on that single-paragraph summary of his case, and I will also add in details, as required, from the previous two-paragraph summary on page 360, as well as from later in the chapter where Craig presents his case in more detail.

CLARIFICATION OF THE ONE-PARAGRAPH SUMMARY

Here is Craig's one-paragraph summary of his case for the resurrection of Jesus:

As alluded to above, the case for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus seems to me to rest upon the evidence for three great, independently established facts: the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith. If these three facts can be established and no plausible nautural explanation can account for them as well as the resurrection hypothesis, then one is justified in inferring Jesus' resurrection as the most plausible explanation of the data. (RF3, p.306-361) 

The first sentence refers to three historical claims that Craig thinks are key claims of his case.  The second sentence refers to a comparison of the explanatory power of various natural explanations in relation to the "resurrection hypothesis", which Craig believes to be the most plausible explanation.   

Here is a key premise of Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus:

1. If these three facts can be established and no plausible nautural explanation can account for them as well as the resurrection hypothesis, then one is justified in inferring Jesus' resurrection as the most plausible explanation of the data.

Because the word "facts" carries the implication that the claims made by Craig are KNOWN to be true, and this implies that the claims in question are firmly established on the basis of evidence, it is question-begging for Craig to use the term "facts" in his basic premises.  The use of the word "facts" is reasonable only AFTER he has presented evidence that firmly establishes the truth of the claims that Craig asserts.  To avoid question-begging use of the word "facts", I will replace this word with the phrase "historical claims".

1a. If these three historical claims can be established and no plausible nautural explanation can account for them as well as the resurrection hypothesis, then one is justified in inferring Jesus' resurrection as the most plausible explanation of the data. 

We need to clarify the meaning of the phrase "the resurrection hypothesis" in this key premise, and we can do so based on what Craig has stated in his previous two-paragraph summary of his case: