THE CORE ARGUMENT OF CRAIG'S CASE
The core argument in Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus in his book Reasonable Faith (3rd edition, hereafter: RF3) is a sub-argument in support of the key premise (B):
1c. IF Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts and no plausible natural 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 natural 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.
In Part 24 of this series (see the section called: "THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (B) IS UNSOUND"), I showed that premise (1c) is false, and that means this sub-argument for the key premise (B) is unsound. This gave us a very good reason to conclude that William Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.
In order to evaluate premise (C), we needed to critically examine the sub-argument for that premise:
2. Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts.
A1. No plausible natural 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 natural explanation can account for Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead."
Craig put forward two lines of evidence in support of his view that his most important historical claim, namely (HC2), could be shown to be a historical fact. But both those lines of evidence failed to provide significant support for (HC2).[1]
The failure of both of those lines of evidence gave us a very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, which means we have a very good reason to believe that premise (C) is false (since (C) asserts that (2) is true), which means we have a second very good reason to believe that the core argument in Craig's case is unsound. Therefore, we have a very good fifth reason to conclude that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.
CRAIG'S THIRD KEY HISTORICAL CLAIM
Craig's case rests on three key historical claims. If any of those three key claims cannot be shown to be a historical fact, then premise (2) is false, and premise (C) is false, and the core argument of Craig's case is unsound, meaning that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.
We already have a very good reason to believe that premise (C) is false, because Craig's attempts to show that (HC2) is a historical fact failed. If Craig's attempt to show that his third key historical claim is a historical fact also fails, then that will give us another good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, and another good reason to believe that premise (C) is false, and another good reason to conclude that the core argument of Craig's case is unsound, meaning that we will have yet another good reason to conclude that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.
Here is the third key historical claim that is part of the foundation of Craig's case:
HC3: The first disciples of Jesus came sincerely to believe in Jesus' resurrection.
Note that for (HC3) I removed a qualification from the end of the sentence: "...in the absence of sufficient antecedent historical influences from either Judaism or pagan religions." I explain and justify this modification of Craig's third historical claim in Part 25 of this series. In short, Craig has confused his attempt to demonstrate a key historical fact with showing the significance of that fact in terms of its relevance to the alleged resurrection of Jesus.
WHAT DOES "THE FIRST DISCIPLES OF JESUS" MEAN?
Before we can rationally evaluate (HC3), we need to have a clear understanding of what it means. The subject of this sentence is somewhat unclear, so we need to clarify what it means in order to be in a position to evaluate this claim.
First, the term "disciples" can be used in a very broad way. It basically means "students". So, "disciples of Jesus" means "students of Jesus". But Jesus was not a school teacher or a tutor. He was a Jewish religious preacher and teacher. So, to be a "student of Jesus" was to be a follower of the religious and ethical teachings of Jesus. In this broad sense, anyone who claims to be a Christian, claims to be a "disciple" or follower of Jesus.
This broad sense of the word "disciple" is clearly seen in the famous "Great Commission" passage at the end of the Gospel of Matthew:
16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him, but they doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. (Matthew 28:16-20, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)
So, the term "disciple" can refer to any Christian in any country and in any century.
Craig has, however, qualified the phrase "disciples of Jesus" with the prior phrase "The first..." This narrows the reference down a bit, but still leaves the subject of his key claim open to a variety of interpretations:
Group 1: the people who began following Jesus face-to-face during Jesus' public ministry
Group 2: the twelve disciples of Jesus (minus Judas Iscariot), who were chosen by Jesus to be part of an inner circle of his followers
Group 3: the people in (Group 2) plus people who were followers of Jesus during his public ministry AND who in the days and weeks immediately following the crucifixion of Jesus came to believe God had raised Jesus from the dead and that Jesus was the Messiah
Group 4: the people in (Group 3) plus other people who had NOT been followers of Jesus during his public ministry AND who in the days and weeks immediately following the crucifixion of Jesus came to believe God had raised Jesus from the dead and that Jesus was the Messiah
Group 5: the people in (Group 4) plus other people who had NOT been followers of Jesus during his public ministry AND who in the days and weeks immediately following the crucifixion of Jesus did NOT come to believe God had raised Jesus from the dead and that Jesus was the Messiah, but who in the months and years later in the first century came to believe God had raised Jesus from the dead and that Jesus was the Messiah
Although Craig does not define what he means by the phrase "the disciples of Jesus" or by the phrase "the first disciples of Jesus" he does use the phrase "the disciples" frequently in Chapter 8 of RF3, where he presents his case for the resurrection of Jesus. So, there are many clues about what Craig means by that phrase.
At the beginning of Chapter 8, Craig devotes several pages (about 15 pages) to a discussion of "the historical apologetic for the resurrection" or "the traditional apologetic". The phrase "the disciples" occurs frequently in that opening portion of Chapter 8.
Craig often uses the phrase "the disciples" interchangeably with the phrase "the apostles":
- RF3, page 334 ("the apostolic authorship" followed by "written by the disciples"),
- RF3, page 335,
- RF3, page 336 ("the disciples" followed by "the original apostles"),
- RF3, page 337,
- RF3, page 338,
- RF3, page 339 ("the disciples" on page 338, followed by "those first apostles" on page 339, and "the disciples" followed by "these early apostles"),
- RF3, page 340,
- RF3, page 341 (where "the disciples" repeatedly refers back to "the apostles" on page 340),
- RF3, page 342 (where "the apostles" refers back to "the disciples" mentioned on page 341)
Craig also provides a number of characterizations of "the disciples" and "the apostles" that indicate what he means by these phrases:
...if the Gospels were actually written by the disciples... (RF3, page 334)
...evidence for the Gospels' authenticity, Vernet argues that the disciples must have left some writings... (RF3, page 335)
Celsus admitted that the Gospels were written by the disciples. (RF3, page 336)
END NOTES
1. The main evidence presented by Craig in an attempt to show that (HC2) is a historical fact is his first line of evidence, which consists of six examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus that are mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians (Chapter 15:3-8):
- Appearance to Peter
- Appearance to the Twelve
- Appearance to five hundred brethren
- Appearance to James (Jesus' brother)
- Appearance to "all the apostles."
- Appearance to Saul of Tarsus (i.e., Paul)
I have shown that these examples do not provide significant support for the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact (see Part XX, Part XX, Part XX, and Part XX). This gave us a good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, which gave us a good reason to believe that premise (C) is false.
Craig provides four examples in his second line of evidence (RF3, page 381):
- The appearance to Peter
- The appearance to the Twelve
- The appearance to the women disciples
- That Jesus appeared to his disciples in Galilee
In Part XX of this series, I have shown that these examples do not provide significant support for the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact. Because both lines of evidence fail to provide significant support for the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact, we have a very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false.
No comments:
Post a Comment