William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 29: Craig's Second Line of Evidence for (HC2)

 THIS POST IS STILL IN WORK - Please check back in a few days. 

THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (B) 

The core argument in Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus 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 good reason to conclude that William Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

EVALUATING PREMISE (C)

The other premise in the core argument of Craig’s case is premise (C). If premise (C) is false or dubious, then that would give us another good reason to reject the sub-argument for the key premise (B) and a fifth good reason to conclude that Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus fails (in addition to the four previous good reasons that I gave in Part 24).

Premise (C) is a conjunction of two other claims, so in order to evaluate premise (C), we need to critically examine this sub-argument for (C):

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."

THE MOST IMPORTANT HISTORICAL CLAIM IN CRAIG’S CASE

Craig’s case is based upon three key historical claims. As I argued in Part 25 of this series, the most important historical claim of those three is this one:

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. 

If Craig is unable to show that (HC2) is a historical fact, then that would give us a good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, and that would also give us a good reason to believe that premise (C) is false, because premise (C) asserts that (2) is true.

If we have a good reason to believe that premise (C) is false, then this would give us a second good reason to reject the sub-argument for (B), and a fifth good reason to conclude that William Craig’s argument for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

CRAIG'S MAIN EVIDENCE FOR (HC2) BEING A HISTORICAL FACT

The main evidence presented by Craig in an attempt to show that (HC2) is a historical fact is his first line of evidence: 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)

In previous posts, I have shown that none of these examples provides significant support for the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact.[1]  This gives us a good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, which gives us a good reason to believe that (C) is false. That means we have a second good reason to reject the sub-argument for the key premise (B), and a fifth good reason to conclude that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

CRAIG'S SECOND LINE OF EVIDENCE FOR (HC2)

However, Craig has a second line of evidence in support of the claim that (HC2) is a historical fact. So, although the failure of Craig's six examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus gives us a good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, we cannot be fully confident that (2) is false until we consider Craig's second line of evidence.  So, that is what I will do for the rest of this post.

END NOTES

1. I critically examined the alleged appearance to the Twelve in Part XX, the alleged appearance to Peter in Part YY, the alleged appearances to five hundred brethren, to James (Jesus' brother), and to "all the apostles" in Part ZZ, and the alleged appearance to Saul/Paul in Part WW.