William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 30: A Fourth Reason Why Craig's Case is DOA

WHERE WE ARE

In Part 24 of this series, I gave three good reasons for the conclusion that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus was Dead On Arrival.  I used that blog post as a main source of material for the DRAFT Chapter 3 of Volume 3 of my upcoming series of books on the resurrection. While writing that DRAFT Chapter 3, I came up with a fourth good reason for the conclusion that Craig's case was Dead On Arrival.[1] In this post, I will present the fourth good reason why Craig's case is DOA.

CRAIG’S THREE KEY HISTORICAL CLAIMS

Craig’s case is based on a foundation of three key historical claims:

HC1: The tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers on the first day of the week following his crucifixion.

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. 

HC3: The first disciples of Jesus came sincerely to believe in Jesus' resurrection. 

In Part 25 of this series, I argued that (HC2) was the most important historical claim of these three claims.

A CRUCIAL MISSING HISTORICAL CLAIM

Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that these three claims are historical facts, there is a crucial historical claim that is missing here: 

HC4: Jesus died on the cross.

This is a serious problem with Craig’s case. Unlike other Christian philosophers and apologists, Craig fails to understand that this historical claim is crucial to any case for the resurrection of Jesus.

OTHER APOLOGISTS UNDERSTAND THAT (HC4) IS CRUCIAL

The Christian philosophers and apologists Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks understand how crucial this historical claim is to making a case for the resurrection of Jesus:

Before we can show that Jesus rose from the dead, we need to show that He really did die. The Koran claims that Jesus only pretended to be dead (Surah IV:157), and many skeptics have said that He appeared to be dead, possibly being drugged, but revived while in the tomb.  It is no miracle for a live man to walk out of a tomb. For the Resurrection to have any significance, Jesus had to be dead first.[2]

The Christian apologists Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, who are leaders on the issue of the resurrection of Jesus, appear to agree with Geisler and Brooks on this point. Habermas and Licona present a case for the resurrection of Jesus that is similar to Craig’s case, because their case is based on just five historical claims that they argue are historical facts.  The very first historical claim in their set of five claims is this:

The first fact: Jesus died by crucifixion.[3]

Because Habermas and Licona base their case on just five historical claims, and because their very first historical claim is about the death of Jesus by crucifixion, it is clear that they view this historical claim as being crucial for their case.

Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell are two well-known Christian apologists, and although they do not limit their case for the resurrection to just a handful of historical claims (the way that Habermas, Licona, and Craig do), it is clear that they view the death of Jesus on the cross as crucial to their case for the resurrection of Jesus:

So in this chapter, we will look at the events surrounding the death of Christ and special precautions taken by those who crucified him to ensure that his death was accomplished. As we will see, ascertaining the historical fact of his death is a prerequisite to our conviction about his resurrection.[4]

Norman Geisler, Ronald Brooks, Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, Josh McDowell, and Sean McDowell all understand that the historical claim that Jesus died on the cross is a crucial historical claim needed for any plausible case for the resurrection of Jesus. 

But William Craig does NOT understand this basic point, and as a result, he fails to include (HC4) as part of the historical foundation of his case. The absence of (HC4) from Craig’s key historical claims gives us a fourth good reason to conclude that his case is Dead On Arrival, and to conclude that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

END NOTES

1. Volume 3 is called: Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, Volume 3: The Failure of William Craig's Case. Chapter 3 of that volume is called "Craig's Case is Dead On Arrival". You can get a copy of the DRAFT of Chapter 3 of Volume 3 here: https://thinkingcriticallyabout.podbean.com/e/craigs-case-is-dead-on-arrival/ 

2. Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks, When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990), page 120.

3. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), page 48.

4. Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence for the Resurrection (Ventura, CA: Regal, 2009), page 159.