William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 33: Belief in the Resurrection

WHERE WE ARE

William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus is based primarily on three key historical claims.  An important premise of Craig's case is premise (2):

2. Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts.

In previous posts in this series, I showed that Craig's attempts to show that his second key historical claim (HC2) was a historical fact failed completely, giving us a very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, which means that we have a very good reason to believe that premise (C) in the core argument of Craig's case is false, which means that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

We are now critically examining Craig's third key historical claim:

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

If Craig's attempt to show that this key historical claim is a historical fact fails, then we will have another very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, and another very good reason to believe that premise (C) is false, which will further confirm that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

In order to rationally evaluate (HC3), we need to first have a clear understanding of what this claim means.  In Part 32 of this series, we clarified the phrase "The first disciples":

HC3a: The twelve disciples of Jesus (minus Judas Iscariot), who were chosen by Jesus to be part of an inner circle of his followers, came sincerely to believe in Jesus' resurrection. 

In this current post, I will work on clarifying this claim further by determining the meaning of the phrase "to believe in Jesus' resurrection".

"JESUS' RESURRECTION" MEANS "GOD RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD"

 The claim that the twelve disciples came "to believe in Jesus' resurrection" is somewhat vague.  But Craig makes comments that help to clarify this phrase.  When Craig initially states (HC3) in Chapter 8 of RF3, he provides context that makes the meaning of the phrase "to believe in Jesus' resurrection" clearer:

In my estimation the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate. The inductive grounds for the inference of this explanation consists primarily in the evidence of three independently established facts: (1) the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers on the first day of the week following his crucifixion, (2) various individuals and groups thereafter experienced on different occasions and under varying circumstances appearances of Jesus alive, and (3) the first disciples came sincerely to believe in Jesus' resurrection... (RF3, page 360)

Because the hypothesis that Craig is trying to support is that "God raised Jesus from the dead", and because this goal is stated by Craig in the same paragraph where he puts forward (HC3), it is reasonable to understand the phrase "Jesus' resurrection" in (HC3) as meaning "God raised Jesus from the dead."  In other words, according to Craig, the sincere belief of the twelve disciples (minus Judas) was not just that Jesus came back to life after dying on the cross, but that this happened because God caused this to happen.

This interpretation is further confirmed by the following three statements by Craig, later in Chapter 8 of RF3:

But the belief in the resurrection of Jesus reversed the catastrophe of the crucifixion. Because God had raised Jesus from the dead, he was seen to be the Messiah after all. ...It was on the basis of belief in his resurrection that the disciples could believe that Jesus was the Messiah. (RF3, page 388, emphasis added)

Thus, the origin of Christianity hinges on the belief of th earliest disciples that God had raised Jesus from the dead. (RF3, page 389, emphasis added)

The origin of Christianity owes itself to the belief of the earliest disciples that God had raised Jesus from the dead. (RF3, page 395, emphasis added).

Thus, it is clear that when Craig asserts that the twelve disciples (minus Judas) "came to sincerely believe in Jesus' resurrection", he means that they came to sincerely believe that "God raised Jesus from the dead."

RESURRECTION MEANS "RAISED PHYSICALLY AND BODILY FROM THE DEAD"

Craig clearly believes that Jesus was raised physically and bodily from the dead by God.  More importantly for his case, Craig implies that the twelve disciples believed that Jesus was raised physically and bodily from the dead by God.  So, when Craig claims that the twelve disciples (minus Judas) came sincerely "to believe in Jesus' resurrection", he means that they came sincerely "to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead."

Craig praises the Jesus scholar NT Wright on the specific subject of the origin of Christianity:

The third fact from which the resurrection of Jesus may be inferred is the very origin of the Christian faith. This facts takes pride of place in Wright's historical argument for Jesus's resurrection. Indeed, Wright's entire book The Resurrection of the Son of God is probably best understood as the fullest and most sophisticated development of this third point of the overall case, for he actually argues for the historicity of Jesus' empty tomb and postmortem appearances on the basis of the origin of the disciples' belief in Jesus' resurrection. (RF3, page 387)

So, when Craig summarizes Wright's case for the resurrection, it is reasonable to infer that Craig agrees with the main claims in that case, including this first main claim:

1. Early Christians believed in Jesus' (physical and bodily) resurrection. (RF3, page 351) 

The twelve disciples (minus Judas) were "early Christians", so this statement implies that the twelve disciples (minus Judas) believed in the physical and bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Another point by Wright that Craig agrees with is that the term "resurrection" implied physical and bodily resurrection for both Jews and early Christians:

One of the greatest merits of N.T. Wright's exhaustive study of pre-Christian and Christian beliefs about resurrection is his demonstration that "resurrection" always meant physical, bodily resurrection. He insists, "...'Resurrection'...meant bodily resurrection; and that is what the early Christians affirmed." (RF3, page 361)

If the term "resurrection" always meant physical, bodily resurrection for early Christians, then the affirmation of Jesus' resurrection by the twelve apostles (minus Judas) implies that they believed in the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus.

One final indication that Craig's claim about the belief of the twelve disciples (minus Judas) was that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead is his comments about how if Jesus had not actually risen from the dead, they would have KNOWN that Jesus had not risen:

...we return to the first horn of the dilemma: that the disciples were deceivers. This alternative encompasses any hypothesis holding that the disciples knew that the miracles and resurrection of Jesus did not take place, but that they nevertheless claimed that they did. (RF3, page 338)

Vernet thinks it is inconceivable that one of the disciples should suggest to the others that they say that Jesus was risen when both he and they knew the precise opposite to be true. (RF3, page 341)

In order to infer that "the disciples" (i.e. the twelve disciples minus Judas) would have KNOWN that the resurrection of Jesus did not take place if it had not actually occurred, one must assume that the "resurrection of Jesus" means a physical, bodily resurrection.  

The absence of a physical and bodily resurrection could be KNOWN by seeing the corpse of Jesus.  But in the case of a spiritual "resurrection", where Jesus continues to be alive while his body remains dead, the twelve disciples would have no way to disconfirm such an alleged resurrection.  The presense of Jesus' dead body would NOT count as disproof of a spiritual "resurrection" of Jesus.

Therefore, in commenting about how the twelve disciples (minus Judas) as deceivers would have KNOWN that Jesus had not risen from the dead, Craig assumes that the twelve disciples understood belief in Jesus' resurrection to be belief in the physical and bodily resurrection of Jesus.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above considerations, Craig's claim about the belief of the twelve disciples (minus Judas) concerning Jesus' alleged resurrection should be understood to be that they believed that Jesus had been physically and bodily resurrected.  We can now finish the clarification of Craig's third key historical claim:

HC3b: The twelve disciples of Jesus (minus Judas Iscariot), who were chosen by Jesus to be part of an inner circle of his followers, came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead.