William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 34: Craig's Third Key Historical Claim

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 Part 33 of this series, I clarified this claim further by determining the meaning of the phrase "to believe in Jesus' resurrection":

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. 

THE IMPLICATIONS OF CRAIG'S THIRD KEY HISTORICAL CLAIM (HC3)

Craig's third key historical claim is a claim about the twelve disciples of Jesus (minus Judas Iscariot), so this claim is about eleven disciples of Jesus.  Thus, if Craig is only able to show that it is a historical fact that six of Jesus' twelve disciples "came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead", then Craig will have failed to show that (HC3b) is a historical fact, and thus he will have failed to show that his third key historical claim (HC3) is a historical fact. 

Furthermore, if Craig is only able to show that it is a historical fact that nine or ten of Jesus' twelve disciples (minus Judas Iscariot) "came to sincerely believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead", then Craig will have failed to show that (HC3b) is a historical fact, and thus he will have failed to show that his third key historical claim (HC3) is a historical fact. 

In order for Craig to show that (HC3) is a historical fact, he needs to show that all  eleven of Jesus' twelve disciples (not counting Judas) "came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead."  If Craig is not able to do this, then he will have failed to show that (HC3) is a historical fact, and that would give us a very good reason to believe that premise (2) of his case is false, which means we would have a very good reason to believe that premise (C) of his core argument is false, which would give us further confirmation that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

The Gospel of Mark gives us a list of the twelve disciples:

14 And he [Jesus] appointed twelve to be with him and to be sent out to preach 15 and to have authority to cast out demons. 16 So he appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter), 17 James son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder), 18 and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, 19 and Judas Iscariot, who handed him over.  (Mark 3:14-19, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

Here are the names of the twelve disciples, according to the Gospel of Mark:

1. Simon (to whom Jesus gave the name Peter)
2. James (son of Zebedee)
3. John (the brother of James)
4. Andrew
5. Philip
6. Bartholomew
7. Matthew
8. Thomas
9. James (son of Alphaeus)
10. Thaddeaus
11. Simon (the Cananaean)
12. Judas Iscariot (who handed Jesus over)

There are two names on this list that are historically problematic, but let's set that issue aside for now, and assume this list from the Gospel of Mark is correct.  In that case, (HC3) implies the following eleven historical claims:

(HC3-1) Simon (to whom Jesus gave the name Peter) came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-2) James (son of Zebedee) came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead.

(HC3-3) John (the brother of James) came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-4) Andrew came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-5) Philip came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-6) Bartholomew came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-7) Matthew came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-8) Thomas came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-9) James (son of Alphaeus) came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-10) Thaddeaus came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

(HC3-11) Simon (the Cananaean) came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

Because (HC3) implies the above eleven historical claims, in order for Craig to show that (HC3) is a historical fact, Craig must show that each of the above eleven  historical claims is a historical fact.  If Craig fails to show that one (or more) of these claims is a historical fact, then he will have failed to show that (HC3) is a historical fact.  If Craig fails to show that (HC3) is a historical fact, then we will have a very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, that premise (C) is false, and that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

CRAIG SHOWED ZERO OF THE ELEVEN CLAIMS TO BE HISTORICAL FACTS

In Chapter 8 of RFE Craig writes only about two pages in support of his claim that (HC3) is a historical fact. In Chapter 8, Craig shows ZERO of the above eleven historical claims to be historical facts. Thus, Craig has utterly and completely failed to show that (HC3) is a historical fact.  This gives us a very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, that premise (C) is false, and therefore we have further confirmation that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

In Craig's discussion where he attempts to show that (HC3) is a historical fact, he only talks about the religious  beliefs of ONE of the eleven disciples: Simon (to whom Jesus gave the name Peter). Craig only mentions the names of two of the eleven disciples: "Peter" (i.e. Simon) and Matthew.  But Craig does not specifically talk about Matthew's beliefs.  Rather he talks about the beliefs of the people in Matthew's church, which might or might not reflect Matthew's personal beliefs.

So, Craig does not speciically discuss the religious beliefs of these ten disciples:

• James (son of Zebedee)
• John (the brother of James)
• Andrew
• Philip
• Bartholomew
• Matthew
• Thomas
• James (son of Alphaeus)
• Thaddeaus
• Simon (the Cananaean)

How can Craig show that the ten historical claims about the religious beliefs of these ten specific disciples are historical facts without even mentioning these ten disciples?

The one brief paragraph where Craig mentions an event where Peter allegedly preached about the resurrection of Jesus is clearly insufficient to show that it is a historical fact that Peter (i.e. Simon) came to sincerely believe that God had raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. So, Craig fails to show that the following historical claim is a historical fact:

(HC3-1) Simon (to whom Jesus gave the name Peter) came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

But even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that Craig could, with some additional effort, show that (HC3-1) was a historical fact, that would still leave the remaining ten historical claims about the other ten disciples up in the air, without any argument for those claims being historical facts. This is why Craig's discussion in support of (HC3) being a historical fact takes up only about two pages.  Craig doesn't bother to discuss ten out of the eleven implications of (HC3).

Thus, it seems fairly clear that Craig has failed to show that his third key historical claim (HC3) is a historical fact.  However, he does present some points in support of (HC3) on pages 387 to 389, so I will now critically examine those points.

WHAT EVEN SKEPTICAL NEW TESTAMENT SCHOLARS ADMIT

Here is the first point Craig makes in support of his third key historical claim (HC3):

Even skeptical New Testament scholars admit that the earliest disciples at least believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead. (RF3, page 387)

First, Craig does not quote a single skeptical New Testament scholar to support this point, nor does he provide a footnote pointing to statements on this question by any skeptical New Testament scholar.  This is an unacceptable omission.  Nobody should simply believe this claim just on Craig's say-so, especially when he is attempting to show his third historical claim to be a historical fact. Such sloppy scholarship falls short of the serious burden of proof that Craig has here.

Second, Craig is unclear whether this admission is made by just a couple of skeptical NT scholars or by several skeptical NT scholars or by a large majority of skeptical NT scholars.  So, the vagueness of quantification in this claim impacts its significance.

Third, the phrase "the earliest disciples" is in general unclear.  I have been able to clarify what Craig means by this phrase in the context of Chapter 8 of RF3, but that does not mean that skeptical NT scholars who talk about "the earliest disciples" use this phrase exactly the way Craig does. They might not have in mind all eleven of the twelve disciples of Jesus (minus Judas Iscariot), when they talk about "the earliest disciples".  We would have to look at the context of the quotations where these skeptical scholars allegedly make this admission.  

But Craig has provided no quotations, and no references, so we have no way to determine what those skeptical NT scholars mean by the phrase "the earliest disciples" (or whatever particular phrase they actually use). This illustrates WHY it is unacceptable for Craig to make the claim about what skeptical NT scholars admit without bothering to provide any quotes or references to such alleged admissions by such scholars.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the phrase "believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead" in Craig's claim about what skeptical NT scholars admit, is unclear. Specifically, it is not clear from this statement that skeptical NT scholars admit that the earliest disciples believed that God had raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead.  

Even if several skeptical NT scholars admit that all eleven disciples of Jesus (the twelve minus Judas) believed that "Jesus had been raised from the dead", they might NOT agree that all eleven disciples of Jesus believed that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead.

Fifth, there is a problem of vague quantification in the alleged admission of skeptical NT scholars.  Do they admit that 100% of "the earliest disciples" believed that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead? or that about 90% of "the earliest disciples" believed this? or that about 80% of "the earliest disciples" believed this? or that a majority of "the earliest disciples" believed this? If the skeptical NT scholars only admit that a majority of "the earliest disciples believed that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead, that is compatible with it being the case that only six out of the eleven disciples listed above came to sincerely hold that belief. That is significantly less than what Craig is claiming, which is that all of the eleven disciples named above came to sincerely believe that God had raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead.

In order for Craig to make a significant claim about what skeptical NT scholars admit, he would have needed to say something like this:

About 80% of skeptical New Testament scholars admit that 100% of the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus (the twelve minus Judas) came to sincerely believe that God had raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead.

Craig does not make such a clear and strong claim.  I suspect that is because he knows that (a) he cannot show this claim to be true, and (b) such a clear and strong claim would cause readers to expect Craig to provide significant evidence to back this claim up, which he could not do.

Sixth, even if Craig had made the clear and strong claim above and had actually provided the evidence required to show this claim to be true, that would still be insufficient to show that (HC3) was a historical fact.  In order to show (HC3) to be a historical fact, Craig would have to provide strong historical evidence showing that each of the eleven historical claims implied by (HC3) are historical facts.  

Showing that a large majority of skeptical New Testament scholars believe that (HC3) is true is NOT sufficient to show that (HC3) is a historical fact.  To establish that historical claim X is a historical fact requires one to actually produce strong historical evidence in support of historical claim X. Craig has not even attempted to do this for ten of the eleven historical claims implied by (HC3).

Because of the above six serious problems, this point by Craig fails to provide significant support for his claim that (HC3) is a historical fact.

TO BE CONTINUED...

Craig makes other points in support of his claim that (HC3) is a historical fact. I will address those other points in the next part of this series.