William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 35: Craig's Other Points in Support of (HC3)

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.

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, I clarified the phrase "The first disciples". In Part 33 of this series, I clarified this claim further by determining the meaning of the phrase "to believe in Jesus' resurrection". Here is the fully clarified version of (HC3):

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. 

In Part 34 of this series, I argued that in order to show that (HC3) is a historical fact, Craig would need to provide strong historical evidence showing that each of the following eleven historical claims was 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. 

(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. 

In the very meager two pages that Craig devotes to showing that (HC3) is a historical fact, he does not even attempt to show that ten of these claims are historical facts, which explains why Craig only devotes two pages to supporting his view that (HC3) is a historical fact. So, it is clear that Craig has completely failed to show that (HC3) is a historical fact.  This gave us a very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, and thus that premise (C) is false, and this further confirmed that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

However, Craig did make a few points in his extremely brief attempt to support his view that (HC3) is a historical fact. Here is the first point Craig made 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)

 

In Part 34 of this series, I pointed out six serious problems with this point by Craig, that show that this point fails to provide significant support for his view that (HC3) is a historical fact.

In this current post, I will address a few other points made by Craig in his extremely brief attempt to show that (HC3) is a historical fact.

BELIEF IN JESUS' RESURRECTION WAS THE BASIS OF THE DISCIPLES' BELIEF THAT HE WAS THE MESSIAH

Craig's second point in support of (HC3) being a historical fact is this:

It was on the basis of belief in his [Jesus'] resurrection that the disciples could believe that Jesus was the Messiah. (RF3, page 388)

First, as stated by Craig, this point begs the question at issue. 
This statement ASSUMES that the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus came to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.  But that is precisely what Craig needs to argue for on the basis of strong historical evidence.

Second, belief in Jesus' resurrection by the eleven remaining disciples is not sufficient to support (HC3), because in context (HC3) asserts that the disciples came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. The belief that Jesus rose from the dead (i.e. came back to life) is NOT the same as the specific theological belief that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead. 

Third, setting aside Peter (i.e. Simon), Craig provides no specific historical evidence here that James, John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James (son of Alphaeus), Thaddeaus, or Simon (the Cananaean) came sincerely to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

Fourth, setting aside Peter (i.e. Simon), Craig provides no specific historical evidence that James, John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James (son of Alphaeus), Thaddeaus, or Simon (the Cananaean) came sincerely to believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

Fifth, setting aside Peter (i.e. Simon), Craig provides no specific historical evidence that James, John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James (son of Alphaeus), Thaddeaus, or Simon (the Cananaean) came to believe that Jesus was the Messiah only AFTER they came sincerely to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. 

Sixth, setting aside Peter (i.e. Simon), Craig provides no specific historical evidence that the crucifixion of Jesus created serious doubts in the minds of the eleven remaining disciples about the belief that Jesus was the Messiah.

Even if we grant Craig's assumption that first-century Palestinian Jews would usually take the crucifixion and death of a Jew as powerful evidence that the crucified Jew was not the Messiah, that does not make it a historical fact that each of Jesus' eleven remaining disciples would reason the exact same way.  Some of the eleven disciples might have held non-standard theological or ideological beliefs.

After all, the eleven disciples were devout followers of Jesus, unlike most of their fellow Jews.  Also, although Jesus' teachings were within the broad range of theological and ideological views of first-century Palestinian Jews, Jesus clearly had some unique theological and ideological beliefs that did not sit well with many of his fellow Jews, but his disciples were willing to give the non-standard beliefs of Jesus serious consideration. So, the disciples of Jesus cannot simply be assumed to share all of the standard theological and ideological beliefs of their fellow first-century Palestinian Jews.

Based on the above six serious problems with Craig's second point, this point fails to provide significant support for his view that (HC3) is a historical fact.

1 CORINTHIANS 15 MAKES IT PROBABLE THAT BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS GOES BACK TO THE FIRST CHURCH IN JERUSALEM

Craig's third point in support of (HC3) being a historical fact is this:

...the traditional formula quoted in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 in which the "gospel" is defined as the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of Christ makes it probable that this understanding of the gospel goes right back to the very beginning of the church in Jerusalem. (RF3, page 388)

First, just as the theological and ideological beliefs of all of the eleven remaining disciples do not necessarily correspond perfectly with the standard theological and ideological beliefs of first-century Palestinian Jews, so the theological and ideological beliefs all of the eleven remaining disciples do not necessarily correspond perfectly with the standard theological and ideological beliefs of the first generation of Christians in Jerusalem.

Some of the eleven disciples might well have held theological or ideological beliefs that differed from the standard beliefs of the first generation of Christians in Jerusalem.  In fact, it is unclear that there were standard theological and ideological beliefs among the first generation of Christians in Jerusalem.

Second, the claim is only that 1 Corinthians 15 "makes it probable" that belief in Jesus' resurrection goes back to the very beginning of the Christian church in Jerusalem.  

So, now we have two probabilities to take into consideration, and those probabilities must be multiplied together to determine the probability that all eleven of the remaining disciples of Jesus came sincerely to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.  

Suppose there was a 70% chance that the first generation of Christians in Jerusalem generally believed that Jesus rose from the dead as a part of their Christian faith.  Suppose that if this were a standard theological belief of the first generation of Christians in Jerusalem, there would be a 70% chance that all eleven remaining disciples came to sincerely believe that Jesus rose from the dead.  These two probabilities should be multiplied together:

.70 x .70 = .49

On these reasonable assumptions, the probability that all eleven disciples came sincerely to believe that Jesus rose from the dead would be about .50, which means there would only be about a 50/50 chance that all eleven disciples came sincerely to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.  That probability is far short of the high probability required to establish that (HC3) is a historical fact.

Even if we bump both of the probability estimates to a very generous 80% chance, the multiplication of probabilities still makes the resulting probability too low for (HC3) to be considered a historical fact:

.80 x .80 = .64

A probability between .60 and .70 is too low to conclude that (HC3) is a historical fact.

Third, the belief that Jesus rose from the dead is not the same as the more specific theological belief that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead.  The early Christian tradition that Paul wrote down in 1 Corinthians only asserts the belief that Jesus rose from the dead:

3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures 4 and that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. (1 Corinthians 15:3-5)

The early Christian tradition does NOT specify that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead.  In fact, this tradition does not mention the alleged discovery of the empty tomb by some of Jesus' women followers.  Thus, this early Christian tradition only "makes it probable" that the first generation of Christians in Jerusalem believed that Jesus rose from the dead.  It does not indicate that the first generation of Christians in Jerusalem generally believed that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead.

Because the early Christian tradition does not specify the theological belief that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead, the probability of this being the general belief of the first generation of Christians in Jerusalem would be significantly lower than the previous probability estimation.  It would be reasonable to lower the probability to about a 50% chance:

.50 x .80 = .40

The evidence that Craig has provided thus suggests that the probability that all eleven remaining disciples of Jesus came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead is about .40, about a 40% chance.

In view of the above problems with this third point by Craig, it is clear that this point fails to provide significant evidence for his view that (CH3) is a historical fact.

CRAIG'S RESPONSES TO SKEPTICAL OBJECTIONS

Craig actually writes less than one page where he makes a positive case for his view that (HC3) is a historical fact.  This is because he expends more than one page responding to two skeptical objections against (HC3).  While it is relevant to respond to skeptical objections against (HC3), that is not the same as building a positive case for (HC3) being a historical fact. 

It was already absurd for Craig to attempt to show that (HC3) was a historical fact in just two pages, but to spend more than half of that ridiculously short case for (HC3) being a historical fact on responding to objections against (HC3), means that Craig's attempt to make a positive case for (HC3) being a historical fact consists of less than one page.

I don't agree with Craig's responses to the skeptical objections that he discusses, but it is not worth the time and effort to discuss those issues, given that Craig has the burden of proof here, not those who are skeptical about his claims.  Craig has asserted that (HC3) is a historical fact, but in devoting only one page to making a positive case for this strong claim, he doomed himself to failure, and we have seen that his extremely brief attempts do in fact fail.

CONCLUSIONS

Craig failed to provide strong historical evidence for each of the eleven historical claims implied by (HC3) about the theological beliefs of each of the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus, which he needed to do in order to show that all eleven of those historical claims were historical facts. Furthermore, Craig made no attempt to provide specific historical evidence in support of ten of the eleven historical claims implied by (HC3).

Thus, Craig has completely failed to show that (HC3) is a historical fact.  Therefore,  we have a very good reason to believe that premise (2) of his case is false, and thus a very good reason to believe that premise (C) in the core argument of his case is false, and this provides further confirmation that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails. 

P.S.

In Part 34 of this series, I mentioned that there are a couple of names in the list of names of the twelve disciples found in the Gospel of Mark that are problematic. The two problematic names are: Thaddeaus and Matthew:

In the Gospel of Luke and in Acts, the name "Thaddeaus" is replaced in the lists of Jesus' twelve disciples by the name "Judas", an additional Judas besides Judas Iscariot. The traditional view is that "Thaddeaus" and "Judas" are two names for the same person. 

However, according to the prominent Jesus and NT scholar John Meier, there is no good reason to identify these as names of the same person: 

Since, in Luke and Acts, Jude of James occupies the slot filled by Thaddeus in the Marcan and Matthean lists, Christian imagination was quick to harmonize and produce a Jude Thaddeus, a conflation that has no basis in reality. (A Marginal Jew, Volume III, page 200)

Since these might well be two different people, Craig would need to provide strong historical evidence showing that this additional implication of (HC3) is a historical fact:

(HC3-12) Judas (son of James) came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead.

There also appears to be some confusion about the disciple named "Matthew".  In the Gospel of Mark (Mark 2:13-15) and the Gospel of Luke (Luke 5:27-29), Jesus calls a tax-collector named "Levi" to be his disciple. But in the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 9:9-10), the tax-collector called by Jesus is named "Matthew". 

The traditional view is that "Matthew" and "Levi" are two names for the same person, but the prominent Jesus and NT scholar John Meier is skeptical about this view:

It is the Matthean Gospel that creates a cross-reference and identification, first by changing Levi's name to Matthew in the story of Jesus' call of a toll collector (Matt 9:9) and then by adding to Matthew's name in the list of the Twelve the description "the toll collector" (Matt 10:3).  Whatever reasons the First Evangelist [the author of the Gospel of Matthew] may have had for his editorial alterations, the change of names is a redactional intervention of a Christian evangelist toward the end of the 1st century and tells us nothing about an original member of the Twelve named Matthew. (A Marginal Jew, Volume III, page 201)

So, it might well be the case that "Matthew" and "Levi" are two different people.  Although the name "Levi" does not appear in any of the lists of the Twelve disciples, this could be the result of confusion about the names "Mattthew" and "Levi", so it is quite possible that "Levi" was a different person than "Matthew", and that at some point in time, "Levi" was one of the Twelve disciples.  

Again, to make sure that (HC3) is actually a historical fact, Craig would need to provide strong historical evidence showing that the following additional historical claim was a historical fact:

(HC3-13) Levi (the tax collector) came sincerely to believe that God raised Jesus physically and bodily from the dead.