CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE KEY PREMISE (3a)

Here, again, is the sub-argument given to support the key premise (3a):

4a. It is contrary to 1st-century Jewish thought to believe that Jesus had died on the cross (around 30 CE) and then to believe that Jesus had gloriously risen from the dead (less than 48 hours later).

B. The primary influence on the religious beliefs of the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus was 1st-century Jewish thought.

THEREFORE:

3a. Seeing Jesus alive after his crucifixion (around 30 CE) would lead the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus to believe that Jesus had not died on the cross, not that Jesus was gloriously risen from the dead.

The above sub-argument for the key premise (3a) is crucial to Craig’s Contrary to Jewish Thought Objection (hereafter: Craig’s CJT Objection). There is good reason to doubt that premise (3a) is true, so if Craig fails to provide a solid argument for the key premise (3a), then we may reasonably conclude that (3a) is probably false and that Craig’s CJT Objection against the Swoon Theory fails.

My initial evaluation of premise (3a) was based on the fact that according to the Gospels, Jesus repeatedly told his disciples that he would be killed and that God would raise him from the dead a short while later. Also, according to the Gospels, the disciples of Jesus had seen Jesus walk on water, turn water into wine, calm a raging storm with a shout, feed thousands of people with a few fishes and a few loaves of bread, heal the sick, give sight to the blind, and raise the dead. If the Gospels are historically reliable accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry, then we would reasonably expect that his inner circle of devoted disciples would have no doubts about Jesus being raised from the dead by God. Premise (3a) is very implausible on its face, given what the Gospels tell us.

In other words, in order to believe that premise (3a) is true, one would have to reject the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus. But if one doubts the historical reliability of the Gospels, then one has no solid historical basis for the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead. Craig and other Christian apologists cannot defend premise (3a) by casting doubt on the historical reliability of the Gospels, because doing so would undermine most of the historical claims that form the basis of any case for the resurrection of Jesus.

As I argued in Part 2 of this series, premise (B) is false. In order for premise (4a) to have a chance of being true, we must distinguish between the teaching and preaching of Jesus on the one hand, and 1st-century Jewish thought on the other. Upon making this distinction, it becomes clear that the teaching and preaching of Jesus was a GREATER influence on the religious beliefs of his disciples than the influence of the religious beliefs held by most 1st-century Jews.

Because premise (B) is false, we must reject the sub-argument for the key premise (3a). That means that William Craig has failed to provide a good reason to believe that (3a) is true. Since premise (3a) was an implausible claim to begin with, the failure of Craig to provide a good reason to believe that (3a) is true makes it reasonable to conclude that premise (3a) is probably false and that Craig’s CJT Objection against the Swoon Theory fails.

THE HISTORICAL CLAIMS THAT ARE THE BASIS FOR PREMISE (4a)

Here, once again, is premise (4a) of the argument for Craig’s CJT Objection:

4a. It is contrary to 1st-century Jewish thought to believe that Jesus had died on the cross (around 30 CE) and then to believe that Jesus had gloriously risen from the dead (less than 48 hours later).

If premise (4a) is false or dubious, then that would be another good reason to reject Craig’s sub-argument for the key premise (3a) and another good reason to conclude that Craig’s CJT Objection against the Swoon Theory fails.

In Part 2 of this series, I pointed out that the sub-argument for premise (4a) is based upon a number of inferences and four basic premises: (6a), (7a), (E), and (H).

In Part 2, I also showed that the historical claims made in premises (6a) and (7a) were too weak to be the basis for a solid objection against the Swoon Theory. Even if we assume that (6a) and (7a) were true, it does not follow that all eleven of Jesus’ remaining disciples would have held the common Jewish beliefs about resurrection that might have caused them to have serious doubts about the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Even if (6a) and (7a) were true, there would be a very good chance that at least one or two of the eleven disciples would NOT have held the common Jewish beliefs about resurrection that might have caused them to doubt the resurrection of Jesus, and that is all that is required for the Swoon Theory to be true.

The strongest versions of premises (6a) and (7a) are these:

(6d) At least 90% of 1st-century Jews believed that the resurrection of people would only occur after the end of the world.

(7d) At least 90% of 1st-century Jews believed that the resurrection of all people (or all righteous people) would occur at the same time.

In Part 2, I showed that even these very strong historical claims are too weak to do the job that Craig needed them to do. Even if we assume that (6d) and (7d) were true, that would not be a sufficient basis for a solid objection against the Swoon Theory.

But we should also ask a different question about these two strong historical claims: Are they true? If one or both of these claims is false or dubious, then that would mean that Craig has failed to provide us with a good reason to believe that premise (4a) is true, and in that case, we should conclude that premise (4a) is dubious and might well be false. If premise (4a) was dubious, then that would give us another good reason to reject the sub-argument for the key premise (3a), and another good reason to conclude that Craig’s CJT Objection against the Swoon Theory fails.

EVALUATION OF PREMISES (6d) AND (7d)

Premises (6d) and (7d) are both dubious historical claims. It is highly unlikely that Craig or anyone else would be able to show that these claims are historical facts, or even that it is very probable that these historical claims are true. The following considerations make it highly unlikely that we could ever determine that these claims were true:

• About 90% of 1st-century Jews were illiterate.*
• About 90% of 1st-century Jews did not write any letters, essays, stories, speeches, sermons, songs, poems, plays, books, journals, or diaries.
• No 1st-century Jews voted in elections for candidates for political or religious offices or for political or religious policies.
• No 1st-century Jews answered any questions on opinion surveys or polls.

We can, of course, speculate about the religious and political beliefs of 1st-century Jews, but we have very little facts and data about the religious and political beliefs of 90% of 1st-century Jews. It appears to be practically impossible to verify the strong historical claims asserted by premises (6d) and (7d).

However, the Gospels and Acts provide a good deal of evidence that there were significant religious disagreements among 1st-century Jews, even about the idea of resurrection.

1ST-CENTURY JEWS DISAGREED ABOUT THE IDEA OF RESURRECTION

Perhaps the most obvious problem with premises (6d) and (7d) are that they assume that there was widespread agreement among 1st-century Jews about the idea of a resurrection. This is a dubious assumption that is likely the result of the FALLACY OF HASTY GENERALIZATION.

The Jews of the 1st century had a major disagreement about the resurrection of the dead, and the Gospels and Acts make this very clear:

18 Some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him and asked him a question, saying, 19 “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. 20 There were seven brothers; the first married and, when he died, left no children, 21 and the second married the widow and died, leaving no children, and the third likewise; 22 none of the seven left children. Last of all the woman herself died. 23 In the resurrection, when they rise, whose wife will she be? For all seven had married her.”
24 Jesus said to them, “Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God? (Mark 12:18-24, NRSV Updated Edition)

6 When Paul noticed that some were Sadducees and others were Pharisees, he called out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. I am on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead.” 7 When he said this, a dissension began between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection or angel or spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge all three.)
(Acts 23:6-8, NRSV Updated Edition)

The Pharisees believed that there would be a resurrection of the dead at the end of the world when all mankind would be judged by God. The Sadducees, on the other hand, did not believe that there would ever be any resurrection of the dead. Premises (6d) and (7d) assert that almost all 1st-century Jews held the view of the Pharisees about resurrection. But most Jews were not themselves Pharisees. Also, the priests and leaders in Jerusalem were primarily Sadducees, not Pharisees, so it is questionable that “at least 90% of 1st-century Jews” held the same views about resurrection as the Pharisees.

Since 1st-century Jews disagreed about whether there would ever be a resurrection of the dead, it seems that 1st-century Jews would be likely to have other significant theological disagreements, such as disagreements about whether an individual person could rise from the dead, and whether the resurrection of a dead person could only take place at the end of the world.

If we grant that the Pharisees believed that there would be a resurrection of the dead, and that this would only take place at the end of the world when God would judge all humankind, and that this would be a resurrection of all humans, not just some humans, it does not follow that 90% of 1st-century Jews held these theological beliefs. Many Jews were not Pharisees.

MANY 1ST-CENTURY JEWS WERE OPEN TO THE IDEA OF INDIVIDUAL RESURRECTIONS OCCURRING BEFORE THE END OF THE WORLD

Here are other claims made by the Gospels and Acts that cast doubt on the idea that almost all 1st-century Jews would have rejected the idea that an individual could rise from the dead before the end of the world:

• Some Jews believed that Jesus was John the Baptist or an Old Testament prophet who had risen from the dead (before the end of the world).
• The Jewish leaders in Jerusalem were afraid that the disciples would steal Jesus’ body from the tomb and then use the empty tomb to deceive many Jews into believing that Jesus had risen from the dead (before the end of the world).
• According to Acts, thousands of Jews became followers of Jesus and accepted the belief that God raised Jesus from the dead (before the end of the world) without them seeing Jesus alive after his crucifixion.

Some Jews believed that Jesus was John the Baptist or an Old Testament prophet who had risen from the dead (before the end of the world):

14 King Herod heard of it, for Jesus’s name had become known. Some were saying, “John the baptizer has been raised from the dead, and for this reason these powers are at work in him.” 15 But others said, “It is Elijah.” And others said, “It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” 16 But when Herod heard of it, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.” (Mark 6:14-16, NRSV Updated Edition)

14 At that time Herod the ruler heard reports about Jesus, 2 and he said to his servants, “This is John the Baptist; he has been raised from the dead, and for this reason these powers are at work in him.” (Matthew 14:1-2, NRSV Updated Edition)

27 Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi, and on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” 28 And they answered him, “John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”
(Mark 8:27-28, NRSV Updated Edition)

18 Once when Jesus was praying alone, with only the disciples near him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say that I am?” 19 They answered, “John the Baptist; but others, Elijah; and still others, that one of the ancient prophets has arisen.”
(Luke 9:18-19, NRSV Updated Edition)

The Jewish leaders in Jerusalem were afraid that the disciples would steal Jesus’ body from the tomb and then use the empty tomb to deceive many Jews into believing that God had raised Jesus from the dead (as a single individual before the end of the world):

62 The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate 63 and said, “Sir, we remember what that impostor said while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 Therefore command the tomb to be made secure until the third day; otherwise, his disciples may go and steal him away and tell the people, ‘He has been raised from the dead,’ and the last deception would be worse than the first.” (Matthew 27:62-64, NRSV Updated Edition)

Jewish leaders in Jerusalem believed that “many Jews” in the 1st century were open to the idea that a single individual could rise from the dead before the end of the world.

According to Acts, thousands of 1st-century Jews became followers of Jesus and accepted the belief that God had raised Jesus from the dead (as a single individual before the end of the world) without seeing Jesus alive after his crucifixion:

4 While Peter and John were speaking to the people, the priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came to them, ² much annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming that in Jesus there is the resurrection of the dead. ³ So they arrested them and put them in custody until the next day, for it was already evening. ⁴ But many of those who heard the word believed, and they numbered about five thousand. (Acts 4:1-4, NRSV Updated Edition)

5 Now there were devout Jews from every people under heaven living in Jerusalem.
[…]
14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, raised his voice and addressed them, “Fellow Jews and all who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and listen to what I say. …
[…]
22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know— 23 this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. 24 But God raised him up, having released him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for him to be held in its power.
[…]
32 “This Jesus God raised up, and of that all of us are witnesses. 33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you see and hear.
[…]
38 Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.” 40 And he testified with many other arguments and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added. (Acts 4:5,14,22-24,32-33,38-41, NRSV Updated Edition)

If thousands of 1st-century Jews could be persuaded that God had raised Jesus from the dead without the powerful evidence of seeing Jesus alive after he was crucified, then it would be unlikely that devout disciples of Jesus would reject the idea that God raised Jesus from the dead when they had personally seen and talked with a living, physically-embodied Jesus after Jesus had been crucified.

CONCLUSIONS

Because we have very little data about the beliefs of about 90% of 1st-century Jews (because they were illiterate), it is highly unlikely that we will ever be able to determine that the strong historical claims asserted by premises (6d) and (7d) are true historical claims.

Because 1st-century Jews had serious theological disagreements, especially about resurrection (Pharisees believed there would be a resurrection of all people at the end of the world, but Sadducees believed there would never be a resurrection of anyone), the strong historical claim that 90% of 1st-century Jews accepted the common beliefs about resurrection held by the Pharisees is a dubious claim.

According to the Gospels and Acts, many 1st-century Jews (at least thousands of them) were open to the idea of that an individual could rise from the dead before the end of the world. This is a second good reason to doubt that premises (6d) and (7d) are true (otherwise, we must conclude that these beliefs about the resurrection were only a weak impediment to someone accepting the belief that God had raised Jesus from the dead as an individual person, before the end of the world).

For these reasons, we may reasonably conclude that premises (6d) and (7d) are dubious, and thus Craig has failed to provide a good reason to believe premise (4a). Thus, premise (4a) is also dubious and might well be false, which is another good reason to reject the argument for the key premise (3a).

Since the argument given for premise (3a) is clearly a bad argument, being based on the false premise (B) and on the dubious premise (4a), it is clear that Craig has failed to provide a good reason to believe the key premise (3a). Because we already have a good reason to believe that (3a) is false, Craig’s failure to provide a good reason to believe (3a) is true makes it reasonable to conclude that (3a) is probably false and that Craig’s CJT Objection against the Swoon Theory fails.

Recall the core argument of Craig’s CJT Objection:

3a. Seeing Jesus alive after his crucifixion (around 30 CE) would lead the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus to believe that Jesus had not died on the cross, not that Jesus was gloriously risen from the dead.

A. According to non-conspiratorial versions of the Swoon Theory, the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus began to believe that Jesus was gloriously risen from the dead as a result of the eleven remaining disciples seeing Jesus alive after his crucifixion (around 30 CE).

THEREFORE:

2a. Non-conspiratorial versions of the Swoon Theory cannot explain why the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus came to believe that Jesus had gloriously risen from the dead.

THEREFORE:

1a. Non-conspiratorial versions of the Swoon Theory have a serious problem that cannot be resolved.

The argument for premise (2a) can now clearly be seen to be a bad argument. As I have previously shown, in Part 1 of this series, premise (A) is false. This alone gives us sufficient reason to reject the argument for (2a) as being unsound.

But now we have a second good reason to reject the argument for premise (2a), because we have determined that premise (3a) is probably false. Thus, it is clear that the argument for premise (2a) is a bad argument, and we may now confidently conclude that Craig’s CJT Objection against the Swoon Theory fails, just like all of his other objections against the Swoon Theory fail.

================================

* “We now know that most people in the Greco-Roman world could not read, let alone write. Estimates of the level of literacy vary, but the most recent studies have concluded that in the best of times (e.g., Athens in the days of Socrates), only 10 to 15 percent of the population (the vast majority of them males) could read and write at an elementary level.” (Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: An Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, p. 45)