WHERE WE ARE

In the first post of this series, called “Why Christian Apologists are Doomed to FAIL“, I put forward this skeptical argument about the attempts of Christian apologists to prove the resurrection of Jesus:

1. One can construct a reasonable argument for the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead ONLY IF one has first obtained dozens of relevant historical facts about the arrest, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus, and about alleged appearances of a living and physically embodied Jesus after his crucifixion.

2. Given our currently available information, NOBODY can obtain dozens of relevant historical facts about the arrest, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus, and about alleged appearances of a living and physically embodied Jesus after his crucifixion.

THEREFORE:

3. Given our currently available information, NOBODY can construct a reasonable argument for the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead.

In this post, I will argue that premise (1) is true.

WILLIAM CRAIG’S CASE IN THE SON RISES

William Craig is one of the leading Christian apologists on the issue of the resurrection of Jesus. A brief look at his case for the resurrection of Jesus in his book The Son Rises (hereafter: TSR), will provide strong support for premise (1). Here, again is premise (1) of my skeptical argument:

1. One can construct a reasonable argument for the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead ONLY IF one has first obtained dozens of relevant historical facts about the arrest, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus, and about alleged appearances of a living and physically embodied Jesus after his crucifixion.

According to the Christian apologists Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks, in their book When Skeptics Ask (hereafter: WSA), in order to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead, one must first prove that Jesus died on the cross:

JESUS ACTUALLY DIED ON THE CROSS

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. (WSA, p.120)

For this reason, the first phase of Geisler’s case for the resurrection is devoted to reasons and arguments for the claim that “Jesus actually died on the cross.” (see pages 120 to 123 in WSA).

William Craig also addresses this issue in the first phase of his case for the resurrection of Jesus, in his book TSR. Chapter 2 of TSR is devoted to attempts to refute some skeptical theories about the alleged resurrection of Jesus. The first skeptical theory that Craig addresses is the Conspiracy Theory (the skeptical view that the disciples of Jesus conspired to deceive others into believing that God raised Jesus from the dead and lied about having seen the risen Jesus. The second skeptical theory Craig addresses is the Swoon Theory (which he refers to as the Apparent Death Theory). This theory claims that Jesus survived his crucifixion, and thus, as Geisler states, “It is no miracle for a live man to walk out of a tomb.”

Craig’s first objection against the Swoon Theory is this:

1. The theory failed to take seriously the extent of Jesus’ physical injury. (TSR, p.37)

I think this is the most important objection to the Swoon Theory, and it is also a crucial point in any reasonable case for the resurrection of Jesus. As Geisler correctly pointed out, “Before we (Christian apologists) can show that Jesus rose from the dead, we need to show that he really did die.” (WSA, p.120).

Proving that Jesus died on the cross is, of course, not sufficient to show that God raised Jesus from the dead. But it is a necessary first step to making a reasonable argument for this conclusion. So, Craig’s attempt to refute the Swoon Theory in Chapter 2 of TSR, is a crucial part of his case for the resurrection of Jesus. If this attempt fails, then Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus also fails.

I have carefully analyzed Craig’s attempt to refute the Swoon Theory in TSR, and one important part of that effort is his first objection against the Swoon Theory, summarized in the above quote from TSR. In making this first objection against the Swoon Theory, Craig makes at least 45 different historical claims (see my post “Craig’s Historical Claims for His Objection #1 against the Swoon Theory“). Thus, just for this one crucial part of Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus, he makes over three dozen historical claims. These claims concern the trials, abuse, scourging, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus.

Showing that Jesus died on the cross, however, is NOT sufficient to show that God raised Jesus from the dead. So, this is only one part of Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus. Since Craig makes over three dozen different historical claims to support just this one part of his case for the resurrection of Jesus, it is clear that his case for the resurrection of Jesus includes dozens of different historical claims about Jesus.

For example, Craig also makes many other historical claims in his attempts to refute other skeptical theories, such as the Conspiracy Theory. On pages 26 and 27 of TSR, Craig makes over 300 historical claims in his case against the Conspiracy Theory.* Craig cannot make a reasonable case for the resurrection of Jesus if he fails to refute common skeptical theories, such as the Swoon Theory and the Conspiracy Theory. Accomplishing this task requires Craig to make dozens of historical claims about Jesus and about his disciples.

Furthermore, Craig devotes Chapter 3 of TSR to reasons and arguments about “The Empty Tomb”. That chapter starts on page 45 and ends on page 90, presenting his case for the tomb of Jesus being found empty on Sunday morning following Jesus’ crucifixion and alleged burial. Craig makes many more historical claims in that chapter. Craig devotes Chapter 4 of TSR to reasons and arguments about “The Appearances of Jesus”. Those reasons and arguments are based on many more historical claims.

I have not attempted to catalogue and count all of the historical claims Craig makes in Chapters 2, 3, and 4, but since he makes more than 345 different historical claims covering just two skeptical theories in Chapter 2, I would estimate that Craig makes at least another hundred more historical claims in Chapters 3 and 4. It is likely that Craig asserts at least four hundred historical claims as part of his case for the resurrection of Jesus in TSR, especially given that those three chapters are NOT the entirety of his full case in TSR.

THE CASE BY GEISLER AND BROOKS IN WHEN SKEPTICS ASK

How about the case for the resurrection of Jesus in WSA by Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks? Do Geisler and Brooks also make dozens of historical claims in their case? They make more than 50 different historical claims in about two pages, which are in support of the claim that Jesus died on the cross (see my post on “Geisler’s Historical Claims supporting the Death of Jesus on the Cross“).

So, Craig asserts over three dozen different historical claims in the first phase of his case for the resurrection of Jesus. Geisler and Brooks assert over four dozen different historical claims in the first phase of their case for the resurrection of Jesus.

Obviously, the case by Geisler and Brooks does not end with that initial phase about the alleged death of Jesus on the cross. They make many more historical claims about the crucifixion and burial of Jesus, and about alleged appearances of Jesus to his disciples after the crucifixion (see pages 123 to 127 of WSA). I would estimate that the full case for the resurrection of Jesus in WSA includes five or six dozen different historical claims about the arrest, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus, and about alleged appearances of Jesus to his disciples after the crucifixion.

CONCLUSION

The cases for the resurrection of Jesus put forward by William Craig and by Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks involve dozens of historical claims about the arrest, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus, and about alleged appearances of Jesus to his disciples after his crucifixion.

This is strong evidence that a reasonable case for the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead requires that one first obtain dozens of relevant historical facts about the arrest, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus, and about alleged appearances of Jesus to his disciples after his crucifixion. Apart from such a collection of relevant historical facts, one cannot make a reasonable case for the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead.

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

* Craig makes several historical claims about “the disciples” on pages 26 and 27 of TSR. I take it that he was referring to the eleven remaining disciples (the twelve disciples minus Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus). So, each such claim implies eleven different historical claims.

For example, Craig makes the following statement on page 26 of TSR:

It is impossible to deny that the disciples honestly believed that Jesus had risen from the dead, in light of their life of suffering and their dying for this truth.

This one statement implies 22 different specific historical claims (two claims about each of the eleven remaining disciples):

1. Peter lived a life of suffering because of his belief that Jesus had risen from the dead.
2. Peter willingly died for his belief that Jesus had risen from the dead.
3. Andrew lived a life of suffering because of his belief that Jesus had risen from the dead.
4. Andrew willingly died for his belief that Jesus had risen from the dead.
5. John lived a life of suffering because of his belief that Jesus had risen from the dead.
6. John willingly died for his belief that Jesus had risen from the dead.
7. James lived a life of suffering because of his belief that Jesus had risen from the dead.
8. James willingly died for his belief that Jesus had risen from the dead.
9. Etc.