bookmark_borderDid Jesus Exist? Ehrman’s Complete Failure – Part 4

A Brief Review of My Previous Objections
One key argument for the existence of Jesus presented by Bart Ehrman in Chapter 3 of Did Jesus Exist? (hereafter: DJE) is based on an historical claim about alleged Agreements Between Seven “Independent” Gospels:
(ABSIG) There are seven Gospels which were written within “a hundred years after the traditional date of Jesus’s death” (DJE, p.78) that are “either completely or partially independent” from each other (DJE, p.78) and yet they “agree on many of the basic aspects of Jesus’s life and death” (DJE, p.86).
One problem with the argument is that a strong version of the argument requires forty to fifty pieces of historical evidence (i.e. forty to fifty specific passages quoted from the seven “independent” Gospels), but  Ehrman provides ZERO pieces of historical data in support of  the historical premise of this argument: (ABSIG).
Another problem with Chapter 3 in general, and the ABSIG argument in particular, is that Ehrman is UNCLEAR about the meaning of the question “Did Jesus exist?”.  Specifically, Ehrman never attempts to clarify or define the meaning of the word “Jesus”, nor does he provide a clear explanation or definition of what he means by a “basic aspect” of the life or death of Jesus.  Before Ehrman can prove that “Jesus exists”, he needs to identify what the “basic” or essential aspects/attributes of Jesus are, so that he can then (potentially) prove that someone who had those attributes actually existed.  Since Ehrman did not clarify or define the meaning of the word “Jesus”, he was in no position to present ANY arguments for the existence of “Jesus”.
A third problem with the ABSIG argument is that Ehrman does a poor job explaining and clarifying the crucial concept of “independence”.  First of all, his use of the phrase “independent Gospels” is misleading and confusing, because, for example, the Gospel of Matthew is one of these “independent” Gospels, but a large portion of Matthew was based on the Gospel of Mark.  The author of Matthew used Mark as a source of information about Jesus, as Ehrman himself points out.  Because the evidence needed to support (ABSIG) is specific passages from the seven Gospels, the real issue concerns the independence of the PASSAGES presented to support the claim that there is an agreement between some of these Gospels on a basic aspect of the life or death of Jesus.  So the “independence” of the Gospels (as books) becomes irrelevant.
Furthermore, the concept of “independence” is not as clear and simple as it first appears, and upon closer examination it has numerous implications, especially when we are talking about the claim that several passages (concerning a basic aspect of the life of Jesus) are independent of each other.  If we have six such passages, for example, then there are 30 different potential dependencies between these passages which must be eliminated in order to show that the passages are independent of each other.  This means there is a significant burden of proof on anyone who attempts to provide historical evidence in support of (ABSIG).  Since Ehrman offered ZERO pieces of historical evidence in support of (ABSIG) he never had the opportunity to take on this burden of proof, and thus made no efforts along these lines.
Today I will discuss another problem (or potential problem) that faces anyone who attempts to provide actual historical evidence in support of (ABSIG).
Independence of the Basic Aspects/Attributes of Jesus
Ehrman never provided actual historical evidence in support of (ABSIG) so he had no opportunity to work at meeting the burden of proof to show that the relevant PASSAGES from the seven “independent” Gospels were PASSAGES that were independent from each other (as well as from other possible sources).   Similarly,  Ehrman never provided a list of “basic aspects” of the life of Jesus; he never defined the essential attributes of “Jesus”, and so he had no opportunity to work at meeting the burden of proof to show that those attributes were reasonable and significant attributes to use for the purpose of investigating the question “Did Jesus exist?”
One likely problem or objection that Ehrman would face (from me at least) if he ever gets around to defining the essential attributes of “Jesus”, is that his list of essential attributes will probably contain attributes that are NOT independent of each other.
The independence that I have in mind is different from the concept of the independence of sources or passages.  Lists of important or essential attributes of Jesus typically involve attributes that are not “independent” given that we understand “independent” in the sense that is used in relation to probability calculations.  It is crucial, for the purposes of supporting (ABSIG) that either the basic attributes of Jesus are independent from each other, or (failing that) that we determine the degree of dependence between each of the various basic attributes.
There is no discussion of this issue by Ehrman simply because he never gets down to the business of actually providing historical evidence in support of (ABSIG), so the issue of the independence of “basic aspects” of the life of Jesus, or of essential attributes of “Jesus”, does not come into view.   But if someday Ehrman (or a Christian apologist) attempts to provide actual historical evidence for (ABSIG), then they are likely to run into this problem.
In his book, The Real Jesus, Luke Johnson’s argument for the basic historicity of the Gospels runs into a problem because Johnson fails to notice the degree to which some of his basic attributes of Jesus have dependencies on each other.  I have commented on this in my series of posts responding to criticisms from William Lane Craig.
This concern about the independence of basic or essential attributes of Jesus grew out of objections to apologetic arguments concerning alleged fulfilled messianic prophecies.  Consider the following objection raised by Tim Callahan in Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment? (hereafter: BP) against Josh McDowell’s presentation of allegedly fulfilled prophecies about Jesus:
McDowell has fudged his figures a bit by taking one incident and breaking it into two to get an extra prophecy or using one prophecy as the source of two separate fulfillments. … Numbers 8 and 9 on his list are that Jesus was a descendant of Jesse, fulfilling Is. 11:1 and that he was of the house of David, fulfilling Jer. 22:5. Since David was the son of Jesse, if Jesus were a descendant of David he would also be a descendant of Jesse. Thus, this should be one prophecy, not two.  (BP, p.113)
One can broaden Callahan’s objection by use of the concept of “independence” from the context of probability calculations.   Because being a descendant of David implies being a descendant of Jesse, these two (alleged) attributes of Jesus are NOT independent from each other.  If Jesus is the descendant of David, that impacts the probability that Jesus is the descendant of Jesse; it raises the probability of the latter attribute to: 1.0  (certainty).  So, if possession of attribute A by Jesus impacts the probability that Jesus possesses attribute B, then attributes A and B are NOT independent attributes.
Furthermore, if possession of attribute A by Jesus makes it certain or likely that Jesus also posses attribute B, then we need to be cautious about overestimating the significance of the fact that Jesus possesses BOTH attribute A and attribute B.
Jesus was generally believed by early Christians to be “the messiah”.  The messiah was expected to be a Jewish male, from the tribe of Judah, a descendant of King David, who would be born in Bethlehem, who would be righteous and a devout worshipper of Jehovah, and a wise man who was obedient to and close to Jehovah.  Because of these expectations, a list of basic attributes like the following is highly problematic:

  • A jewish male
  • who was the messiah (or claimed to be the messiah)
  • who was from the tribe of Judah
  • who was a descendant of King David
  • who was born in Bethlehem
  • who was righteous
  • who was a devout worshipper of Jehovah
  • who was a wise man (or was believed to be wise by many)

All of these attributes (and more) are implied or at least made probable by the second attribute: “who was the messiah (or claimed to be the messiah)”.
More precisely, anyone who sincerely believed that Jesus was the messiah would be likely to also believe that Jesus possessed the other attributes in this list.  So, if the author of a Gospel believed that Jesus was the messiah, then we would reasonably expect that author to also believe that Jesus possessed all of these other attributes as well (even if they had no evidence, no facts, and no sources of information indicating that Jesus possessed those other attributes).
So, if and when Ehrman (or some enterprizing Christian apologist) makes a serious attempt to provide actual historical evidence supporting (ABSIG), then I, for one, will take a very close look at the list of basic or essential attributes used to define the word “Jesus” and to clarify the claim “Jesus exists”, and one of the things I will be looking for is whether those attributes are in fact independent of each other.
If I find there are dependencies between the attributes, then I will be checking to see whether Ehrman (or the apologist) has identified those dependencies and whether the degree of dependence has been properly assessed and taken into account in evaluating the significance of the conjunction of those various attributes in the descriptions of Jesus found in the seven Gospels.

bookmark_borderResponse to William Lane Craig – Part 15

Here is my main objection to William Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus:
In order to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, one must first prove that Jesus died on the cross. But in most of William Craig’s various books, articles, and debates, he simply ignores this issue. He makes no serious attempt to show that it is an historical fact that Jesus died on the cross.  For that reason, Craig’s case for the resurrection is a complete failure.
Here is WLC’s main reply to my objection:
The reason that I personally have not devoted any space to a discussion of the death of Jesus by crucifixion is that this fact is not in dispute. This historical fact is not one that is controversial among biblical scholars. 
Craig supports this point by giving examples of biblical scholars who express great confidence in the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus and Jesus’ death on the cross: Luke Johnson and Robert Funk.
In Parts 2 through 8 of this series, I argued that the example of the biblical scholar Luke Johnson fails to support his point.  In Parts 10 through 14 of this series, I argued that the example of the biblical scholar Robert Funk also fails to support his point.  Given the skeptical views and assumptions of Luke Johnson, his great confidence in the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus and Jesus’ death on the cross is NOT rationally justified, and the same goes for Robert Funk.
However, it is not just Luke Johnson and Robert Funk who have very skeptical views about the Gospels and yet who have great confidence in the crucifixion of Jesus and the death of Jesus on the cross.  The biblical scholars of the Jesus Seminar hold similarly skeptical views about the Gospels and they too are confident about the crucifixion of Jesus and his death on the cross.  So, in this post I will take a closer look at this seemingly paradoxical view of Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar.
Given the skeptical views and assumptions of Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar concerning the Gospels, the only canonical Gospel that could provide significant evidence for the claim that Jesus was crucified and that Jesus died on the cross the same day that he was crucified is the Gospel of Mark.  But in Part 14 of this series, we saw that Funk and the Jesus Seminar believe that the Gospel of Mark is very unreliable, and that the Passion Narrative in Mark is extremely unreliable.  
Chapter 15 of the Gospel of Mark contains the crucifixion scene, and here is how Funk and the Jesus Seminar scholars view that passage:
All the ingredients of the Markan scene are present in the Psalm [Psalm 22].  All Mark had to do was to let his imagination roam in constructing the scene he did.
The picture of the crucifixion in Mark was constructed out of firsthand knowledge of crucifixions and scripture.  There may be traces of historical reminiscence in it, but it isn’t likely.  Anecdotes about Jesus’ execution had not been developed during the oral period, so whatever memories there may have been were not kept alive.  Four decades or more later, Mark and the other evangelists had to reinvent the scene.  As a consequence, the Jesus Seminar was unable to verify any of the details in this scene as a report of actual events.  A black designation was the result.      (The Acts of Jesus, p.156)
Recall the meaning of the use of black font in The Acts of Jesus:
black:   This information is improbable.  It does not fit verifiable evidence; it is largely or entirely fictive.  (The Acts of Jesus, p.37)
Despite this conclusion about the events and details related to the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, Funk and the Jesus Seminar agree that Jesus was in fact crucified in Jerusalem:
In the collective judgment of the Fellows,  the details of the crucifixion scene were inspired largely by Psalm 22 and related prophetic texts.  In spite of that firm conviction, none of the Fellows doubts that Jesus was crucified (v.24a).  They are confident that he was crucified in Jerusalem, at a site outside the old city walls.  Just about everything else in the story was inspired by some scripture.  (The Acts of Jesus, p.155)
So, in spite of the view that the Passion Narrative of Mark is extremely unreliable, and in spite of the fact that the Jesus Seminar believes that nearly every detail of the crucifixion scene was an invention of the author of Mark (i.e. nearly every detail of the crucifixion scene is fictional), the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar “are confident” that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.
This appears to be a case of special pleading.  It looks like Funk and the Jesus Seminar are simply too timid to question the very basic Christian belief that Jesus was crucified and died on the cross.  But, what OBJECTIVE REASONS do the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar have for making an exception of this specific claim from the extremely unreliable Passion Narrative of Mark?  If all of the details of the crucifixion scene are fictional, then why not also doubt the crucifixion itself?  Where does the great confidence of Funk and the Jesus Seminar about Jesus’ crucifixion come from? Amazingly, no reason is given for this confidence that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.  At least no reason is given in the section of The Acts of Jesus that deals with the crucifixion scene (see pages 155 & 156).
However, in a section that covers the opening verses of Chapter 15 of the Gospel of Mark, there is a justification given for a closely related judgment of the Jesus Seminar.  The second half of verse 15 of Chapter 15 of Mark was put into red font by the Jesus Seminar:
had Jesus flogged, and then turned him over to be crucified.  (The Acts of Jesus, p.152)
The use of red font here means that the Jesus Seminar was confident in the historicity of this part of the verse:
red:   The historical reliability of this information is virtually certain.  It is supported by a preponderance of evidence.  (The Acts of Jesus, p.36)
Most of the rest of the opening verses of Chapter 15 were put into black font by the Jesus Seminar, meaning that the other events and details were “improbable” and were “largely or entirely fictive”.  Given that Funk and the Jesus Seminar view the Passion Narrative of Mark as extremely unreliable, and given that they view most of Chapter 15 as “improbable” and “fictive”, where does this great confidence about the crucifixion come from?  What is it based on?
In this case, three reasons are given for their confidence about the crucifixion of Jesus:
The only completely reliable piece of information in this segment is that Jesus was executed on the authority of Pilate (the vote was virtually unanimous).  Both Josephus, the Jewish historian, and Tacitus, the Roman historian, attest to the reliability of this piece of information, as does 1 Tim 6:13.  The relevant part of v. 15 was accordingly voted red.  But the Fellows were almost as certain that no such trial took place as Mark represents it.  A majority of Fellows considered the notion that Jesus was put “on trial” before “rulers” as a story generated by the suggestions in Psalm 2, where kings and rulers array themselves “against the Lord and his annointed” (Ps 2:2). …The credibility of the Christian account of Jesus’ death required that there be a Roman trial and that it be presided over by Pilate, who was the governor or Procurator or Prefect (26-36 C.E.) at the time of Jesus’ execution.  For that reason Mark invented the story that appears in his gospel.   (The Acts of Jesus, p.152, emphasis added by me)
If the three reasons here seem vaguely familiar, that is because these three bits of evidence were also cited by Luke Johnson in defense of the historicity of key events in the Gospels.  I have already argued that these three sources fail to provide significant support for the historicity of Jesus’ crucifixion or the execution of Jesus by order of Pilate.  For my criticism of the Josephus evidence, see Part 5 of this series.  For my criticism of the the Tacitus evidence and the evidence from I Timothy, see Part 6 of this series.
It should be noted that ONLY the passage from Josephus mentions crucifixion; neither the passage from Tacitus nor the passage in I Timothy mentions crucifixion.  Although the passage from I Timothy does mention Pilate, it does not even indicate that Jesus was condemned to die or that Jesus was executed.
The main problem with all three of these sources is that each of them was written a decade or two (or three, in the case of Tacitus, and possibly also in the case of I Timothy) after the Gospel of Mark and they are probably based on information/stories from early Christians who might well have been familiar with the Gospel of Mark and the story of Jesus’ trials and crucifixion as told in that Gospel.  In other words, these sources are probably NOT independent sources of information, but are rather derivative from the Gospel of Mark (or from the Gospel of Matthew or the Gospel of Luke, which were in turn based on the Gospel of Mark).
In short, these three reasons provide only very weak evidence for the crucifixion of Jesus, and this evidence is clearly insufficient to rationally justify the great confidence of Robert Funk and the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar in affirming the traditional Christian belief that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem and that Jesus died on the cross.  Because of the obvious problems with these three reasons, I can only conclude that the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar, like Luke Johnson, were blinded by some sort of prejudice which prevented them from being more consistent in their skepticism about the Passion Narrative of Mark, and from seriously entertaining doubts about the historicity of the alleged crucifixion of Jesus in Jerusalem and his alleged death on the cross.

bookmark_borderResponse to Dr. William Lane Craig – Part 2

In my previous post on this topic, I argued that although I do not consider myself to be a scholar, I do have an extensive background in philosophy that qualifies me as being a well-informed intellectual (BA in philosophy from Sonoma State University, MA in philosophy from the University of Windsor, and completion of all requirements for a PhD in philosophy, except for the dissertation, at UC Santa Barbara).
William Craig’s Main Point
I’m now going to respond to the main point made by William Craig, which he stated up front, at the beginning of his response to my criticism of his case for the resurrection of Jesus:
The reason that I personally have not devoted any space to a discussion of the death of Jesus by crucifixion is that this fact is not in dispute.  This historical fact is not one that is controversial among biblical scholars.
Craig continues by giving some examples to support his claim about biblical scholars:
For example, Luke Johnson, who is a New Testament scholar of some renown at Emory University says, “The support for the mode of his death, its agents, and perhaps its coagents, is overwhelming: Jesus faced a trial before his death, was condemned and executed by crucifixion.”  In fact, the death of Jesus is so well established that according to Robert Funk, who was the co-chair of the Jesus Seminar, the crucifixion was “one indisputable fact” that neither the early Christians  nor their opponents could deny. That remains similar today.  The crucifixion and the death of Jesus is something that is simply not in dispute by historians today.
Consensus of Scholars vs. Strength of Evidence
A consensus among biblical scholars is rare, so if there is a consensus among biblical scholars that Jesus was crucified and died  on the cross, then that is clearly a point in favor of Craig’s view.  However, what is most important is not that there is consensus, but the strength of the evidence and reasons that form the basis of the judgments of these biblical scholars.  If the evidence and reasons are weak, then the consensus of scholars does not magically make the evidence strong.  A consensus of biblical scholars suggests that the evidence is strong, but does not by itself prove that the evidence is strong.  I prefer to look at the evidence for myself, and to do my own thinking.
Funk is NOT as Confident in Jesus’ Death and Crucifixion as Craig Implies
There is no date or specific reference for the quote attributed to Robert Funk about the crucifixion of Jesus (Craig’s footnote says only this: “Robert Funk, Jesus Seminar videotape.”), so I cannot assess the meaning and significance of that quotation in context.  But I do have a copy of Robert Funk’s book Honest to Jesus (HarperCollins, 1996; hereafter: HTJ), in which he discusses his views on the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus:
There is nothing in the Christian story, so far as I can see, that is immune from doubt.  The crucifixion of Jesus is not entirely beyond question. …We do not know for a fact that he was buried.  His body may have been left to rot on the cross, to become carrion for dogs and crows.  What we have come to call the resurrection…is nowhere narrated directly, except in the highly imaginative account in the Gospel of Peter.  The reports of his appearances vary so widely with respect to location, time, and witness that we cannot particularize what sort of an event those appearances were.  And very few scholars believe that the birth stories are anything other than attempts to claim that Jesus was a remarkable person.  Even the existence of Jesus has been challenged more than once and not without some justification.  We should begin by admitting that all of these myths and legends may rest on nothing other than the fertile imagination of early believers. (HTJ, p.219-220)
Funk admits that even the existence of Jesus is subject to rational doubts, and he admits that the “crucifixion of Jesus is not entirely beyond question.”  Furthermore, Funk makes comments about the crucifixion of Jesus that support a skeptical viewpoint about it:
We know very few things for certain about the death of Jesus and the events that led up to it.  (HTJ, p.220)
Most of Jesus’ followers fled during or after his arrest, but a few, especially the women, and Mary of Magdala in particular, may have witnessed the crucifixion.  We do not know how their memories came to inform the creation of a passion narrative many decades later, if indeed that narrative reflects any eyewitness observations at all. (HTJ, p.220)
So, from Funk’s point of view, the twelve apostles were NOT eyewitnesses of the crucifixion, and furthermore, although some women “may have”  witnessed the crucifixion, we don’t know whether the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus reflect “any eyewitness observations at all.”   Given these skeptical assumptions, it is difficult to see how Funk could be certain or even highly confident in the claim that “Jesus was crucified and died on the cross.”
 Many Biblical Scholars Do NOT Believe that Jesus was Alive and Walking Around in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday
It is interesting that the first two examples of biblical scholars that Craig points to are scholars who DON’T BELIEVE that Jesus rose from the dead.  More specifically, neither Luke Johnson nor Robert Funk believe that Jesus PHYSICALLY rose from the dead.  So, neither Johnson nor Funk believe that “Jesus was alive and walking around in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday, less than 48 hours after Jesus was (allegedly) crucified.”  Funk makes it clear that he does not believe that Jesus PHYSICALLY came back to life:
The Jesus Seminar decided not to duck this issue [of whether Jesus rose PHYSICALLY from the dead]: The fellows reached  a fairly firm consensus: Belief in Jesus’ resurrection did not depend on what happened to his corpse. They are supported in this by the judgment of many contemporary scholars.  Jesus’ resurrection did not involve the resuscitation of a dead body.  About three-fourths of the Fellows believe that Jesus’ followers did not know what happened to his body. (HTJ, p.259)
Luke Johnson is more vague and less straightforward (than Funk), and it is harder to pin down his beliefs about the resurrection,  but in his book The Writings of the New Testament (revised edition, Fortress Press, 1999: hereafter: WONT) he seems to hold a view that is similar to that of Funk and the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar:
 The resurrection faith, then, was not the conviction that Jesus had resumed his life for a time and appeared to some of his followers.  It was a conviction, corroborated by the present experience of his power even years after his death, that he was alive in a new and powerful way; that he shared, indeed, God’s life.  (WONT, p.117)
The experience of the resurrection is not about vague and vaporous visions.  It is not a belief that Jesus was resuscitated and then resumed his former way of living.  It does not derive from insights into Jesus’ life.  The Christian witness of the resurrection does not say that Jesus was spotted in passing by a few people before disappearing. …
It is clear, then, that the resurrection experience cannot be confined to the narratives of the Gospels, for the fundamental experience and conviction were available to those who neither saw the tomb nor had a vision of Jesus.   The experience of his powerful presence was possible because he was alive and caused it. (WONT, p.114)
For Johnson, the “resurrection” refers not to an event in which the dead body of Jesus comes back to life, but to a religious experience of the “powerful  presence” of Jesus that is available to any Christian believer at any point in history.  Note also that Johnson contrasts this common sort of religious experience not with the ordinary sensory experiences of the apostles who (allegedly) saw, touched, and talked with a living, walking, talking, and physically embodied Jesus, but rather with having a “vision of Jesus”.  In other words, the apostles did not experience a living Jesus in a physical body on Easter Sunday.  On Johnson’s view, the apostles had various visions of Jesus, not sensory experiences of a living and embodied Jesus (see also p.133-136 of The Real Jesus by Luke Johnson)
I suspect that Craig is aware that neither Johnson nor Funk believe that Jesus’s body came back to life on Easter Sunday, and that this is partly why he chose to quote Johnson and Funk.  If instead of quoting these more skeptical biblical scholars, Craig had quoted the opinion of  an Evangelical biblical scholar (e.g. Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, D.A. Carson, Robert Gundry, Craig Keener, Robert Stein), I and other skeptics would respond that “Of course so-and-so believes that Jesus was crucified and died on the cross; he is an Evangelical Christian scholar, and so he believes that whatever the Gospel accounts say must be true.”  The fact that there is a consensus among Evangelical Christian scholars that Jesus was crucified and died on the cross does not carry much weight.  Thus, Craig quotes from more skeptical biblical scholars who are outside of the Evangelical Christian fold, in order to give examples that carry more weight and significance.
But the views of more skeptical and more liberal biblical scholars on this issue are ALSO problematic, and are ALSO generally lacking weight and significance.  Craig fails to notice that there is a crucially important difference between his point of view, and the point of view of skeptical biblical scholars like Luke Johnson and Robert Funk:  they DO NOT BELIEVE that “Jesus was alive and walking around in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday, less than 48 hours after Jesus was (allegedly) crucified.”  Craig not only believes this to be true, he believes that this is an historical FACT, or that it can be firmly established on the basis of historical facts. Since, Johnson and Funk do not believe this, they have NO SPECIFIC REASON to doubt that Jesus was crucified and died on the cross.  If they did believe it to be an historical fact that Jesus was alive and walking around in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday, then they might well be much LESS confident about the claim that Jesus was crucified and died on the cross on the Friday prior to Easter Sunday.
The probability of a claim is always relative to the information and assumptions that one takes into consideration.  There is a fundamental and critical difference between the information and assumptions that Johnson and Funk take into consideration when making a judgment about the probability of the claim “Jesus was crucified and died on the cross” as compared with the information and assumptions that Craig takes into consideration (or should take into consideration) when making a judgment about the probability of this claim about the death of Jesus.   Craig assumes that it is an HISTORICAL FACT that “Jesus was alive and walking around in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday, less than 48 hours after Jesus was (allegedly) crucified”  but Johnson and Funk make no such assumption, and thus they DO NOT take this claim into consideration when making a judgment of the probability of the claim that “Jesus was crucified and died on the cross.”
The relevant question at issue has NOT YET been considered by either Johnson or Funk:
IF you became convinced that it was an historical FACT that Jesus was alive and walking around in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday, less than 48 hours after the Friday when he was (allegedly) crucified, THEN would you still judge it to be nearly certain or highly probable that Jesus was crucified on Friday and that Jesus died on the cross that same day?
Unless and until biblical scholars issue judgments on THIS QUESTION, their judgments are of little significance to the view that William Craig is defending (i.e. belief in the PHYSICAL resurrection of Jesus on Easter Sunday).
The Devil is in the Details
Although biblical scholars who are more skeptical about the Gospels (than Evangelical Christian biblical scholars) do sometimes make general statements about the crucifixion and death of Jesus being highly probable or nearly certain, when we look into the details of their views about the Gospels and about the stories about Jesus being crucified, we see that they don’t  actually have adequate grounds for their confident judgments that Jesus’ crucifixion and death on the cross are firmly established historical facts.
This will be the main issue covered in my next post on this topic.
==========================
Here is an INDEX to posts in this series.