In a recent podcast, the defenders podcast, Craig has objections to the argument from divine hiddenness.
The troubling thing is that Craig seemed to be responding to more arguments from non-belief (Drange) or lack of evidence, which aren’t quite the same as Schellenberg’s argument from divine hiddenness.
I’m not saying that Craig was intentionally attacking strawmen, etc. But most of his objections were irrelevant to Schellenberg’s argument, as Schellenberg explains in his books and articles. I think if Craig really wants to do justice to the problem, he needs to interact more with Schellenberg’s argument.
Perhaps Craig just didn’t want to or wasn’t aiming to respond to Schellenberg’s argument, which I see. But like I said, I think to do justice he needs to address the arguments that are the most powerful.