Program / Course 16: Historical Defense / Lesson 7.4
What you will learn
- List the main data that any explanation of the origin of the resurrection belief must address.
- Apply criteria for good explanations to the resurrection hypothesis and its rivals.
- Recognize where the comparison depends on judgments about the sources and on background beliefs.
- Write a fair comparison that does not rig the criteria for one side.
The big idea
Historians compare rival hypotheses by asking which best explains the evidence. Criteria commonly used include explanatory scope (how much of the evidence is explained), explanatory power (how naturally it is explained), plausibility (fit with what is otherwise known), and the number of ad hoc assumptions. Applied to the rise of the resurrection belief, no hypothesis scores perfectly. The resurrection hypothesis explains the data well but requires a divine act. Natural hypotheses avoid that but need several auxiliary assumptions. Which comes out ahead depends in part on judgments that history alone cannot make.
Key terms
- Hypothesis
- A proposed explanation that can be compared with others in light of the evidence.
- Explanatory scope
- The range of facts a hypothesis explains. A hypothesis with wide scope accounts for many of the data.
- Explanatory power
- How well and how naturally a hypothesis accounts for the facts, without strain.
- Plausibility
- How well a hypothesis fits what is already known about the world, including the history and psychology of the time.
- Ad hoc
- Added only to save a hypothesis, with no support apart from the need to answer an objection.
- Cumulative case
- An argument built from several pieces of evidence that together support a conclusion more strongly than any one alone.
Background
Earlier lessons examined the evidence and the individual theories. This lesson puts them side by side. The method is the one described in Lesson 1.3: inference to the best explanation. It works only if the criteria are stated in advance and applied evenly. A common fault in popular debate is to choose criteria that favor one’s own side.
No agreed list of criteria exists, but several are widely used by philosophers of science and historians. The list below is a working one. A student who disagrees with it should say what would replace it, since an argument that cannot name its standards cannot be tested.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: The data to be explained
A working list of data that most scholars accept or take seriously includes the following. Jesus was crucified and buried. His followers were demoralized by his death. Within a few years, the church was proclaiming that God had raised him and that he had appeared to named persons. The disciples were willing to suffer for the claim. Paul, a persecutor, and James, said in the Gospels to have been unsympathetic, became leaders of the movement. The movement began in Jerusalem, and its leaders spoke of resurrection, a Jewish term for bodily life after death, applied to one man in advance of the end.
There are other data that are more debated: the empty tomb, the physical nature of the appearances, and the sequence of the stories. A fair comparison states which data it uses and how secure they are. Hypotheses that depend on contested data should be marked as such.
Step 2: Criteria for a good explanation
Four criteria are commonly used. Scope: does the hypothesis account for all the data, or only some? Power: does it explain them naturally, so that the data would be expected, or does it need strained readings? Plausibility: does it fit what is known about people, grief, religion and the world? Economy: does it need many unsupported assumptions?
Philosophers add that a hypothesis should not be ruled out only because it is unusual. Unusual events do occur. But unusual claims need support proportionate to their improbability, which brings in the question of prior probability from Lesson 1.3.
Step 3: Scoring the main hypotheses
The resurrection hypothesis, that God raised Jesus bodily, scores high on scope and power. It explains the empty tomb, the appearances, the transformation of the disciples, the conversions of Paul and James, and the unexpected form of the belief. Its weakness is plausibility and economy for those who judge a miracle improbable, since it requires a supernatural act. For those who accept that God exists and may act, this weakness is lighter.
The vision hypothesis scores well on plausibility, since grief visions are well known, but has narrower scope. It struggles with group appearances, with Paul and James, and with the empty tomb, and it requires auxiliary assumptions to explain why visions led to a claim of bodily resurrection. The legend hypothesis explains the growth of details but not the early core. The theft, swoon and wrong tomb hypotheses score low on scope and on plausibility, as Lesson 7.3 showed. A combined hypothesis, such as vision plus legend plus a later empty tomb story, has wider scope but more assumptions.
Step 4: Where the comparison turns on judgment
The result depends on several judgments. One is how early and reliable the sources are, especially about the empty tomb and the group appearances. A student who regards the Gospel material as heavily legendary will give the natural hypotheses wider scope. Another is the prior probability of a miracle. A student who thinks it very small will need a stronger case than one who thinks it is moderate. A third is how much weight to give the total set of auxiliary assumptions in the natural hypotheses, which may each be modest but together add up.
Dale Allison, who has written carefully on the question, concludes that the evidence does not settle it, and that each explanation has serious difficulties. Others, such as Wright and Craig, conclude that the resurrection is the best explanation. Others, such as Lüdemann and Ehrman, conclude that natural explanations are better, or that history cannot decide. Scholars of high ability differ.
Step 5: Writing a fair comparison
A fair comparison states the data, the criteria and the scoring, and marks the points where the result depends on contested judgments. It gives each hypothesis its best form, not the worst. It admits difficulties on every side. And it separates what the evidence supports from what the writer would like to believe.
It also avoids two shortcuts: the argument that because some natural explanation is possible, it is therefore more probable than a miracle, and the argument that because natural explanations are difficult, a miracle is therefore proved. Each requires support. The next module returns to the background beliefs that affect the final judgment.
- Which facts does each hypothesis explain, and which does it leave over?
- How many extra assumptions does each need?
- Which data are secure and which are debated, and does the result change if the debated data are dropped?
- Are the criteria stated before the scoring?
- How much does the result depend on my view of miracles?
- Is each hypothesis described in its strongest form?
Examples
Scoring on a table
A student writes a table with rows for the data and columns for the hypotheses, and marks each cell as explained well, partly or not. The student finds that several hypotheses explain the death and the belief and that they differ on Paul, the group appearances and the tomb. The table makes disagreement visible.
Combined theories
A scholar proposes that Peter had a grief vision, that others followed by suggestion, that the empty tomb story arose later and that the physical details were added by legend. Each step is plausible. The scholar must then ask how probable the whole chain is when the steps are multiplied.
Allison’s caution
Allison notes that every explanation of the resurrection belief has serious weaknesses. Rather than choosing, he concludes that the evidence leaves the question open. His approach shows that a careful scholar can take the evidence seriously and decline to give a final verdict.
Different perspectives
Defenders of the resurrection
N. T. Wright, William Lane Craig and others argue that the resurrection hypothesis best explains the data and that rivals fail on one or more points. They note that a hypothesis should not be rejected because it involves a miracle if the evidence is strong.
Skeptical scholars
Scholars such as Gerd Lüdemann and Bart Ehrman argue that natural explanations, together with the fallibility of early traditions, are more probable than a miracle. Ehrman holds that history by its nature cannot establish a miracle.
Agnostic or cautious scholars
Allison and others hold that the evidence is balanced and no explanation clearly wins. They emphasize that the choice depends on background beliefs.
Catholic and Orthodox traditions
Both teach that the resurrection is a truth of faith, supported by signs, and are less interested in establishing it by comparison of hypotheses. They accept that reasoned argument can show faith to be credible without compelling it.
Philosophers of science
They note that inference to the best explanation is used widely, but that its criteria are contested and that results can depend on prior assumptions. They advise caution in using it to settle questions where prior views differ greatly.
Why it matters
This lesson shows how a careful historical case is built and how it can fail. A student who knows the criteria can read any argument on the topic, from believers or skeptics, and see whether it compares fairly, whether it hides assumptions, and whether its conclusion goes beyond what it has shown.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: If natural explanations have problems, the resurrection wins.
Correction: The resurrection hypothesis has to be assessed by the same criteria and has its own difficulties. A comparison is a comparison, not a process of elimination.
Misunderstanding: A miracle is always less probable than any natural explanation.
Correction: That depends on the prior probability, which is the point at issue. A series of improbable natural steps can be less probable than a single unusual event, but whether this applies here is debated.
Misunderstanding: Scholars all agree on the data to be explained.
Correction: They agree on a core, such as the crucifixion and the early belief, and disagree on the empty tomb, the nature of the appearances and others.
Misunderstanding: Choosing the best explanation requires certainty.
Correction: It requires a reasoned judgment of probability and a statement of its limits.
Knowledge check
What criteria are commonly used to compare explanations?
Scope, how much of the evidence is explained; power, how naturally; plausibility, fit with what is known; and economy, the number of unsupported assumptions. They should be stated in advance and applied evenly to all hypotheses, including the favored one, or the comparison will be biased.
Where does the resurrection hypothesis score well, and where does it face difficulty?
It has wide scope and explains the tomb, the appearances, the disciples’ transformation and the unexpected form of the belief. It faces difficulty on plausibility for those who regard miracles as very improbable, and on its dependence on a supernatural act, though those who accept divine action find this less heavy.
What are the main weaknesses of the vision and legend hypotheses?
The vision hypothesis has difficulty with group appearances, the conversions of Paul and James and the empty tomb, and why visions led to a claim of bodily resurrection. The legend hypothesis explains later growth but not the early core in the creed. Combined versions have wider scope but need many assumptions.
Why do careful scholars reach different conclusions from similar data?
They differ in judging the reliability and date of the sources, in their prior views about whether miracles can occur, and in how they weigh the number of assumptions. Because these judgments are not settled by the evidence alone, honest scholars can disagree.
Think it through
- Which data seem to you most important to explain, and why?
- Which criterion do you think matters most? Would your answer change if you held another view of miracles?
- How could a person with an opposite view test whether you applied the criteria fairly?
- What would you accept as a good reason to change your mind?
Independent assignment
A comparison table
In your own notebook, build a table with at least eight data in the rows and four hypotheses in the columns: resurrection, vision, legend and one more of your choice. Mark each cell as well explained, partly explained or not explained. Write 300 words on the result and on which judgments it depends. Do not send this to anyone.
Further study
- N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God Read the concluding chapters on the historical explanation of the rise of Christianity.
- William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics Read his comparison of the hypotheses and note the criteria he uses.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fallacies Use the entries on false dilemmas and begging the question to check comparisons.
- Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God Read for a philosophical use of probability and explanation in arguments about God.
- 1 Corinthians 15:14 If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain.
- Luke 24:11 The words seemed to them as idle tales.