ratio christi. ● roadmap ● background/assumptions ● math preliminary ● claim 1: women’s...

Ratio Christi

Historical Resurrection

Roadmap● Roadmap● Background/Assumptions● Math preliminary● Claim 1: Women’s testimony (W)● Claim 2: Disciples’ testimony (D)● Claim 3: Paul’s conversion (C)● Cumulative case

Scope/ Who Cares?● “The issue on which everything hangs is not

whether or not you like [Jesus’s] teaching but whether or not he rose from the dead.” -Timothy Keller

● If true, then Jesus has some insight into an unknown realm of the universe: life after death

Assumptions● Reliability of Synoptic Gospels + Acts

o Early sources, eyewitness accounts, archeological support

o Supported by majority of New Testament scholars (+non-Chrisitian)

● Death of Jesus of Nazareth via Roman Cruxifiction ca. 30CE

● Bayes theorem is useful for historical analysis

Math Preliminary: Bayes Theorem● The probability of a claim with some evidence in mind is how well our claim explains the evidence times the initial likelihood of the theory, normalized to the evidence

Math Prelim: Bayes Factors● Ratio between competing models

Utility of Bayes’ FactorsBayes Factor

< 1 - - -

Likelihood

Reversed

Barely Mentionable

Substantial

Strong Very Strong

Decisive

Utility of Bayes’ FactorsHume Of Miracles (1787)- “I weigh the one

miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of the testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which [the witness] relates” [sic] (I.13)

Applying Bayes’ Factors● T = R = “Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected

from the dead”● E:

o W = Women’s Testimonyo D = Disciples’ Testimonyo C = Paul’s Conversion

● Cumulative case: multiply Bayes factors (maybe…)

Women’s Testimony (W)● Evidence: W = “5 women claim to have

discovered Jesus’s empty tomb”● Luke 24: 1-3, 8-9

Women’s Testimony (W)● Alternative Explanations [ ]

o Fabricationo Wrong Tombo Hallucinationo Joseph of Arimathea moved the body

Women’s Testimony (W)● Considerations

o Multiple attestationso Wild/speculative alternatives

● Bayes Factor:

Disciples’ Testimony (D)● Evidence: D = “13 disciples were willing to

die for their (empirical) claims of R”o 13 = 12 original - Judas + Matthias + James

(Justus)● Acts 4:18-20

Disciples’ Testimony (D)● Alternative Explanations

o Fabricationo Zealotry (c.f. Kamikazes or Jonestown)o Hallucinationso Disciples stole the body

Disciples’ Testimony (D)● Considerations● Persevered in attesting to empirical claims● Alternatives fail to incorporate all members

● Bayes Factoro Independence (multiply carefully)

Does R unify testimonies more than ~R? Other disciples’ deaths Encouragement in (known) deception?

Paul’s conversion (C)● Evidence: C = “Conversion of Saul of

Tarsus”● Galatians 1:13-16a, Philipians 3:5-6

Paul’s conversion (C)● Alternative explanations [ ]

o Hallucinationo Fabrication

Paul’s conversion (C)● Considerations

o Total reversalo Apparent failure of alternatives

● Bayes Factor:

Prior Probability ● Initial bias● Consider other evidential claims ● Cosmological, Fine-tuning, etc.

● Potentially philosophical or ‘off the cuff’● Dynamic premises

𝑃 (𝑅)𝑃 ( 𝑅)

Cumulative Case● Full Bayes Factor:

o Independence? o prior* cumulative Bayes factor

Bayes Factor

< 1 - - -

Likelihood

Reversed

Barely Mentionable

Substantial

Strong Very Strong

Decisive

Other Evidences● Rapid spread of new worldview and religion

(against authorities, c.f. Jewish and Greco-Roman beliefs)

● Making wild claims (negative evidence) (actually helps the factor; if substantiated)

● Other well-attested historical facts

Discussion● Alternative explanations for W,D,P?● Negative Evidence?● Valid assumptions? What effect if they don’t

hold?● Dwindling probabilities?

Bonus Slides

CitationsHume’s paper:

[http://www.bartleby.com/37/3/14.html]Bayes factors table [H. Jeffreys (1961).

The Theory of Probability]

Reliability claimsW: Accepted by 75% of NT scholars

[Habermas 2006a] D: Accepted by majority of scholars [Habermas

2005; 2006a; 2006b]P: Integral to the early church

Women’s Testimony (W)● Alternative Explanations [ ]

o Fabrication Testimony of women disregarded [cf Luke 24:11] Incapable of deceiving such a multitude

(culturally)o Wrong Tomb

Unlikely that multiple women would lose the tomb

Disciples lost tomb too? Authorities didn’t produce the body Doesn’t account for claims of seeing Jesus Group conformity? (Asch experiment)

Women’s Testimony (W)● Alternative Explanations [ ]

o Hallucination 5+ women hallucinating same thing is

prohibitively miraculous (see discussion for D) (Group) hallucinations require emotional

excitement, expectation and suggestiono Joseph of Arimathea moved the body

Ad hoc acceptance of Gospels’ claims Contradicts rabbinic teaching Joseph didn’t speak against Christians

Disciples’ Testimony (D)● Alternative Explanations

o Fabrication Unaccounted transformation: timidity to

boldness Falls apart in the face of persecution (cf witness

intimidation) Motive?

o Zealotism (cf Kamikazes or Nazis) Converts vs Believers Empirical claims vs Ideologies Diminishes with persecution

Disciples’ Testimony (D)● Alternative Explanations

o Hallucinations (Group) hallucinations require emotional

excitement, expectation and suggestion Parallel, integrated and detailed Suddenly ceased

o Disciples stole body Continued devotion unlikely Doesn’t explain claims of interaction (not just

missing body)

Paul’s conversion (P)● Alternative explanations [ ]

o Hallucination Utterly unprecedented (cf previous discussions) Persecutor to Pastor?

o Fabrication Committed Jew Witnessed persecution