Divide and conquer

A common strategy among apologists is to divide "all possible" explanations for the resurrection into a set number of groups, and then disprove all the ones they do not like to - surprise, surprise - leave the resurrection as the only possible explanation.

Greg Bord does it in a series of pod casts (the fourth is here, with links to earlier ones). Boyd says either it was a lie or a legend or it must be as the gospels say. Exactly what the Legend Hypothesis is he keeps vague. Oh, and he assumes the disciples considered Jesus to be divine from the resurrection, and his argument is based partly on how it would take a resurrection to persuade Jews of that time to believe such a thing.

Apparently it does not occur to him that they believed Jesus was the Jewish messiah, a man appointed by God, and adopted as God's son.

However in this post I want to focus on an academic publication - if only because it is easier to quote. The article is: Loke, Andrew. ‘The resurrection of the Son of God: a reduction of the naturalistic alternatives.’ Journal of Theological Studies, 60 (2009): 570-584.

It is available here, but you may need to sign up to see it.

Loke says:

By analysing the structure of the dialectic concerning the post-mortem appearances and the empty tomb syllogistically, it will be shown that all possible hypotheses concerning the post-mortem appearances can be reduced to seven, and that all possible hypotheses concerning the empty tomb can be reduced to eleven.

I am not overly bothered if he is exhaustive - just if he includes what I consider the most likely scenario.

I believe nothing happened on that first Easter Sunday. The disciples returned to Galilee, and later saw what they mistakenly took to be the risen Jesus. All the Jerusalem appearances were made up after Mark was written.

He says:

(1) Either (1.1) or (1.2) is true:  

(1.1) There were no disciples of Jesus in mid-first-century Palestine who claimed to have experienced the resurrected Jesus. (Call this the Legends Hypothesis.)  

(1.2) There were disciples of Jesus in mid-first-century Palestine who claimed to have experienced the resurrected Jesus, in which case either (2.1) or (2.2) is true: 

(2.1) All of these disciples did not experience anything which they thought was Jesus (False Testimonies Hypothesis).  

(2.2) At least some (if not all) of these disciples did experience something which they thought was Jesus, in which case either (3.1) or (3.2) is true:

(3.1) All of these experiences of ‘Jesus’ were caused intra-mentally (e.g. hallucinations). (Call this the Intra-mental Hypothesis.) 

(3.2) At least some (if not all) of these experiences of ‘Jesus’ were caused extra-mentally, in which case either (4.1) or (4.2) is true: 

(4.1) In all these extra-mental experiences, the ‘Jesus’ they experienced was not the same Jesus (Mistaken Identity Hypothesis). 

(4.2) In at least some (if not all) of these extra-mental experiences, the Jesus they experienced was the same Jesus, in which case either (5.1) or (5.2) is true:

(5.1) Jesus did not die on the cross (Swoon/Escape Hypothesis).  

(5.2) Jesus died on the cross (i.e. the ‘Jesus’ they experienced was the same Jesus who rose from the dead), in which case either (6.1) or (6.2) is true: 

(6.1) Jesus rose from the dead naturalistically (Scientific Anomaly Hypothesis). 

(6.2) Jesus rose from the dead super-naturalistically (Resurrection Hypothesis).

Okay, so my hypothesis is either 3.1 or 4.1 - they thought they experienced the risen Jesus, but they were mistaken, either because of a hallucination, or because they saw something else that they thought was Jesus. I think already Loke is pushing us down a certain road with 4.1. What if the disciple saw some strange bright light that they believed was the risen Jesus - as Paul did on the Road to Damascus? Is that the mistaken identity hypothesis? It feels to me like Loke wants us to think the sighting of Jesus was as a man as the gospels describe.

It could also be a combination of 3.1 and 4.1, with some strange light, a natural external phenomenon, inducing a hallucination that made it seem like Jesus.

So let us see how he addresses these hypotheses.

Consider first the Intra-mental Hypothesis, one of the most popular in recent literature. ...

In response to such arguments, Craig has argued that no single instance, in those cases recorded by psychologists, exhibits the diversity and multitude of the resurrection appearances over a short period of time. It is only by compiling unrelated cases that anything analogous to the resurrection of Jesus may be constructed by sceptics. While mass hallucinations do rarely occur, it is the diversity of the appearances of Jesus that taxes the hallucination hypothesis. 

... 

The evidence is stronger if that entity is perceived to have left behind causal effects that persist over time (e.g. the eating of fish by that entity resulting in the permanent disappearance of the fish). 

Here we see where Loke is wanting us to think the gospel accounts are true. The gospel of Luke  says the disciples saw Jesus eating fish, then that must be what they thought they saw!

No, Loke. The disciples saw something else entirely, several days' travel away in Galilee. Mark, the earliest gospel is clear on that.

Jesus eating fish was made up later!

What of the mistaken identity hypothesis?

As for the Escape Hypothesis and Mistaken Identity Hypothesis, Luke 24:36–43 says that Jesus shows his disciples his hands and feet. If Jesus or someone else were trying to generate a hoax, he would have to make nail marks on his hands and feet, and the wounds would not only have to look fresh (with deep holes present within the flesh, and without keloids and extensive scarring), but they also must look healed and painless to touch because, as noted above, a Jesus suffering pain and in need of medical attention would not have elicited the disciples’ worship of him as the conqueror of death. 

It does sound silly when he says it like that.

But he is assuming the gospels are reliable. I say they are not. I say all the gospel accounts of the risen  Jesus were made up, but not the resurrection itself.

Loke does briefly consider a combination of explanations.

The sceptic might respond by suggesting a combination of naturalistic theories 1 to 6 to account for the post-mortem appearances in the New Testament. For example, he might suggest that naturalistic hypotheses other than the Intra-mental Hypothesis can account for Luke 24:36–43, while the Intra-mental Hypothesis might still work as an explanation for other post-mortem appearances, such as the appearance to Paul in Acts 9. Space does not permit a comprehensive assessment of naturalistic theories as explanations for other post-mortem appearances. Suffice to note here that as far as Luke 24:36–43 is concerned, other naturalistic hypotheses are just as implausible as explanations for this post-mortem appearance, if not more so. 

He rejects them because they do not fit what we read in Luke! Again, he assumes the gospels are true. If we assume the gospel of Luke accurately reflects what happened... well, yes, the resurrection happened.

I think all the accounts of appearances of the risen Jesus in and around Jerusalem were made up after Mark was written ca. AD 70.

Mark 16:6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ ”

And so Loke's argument is defeated. But then again, it is apologetics. It is designed to sound good to the converted, not to actually convince anyone.