Behavioral Ecology Blog

I’m not much of a music-while-I-drive kind of guy.. I’d much rather listed to talk radio. As you might imagine, finding something interesting to listen to is quite a challenge. In Southern California, there are 2 basic classes of talk radio. 1. In Spanish, and 2. About religion. Note that these categories have extensive overlap- i.e. most of the Spanish shows are about god. So anyway, I had the radio on scan- when I caught a discussion about the resurrection of Jesus. It was a Catholic broadcast on 1050AM in Bakersfield, CA- A show called “reasons for faith”.

Hosted by a blithering idiot and a theologian named Brant Petrie. Neither the show not Petrie have real web-sites..I tried for a transcript of the nationally broadcast show- but to no avail, none available..

Anyway- they were discussing the resurrection.. An argument that went like this…

1. Jesus was hung on a cross until he died
2. They put his body in a tomb
3. The tomb was guarded by somebody
4. A few days later- the tomb was empty.
5. Therefore- Jesus had risen from the dead

WAIT A SECOND- HOLD THE FREAKIN’ PHONES!!!
Let’s spend a minute defining parsimony- the concept of parsimony basically states that ceteris parabus, the simplest explanation for a given phenomenon is usually the correct explanation.

Now let’s list the alternative hypotheses- seems reasonable to assume that there was some dude names Jesus, and that he was hung on a cross… OK? Now, they placed his body in a tomb, but a few days later he was not there… Hmmmmmm.

1. Maybe they had the wrong tomb. You know, whoops, mistake…
2. Maybe the body was eaten by wild dogs or other carnivores…
   
3. Ant’s… I’ve seen them strip a mouse carcass in a couple of hours- I wonder about a human.
4. The body was stolen- by the disciples, enemies or somebody else..
5. Jesus rose from the dead.

I can tell you that to me, #4 seems to be the most likely- and that it was some anonymous robber type. Yes, the tomb was guarded, but even the best of guards have a price. I’m quite sure bribery existed… Petrie and the other nut-job talked explicitly about this hypothesis.. Amazing- their explanation was this: “There is no evidence to suggest that the body was stolen, and that as a result, that hypothesis is highly implausible.” Wait, evidence- since when did that matter to religion. Is there some evidence for Jesus’s resurrection that I have missed? They go on to say that Roman guards were extremely faithful, and that the crime of letting go a resurrected man was punishible by death, so therfore theft was not possible. Another reference says this:

Did the disciples steal the body? If so, then the men who delivered to the world the highest moral standards it has ever known were frauds, liars, and hypocrites. Is this credible to believe? Paul Little asks, “Are these men, who helped transform the moral structure of society, consummate liars or deluded madmen? These alternatives are harder to believe than the fact of the resurrection, and there is not a shred of evidence to support them.”[7]

Did the Jews or the Romans steal it? Dr. John Warwick Montgomery dispels this possibility: “It passes the bounds of credibility that the early Christians could have manufactured such a tale and preached it among those who might easily have refuted it by producing the body of Jesus.”[8] If they had the body, why didn’t they put the corpse on a cart and wheel it through Jerusalem, thus eliminating for all time any belief in Christ’s resurrection.

I can’t help but wonder why the guards didn’t see the resurrection- and if they had- why didn’t they re-capture him? Of course the picture I included above suggests that the nobel guards didn’t because they were asleep at the wheel- i.e. slept through arguably the most important event in all Christianity.. Thats like Darwin sleeping through the Galapagos or something… Might I suggest that if theologians want to use the sleeping arguement- then obviously they could have been asleep during the robbery of the body as well, huh…

In then end- and exactly like most/all other religious phenomenon- there exist a set of alternative hypotheses. Contained within the list are both wrong and (hopefully) right explanations. Generally speaking, the least parsimonious explanation can be eliminated right off the bat without further consideration. The specific problem thought is that THAT least likely hypothesis is exactly the one that is coincedent with religious doctrine.

I feel better now- don’t you?