Evidence Item - v0.6
Discrepancies among resurrection narratives as cautionary data
E-ALT-UNK-2
Visual overview: Resurrection narrative discrepancies caution visual overview
Classification
- Evidence ID
- E-ALT-UNK-2
- Corpus/version
- v0.6
- Stage
- stage5
- Category
- Historical Jesus / Alternatives
- Major category
- History
- Sub-category
- Alternative Explanations
- BF status
- ready
- Scoring label
- Scored row with active Bayes factors
Navigation
Primary Datum
Datum: Differences among resurrection narratives are cautionary data for harmonized reconstructions, but they require careful calibration before being scored against resurrection or for legend.
Scoring / Hypothesis Pressure
| Hypothesis | log10BF | Min | Max | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
H-ALT-LEGEND | 0.04 | 0 | 0.08 | Differences among resurrection narratives are mildly more expected if tradition includes literary shaping or legendary development, but discrepancies can also arise from independent memory and emphasis. |
Dependency / Cap Metadata
- dependency_cluster_id
- resurrection_alternative_explanations
- dependency_cluster_role
- defeater
- dependency_cluster
- resurrection_alternative_explanations
- dependency_role
- defeater
- cap_profile
- rival_pressure
- evidence_function
- defeater
- directness
- supporting
Counter-Pressure
- title
- Narrative differences test harmonization, not necessarily Resurrection itself.
- text
- The Gospel accounts differ in sequence, emphasis, compression, and detail. That matters. But variation is not the same thing as collapse. Independent testimony often agrees on the central event while differing around order and perspective. The apologetic question is whether the differences overturn the shared core or mainly complicate reconstruction of the morning's exact sequence.
- path
- Do not force a brittle harmony. Lay the differences out, then identify the common center: Jesus was crucified, buried, the tomb was found empty, women are prominent early witnesses, appearances are claimed, and the disciples proclaimed Resurrection. Then ask whether the rival explanation does better with both unity and variation. Identical accounts would invite collusion; varied accounts invite careful comparison.
Apologetic Note
- label
- Rival-pressure use
- title
- Narrative discrepancies are real cautionary data.
- key point
- This row has force because the Resurrection narratives differ in details. Those differences rightly pressure overly tidy harmonizations and demand honest historical handling.
- conversation move
- Do not rush to harmonize everything. First name the differences. Then ask whether the differences point to fabrication, independent memory, theological shaping around a shared core, or some mixture of those possibilities.
- caveat
- Discrepancy is not the same as disproof. But neither should it be brushed aside as if it costs nothing.
Caveats / Notes
- Cap notes
- This row preserves Resurrection-rival pressure. Future cap diagnostics may govern overlap with sibling alternatives, but should not hide the objection or treat it as answered by default.
- Cap profile note
- Rival and defeater pressure is capped within its own family and kept visible.
- Cluster note
- Narrative-discrepancy row. Scored only as modest legend/shaping support; not a broad anti-resurrection proxy.
- Scoring note
- Narrative-discrepancy row. Scored only as modest legend/shaping support; not a broad anti-resurrection proxy.
Citations
- Bart D. Ehrman (2014). How Jesus Became God (narrative analysis).
- Goodacre, M. (2001). The Synoptic Problem.
Recommended Citation
The Signal Evidence Dataset, "Discrepancies among resurrection narratives as cautionary data," Evidence ID: E-ALT-UNK-2, Version 0.6. Accessed [access date]. https://logos-signal.org/evidence/E-ALT-UNK-2/
Machine-Readable Source
This page is generated from the public evidence mirror without recalculating or changing scores.