People on both sides of Christian apologetics argue incessantly over what explanation must be true or false, but few ever admit less than total confidence in their position, and fewer still ever try to quantify their relative confidence in their explanation versus its alternatives. (A partial exception is Richard Carrier's probabilistic analysis of Jesus' survival at  http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/2i.html.)

The evidence directly concerning the gospels has been essentially unchanged for almost two millennia, and the wider evidence concerning supernaturality has been almost unchanged for half a century. Despite a clear trend -- especially among those learned in philosophy, history, and science -- toward a consensus of naturalism about the world in general and the gospels in particular, the disagreement by a significant minority of intellectuals with that potential consensus demands explanation. My theory is essentially that they are dogmatic -- that their beliefs stem mostly from cultural and personal factors that leave them with a level of certitude that is not justified in light of both the evidence and their status as an intellectual minority. One prediction of my theory is that these dogmatic theists would reject outright any possibility of alternative explanations.

Here is my attempt to classify the possible explanations of the gospel evidence and to roughly quantify the probability of each. My confidence range for my estimates is roughly a factor of five. So if I say an explanation has a probability of 1/50, then I won't quibble with anyone saying that explanation is as likely as 1/10 or as unlikely as 1/250.

• Gospels resulted from other than merely human phenomena: 0.02
• Resulted from intentional super-human benevolence: 0.002
• Misunderstood or imperfect salvific effort of something less than a benevolent omnipotent omniscient agency: 0.0019
• Natural agency: 0.0018
• Supernatural agency: 0.0001
• The perfect salvific plan of an omnipotent omniscient benevolent Yahweh: 0.0001
• Resulted from intentional super-human non-benevolence: 0.018
• Supernatural non-benevolence: 0.009
• Malevolence by demonic forces opposed to the less-than-tri-omni (but nevertheless benevolent) Yahweh: 0.001
• Malevolence by a being calling itselfYahweh: 0.008
• Natural non-benevolence: 0.009
• Of technologically advanced natural beings (e.g. aliens, time travellers): 0.008
• Of being(s) running this universe as a simulation: 0.001
• Resulted from unintentional phenomena (e.g. quantum fluctuations): 1/10^10^100
• Gospels resulted from merely human phenomena 0.98
• Jesus was not deluded (e.g. was insincere and deceptive) 0.02
• Apostles were co-conspirators 0.01
• Apostles were duped 0.01
• Apostles were duped by a twin of Jesus 0.00000001
• Jesus was deluded 0.92
• Jesus survived crucifixion 0.01
• Jesus did not survive crucifixion 0.91
• Empty tomb story resulted from deception 0.46
• Most early disciples knew of deception 0.01
• Most early disciples duped 0.45
• Empty tomb story resulted innocently 0.45
• Tomb emptied innocently (e.g. reburial)  0.20
• No empty tomb (wrong tomb, group burial, etc). 0.25
• Jesus never existed 0.04
• Jesus invented by apostles (e.g. Paul) 0.001
• Christianity myth arose in a Jewish sect 0.039
• Christianity invented by Roman authorities 0.00001

• One may believe strongly in a merely human explanation without having a strong opinion of the disposition of Jesus' body.
• Even if the gospel reports of superhuman phenomena are true (a case which few nontheists are willing to seriously consider), it can be argued that they are still not best explained as the perfect salvific plan of an omnipotent omniscient benevolent Yahweh. That theists tend not to seriously consider alternative superhuman explanations is another sign of their dogmatism.

By default, the probability analysis of a Christian apologist can be assumed to be something like:

• The perfect salvific plan of an omnipotent omniscient benevolent Yahweh: 100%
• Any other possibility: 0%