Scientist Uses Moon Landing Conspiracy Math To Claim Resurrection Disciples Provide 'Compelling Evidence'

A Brigham Young University philosopher in Utah has used mathematics derived from Moon-landing conspiracy research to examine accounts of Jesus' resurrection.

Nathan Rockwood's study, published on 16 July 2025, argues that a deliberate deception involving early Christian witnesses would probably have been exposed within decades. His calculations, however, cannot establish whether the resurrection occurred.

The research examines whether people who knowingly spread a fabricated story can maintain their testimony for years without anyone admitting to deception.

Rockwood's paper, published in Open Theology, builds on earlier work by physicist David Robert Grimes.

In 2016, Grimes examined how quickly large alleged conspiracies, including claims that the Apollo Moon landings were staged, might unravel.

Rockwood developed a related mathematical approach for smaller groups, accounting for the passage of time and the deaths of potential participants.

Jesus' Resurrection Model Examines 16 and 23 Witnesses

Rockwood prepared two estimates based on New Testament accounts. His smaller group comprised 16 people, including 11 apostles, James, Paul and three women associated with reports of the empty tomb.

The larger estimate included 23 individuals, adding further women and figures mentioned in other biblical passages. Neither figure represents an independently verified count of eyewitnesses.

The distinction matters because discovering an empty tomb does not necessarily mean someone personally witnessed the resurrected Jesus.

Rockwood assumed each participant in a hypothetical deception had a one per cent annual chance of revealing it. He also incorporated mortality estimates from the Roman Empire to account for the deaths of witnesses over time.

Under those assumptions, his model predicted a 95 per cent cumulative chance of at least one confession within 28 years for 16 participants. With 23 participants, the same threshold was reached after 17 years.

These figures describe hypothetical outcomes, not measured historical probabilities. They do not establish that anyone confessed, nor do they calculate the likelihood that Jesus actually rose from the dead.

Rockwood also considered Paul's account of more than 500 people seeing the risen Jesus. That figure comes from Paul's writings rather than 500 independently documented eyewitness testimonies.

Why Jesus' Resurrection Calculations Cannot Prove a Miracle

The biggest uncertainty concerns Rockwood's one per cent annual confession rate. It was a working assumption, not a measurement based on documented behaviour among first-century witnesses.

Different assumptions about confession rates, witness independence or group size could substantially alter the calculations.

Historical evidence presents another difficulty. The absence of a surviving confession does not establish that none occurred. Ancient records are incomplete, and statements challenging Christian accounts might never have been preserved.

Rockwood nevertheless argues that the lack of documented admissions supports the sincerity of early Christian witnesses.

'So, their testimony is either deception or they were telling the truth. And it wasn't deception,' he wrote.

That assertion goes beyond what the mathematics directly tests. The model cannot independently exclude mistaken memories, religious experiences, or accounts that change through oral transmission.

Rockwood also challenges Scottish philosopher David Hume, who questioned whether testimony could justify belief in miracles.

Hume considered a hypothetical report of Queen Elizabeth I returning to life after burial. He argued that deception or error would be more plausible than a miraculous resurrection, regardless of the supporting testimony.

The disagreement turns on whether sustained testimony establishes sincerity and whether sincerity alone can support an extraordinary historical claim.