Why Jesus was a zombie

This is parody paper I wrote in graduate school for the light-hearted philosophers conference. It is meant to be silly.

Mar 17, 2025

This is a silly parody paper that I wrote in graduate school for the light-hearted philosophers conference. It parodies the idea that an ad hoc hypothesis—one wholly made up—can accommodate the evidence of another theory better when the evidence is cherry picked. The paper is a joke.

‘The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people’

—Gospel of Matthew (27: 52-3)

1. Introduction

There are millions of Christians who believe that Jesus was God incarnate. Christian defenders argue that only a miracle is sufficient to explain the resurrection, thereby providing evidence for the Christian faith. This is a reasonable. Resurrections happen rarely, if they happen at all. They demand an explanation. And, no doubt, a divine explanation is especially compelling.

My project, in this paper, is to argue that there is explanation for Jesus’ resurrection many will no doubt find unlikely, despite its ontological parsimony and explanatory power: Jesus rose from the dead as a zombie. The zombie theory holds that Jesus was infected with a slow acting virus during his adult life and suffered symptoms as a result such as delusions of supernatural grandeur and the firm conviction that he would be crucified and rise from the dead. That is, many of the events described by the gospels are consistent with, if not predicted by, the zombie theory.

This paper makes a few assumptions: (a) there is good evidence that Jesus rose from the dead somehow or other, (b) the four gospels are historically accurate, for the most part and (c) only those entities that earn their explanatory keep should be admitted to an ontological inventory.

2. The Traditional Explanation

Many Christians hold that Jesus’s resurrection is best explained by the occurrence of a miracle. After all, people do not naturally rise from the dead; thus the resurrection of Jesus is plausibly thought of as a miracle – the sort of event we could accommodate if Christianity were true. Conveniently, the miracle and zombie theories both agree that Jesus rose from the dead. They disagree about the cause[2]. There are two principles that underlie the classic argument for the resurrection of Jesus.

The principles can be stated as follows:

Criteria of Embarrassment

Historical accounts that would have been an embarrassment to their writers are probably accurate; it would be strange if those inventing a seemingly historical narrative included something embarrassing, unless this was too widely known to not be included.

Criteria of Multiple Attestations

Finding the same story in a number of independent sources provides evidence that the events actually happened.

The miracle and zombie explanations each rely on three pieces of evidence:

A. The Empty Tomb

There is evidence from the gospels that the disciples of Jesus found an empty tomb on the third day after his crucifixion and death. This is confirmed in each of the gospels.

B. The Post-Resurrection Appearances

The gospels report that Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection; it would embarrass the gospel writers to claim that Jesus was raised from the dead if he were not, as anyone who lived in the area could visit the tomb of Jesus to verify the claim.

C. The Disciples’ Conversion

The gospels and independent sources[3] affirm that the disciples converted to the Christian faith because they witnessed the resurrected Jesus first-hand.

In agreement, Craig (2008, 395) writes:

First, we saw that numerous lines of historical evidence prove that the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers. Second, we saw that several lines of historical evidence established that on numerous occasions and in different places Jesus appeared physically and bodily alive from the dead to various witnesses. And finally, we saw that the very origin of the Christian faith depends on belief of the earliest disciples that God had raised Jesus of Nazareth from among the dead.

The argument for the miracle theory is supposed to proceed as follows:

1. Jesus miraculous resurrection is the most plausible explanation of (A), (B), and (C).
2. We should prefer explanations that do the best explanatory job, ceteris paribus.
Hence,
3. We have good reason to prefer the miracle theory to naturalistic theories that do not feature resurrections.

The miracle theory explains how Jesus rose from the dead. Rising from the dead could not happen on their own; this violates the laws of nature, e.g. decaying bodies do not have the ability to move, speak or think because their muscles and brains are rotted. Thus, there must be an external force or entity to explain how what would otherwise be rotted flesh had the ability to move, speak and think. Christian defenders generally hold that the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead must be explained either by naturalistic forces or divine intervention, full stop. However, the explanatory power and scope of the miracle theory, over its rivals, is had at the price of excluding explanations like the zombie theory.

Since Jesus probably rose from the dead – just pretend that he did, if you’re dubious – the issue is whether the miracle or zombie theory is correct: they each explain how an individual made of rotting flesh could move, speak and think.

3. Explanatory Advantages of the Zombie Theory

It need not be said that many would find the claim that Jesus was a zombie ridiculous.

Obviously, there are no such creatures as zombies, they as, so why would anyone think that a prominent historical figure was a zombie? Although such a response is intuitive, there are a number of problems with it: (a) viruses have the ability to cause a variety of strange symptoms and re-write genetic code, and (b) conscious experience and agency are highly dependent on the workings of the physical brain[4]; finally, a miraculous explanation is just as odd as its zombie competitor. If we are trying to explain someone’s resurrection, then we are already treading in strange explanatory territory. So, if conditions (a) and (b) are met, then there could be zombies, at least in principle.

As a way to motivate the Jesus zombie hypothesis, consider the following explanatory advantages it enjoys:

Not ad hoc

Zombies have been called upon to do explanatory work on other occasions. Without zombies there could not have been such great movies as Dawn of the Dead and Night of the Living Dead, not to mention Michael Jackson’s music video ‘Thriller.’ The notion of a zombie has not been invented just to explain the resurrection of Jesus. Appealing to zombies explains phenomena like religious zealots and the idiocy of presidential candidates.

Accurate Predictions

If Jesus was a zombie, then he would be classified as supernatural by his contemporaries. During the time of Jesus, there was widespread ignorance; many natural phenomena (e.g. mental illness, chemistry) were thought supernatural. Anyone capable of rising from the dead would be thought supernatural.

The risen Jesus had features one might expect of a zombie: ‘While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, Peace be with you.' They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have’ (Luke 24: 36-9). The point, in a nutshell, is that zombies would have the appearance, in the right light, of a ghost-like creature because of their rotting flesh and pale, bloodless skin.

iii. If Jesus were infected with the zombie virus, he would have been highly contagious and exposed to those around him. This explains the divergent accounts of Jesus’ trial, crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension into heaven in the gospels; we would expect divergence in the records if the disciples had zombie virus induced symptoms like fever and delusions. Additionally, there is some evidence of a zombie epidemic at the time: “The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people” Matthew (27: 52-3).

The zombie theory explains why Jesus was crucified: to prevent a zombie virus epidemic. Otherwise, it is strange why a moral and decent person like Jesus would have been crucified. Turns out, community leaders were merely trying to stop the spread of the zombie virus.

The life choices made by Jesus are unexpected on the miracle theory, but not on the zombie theory. It is hard to imagine why a carpenter would forgo his profession and spend a year preaching that he was the son of God unless he were already suffering through the early stages of a zombie infection, e.g. delusions of divine grandeur.

Ontological Parsimony

One need not posit supernatural agents to explain the events of Jesus resurrection, the resurrection of saints and the apparent supernatural events depicted in the gospels. The zombie theory only needs the possibility of intelligent, animated zombies.

When one combines the explanatory advantages of the zombie theory with the moderate to high probability that Jesus rose from the dead, the zombie theory looks as plausible as the miracle theory. For example, the widespread resurrection of the saints (Matt. 27: 52-3) is an explanatory difficulty for the miracle theory. Consider that if these sorts of events had happened, then the frequency of the numerous miracles that already occurred, thereby decrease the antecedent probability the miracle theory is true; after all, it predicts that the relevant explanandum would be relatively rare. So, consider that the antecedent probability of a single miracle is incredibly low, by itself. Simply put: miracles probably do not happen; thus, multiple miracles probably do not happen.

For the rest of the paper, I will outline and respond to potential objections.

The Inadequacy Objection

There is a worry that the zombie theory is inadequate, explanatorily speaking: after all, zombies could not pose as religious figures because of (i) their appetite for human brains and (ii) their inability to speak[5]. They would eat the brains of their followers and lack the ability to convey religious doctrines. Thus, it is difficult for the zombie theory to explain how Jesus could speak and refrain from eating the brains of his followers during his short post-life stint.

Unfortunately, this objection is based on a serious misunderstanding.

There is a simple explanation for problems (i) and (ii): the diversity of zombies. It is mistakenly thought that all zombies have characteristics like transparent intentions and lacking the ability to speak; this generalization is mistaken. Although plenty of zombies have transparent intentions (e.g. they are obviously hungry and willing to eat the brains of healthy individuals), and lack the ability to speak, this is best explained by the rates and kinds of decaying flesh of individual zombies, rather than a feature of zombies generally. One of the effects of the zombie virus[6] is the decaying of flesh; thus, it should not be a surprise that zombies often lack the ability to speak. This happens for any number of reasons such as completely rotted vocal chords or speech centers of the brain. However, some zombies have the ability to speak.

The Record Objection

One might wonder how there could be records that Jesus rose from the dead. It seems unlikely that those infected with the zombie virus would have the ability or motivation to engage in record keeping; there’s no doubt that they would be far too busy trying to eat human brains. This objection is based on a limited understanding of the zombie virus. Just like many other viruses, not everyone that becomes infected with the zombie virus suffers the full effects of the disease. There were likely many who were infected with the zombie virus, but never transformed into zombies, despite suffering from many of the initial symptoms (e.g. delusions, fevers).

Even if those individuals that kept company with zombie Jesus and became infected with the zombie virus were completely transformed into zombies, they may have had a number of followers with the ability and motivation to write down the religious dictations of zombie Jesus and his followers.

The Missing Traces Objection

Some might object that there are no traces in the historical record that one would expect to find if Jesus and his followers were zombies: e.g. the widespread occurrence of new recruits missing their brains. Although this might seem like a difficulty for the theory, the lack of confirmation in the historical record is one of its predictions: people who witnessed the events surrounding zombie Jesus and his followers, would have interpreted these events through the lens of their supernatural beliefs, especially in the face of widespread ignorance and illiteracy – and the fact that supernatural explanations were commonplace, at the time.

For example, Ehrman (2007, 38-9) writes:

The example that illustrates the problem of defining literacy involves an Egyptian scribe called Petaus, from the village of Karanis in upper Egypt. As often happened, Petaus was assigned to duties in a different village, Ptolemais Hormou, where he was given oversight of financial and agricultural affairs. In the year 184 C.E., Petaus had to respond to some complaints about another village scribe from Ptolemais Hormou, a man named Ischyrion, who had been assigned somewhere else to undertake responsibilities as a scribe. The villagers under Ischyrion’s jurisdiction were upset that Ischyrion could not fulfill his obligations, because, they charged, he was ‘illiterate.’ In dealing with the dispute Petaus argued that Ischyrion wasn’t illiterate at all, because he had actually signed his name to a range of official documents. In other words, for Petaus ‘literacy’ meant simply the ability to sign one’s name.

Now, the modern day Bible was not canonized until the third century at the council of Nicaea[7]; i.e. there was plenty of time for gospel writers and church leaders to incorporate or explain away details of the Jesus story that did not conform to their fully entrenched church doctrines; surely, not every aspect of the zombie Jesus phenomenon, or the zombie virus outbreak, would comport with the tenets of the Christian faith. But this is easily explained at the price of huge explanatory gains I mentioned earlier.

Consider an example:

Christian apologists (e.g. William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland) often argue that the swoon theory is too implausible to be taken seriously[8]; the theory holds that Jesus only appeared to die on the cross, but regained consciousness after several days in the tomb. After freeing himself from the tomb, Jesus appeared before his disciples who were convinced he rose from the dead; something nearly impossible for an adult male to do.

However, the skepticism directed at the swoon theory is based, largely, on the assumption that Jesus was a healthy adult, rather than someone with the traits of a zombie, e.g. dead flesh with the ability to move, speak, and so forth. The zombie theory is immune to the skepticism directed at the swoon theory for an obvious reason: zombies are undead, with a vastly different physiology. It should be clear that reasonable skepticism at the prospect of someone surviving a crucifixion, and convincing their disciples that they had risen from the dead, does little to lower the probability of the zombie theory because of different background conditions.

The Zombies-Aren’t-Real Objection

Critics may object to positing zombie Jesus as an explanation for the resurrection: everyone knows that there are no such things as zombies.

However, this worry is a bit hasty. The existence of zombies is at least as plausible as that of miracles, if not more so, and yet many people who reject the possibility of zombies nevertheless accept that Jesus rose from the dead by miraculous intervention.

There is an argument for the previous claim:

1'. If someone is willing to accept that Jesus miraculously rose from the dead, then they should be willing to accept that Jesus rose from the dead as a zombie.
2'. Christians are willing to accept that Jesus miraculously rose from the dead.
Thus,
3'. Christians should be willing to accept that Jesus rose from the dead as a zombie.

A miracle theorist might object that this argument begs the question as follows: regardless of the antecedent probability of such an event, it still could have been that Jesus was miraculously raised from the dead. But, the argument merely assumes that the miracle theory is antecedently far less probable than zombie viruses for two reasons: first, even believers admit that miracles rarely, if ever, occur. After all, it would be odd to count something as a miracle that happens with any regularity; we would call that kind of regularly occurring phenomenon, a law of nature. Second, there are examples of biological zombies to be found in the natural world, e.g. fungi that turn their hosts into zombie-like creatures.

Consider what Dennett[9] writes:

You watch an ant in a meadow, laboriously climbing up a blade of grass, higher and higher until it falls, then climbs again, and again, like Sisyphus rolling his rock, always striving to reach the top. Why is the ant doing this? What benefit is it seeking for itself in this strenuous and unlikely activity? Wrong question, as it turns out, No biological benefit accrues to the ant. It is not trying to get a better view of the territory or seeking food or showing off to a potential mate, for instance. Its brain has been commandeered by a tiny parasite, a lancet fluke (Dicrocelium dendriticum), that needs to get itself into the stomach of a sheep or a cow in order to complete its reproductive cycle. This little brain worm is driving the ant into position to benefit its progeny, not the ant's. This is not an isolated phenomenon. Similarly manipulative parasites infect fish, and mice, among other species. These hitchhikers cause their hosts to behave in unlikely—even suicidal—ways, all for the benefit of the guest, not the host.

There is no such evidence that miracles have happened; however, the zombie theory can explain whatever that the miracle theory is able to explain, in addition to phenomena such as the apparently irrational behavior of Jesus, mass resurrections, etc.

4. Conclusion

Although initially implausible, the zombie theory has several theoretical virtues:

(a) It is not ad hoc;
(b) It makes a number of accurate predictions, and;
(c) It is ontologically parsimonious in that it doesn’t need to appeal to supernatural agents in order to explain Jesus’s resurrection.

Finally, it withstands a wide range of objections. And, although Christians will not be convinced by such arguments—they hold the miracle theory because of their religious beliefs—this does not undercut the explanatory force of the zombie hypothesis. So, given the improbability of miracles, on the one hand, the explanatory potency of the zombie hypothesis, on the other, probably Jesus was a zombie.

Uncommon Wisdom

Discussion about this post