Faith on Trial (18 page)

In May 2010 the Shroud was publically exhibited in the Cathedral of St. John in Turin for the first time since the restoration. At the beginning of the exhibition, Pope Benedict XVI visited the Shroud and prayed and then issued a Meditation.
76
In this Meditation the Vatican came as close as it has ever come to asserting that the Shroud is authentic. In part, here is what Pope Benedict said on May 2, 2010: “The shroud is an icon written in blood: the blood of a man who has been flagellated, crowned with thorns, crucified, and wounded in his right rib.”

Whether this is the cloth that wrapped the body of Jesus after crucifixion is up to the jury to decide after weighing the evidence, as are the full implications of the mysterious image. Although questions remain unanswered, the jury is entitled to consider and weigh the value of the Shroud as evidence corroborating the Gospel descriptions of the crucifixion and burial of Jesus and perhaps even the moment of the resurrection itself.

The Gospels report that, after his death, the body of Jesus was given to a friend, Joseph of Arimathea, to be placed in Joseph’s private tomb. Roman law as recorded in the ancient Digest of Justinian verifies that the bodies of executed persons at that time were required to be given to anyone who requested them for burial.
77

Corroborating evidence regarding the description in the Gospels of the tomb in which Jesus was buried is impressive. More than sixty examples of similar tombs used at the time Jesus lived, with large rolling-stone boulders that seal the entrance, just as described in the Gospels, have been found in and around Jerusalem.
78
Two sites have been identified as possibly being the site of Jesus’ tomb; both are located in today’s Jerusalem. The most likely site was described in the early third century by Eusebius and in writings of a pilgrim known as the Bordeaux Pilgrim. It was located near the hill of Golgotha, referred to by the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and John as the “Place of a Skull” (Matt. 27:33; Mark 15:22; John 19:17).
79
The favored location was marked by a “church of wonderful beauty” built by Constantine, the first Christian emperor of the Roman Empire. On this site today is the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, which was built at the time of the Crusades. Within the church is a small building that contains a marble slab, covering what has been traditionally accepted as the actual site of the tomb of Jesus.
80

That tradition has been based primarily on the following information. As recorded by several fourth-century historians, at the site when first shown to Helena, the mother of Emperor Constantine, stood a temple dedicated to Aphrodite. Helena removed the temple and beneath found three crosses in a tomb. Within the tomb was found a
titulum
stating that the person crucified was the “King of the Jews,” written in Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, exactly as reported in the Gospel of John. The
titulum
is on display in the Basilica of Santa Croce in Rome, though its authenticity has not been established beyond all questions.
81
Early historical references tend to support this story. In
ad
348, shortly before Easter, Cyril of Jerusalem delivered a series of lectures in a building that preceded the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. In these lectures Cyril made reference to the discovery of the cross on which Jesus was crucified. Additionally, several fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-century historians mentioned three crosses claimed to have been found in this location.
82

Because the spot discovered by Helena was especially marked at such an early time, it is believed that there is a reasonable case for accepting the location of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher as the genuine site of the tomb in which Jesus was buried.
83
The evidence above is also bolstered by the apparent tenacity with which Helena excavated this particular site. According to the testimony of the Gospels, the tomb was originally located outside the walls surrounding Jerusalem. At the time Helena began her search, however, the walls had been rebuilt, and the location was actually inside the new walls. Because Helena was not deterred by this historical discrepancy, it has been suggested that there must have been some compelling evidence causing Helena to ignore the apparent conflict with the Gospel description.
84

Archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon discovered in 1960 that the wall had been moved outward from its original location prior to the time of Helena’s arrival. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher is now known to be located on a site that was in fact originally outside the city walls as they stood at the time Jesus lived, consistent with the Gospel testimony. Not much of the tomb is left today because of repeated Muslim attacks on the city over the centuries, as well as the extensive excavation by Constantine’s engineers at Helena’s direction.
85
The previously mentioned lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem in
ad
348 also described the location of the tomb as a garden, confirming the testimony of the Gospel of John that Jesus was buried in a new tomb in a garden.
86

In summary the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is corroborated by the documentary, archeological, and scientific evidence presented above. This is circumstantial evidence verifying the reliability of the statements made by our witnesses regarding the details and framework within which their testimony rests. But recall also that direct evidence of the resurrection is provided by the eyewitness accounts from Matthew, Mark, and John, as corroborated by Luke.

With regard to the resurrection, we have seen that each of our witnesses stated as a simple fact that the resurrection occurred in bodily form. This particular testimony is given independently and explicitly by all four witnesses, each of whom has now been proven reliable. Each witness clearly understood that the resurrection was an extraordinary event but one that they observed as reality, not as mythology, metaphor, or tradition.

In that regard, the belief of others in the community that the resurrection in fact occurred—people other than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—also corroborates the Gospel testimony. The letters of Peter, Paul, and James in the New Testament, and the works of other authorities from the first century like Ignatius, Tacitus, and Josephus reflect an unwavering belief that the Gospel reports of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus were true. Historical writings of others are authenticated under the same procedures required by the Federal Rules for the Gospels, as ancient documents. These other writings, whether contained within the New Testament or not, also reflect the fact that reports of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus were widely circulated in the first century and were understood as facts that actually occurred.

The conviction of Paul in the truth of the resurrection is set forth in his own signed letters contained in the New Testament, and this conviction appears to have crystallized at the time of his conversion as early as
ad
33, almost immediately after the crucifixion.
87
Many of Paul’s letters were written to various early churches before and during a period known as his second mission; the date for this mission has been established by reference in the book of Acts to the description of Paul’s appearance before the Achaean proconsul Gallio during that period. Archaeologists have confirmed the fact that Gallio’s administration is accurately dated up to
ad
51 or 52 at the latest, by an inscription found at Delphi.
88
Ten of the letters from Paul contained in the New Testament are assigned dates between
ad
48 and 68.
89
The letters reflect that Paul held his belief in the resurrection of Jesus from the moment of his conversion about
ad
33, and he held that conviction to such an extent that he was willing to die for his new faith.
90

A letter mentioned earlier from Paul to the Corinthians, dated
ad
54 to 56 by various sources, contains a statement by Paul that more than five hundred people witnessed the resurrected Jesus and that many of those witnesses were still alive at the time of the writing of this letter. The authenticity of this letter has never been seriously challenged.
91
In this same letter Paul clearly acknowledged that if Christ had not been raised from the dead, then all of the preaching of his followers and the faith of the early Christians would be in vain (see 1 Cor. 15:12–21).

The reliability of the letters of Paul as evidence is supported by the fact that many details in those letters have also been verified.
92
For example, in his epistle to the Romans, which he wrote from Corinth, Paul referred to a city treasurer named Erastus. During excavations of Corinth in 1929, a pavement was found with the inscription: “Erastus, curator of public buildings, laid this pavement at his own expense.”
93
Other letters of Paul, Peter, and James containing references to the resurrection are also believed to have been written at early dates.

All of the evidence that has been presented to the jury in this case must be sifted and weighed to determine its
cumulative
effect. Now let us turn to the final argument—the summation of the facts and the evidence, and the application of the law to the evidence. The purpose is to assist you in your analysis and evaluation of the evidence, but it is also meant to persuade. This is the summary, or closing argument, for the case for the truth of the testimony of the witnesses, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Here we are permitted to begin to draw legitimate inferences from the evidence.

(Summation to the Jury)

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury

T
wo thousand years ago a man of unremarkable appearance was nailed to a cross. He was born in a cave and grew up in a small village like a tender shoot, like a root out of parched ground. He had no stately form or majesty when looked upon, no appearance that would attract others to him. In the entire New Testament not one reference to his appearance is given. In fact, he was despised and forsaken, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. He was crucified with thieves; yet he was buried in the tomb of a rich man. He poured out himself to death; yet he interceded for the ones who had condemned him. This was his life and this was his death—and the words were written by the prophet Isaiah some 740 years before the events occurred. The words have been preserved in scrolls dated to hundreds of years before the birth of this man.

And then on the third day after death and burial, this man returned to life, fully and completely, to walk among his friends, family, and followers and to speak with them. This, too, was foretold before it occurred—by Isaiah and others in the Old Testament, and even by this man, precisely and clearly. Translated into our language, this man’s name was Jesus.

These events were described by four witnesses in plain and simple language. The testimony, preserved in books we call the Gospels, is written without artifice or embellishment but is given in great detail. The story as it is told by each of the witnesses is placed within a historical framework referencing dates, people, places, and surrounding events—all facts that can, and have been, verified. The witnesses who gave the testimony were just plain and simple men whose lives consistently reflected honor and goodness.

The evidence has shown that our witnesses had no motive or incentive to fabricate the testimony. On the contrary, in the first century the penalty for belief in the truthfulness of the gospel message was too great to provide any rational basis to assume otherwise. The personal sacrifice that necessarily accompanied this belief also diminishes any argument that the witnesses would have been inclined to falsely teach the word to others who would suffer as a result. Such falsehood is inconsistent with their lives and conduct as it is known historically. Additionally, evidence has been presented to establish clearly the absolute conviction of these witnesses that the resurrection of Jesus actually occurred.

The character—that is, the personal courage and honor of these witnesses—including Luke, the investigator—has been shown by the results of their lives. We have seen that anyone who taught the word of the gospel or lived it at that time, including the authors, had to be a person of great courage and moral character, willing to die for principle. People do not die for what they
know
to be false. The only logical inference consistent with the conduct of the witnesses is that our four witnesses were people of honor, with a deep belief that Jesus was the Messiah. The initial presumption under the law of honesty and capability of the witnesses has been confirmed by corroboration of the details of the testimony. The integrity of the character of the witnesses has been established.

The jury has also been presented with evidence that the people who received the Gospels from our witnesses believed them to be honorable. The community provided an independent monitor of accuracy and truthfulness. Moreover, we know the communities in which these Gospels were written placed a high premium on accuracy. If the Gospels had been inaccurate or false, they would not have been so widely accepted without criticism. In contrast, the community’s lack of criticism and acceptance of the teachings is evidenced by conduct consistent with those teachings.

We have emphasized the importance of the intensity of the belief that each person in the community seemed to hold in the truthfulness of the testimony of the four witnesses. The conduct of that group of people—as well as the conduct of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—has been presented to the jury as evidence of ratification of the accuracy and truth of the Gospel testimony as to the fact of the resurrection of Jesus. Those who have attempted to discredit the state of mind of these witnesses have argued that their conduct was based on psychological manipulation and possibly hallucinations. The weakness of that position is revealed when the jury considers that these events of martyrdom did not occur all at one time in one place, as would be required to support a claim that they were based on mass hysteria or collective reaction to manipulative suggestion by a charismatic leader. Rather, they occurred in a consistent and sustained pattern through the lifetimes of these witnesses and their successors, over twenty, thirty, and forty years, in diverse geographical locations, often with no other follower participating.