Faith on Trial (20 page)

This conclusion is also consistent with the findings of researchers on near-death experiences, some of which have been empirically verified. Medical and other neuroscientific experts report that studies performed on claims of subjects who were physically unconscious and declared medically dead (prior to resuscitation) find that those subjects were able to observe, report, and later remember certain facts that cannot be explained by our own knowledge of the workings of the brain. Many thousands of people have reported this experience. In a few cases it has been objectively established by medical verification that these subjects reported facts or events occurring during their unconsciousness that were impossible for them to have known or observed at the time; in other words, they saw and reported things that it was physically impossible for them to know or see. The accuracy of these observations has been carefully checked against medical records of the subjects, together with other evidence. No satisfactory medical or scientific explanation has been established for these reports, and standard speculations as to physical causes, such as an overabundance of carbon dioxide in the brain or hypoxia, or the rapid destruction of cells on the perimeter of the brain, have been convincingly rebutted.
9

These cases suggest that some element of the human organism has separated from the physical body to accomplish an experience that occurs outside the body. This correlates with the idea of a mind that is separate from the brain, something extra and nonphysical and not as yet completely understood. Philosophers and theologians could call this a soul. We do not yet understand these events, and we do not understand the reappearance of Jesus after his death. But it is fair to say that the continuation of personal identity of Jesus after his death, like the unknown element of human consciousness which seems to transcend physical limitations, is not a fact that is contradicted by current scientific knowledge.

We have examined the credibility of the witnesses—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—and the corroborating evidence for their testimony that Jesus lived, died, and returned to life. The existence and crucifixion of Jesus have been proven with empirical evidence as well as through the testimony of the witnesses. Evidence of the resurrection is based on the testimony of credible witnesses. As to the resurrection, if we can accept as facts such events as the creation of the universe, black holes, quantum particles, the origin of life, the evolution of subcellular biochemical systems in the human body, and human consciousness without understanding the cause, then we cannot reasonably reject testimony of credible, truthful witnesses on the basis that we do not understand the cause of the reported occurrence.

In spite of all of this evidence, however, many intelligent people who have taken the time to study the origin of the four Gospels appear to have surrendered their objectivity to a desire to confirm the hypothesis that the Gospels are merely stories built on myth and legend. Because the Gospels are consistent in the telling, these individuals—including some religious scholars—have assumed that the common cause of this consistency was that the Gospels were written in concert. They failed to acknowledge the straightforward explanations for the commonality of the Gospels that have been presented to the jury today—that is, that witnesses repeating the observation of the same set of facts, even when given from different perspectives, will be expected to be consistent in material respects. We have also seen that this principle is bolstered by the use of shorthand and memorization before, during, and after the first century; the seriousness with which the duty of transmission of information was held; and differences resulting from modern translations of the early texts.

Because the Gospels represent the consistent belief of the early Christian community, as evidenced by the historical fact of conduct in the face of persecution, these critics have assumed the Gospels were written after the stories were developed and the conduct occurred, merely to
memorialize
the beliefs and stories and conduct. They assumed the myths and legends were the cause of the conduct and writings rather than understanding that the writings merely reflected the truth upon which the conduct was based. This is a classic confusion of cause and effect; it is a common fallacy in logical reasoning when the two things, cause and effect, occur at almost the same time. But this ignores the evidence presented by the papyrus fragments and all of the other evidence that has been presented to you, the jury, that prove the entire Gospels were written at a date early enough to indicate eyewitness observation and too early for the full development of myths and legends regarding the events.

You have also seen evidence that the Gospels were written at a time when hundreds of other people in the community who had also observed these events were still alive to act as monitors of the truth and accuracy of the testimony. These “myths and legends” theories ignore all of the verifiable evidence available today that the full manuscripts were in place almost contemporaneously with the events reported. The evidence is the key, however; it effectively destroys any proposition that the Gospels were developed over hundreds of years, or even generations, of mere tradition.

The jury may ask why these theories have been popularly adopted, and the answer may be as simple as human frailty. When intellectual analysis becomes more interesting than simple truth, that analysis will be developed. Publish or perish. And as years pass, each person who has invested time and a career in the development of the hypothesis finds it is more difficult to become objective: the vested interest must now be protected. This may not necessarily involve a conscious decision; the fallacy of rejecting negative evidence is born of human nature. Evidence that tends to disprove a case becomes bad news.

And because the “myths and legends” hypothesis must be supported, endless scholarly analyses were published as to why each witness said what was said in each Gospel. For example, questions as to such things as the nature of the character of Jesus, as presented by the testimony of the Gospels, caused a search not for evidence of the truth of the statements but rather a search for the tradition by which the testimony was influenced. The query became what political goal was sought to be achieved by the author of the corresponding Gospel. The motivation behind each statement rather than the truth of the statement became the subject for inquiry. Evidence that did not support the “myths and legends” hypothesis was rejected or overlooked. The cart was put before the horse; result-oriented assumptions were proposed upon which analyses were based in order to come to a predetermined conclusion, and the simple facts as told in the four Gospels became twisted and obscured.

It is important to separate fact from theory in a search for truth. When a jury is asked to weigh the evidence, it is being asked to sort through all of the information that has been presented to it and to determine how convincing the evidence is and whether it will support the conclusion that has been proposed. In evaluating the testimony, recall that almost every event surrounding the fundamental testimony of the Gospels has been verified today by archaeology and other sciences. The jury has been presented with evidence both direct and circumstantial to prove the facts at issue. In each aspect of the case, you have received information to support each conclusion; no assumptions have been made without a rational foundation of proof; no blind faith has been required.

In many cases evidence found within the past few decades has even given credence to facts that have previously been considered suspect. Almost every town, most of the locations within a town or territory, and every governmental or local ruler or authority mentioned in the Gospels have now been proven to have existed and been in place at the reported time. The cumulative impact of the verification of almost every detail of the Gospels by independent evidence is important because it is so difficult for a false witness to maintain consistency in his or her own testimony. That is particularly true with testimony of four different witnesses to the same events. For that reason variety and scope of detail are excellent predictors of truth.

You are now asked to determine whether the truth of the testimony of the Gospels is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the standard of proof required in a civil trial in a federal court in the United States of America. Does the evidence that has been offered to you in this case permit you to find that the testimony of the Gospels that Jesus lived two thousand years ago and died on the cross and returned to life is more likely than not to be so? I submit that the evidence presented to the jury in this case provides an abundance of proof upon which to base a verdict that the Gospels are true.

Once evidence has been presented that is sufficient for a reasonable person to infer that the facts alleged are more likely than not to be true, the burden of going forward to offer evidence and persuade the jury to the contrary shifts to the adversary for all practical purposes. In fact, direct evidence—that is, eyewitness testimony such as that of Matthew, Mark, and John—in the absence of extremely convincing contrary proof would
require
the court to instruct the jury that the truth of the facts supported by this evidence is the only rational inference.
10
In either case, the adversary who claims these events did not occur would be required to present sufficient proof to
outweigh
the evidence presented to you, the juror in this trial. In two thousand years no such opposing evidence of equal weight and quality has been presented with regard to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

The burden of producing evidence is usually upon the party who has pleaded the existence of the fact. The burden may shift to the adversary when the pleader has discharged its initial duty however.
11

This burden has not been met by those who claim that the Gospels are mere myth and legend. When determining the weight to give to the testimony of witnesses such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, instructions to a jury that have been approved in federal court ask the jury to decide whether there was evidence to prove the witnesses testified falsely concerning some important fact, or other evidence offered in the case was inconsistent with the testimony of the witnesses.
12
The testimony of the Gospels has not yet been subjected to verifiable controverting evidence of that quality by critics.

The jury should consider the fact that it would have been in the great interest of anyone who wished to disprove the truth of the resurrection to present evidence to the contrary at the time the Gospels were first circulated, yet no such writing or other evidence has ever been forthcoming. Instead, in the face of silence from the authorities in Jerusalem, the message of the resurrection began to be preached passionately and publicly by the apostle Peter and others seven weeks after the crucifixion of Jesus (Acts 2:14–36).
13

All four Gospels report that on the third day after Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, the tomb was empty. This fact is critical to the story of the resurrection, and it is a fact which was easily verifiable by authorities in Jerusalem; yet no one came forward to show that the body remained in the tomb, and a body was never produced from any other source.
14
From this silence, the jury may reasonably infer that the tomb was empty.

Some have suggested, with no supporting evidence, that perhaps the tomb of Jesus was found empty because the body was stolen by his followers. Of course, if there had been any evidence of this, it would have been offered long before now. Additionally, for followers of Jesus secretly to remove the body and then maintain the story of the resurrection would be an act of deliberate deception in conflict with all of the evidence presented to the jury in this case regarding the character of that group of people, particularly Matthew, Mark (or Peter), Luke, and John. Such a deceit would have no basis in logic since we have seen that these same people died for their belief that the resurrection actually occurred. As we have recognized before, people do not die to support a deception.

In fact, the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem were aware that Jesus had predicted his death and resurrection three days later, and therefore specific precautions were taken to prevent his followers from removing the body in order to fulfill the prophecy. The Greek writer Polybius wrote that in the Roman army routine procedures included guard duty. Where circumstances warranted, one of the duties of units posted in the provinces, such as Jerusalem, was to guard corpses of the executed.
15
The Gospel of Matthew recites that the Jewish authorities asked Pilate to place a guard at the tomb of Jesus because they wanted to prevent a deception by the apostles, as they had recalled the prophecy of Jesus that he would rise again in three days (Matt. 27:62–66). For that reason the authorities “went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone” (Matt. 27:66). We know that the custom at that time for sealing a tomb is thought to have been stretching a cord across the stone and sealing each end. Sealing was accomplished by or in the presence of the Roman guards, and it had a special significance that the object sealed was under the protection of Roman law.
16

Historians have noted that these guards, as representatives of Rome, would have performed their duty to guard the tomb strictly and faithfully. They had no vested interest in the task, and their sole purpose was to perform their duties and obligations as soldiers of Rome. Military discipline was strict at that time. Roman soldiers held high standards of discipline and devotion to duty, and this was strictly enforced by the commander of each unit, who would suffer if the regiment showed up badly.
17
A soldier who abandoned his post of duty was corporally punished or reduced in rank. If this was viewed as willful disobedience, the punishment was death.
18
Notwithstanding that discipline, the stone was removed from the tomb, and the tomb was found empty.