Faith on Trial (22 page)

Then from the four winds comes the breath of God, the breath of life. The valley of dry bones will be left behind. Your own reading of the gospel message will flesh out your verdict. The messengers have told us that comfort is offered to those who seek. Come to me with your sorrows and burdens, Jesus said, and I will help you bear them (Matt. 11:29–30).

Now the courtroom is quiet; daylight fades. The jury will withdraw to consider the evidence upon which the verdict must be based. If your verdict is that the facts at issue in this case are more likely than not true, you have a basis for further inquiry into the complete message of the Gospels. Of course we all recognize that many stories in the Gospels have not been examined in our trial. We have dealt only with three fundamental facts described in the Gospels—the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. But if you have come to a verdict in our trial that the resurrection was, and is, a reality, then perhaps that is sufficient foundation for accepting the remainder of the testimony on the basis of the established credibility of the witnesses. In other words, the resurrection can provide a foundation for faith in other things you may not understand. This is not blind faith. It is faith based on reason and careful study, not on speculation or the whim of interpreters.

As you reflect on the evidence and your verdict, think of the beauty in the world and what it may mean. Look to starry nights and observe the order and design of nature. Listen to the whisper of the wind, the music of Mozart, and then listen to the message of the Gospels. The message of the Gospels is that love is the ultimate measure of good. If you listen with discernment, you may hear the full melody.

User’s Guide

T
he purpose of this User’s Guide is to show you how to jump out of the jury box into the well of the courtroom—to teach you how to
apply
the information you’ve found in
Faith on Trial
. If you know someone who would like to believe but just can’t get there or if you know someone who is a Christian but is worried about faith or asks difficult questions—like, “How do you know that it’s true?”—or if you merely want to learn to defend Christianity in an effective way, then this guide may be helpful. The process of proving a case in court can be modified and used by anyone, not just lawyers.

Why use this method rather than answering questions with Scriptures in the Bible? The four Gospels of the New Testament clearly set forth the basis of our beliefs. But attempting to prove the fundamental principles of Christian faith using Scripture to prove your point is usually viewed by agnostics or those with doubt as circular reasoning. The process used in
Faith on Trial
is for those who seek objective, independent reasons to believe—much like doubting Thomas.

I speak from experience. I was raised in a loving Christian home. But as a young adult I encountered for the first time the works of serious philosophers who called into question the fundamental beliefs of Christianity. I read Kant and Hume, Socrates, and Nietzsche. They raised questions. And I read Ayn Rand and her objective arguments on the virtues of selfishness and survival. In comparative religion courses I learned that many ancient religions claimed messiahs, great floods, stories of virgin births, and gods who rose from the dead. Those were myths, I knew. But what about my own beliefs based on the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels?

Where they also myths?

Yes, Rand and those like her wrote: This life is all there is. You’d better make the most of it. Then one week
Time
magazine came out with a cover headline: “Is God Dead?”

So I went back to my church, and I asked: “How do you know the Gospel stories of Jesus are true? What proof do we have that two thousand years ago a man named Jesus rose from the dead?”

And the answer I got was this: There was no way to prove it; you just have to have faith.

As I said in the beginning of this book, faith is a gift, but it wasn’t given to me. I wanted to believe, but as a young adult I found that I required a rational foundation to sustain my faith in the face of the arguments I’d read. And without a better answer to my question, inevitably I became an agnostic. For me, and millions like me, a different approach is required: I walked away from the church, wondering if we really are just like wildflowers that bloom and die, as the ancient words suggest—with a puff of wind we’re gone, as though we’d never been.

Probably,
I thought.

So I studied law. I became a lawyer and got on that treadmill and started to run. But I still wanted to believe and continued searching for answers. And then one day many years later, something struck me. It was this: Christianity is the only world religion based on a “knowable” fact—the assertion by four witnesses that Jesus lived, was crucified, and then rose from the dead. As a lawyer I had been trained to research the truth of statements of fact. And, I realized, the law provided an objective method for proving whether an assertion that something happened in the past was true or false—it was the process used in the courtroom every day to prove a case. So I decided to test the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John just as any other witness would be tested in a court of law. I would find out whether the Gospel writers were reliable firsthand sources, whether independent evidence corroborated their stories. My goal was to find out for myself whether their testimony would stand up in court.

The research and writing for
Faith on Trial
took almost fifteen years. I put Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John on trial, and they won. The evidence supporting their testimony was solid and objective; and combined, it was powerful. My earlier question—How do you know it’s true?—at last was answered. As I began to write this book, I realized that my life had changed. I’d become a committed Christian.

The process of examining and testing evidence this way is not a substitute for faith. It’s merely a different approach, a different road to the same destination. But for me, and hopefully others who want so desperately to believe, this process can provide a rational foundation for belief, soil for faith to grow. Turn the page and perhaps you’ll learn how to give the gift of faith to someone else.

I. CHAPTER ONE: THE ISSUE AND THE STANDARD OF PROOF

a. In
Faith on Trial
, the process used to get to the truth is the trial process. In other words, you are creating a chain of proof. This is a powerful way to present evidence to support your belief because no one piece of evidence is required to stand on its own in order to convince. Each bit of information is linked in the chain of evidence, creating a cumulative effect.

i.
Rule:
Pick your battles. In other words, narrow the discussion to the critical issues. For example, in
Faith on Trial
we examined only three issues:

1. Was Jesus a
real person?

2. Did he really die on the cross?

3. Did the resurrection really occur?

ii. Why limit the issues like this?

1. If you can help someone understand that Jesus did in fact rise after death, that this belief is rational, and, further, that he was divine, not merely a good teacher with a fine message, then that person is likely to search further to find out what Jesus actually said.

b. In proving the case, you’ll deal with two types of evidence. Discuss the difference between circumstantial and direct evidence. Can you think of recent examples from the news, cases won on the basis of circumstantial evidence?

i. Direct evidence—Evidence that, if it is believed, resolves the issue; e.g., the observation of an eyewitness, not otherwise controverted.

ii. Circumstantial evidence—Evidence that requires the use of reason to reach a conclusion.

1. Here is the beginning of your discussion with an agnostic: Christianity is the only world religion based on “knowable” facts. The four Gospels are assertions by witnesses that they saw certain events occur. Just as in a courtroom, a statement of fact is subject to proof; that is, it can either be proven or it cannot. Think through and discuss the basis or sources for other world religions by comparison, and notice the difference.

c. Standard of Proof: In
Faith on Trial
we set forth evidence under a standard of proof that allows the jury to make a decision on the basis of whether a fact is more likely than not to be true. This is known as proving the case by the preponderance of the evidence. It is a “reasonableness” standard accepted in civil, not criminal, trials. How would you explain this standard to a skeptic using examples from the text? How would you explain the necessity for using such a standard?

II. CHAPTER TWO: ADMISSIBILITY AND AUTHENTICATION OF THE EVIDENCE

a. Construct an argument that early texts of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are reliable sources.
Rule: Establish and verify the authenticity of your sources. To the extent possible cite to the earliest sources available.

i. What sources exist for the four Gospels?

1. Approximately twenty-five thousand handwritten manuscripts of the four Gospels exist, as well as approximately one hundred fragments from even earlier manuscripts. The oldest are the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and the Chester-Beatty manuscript, all dated from about 325–350
ad
.

a. Give the history of the three primary sources. Where are they held today?

2. How do we know our sources are reliable?

a. Recall the discussion of the “fidelity of transmission” of Jewish scribes in the first century. Jewish scribes treated the transmission of information as a sacred task. Patterns and techniques of scribal schools that were used to copy the sacred Jewish Scriptures are evident in the New Testament manuscripts. For example discuss: the Silver Scroll; the comparison of the book of Isaiah (200
bc
) to the Aleppo Text (900
ad
). Can you think of other examples of the fidelity of transmission discussed in chapter 2?

i. Prepare an argument defending the reliability of the Gospel manuscripts over time.

3. The three primary manuscripts are copies, not the originals. Why should we trust copies?

a. Courts in the United States permit the introduction of copies as evidence if they can be shown to be reliable and if the original is not available. The same standards are used to authenticate copies as those used for originals.

b. Some argue that the testimony of the four evangelists in the Gospels is hearsay and therefore is not reliable.

i. What is hearsay?

1. Recall that the general rule of law is that any assertion by a witness as evidence should be made by the witness in court, in person and sitting in front of the jury and subject to cross-examination.

ii. Given the hearsay rule, why would a court admit the Gospel testimony as evidence?

1. An exception to the hearsay rule permits an assertion made in an ancient document to be admitted as evidence—the exception provided for “ancient documents.” If a document can be authenticated through a showing of age, proper custody, and reliability, it can be presented to the jury as an ancient document under this exception.

a. What is the rationale for the ancient document exception?

2. Considering the Gospel manuscripts as ancient documents, what is the test for determining whether a witness therein had personal knowledge of the events reported?

a. What is the rationale for this test?

3. Even though courts generally assume that an ancient document was written before the controversy at issue, in
Faith on Trial
we’ve taken the precaution of examining possible motives of the writers.

a. Why does motive still matter in our case?

b. Can you construct an argument to convince a skeptic that the authors of the four Gospels had no motive, or incentive, to teach that the resurrection actually occurred?

III. CHAPTER THREE: THE LEGAL NATURE OF THE TESTIMONY

a. Why do we care if our witness had personal knowledge?

i. In the case of the four Gospels, this is an issue of credibility. A document written in the second or third century about events occurring hundreds of years earlier is third-, fourth-, or fifth-hand information, at best.

1. Try this out next time you’re in a large group. Pass a sentence or two around the room, each person whispering the secret to the next. When the last person hears the secret, ask that person to repeat aloud what he or she heard. Usually the secret has significantly changed. Now imagine what could occur to detailed information repeated from person to person over hundreds of years, from the first century to the third century, the time at which many secular scholars and skeptics believe the Gospels were written.

a. Be aware: The gospel of Thomas was written in the late second or third century. This book conflicts significantly with the four Gospels and distorts the teachings and personality of Jesus, yet many scholars accept the Gospel of Thomas as equivalent to the four Gospels as a source for the basis of Christian fundamental belief. That could not be further from the truth. It is not a firsthand source.

b. Discuss the evidence and process presented in
Faith on Trial
to prove that the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John was given by people who lived within the generation that Jesus lived:

i. Creating an end date for testimony

1. The siege of Jerusalem

2. Familiar references to places and things destroyed after the destruction of Jerusalem in
ad
70

ii. Scientific dating of the fragments from manuscripts by papyrology

1. Note that the earlier dated fragments fit into the third-century Gospel manuscripts like pieces of a puzzle. What does that prove?

2. Describe the process by which the Magdalen fragments from the Gospel of Matthew were dated by papyrology. How about the other fragments? (Recall that radiocarbon dating wasn’t used because of the fragile nature of the papyrus.)

iii. Eyewitness affirmation.

1. Familiar and personal references to people and places lead one reasonably to believe the person speaking was there, in that place, at that time. Craft an argument using a chain of proof to show that whoever wrote the Gospel of John had to have lived in Jerusalem within the generation that Jesus lived.