Faith on Trial (11 page)

Therefore, under a worst-case analysis of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the assertions of these two witnesses as to the actual crucifixion of Jesus could possibly, but not certainly, be viewed as partially interdependent.
Nevertheless, all three of the Synoptic Gospels are clearly original and independent, prepared without concert, as to the portion of the testimony concerning the resurrection.
Each witness clearly had his own perspective of the same event, which is not surprising because the Gospels report that they scattered after Jesus was arrested. In fact, the differences in perspective of the three witnesses, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as that of John, become clearly evident when you recognize that the Gospel narratives are not presented in like chronological order but rather are arranged by topics, according to the issues deemed to be important by the different writers.
16

In his earlier treatise Greenleaf concluded that the deviations between the Gospels of Mark and Matthew—and we could add to that the Gospel of Luke—in the order of time, arrangement of facts, and the inclusion of matters in each that do not appear in the other—show that as a whole they cannot be mere copies of each other, and it is likely that no one writer is the source for the other.
17
Nevertheless, the jury is entitled to determine the impact of the commonality of these three Gospels when deciding whether the testimony given as evidence by each witness is original or all or some of it is copied from another.

Notwithstanding all of this, taking into consideration both the similarities and the variations, the evidence indicates that each of the four Gospels is consistent and original in testifying that Jesus died on the cross, his refusal to repudiate his own divinity—as described in the teachings set forth in those Gospels—and that he rose from the dead on the third day, counting the day of his death as the first day.

(Credibility, Character, and Consistency)

W
ell, here we are, moving to the next step in building our chain of evidence.

We’ve established so far that the four Gospel testimonies were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John approximately two thousand years ago, close to the time the actual events occurred. We have also established that under the rules of evidence applicable in a federal court the Gospel testimony is admissible evidence for the jury to consider. And we’ve established that our witnesses had the opportunity to obtain firsthand the facts imparted.

Now we must decide whether we believe these three witnesses are truthful; that is, are they credible? Since the testimony at stake revolves around proving the facts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, let’s move forward to test the value of the evidence to prove, or not prove, our case. We know that, if the Gospel testimony can be shown to be credible, we will have established as historical fact that a person named Jesus lived two thousand years ago as described in the Gospels, died on a cross, and three days later returned to life.

Let us then turn to the probative value of the manuscript evidence of the four Gospels—that is, the tendency of the evidence to establish, or prove, the proposition for which it is offered. Because these facts were cognizable by the senses of our witnesses, the value of this testimony depends at this stage of our analysis primarily on the
credibility
of the witnesses themselves. The issue to be examined now is whether the statements made by the authors of the Gospels are truthful. To find out we will first review the character, or the reliability, of the witnesses themselves. We will begin by assuming the burden of our missing opponents to test the character of the witnesses for truthfulness or untruthfulness, a process ordinarily provided in a cross-examination. The evidence we’ll examine must also be measured against our ordinary experience and expectations—including what science has to say. After that, in the next chapter, we’ll go further; we’ll test the facts and circumstances surrounding the details of the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John on our issues to determine whether that collateral evidence corroborates what the witnesses have said.

As you will recall, the traditional standard by which we are required to prove our case in a federal court is proof by a preponderance of the evidence. That is, the evidence must lead you, the jury, to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence. If the evidence is such that a reasonable person could not help but draw an inference that the fact is true, then the court will
require
a verdict in favor of the proponent of the fact.
1

In his nineteenth-century treatise, Greenleaf established a five-part test for determining credibility, taken from the general common law of his time prior to enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This test is still useful to order our examination of the witnesses themselves and of the related facts, to determine the credence to which the authors of the Gospels are entitled as witnesses in a court of law. Greenleaf found that the credibility of these witnesses depends, first, on their honesty; second, on their ability; third, on the number of witnesses and the consistency of their testimony; fourth, on the conformity of the testimony with experience; and fifth, on the coincidence of their testimony with collateral facts and circumstances.
2
The objective is to determine the accuracy of the perception, recordation, recollection, and sincerity of the witness.
3

A point to keep in mind: it is not necessary under our system of law for each item of evidence to stand on its own as proof of the issue we are examining. Evidence is introduced to the jury item by item, with each piece of evidence creating a link in the entire chain of proof, to build the case cumulatively. To enter our chain of proof, it is enough with each item of evidence that it reasonably shows a fact is slightly more probable than it would appear without the evidence. As we have recognized previously, the jury may consider both direct and circumstantial evidence.

The first element of the Greenleaf credibility test requires an examination of the honesty of the authors of the Gospels. An initial presumption of truth is given to witnesses. But the Gospels record that many people in the community were present at the events reported, and that they were also witnesses to those events. These members of the community, therefore, provided a natural monitor of the honesty and related accuracy of our four primary witnesses and one another. If the Gospels were false in their assertions, the teachings would not have been so widely accepted without criticism. In this regard accuracy was clearly important to the authors, and statements to that effect in the Gospels indicate that the authors understood that accuracy was also important to people in the community at that time.

As an expert on the laws of evidence, Greenleaf noted that the use of the authentication of credentials in the New Testament indicated recognition by the authors that the communities for whom the Gospels were written placed a premium on accurate testimony. The high value placed on precision of transmission of information in the Jewish community was indicated by customs established hundreds of years before the first century, and that priority continued during and after the time the Gospels were written and began to circulate. Because precision in memorization of important texts and teachings was considered to be a sacred task, there is no reason to assume any of our witnesses involved in transmission of this information in the community at the time the Gospels were written would not be accurate, or would create false traditions, particularly where other living witnesses to the events were available to provide immediate criticism.

Likewise, the authors of the Gospels clearly understood what they were writing. The use of allegories and metaphors was customary in the first century, but the statements regarding the death and resurrection of Jesus in the Gospels are given as mere facts. There is no reason to believe people living in those communities were not aware of the difference between empirical facts on the one hand and myths and metaphors on the other. That people living in the first century understood this distinction is revealed by the use of the word
mythos
in several New Testament books (see 1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7; 2 Tim. 4:4; Titus 1:14; 2 Pet. 1:16). Followers of the Gospel teachings were admonished not to be deceived by “myths,” “worldly fables,” “speculation,” and “cleverly devised tales.”

Remember that in connection with our preliminary authentication of the Gospel testimony, evidence to rebut the question of motive or incentive to falsify the testimony was introduced to the jury. The authors of the Gospels would have been totally without honor to create such a falsehood and to teach it to others who would clearly endure such suffering as a result of the belief. Such behavior would be completely inconsistent with the character of the apostles so far as has been historically established from their conduct and the nature of their teachings.

While the disciples have not been presented in the Gospels as being of particularly strong character prior to the resurrection, subsequently they became strong leaders of the new church, willing to die for their convictions. The change in the lives of the apostles, including particularly Matthew, Peter, and John, was significant after the resurrection. For example, the night Jesus was taken by soldiers to face a mock trial, Peter, the true author of the Gospel of Mark, reported against his own interest that he in cowardice had three times denied even knowing Jesus. It is a historical fact that after the resurrection Peter was completely transformed and preached the Gospel publicly at a time when this was punishable by death.
4
Tradition holds that Peter was crucified upside down in Nero’s circus in Rome, around
ad
64. The harsher punishment of being crucified upside down was due to his refusal to recant his new faith. New evidence now indicates this is true.

The grave and bones of the apostle Peter have been found in archeological excavations beneath Saint Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican, along with circumstantial evidence that Peter was, indeed, crucified upside down. The discovery occurred in the 1960s, and the excavations are now open to the public. Here’s how the Vatican is certain that the grave and bones found under the basilica are those of Peter.

In a first-century cemetery, the apostle Peter’s grave was marked with great reverence. The present-day basilica is built over that graveyard. In the second century a plain monument known as the Trophy of Gaius was erected over what we now know was Peter’s grave. The mid-second-century words of Gaius, a Roman scholar, stating that this monument marked the grave of Peter were preserved by Eusebius. A red plaster wall beside the grave, covered with Christian graffiti honoring Peter, was uncovered with the grave in the 1960s. One of the markings on the red wall has been translated as follows: “Peter is here.” Archeologists have dated the red wall to the middle of the second century through tile stamps.

In the third century the emperor Constantine removed the bones of Peter from the grave to preserve them, wrapping them in a purple cloth woven with gold—colors reserved for royalty in those days. The bones were placed inside a small niche in the red wall beside the grave to keep them dry and safe from the curiosity of pilgrims. Constantine then built a church over the grave, the monument, and the red wall, in the place where the much larger fifteenth-century Basilica of Saint Peter still stands today. The tomb of the first apostle is found today beneath the basilica, directly under Michelangelo’s dome in the center. A plumb line dropped from the top of the dome would fall directly over the grave.

Today, behind a glass wall in the excavations deep under Saint Peter’s Basilica, you can view some of the preserved bones of the apostle Peter, as well as the monument and the red graffiti wall. All of the bones of the apostle were found except for the bones of his feet. Those were missing. Archeologists believe that Peter was in fact crucified upside down and his feet were cut off in order to remove his body from the cross.
5

Because the testimony of the Gospels rests on the observation and truthfulness of our four principal witnesses—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—the nature of the character of those witnesses is critically material to the case. Where the character of the witnesses bearing on credibility is an essential element of the case, as a test of the reliability of the witnesses, the court will permit and in fact will encourage evidence of their specific conduct as proof of character.
6

When a person’s character or character trait is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, the character or trait may also be proved by relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct.
7

Additionally, as we are assuming somewhat the burden of cross-examination of the character of the witnesses, it is relevant to note that the court will have discretion to permit the use of extrinsic evidence such as the conduct of people in the community in such a cross-examination if it tends to show or disprove the truthfulness or untruthfulness of the witnesses.
8

Whether we believe the events reported by the authors of the four Gospels are true, it is clear from their own conduct, by the fact that they were willing to suffer for the rest of their lives and even to die for the right to teach that these events occurred, that they were truthful in their testimony at least insofar as they did
believe it to be true
. People do not die for what they
know
to be untrue—for a lie.

Additionally, it is also clear from the conduct of other followers of Jesus that people in the community at the time the events occurred also believed that the Gospel testimony of the resurrection was true. Their own intense belief was founded on those facts. All of Jesus’ followers suffered extensively. They lost families and friends, property, and status; and many of them died excruciating deaths rather than recant their belief. None of them became rich, and none of them gained political power by following the teaching of the Gospels. Under the law, assertions may be communicated through conduct as well as by words. The conduct of those who received the teachings of the Gospels from our four witnesses reflects their opinion that these witnesses were honest and trustworthy. In fact, with respect to assertions made in ancient documents, courts have held that the conduct of others demonstrating reliance upon such assertions is strong evidence concerning such matters.
9