Faith on Trial (14 page)

Quantum physics, including the possible Higgs boson particle discussed above, routinely deals with particles that are infinitely small and ordinarily cannot be seen. Quantum physics is
fundamentally
based on acceptance of the unknown and unknowable, and that is why principles such as Heisenberg’s “uncertainty principle” are uniformly accepted and integrated into research and conclusions in quantum physics.
50
For example, neutrinos are ghostly particles—only rarely detected through circumstantial evidence—even though they’ve been demonstrated to have mass, meaning that they are matter. But a neutrino is understood to have the ability to pass through six trillion miles of lead without leaving any trace of its passage. Notwithstanding the mystery of how this is accomplished, all scientists accept that neutrinos exist with these amazing capabilities.
51

As you can see, therefore, what is “unknowable” should not bring discussions to a close; rather, as in science, in discussing religious beliefs, these questions should allow room for exploration, respect, and reasoning. The use of inductive and deductive reasoning based on indirect circumstantial evidence to test the credibility of testimony regarding an extraordinary event like the resurrection, or the cause of such an event, is acceptable in science as well as in a court of law.

Science has always accepted the hypothesis that physical facts, or events, may exist without an understanding of their physical causes. Similarly, lack of understanding of the physical cause is not a reason to reject the testimony of the authors of the Gospels if the evidence appears otherwise credible. If we can accept the basic premise that even one physical event can occur in this universe without an understanding of the cause, then we cannot rule out testimony by the four Gospel witnesses that other such events with inexplicable causes occurred merely because we do not understand them.

Even in the nineteenth century, while acknowledging that ordinary experiences of each reader of the Gospels compelled special scrutiny, Greenleaf concluded that if the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as to events were “separately testified to by different witnesses of ordinary intelligence and integrity, in any court of justice the jury would be bound to believe them.” In fact, he went further, stating that in order to reach a verdict against the plain facts of the Gospel testimony at this point, evidence of equal weight contradicting the honesty, intelligence, and integrity of the four witnesses would have to be presented to the jury.”
52
Today, as science, technology, and history have advanced, the inexplicable and the unknowable have become a part of our everyday personal experience. As required under the fourth element of the credibility test, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus are not inconsistent with the jury’s experience.

In summary, the testimony of the four witnesses as preserved in the Gospels meets the requirements of the first four elements of the credibility test established by Greenleaf, an eminent authority on the rules of evidence. The evidence reviewed so far is sufficient to support a finding of honesty, ability, and consistency of the four witnesses. In addition, their testimony is neither inconsistent with science nor with each of our own experiences in life or expectations.

(Collateral Circumstances and Corroboration)

T
he fifth element of the credibility test, “the coincidence of their testimony with collateral facts and circumstances,” requires a comparison of the details of the various reports of the Gospels with other known historical facts, including details of circumstances provided by other witnesses, to see if they are consistent with the testimony. This is an important test of veracity because it is difficult for people to invent stories and keep all of the details of the circumstances harmonious with the facts of the story. Nothing happens in a vacuum; everything happens in relation to other people and the things and events occurring around them. This is why a “false witness” usually tries to deal with general statements and broad assertions rather than detailing circumstances against which the testimony might later be contradicted. For that reason, variety and minuteness of detail are generally regarded as tests of sincerity.
1

Even where a false witness gives details, the testimony is often only detailed as to the portions that have been prepared. Beyond that point it will become vague and general. In other words, the testimony will not be uniform in texture; an untruthful witness will remember some things in great detail and won’t be able to recall others. A truthful witness is visibly natural and unaffected in his or her testimony and will recite details evenly in every part of the narrative.
2

Usually false testimony is revealed by inconsistencies in the details and surrounding circumstances related by other witnesses. A search for corroborating evidence, therefore, is usually a search for circumstantial evidence.

The increased number of witnesses to circumstances, and the increased number of the circumstances themselves, all tend to increase the probability of detection if the witnesses are false. . . . Thus the force of circumstantial evidence is found to depend on the number of particulars involved in the narrative; the difficulty of fabricating them all, if false, and the great facility of detection; the nature of the circumstances to be compared, and from which the dates and other facts are to be collected; the intricacy of the comparison; the number of the intermediate steps in the process of deduction; and the circuity of the investigation. The more largely the narrative partakes of these characters, the further it will be found removed from all suspicion of contrivance or design, and the more profoundly the mind will repose on the conviction of its truth.
3

As an expert on the law of evidence, Greenleaf believed in the nineteenth century that the evidence supporting the facts of the Gospels was sufficient to lead us to a certainty that these events occurred. If this type of circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict a person of a crime and cause that person to be incarcerated or even put to death, surely it ought to be considered sufficient to carry weight in our evaluation of the testimony in the Gospels.

We must treat the evidence presented in the Gospels as we would treat the evidence of other matters. The witnesses must be compared for credibility with themselves and one another, with surrounding facts and circumstances; and their testimony must be tested against the evidence presented by the adverse parties.

Ancient writers, archaeological findings, conclusions of scientists, medical opinions, and artifacts preserved through the years have all been found to confirm the details of the accounts presented in the Gospels. In many cases events that at first appeared to be somewhat inconsistent or contradictory have been proven true through recent discoveries. In fact, substantially all of the factual statements in the Gospels that provide context, or a frame of reference historically, have been verified by empirical evidence.

For example, the Gospel writers described governmental authorities and existing manners and customs of the times and places in which they lived in minute and precise detail that can be, and in most cases have been, verified by history and archaeology. The historical details do not have the appearance of contrivance or design but are scattered evenly and naturally throughout every part of each of the narratives. Each incident connects with every other incident in a way that makes falsehood impossible.

All four Gospels contain this minuteness and scope of detail even though the authors wrote at different times and in different places. They all refer incidentally to the same collateral facts and to the same general circumstances. Although their testimonies have some discrepancies, this is no more than one would expect from four different witnesses, each testifying from his or her own perspective.

When analyzing the consistency of the details of the circumstances reported in the four Gospels, the jury should recognize that during that period the entire region had been incorporated into the Roman Empire, undergoing tremendous political and governmental turmoil. In
ad
4, Rome annexed Judea, causing political unrest throughout the territory that actually culminated in the revolt against Rome approximately sixty-four years later.

The local and regional governments and rulers were constantly changing, with various parts of the area being controlled by many different authorities. Confusing laws and regulations for the administration of justice existed in all parts of the territory. It would be hard to identify any place or period in history more difficult to describe consistently when referring to circumstances surrounding an event. For example, details such as who was in charge, what customs prevailed at the time the event occurred, or what legal procedures were required for the trial of Jesus would have been hard to fabricate.
4
If the testimony were falsified, it would also have been inconsistent. Contradictory details surrounding fundamental points would have given opponents every opportunity to discredit the testimony publicly. This Gospel testimony can now be effectively cross-examined by comparing it to known historical facts and verifiable evidence. Greenleaf illustrated this type of analysis with regard to the trial of Jesus prior to his crucifixion:

They brought him to Pontius Pilate. We know both from Tacitus and Josephus [two historians of the time], that he was at that time governor of Judea. A sentence from him was necessary before they could proceed to the execution of Jesus; and we know that the power of life and death was usually vested in the Roman governor. [Jesus] was treated with derision; and this we know to have been a customary practice at that time, previous to the execution of criminals, and during the time of it. Pilate scourged Jesus before he gave him up to be crucified. We know from ancient authors, that this was a very usual practice among Romans. The accounts of an execution generally run in this form: he was stripped, whipped, and beheaded or executed. According to the evangelists, his accusation was written on the top of the cross; and we learn from Suetonius and others, that the crime of the person to be executed was affixed to the instrument of his punishment. According to the evangelists, this accusation was written in three different languages; and we know from Josephus that it was quite common in Jerusalem to have all public advertisements written in this manner. According to the evangelists, Jesus had to bear his cross; and we know from other sources of information, that this was the constant practice of these times. According to the evangelists, the body of Jesus was given up to be buried at the request of a friend. We know that, unless the criminal was infamous, this was the law or the custom with all Roman governors.
5

Since the time of that analysis, particularly within the past few decades, much more historical, archaeological, and other empirical evidence has been discovered to corroborate the credibility of the Gospel reports. Let us first review what evidence in the form of historical writing is available to substantiate the Gospel testimony that Jesus was a real person, that he actually lived two thousand years ago, and that he was crucified on the cross. We have already reviewed many of the historical references to the actual existence of Jesus by ancient writers, including those other than Christian writers. In addition, many other contemporary, or near contemporary, first- and second-century writers have made historical references to the actual existence of Jesus or have corroborated facts about his life as reported in the Gospels.

Tacitus, an early Roman historian who lived between
ad
60 and 120, referred to the fact that Nero put many Christians to death whose “Chrestus, from whom their name was derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilatus in the reign of Tiberius.”
6
Suetonius, a contemporary of Tacitus, referred to Jews who were “continually making disturbances at the instigation of Crestus” so that the emperor Claudius expelled them from Rome.
7
The reference to “Chrestus” or “Crestus” is generally accepted by scholars as a reference to Jesus, as Christ. Pliny (the Younger), governor of Bithynia, wrote to Trajan in
ad
112 to report that his test for persons accused of being a Christian was to make them curse Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do.
8
After an investigation of Christians, he had determined that they were accustomed to meet at daybreak and sing hymns to Christus, as God.
9
None of these writers were Christian.

In approximately
ad
52, a historian, Thallus, wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean area. Although the work has been lost, fragments of his words have been preserved in references by other ancient scholars. Julius Africanus reported in
ad
221 that Thallus wrote in
ad
52 of the crucifixion of Jesus. The Gospel of Luke states that as Jesus died upon the cross “darkness fell over the whole land” (Luke 23:44). Africanus reported that Thallus described this event as an eclipse of the sun, which Africanus believed to be an unlikely explanation because the moon was full at the time of the Jewish Passover season when Jesus died, and an eclipse could not take place during the time of the full moon.
10

The great ancient books written by Josephus,
Wars of the Jews
and
Antiquities of the Jews,
contain numerous contemporary historical details that have been confirmed by archaeological discoveries. The writings of Josephus, which survive in copies, are the primary sources of information regarding the Jewish people and their history, customs, and manners during the time of Jesus. Josephus clearly referred to the fact of the actual existence of Jesus in the following famous passage: