Faith on Trial (23 page)

a. Why do the words of John in John 19:35 have such power?

i. Note: The passage in John 19:36 is powerful too, but it would probably not win over a skeptic. Can you recall why?

ii.
Rule. Don’t try to use Scripture from the Bible to prove the Gospels are true with someone who does not yet believe. In their minds that is circular reasoning.

iv. Contemporaneous writings.

1. When using historical contemporaneous writings to make an argument regarding the Gospels, recall that some scholars or skeptics might claim that one source, Papias, was “confused.” Yet the evidence does not support this claim. How would you defend against the claim that Papias is not a reliable source?

a.
Rule: Always check your opponent’s sources.
(In books and articles that tend to contradict facts set forth in the Gospels, often scholars cite themselves in their earlier works as sources and also, and more often, one another.)

c. Which method discussed in this chapter do you believe would be most convincing to prove the Gospels were written at an early date, and why?

d. How do we know the names of the authors of each Gospel, and how do we know they wrote them?

i. Using historical writings as evidence, combine that information with the other evidence presented and discussed in chapters 2 and 3 to rebut a claim that unknown authors in the second or third century actually wrote the Gospels, building your argument—brick by brick.

e. Historical writings establish that Mark wrote his Gospel on behalf of Peter, as an agent for Peter. Therefore, the Gospel of Mark is accepted as a third eyewitness account. What evidence exists to support this belief?

i. Recall that under the law a “helper” or “interpreter” of Peter, Mark would be regarded as acting as an agent for Peter, the principal and an eyewitness. This is called an “agency” relationship. Statements written by Mark on behalf of Peter are treated as the words of Peter, coming to us through Peter’s firsthand, eyewitness knowledge of those events. This is true so long as no evidence is presented showing that Mark had a motive for misrepresenting Peter’s statements.

1. Using the evidence in
Faith on Trial
, construct an argument to prove that Mark was writing for Peter.

a. Recall Peter’s “attribution” of this claim.

ii. Luke is not presented in our trial as an eyewitness. His Gospel is different. Recall that it was prepared for another person inquiring about the events. Note the details and some firsthand evidence of reporting.

1. Explain why Luke’s Gospel is strong evidence in our case, despite the fact that he is not an eyewitness at all times.

a. Recall that Luke’s Gospel also acts to corroborate the other three.

iii. Large portions of Luke’s Gospel indicate that it was written by someone present at the time of the events. Can you describe some examples?

1. Why is Luke’s report admissible in spite of the hearsay rule?

IV. CHAPTER IV: DID SOMEONE COPY?

a. Recall that the “synoptic” problem is the claim that as between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, one or more copied from the other, or from a source document referred to as “Q.” John is not included because that Gospel is entirely different in style from the other three.

i. Note that the Q document has never been discovered—it’s a theory.

1. Assuming the Q document exists, how is the theory that it was the common source of the three Synoptic Gospels affected by the existence of the Magdalene Fragments (from the Gospel of Matthew)?

a. Recall that the Magdalene Fragments are dated within the generation that Jesus lived. They are written in Greek. Yet we also know from Papias that the first Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic. Thus, the original Aramaic Gospel would have been written even earlier than the Magdalene fragments. How does this affect the argument that the Q document was the source of Matthew?

b. Recall also that the Q document is (theoretically) described as containing only a selection of quotations and teachings of Jesus—no narrative. But the Magdalen fragments contain narrative and many quotations from other people. (See chapter 3, note 18 for the full text of these fragments.)

b. Differences between the texts of the three so-called Synoptic Gospels are divided into three categories in chapter 4. Recall the three different patterns of similarities and find some examples of your own in the Gospels.

i. Recall however, that a comparison of passages in the three Gospels beginning with Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane through the resurrection, show little or no similarities. Check this out for yourself.

c. Various examples are set forth in chapter 4 to illustrate why the so-called synoptic problem is not really a problem. Construct an argument to support this statement based on the following:

i. Shorthand was in wide use at that time.

ii. The witnesses memorized what Jesus said.

iii. The witnesses associated with one another and heard the same teachings from Jesus over a long period of time. The words spoken to them were considered important.

iv. Witnesses of an event commonly see things from different perspectives.

1. Can you recall examples of this from real-life situations?

v. The printing press made a difference on later copies.

V. CHAPTER FIVE: CREDIBILITY, CHARACTER, AND CONSISTENCY

a. The five elements of the credibility test for witnesses discussed in
Faith on Trial
are:

i. Honesty

ii. Capability

iii. Consistency

iv. Relationship to (as judged by) our own experience

v. Corroboration by extrinsic evidence

b. Why is conduct of the witnesses important evidence of credibility?

i. In a courtroom the “conduct” of the witnesses and the people around them is permitted to be introduced as evidence when the truthfulness of a witness is a material issue in the case. Under that rule the court will permit and encourage evidence of conduct to establish whether the person making the statement actually believes what he or she says. To assess credibility, courts will also look at the conduct of the people surrounding a witness and the reputation of the witness in the community.

ii. Give some examples of the conduct of our witnesses—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as well as those around them, as a basis for asserting that both the four Gospel writers and the people around them believed the events reported happened as reported.

iii. What is a dying declaration?

1. How is the dying declaration of Ignatius in
ad
115 important evidence in our chain of proof?

2. Can you see how this analysis extends to other Christian martyrs?

a. Note: People may die for what they
believe
to be true, but no one dies for what they know to be a lie.

c. Science is not inconsistent with Christian belief. For example, the resurrection is not understood, but lack of understanding is not a reason to ignore evidence that an event occurred. Reasoning from the unknown is accepted scientific protocol. Every day we accept things we don’t understand.

i. Several examples of scientific “unknowns” accepted as true based on circumstantial evidence are given in
Faith on Trial
. Quantum particles, for example. See if you can come up with some other examples of “unknowns” in science. For example, human consciousness. Using these examples, craft an argument that religious beliefs, even though not understood, should be tested by the same standard.

ii. Craft an argument that the resurrection of Jesus is a belief that is not inconsistent with scientific knowledge today.

d. Medical evidence is presented in the Gospels to support the credibility of the witnesses. Discuss the evidence and its relevance to our analysis (Luke 22:44; John 19:34).

e. Critics have stated that the Gospel of John is too sophisticated to have been written by a provincial fisherman. What evidence would you use to support an argument that the apostle John was fully capable of authoring his Gospel?

i. The Gospel of John is different from the other three Gospels. For example, recall that it’s replete with interpretations and opinions. Can you think of other differences?

a. How would interpretations and opinions of a witness stand up in a court of law?

VI. CHAPTER SIX: COLLATERAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CORROBORATION

a. Details are important. Nothing happens in a vacuum; everything in life happens in relation to something else. A false witness will usually generalize, and even where details are provided, they are limited in scope. Details that cannot be corroborated have a negative impact on the credibility of a witness. The evidence in chapter 6 corroborates the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, proving them to be credible. Corroboration of details tends to establish that the witness is telling the truth. The Gospels are packed with detail—historic, archeological, medical details—which have been corroborated independently from evidence preserved over thousands of years. In any debate solid, independent evidence is your tool. The more you can recall, and in the order presented, the firmer the foundation.

i.
Rule: No one piece of evidence is required to stand on its own; instead, we are creating a chain of proof.
As we’ve said, building a chain of proof is like building a wall, brick by brick. Chapter 6 provides us with solid bricks.

ii. What were the two or three pieces of evidence set forth in chapter 6 that you conclude are most convincing for a skeptic? And why?

iii. Using only evidence in chapters 5 and 6, craft an argument proving that Jesus was a real person, that he was crucified, and that he died on the cross.

iv. What evidence exists to prove that the apostle Peter was a real person, that he gave his life teaching, and that he was an eyewitness to the resurrection?

v. Pick one witness—Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, and using the evidence presented in chapters 2, 3, 5, and 6, tie the evidence together, creating a chain of proof to support an argument that testimony of that witness is sufficient proof that the resurrection occurred.

vi. What weight, if any, would you give to the Shroud of Turin in the chain of proof?

1. If you believe the Shroud might be authentic, construct an argument to support this belief.

VII. CHAPTER SEVEN: SUMMATION TO THE JURY

a. Consider the elements of proof in the case set forth in
Faith on Trial
. Does any particular type of evidence, or proof, seem more compelling than the others? If so, why? Start with these:

i. The issues, admissibility, and reliability of the source evidence (the ancient manuscripts and fragments)

ii. Evidence establishing the firsthand knowledge of the witnesses—that is, who wrote what and when

iii. The question of originality—whether Matthew, Mark, and Luke copied one another

iv. Evidence establishing each witness’s credibility

1. Science does not conflict with fundamental Christian beliefs.

2. Recall that our objective in examining credibility is to prove that the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are worthy of belief. It is through their testimony as witnesses that we can prove that the resurrection occurred as a matter of fact. We are therefore testing their statements in the Gospels under the same standards used for any witness in court.

b. In a trial, once sufficient evidence is admitted to establish that certain facts asserted are more likely than not to be true, the burden of proof shifts to the other side. When the burden of proof shifts, a skeptic should be held to the same standards you’ve used; that is, he or she must offer rebuttal evidence of equivalent weight. In the absence of convincing rebuttal evidence, in a court of law, the judge will instruct a jury that a verdict finding that the facts asserted are true is the only rational inference.

i. When engaging in debate with another person, this shift in the burden of proof can apply at any stage, or level, of the discussion.

1.
Rule: When faced with a challenge that facts you are asserting, and for which you’ve provided evidence, are not true, the person making that claim must be required to present equally convincing evidence in rebuttal in order to move on to the next step in the discussion.

c. Construct a closing argument to answer the question:
How do you know the Gospel stories about Jesus are true?

d. Why is it our problem to defend Christian faith?

e. Consider staging a debate or your own trial on these issues, or related questions.

Notes

Introduction

1. Sarah Boxer, “Science Confronts the Unknowable,”
The New York Times,
January 24, 1998, A15. The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation was the grantor.

2. W. Browne, “Physicists Study the Honeybee for Clues to Complex Problems,”
The New York Times,
April 7, 1998, B14.

Chapter 1

1. Darlene Routier was sentenced by a jury to death by injection on February 4, 1997. Even though the evidence was circumstantial and no eyewitnesses were ever found, the jurors took only ten hours to reach a verdict of guilty. See John W. Gonzalez, “Jury Orders Death Penalty for Routier,”
Houston Chronicle,
February 5, 1997, 1.

2. Federal Rule of Evidence 402. The Federal Rules of Evidence used herein are as amended on December 1, 2011.

3. Federal Rule of Evidence 401.

4. Federal Rule of Evidence 401.

5.
McCormick on Evidence
(4th ed.), ed. John W. Strong, vol. 1, Section 185, 773.

6. Ibid., 777.

7. Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions-Civil. 2006. Section 3.1 General Instructions for Charge.

8. John W. Gonzalez,
Houston Chronicle,
February 1, 1997, 29.

9. Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Charges: 3.1. In a civil case where a party may ultimately be deprived of individual rights, for example, termination of parental rights, evidence may be required to be “clear and convincing,” a slightly higher standard. See Strong,
McCormick on Evidence
(4th ed.), vol. 2, Section 340, 442.