Rowland Croucher wrote:

Clergy/Leaders’ Mail-list No. 1-059 (Book Review)

LAWYER TESTS THE EVIDENCE FOR EASTER

What is the big deal about her being a lawyer? In most court cases, one of the two lawyers is going to be doing his/her best to dress up fiction as reality. Finding the truth is not even their job. Obtaining a desired outcome is their job.

By RICHARD N. OSTLING AP Religion Writer

She was a partner in a major Houston law firm who had been a religious skeptic for much of her adult life. She decided to investigate whether Christianity is true, and the process made a believer out of her.

It’s fairly clear that she was already had Christian leanings when she started the investigations. Accounts of sceptic-investigation-conversion are usually false.

Now a lay Episcopalian, Pamela Binnings Ewen summarizes this research in her book, ‘Faith on Trial’ (Broadman & Holman), aimed at others like herself ‘who seek the comfort that religion has to offer’ but find faith difficult and ‘need a rational foundation for belief.’

IOW, she was not doing an investigation on religion, but seeking to consolidate her faith in Christianity.

Ewen asked herself: Did Jesus exist? Was he crucified? And did he literally rise from the dead? There’s little doubt about the first two points, but Christ’s bodily resurrection is disputed, even in churches.

Easter belief depends solely on reports in the four Gospels, which Ewen tests against the rules of evidence used in federal courts.

That’s not good enough. Uri Geller (spoon bender etc) has won all his cases because his detractors could not prove that he cheats. Not being able to prove guilt does not indicate innocence.

Civil cases rely on ‘the preponderance of evidence,’ while criminal cases require more exacting truth ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ She thinks the Gospels pass both tests.

This is not a test of the gospels. Unlike in day-to-day testing of evidence, in a courtroom, the onus is on the prosecution to prove its case. This, by itself, would place the case against the gospels at a huge disadvantage. First, there was no lawyer for the case against the gospel accounts. Second, it is almost impossible to prove that there was no supernatural involvement, especially when the alleged incident occurred 2000 years ago. That is why, in our day-to-day lives, with any reports of the supernatural, the onus of proof must lie with the one making the claim. Third, one can’t cross examine a document, especially when it is 2000 years-old, is not original and despite what Ewen says, is of very uncertain authorship. Ewen’s test, in those respects, is rigged.

Interestingly though, in a courtroom, the testimony in the gospels would, at best, have to be regarded as hearsay. It would therefore be inadmissible. Matthew and Luke are littered with examples of copying from Mark, who was not one of the original apostles – whereas Matthew supposedly was. Recollection in these areas, of what should be personal perspective, is often word for word. This makes it fairly unlikely that the author of Matthew was not one of the twelve apostles. In any case, such evidence of collaboration would ordinarily create a lot of suspicion in a courtroom. By contrast, in other areas, the accounts are so different that can’t possibly be the same facts from a different perspective. There are four completely different stories for the discovery of the empty tomb. So, if they were copying, why didn’t the subsequent gospellers just copy everything? Well, had they done so, that wouldn’t produce other gospels, just more copies of the first. It should be noted that each subsequent new gospel was likely not provided as a supplement, but as a replacement, designed for a certain group. Anyway, the combined testimony is too shaky to support itself, let alone the unlikelihood of a miracle. I will provide examples of that in a separate article.

The book acknowledges inspiration from Simon Greenleaf, a Harvard Law School expert on evidence who wrote ‘The Testimony of the Evangelists’ (1874); and from British journalist Frank Morrison’s defense of Easter in ‘Who Moved the Stone?’ (1930). Both titles are available in paperback reprints.

I have read Morrison’s book. It’s a wish list.

Like most lawyers, Ewen presents her best case and admits little that an attorney for the other side would pursue in cross- examination.

In other words, investigation was not her objective.

Here, the ‘other side’ consists of liberal scholars who think the Gospels are a blend of fact and legend that conveys the faith of the writers much more than it does the original events.

And I will bet that she maintains that the NT is inerrant.

She rejects widespread scholarly assumptions about when the Gospels were written, who wrote them, and the relationship among the four authors. Note: Other conservatives accept modern thinking on those matters yet see no reason to doubt the Gospel accounts.

That makes no sense. If one doesn’t know how they originated how can one find no reason for doubting them, especially when they are making bizarre and contradictory claims?

On dates, Ewen cites the late English Bishop John A.T. Robinson, who was a left-winger but argued in ‘Redating the New Testament’ (1976) that the Gospels were quite early, written at most three decades after the Crucifixion. Robinson’s reason: The Gospels show no hint of Rome’s catastrophic sack of Jerusalem and leveling of the Temple in A.D. 70, so they must have been compiled earlier.

The gospels don’t refer back to the destruction of the city, because they only cover the period of Jesus’ ministry. The destruction of the temple was therefore written as being prophesy, not as reporting after the fact – though the latter is logically more likely to be the case. What kind of legal mind would not ordinarily suspect/assume that knowledge of a historical event was not obtained after the fact (normal), but rather, was precognition (paranormal)?

It’s an interesting argument. But most scholars date only Mark that early, putting the other Gospels a decade or two later, when some eyewitnesses could still have been alive. Truth is, nobody has proof on dates.

Apart from the reasons given above, Paul shows ignorance of the gospels. If they were available, it seems extraordinary that he wouldn’t refer to them. The later date is much safer than the earlier one.

Our New Testament text enjoys unusually ample documentation from numerous ancient manuscripts, further corroborated by extensive quotations by early church writers, as Ewen correctly reports.

There is practically nothing that helps corroborate the NT?

But she relies too much on problematic claims that we have fragments of Gospel manuscripts written in the first century.

Under the guise of impartial legal constraints, the church lady does whatever it takes to be a witness for her faith. There are no extant NT documents from the first century.

On authorship, Ewen is convinced the apostles Matthew and John themselves wrote the Gospels that traditionally carry their names, and that Mark drew eyewitness material directly from the apostle Peter. Many would disagree. Luke was no eyewitness but carefully compiled good second-hand information, Ewen says, and that could be true for the other three evangelists.

If that’s a fair description of her position, then it seems she doesn’t address or even recognize the very obvious copying that one can find in the gospels, with Mark – not one of the twelve – as the source. She also ignores that John is so totally different to the other three gospels that either it has to be very wrong, or the synoptics – the other three – must be very wrong. How can that be if John and Matthew were written by original apostles?

Though there are many obvious differences between the synoptics and John, the biggest difference is the time line. Unlike the gospel of John, the synoptic gospels (Mt, Mk and Luke) only describe a one year ministry for Jesus, in which he travels once to Jerusalem for the Passover. In each, the plan for the one described journey to Jerusalem is considered significant (Mat 20:17-, Mk 10:32-, Luke 9:51-) and begins relatively early in the described ministry. John describes a ministry of three years, with Jesus going to Jerusalem twice for two of the three Passovers that occur in his ministry (2:13, 6:4, 11:55). In the synoptics, much of his one year ministry is taken up with that one slow journey, where he preaches along the way. I have never seen that reconciled.

Ewen thinks the Gospels provide four independent witnesses, enough to convince the most skeptical juror. Most scholars would say she overstates this point. But she’s on firmer ground contending we have independent witnesses testifying about the empty tomb and Jesus’ appearances after he rose from the grave.

Ewen’s best case is circumstantial. Those who first testified that Jesus rose from the dead had no motive for lying, she argues. To the contrary, this belief caused problems for early Christians, and execution for some.

‘People do not die for what they know to be untrue,’ she asserts.

Dedicated religious followers are capable of the most extraordinary delusion. In any case, we don’t know for what actual beliefs the apostles died for, or even that they died for any beliefs. Here is what “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs” says in a footnote:

: It should be known that the accounts of the martyrdom of the : apostles are mainly traditional. [p9]

So it’s not only “circumstantial”, it’s wishful circumstantial evidence based on very dubious hearsay evidence.

Ewen also says Roman and Jewish authorities of the time had every reason to disprove the empty tomb and Resurrection appearances, but there’s no sign they were able to offer such evidence. ‘The silence is deafening.’

Why assume that they even cared? If, as widely accepted the gospels were written during or after the destruction of Jerusalem, it is probable that the Jewish authorities had greater worries than some new pagan cult, in a foreign land, about some Jewish sage who was executed decades earlier by the Romans. After its destruction, Jerusalem went into a historical vacuum that lasted centuries. Why even assume that they were even greatly aware of this new gentile religion, or if they were aware of it and cared, that they would know where to find the tomb? Note that this religion was quite unlike that of James and the Jerusalem Church. Even if they could find the tomb, wouldn’t it be too late to check it? Even if we can get past all of that, what if they did have something to say; why assume that we would get that information? Jerusalem went into a historical vacuum, remember? Further indication of the general lack of interest in Jesus, is that mention of his ministry doesn’t appear in the writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls despite their spanning past the time of his ministry. In short, it seems very unlikely that Jesus had the impact in Palestine, that Christians like to imagine.

Interestingly, we do get a report from one Jew who was aware of the Jesus thing. In his documentation of a discussion between himself and Trypho the Jew, Justin Marty quotes Trypho as saying:

: “Ye follow an empty rumour and make a Christ for yourselves. If he : was born and lived somewhere, he is entirely unknown.”

You will note that even there, we needed to get the information through a Christian source. The fact that Justin finds it necessary to deal with it, indicates that this was not an isolated viewpoint.

Apart from the documents, there is another objection from skeptics: Science tells us that people don’t rise from the dead. Ewen responds that science cannot explain many events that we know have happened. For those pondering Easter, she cites a basic principle in science labs and courtrooms:

‘Failure to understand the cause of an event is not a reason to reject solid evidence that the event occurred.’

Sounds suspicious. It starts off with the premise that the event has occurred. Did she cite a source that promulgates this motto for “labs” and “courtrooms”? I believe that this is a better one to use for miracles:

: The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our : attention), ‘That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, : unless the testimony be : of such a kind, that its falsehood would : be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish; : and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of the : arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to : that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior.’ : [David Hume, ‘Of Miracles’]

Here is another way of looking at it:

Q. When someone tells you that a miracle has occurred, what are the chances that they are telling you the truth?

A. It would be a miracle if they were telling you the truth.

Think about it.

—————————

Richard N. Ostling, AP religion writer since 1998, is co-author of ‘Mormon America’, recently published by HarperSanFrancisco.

How reliable is the evidence for the resurrection? To support such a remarkable claim even the most solid of evidence would be wanting. Here, instead, is the confusion we are offered:

1. Who went to the tomb; was it Mary Magdelene (John 20:1), Mary Magdelene and the other Mary (Mat 28:1), Mary Magdelene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1) or Mary Magdelene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women – a total of at least five (Luke 24:10)?

2. Were they taking aromatic oils/spices and perfumes (Mk/Lk) to administer to Jesus’ body (Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1), or was it that they “came to look at the grave”, (Mat 28:1 NEB)?

3. Did they need to anoint the body that morning (Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1), or had that already been done when the body was wrapped, along with more than – take note – fifty pounds of spices (John 19:39)?

4. Were the spices, for the Sunday morning anointing, purchased before the Sabbath (Luke 23:56) or after the Sabbath (Mark 16:1)?

5. Was it just after sunrise when Mary of Magdala came to the tomb (Mark 16:2 NEB) or was it still dark when she (and others) came to the tomb (John 20:1 NEB)?

6. Was the tomb open (Luke 24:2) or closed (Mat 28:1-2) when the women arrived?

7. Was the angelic instruction a reminder that Jesus would go on before them *into Galilee* (75 miles away), where they should go and meet him (Mark 16:7, Mat 28:7) or was it a variation, a reminder of what Jesus allegedly told them when he was *still in Galilee*, with no suggestion that they should leave Jerusalem (Luke 24:6)?

Note: If keen, you can provide the story of the disciples obediently departing to Galilee (Matthew) while obediently remaining in Jerusalem (Luke 24:49).

8. Was Mary Magdelene first made aware of Jesus’ resurrection when she saw him (John 20:13,14) or was it when the angels made the announcement that he was alive (Mat 28:5-7, Mark 16:6-7, Luke 24:6-7)?

9. Was the resurrected Jesus first encountered at the tomb (John 20:13,14), after they left the tomb (Mark 16:9, Mat 28:9), some time later (Mark 16:8) or after the women reported to the eleven (Luke 24:10)?

10. Whom did they see at the tomb; was it a flying angel (Mat 28:2), a young man (Mark 16:5), two men (Luke 24:4) or two angels (John 20:11-12)?

11. Were these men/angels inside the tomb (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, John 20:11-12) or outside the tomb (Mat 28:2)?

12. Were they standing (Luke 24:4) or were they sitting (Mat 28:2, Mark 16:5, John 20:12)?

13. Did the women report these events to the other disciples (Luke 24:8-9) or did they not (Mark 16:8)?

14. Did Mary Magdelene recognise Jesus when he first appeared (Mat 28:9) or did she not (John 20:14)?

15. Was Mary permitted to touch Jesus when he first appeared (Mat 28:9) or was she not (John 20;17)?

16. Did Jesus first appear to the two Marys (Mat 28:1,9), to Mary Magdelene alone (Mark 16:9, John 20:14-18) or to Cleopas and a companion (Luke 24:13-31)?

17. Who told the women that Jesus had risen? Was it the angel outside the tomb (Mat 28:5-6), the man on the right side, inside the tomb (Mark 16:5-6), two men inside the tomb (Luke 24:5-6) or Jesus himself (John 20:16)?

18. After discovering the empty tomb, did Mary report back with grave news that Jesus’ body had been stolen (John 20:2) or the joyous news that he had risen (Mat 28:8)?

Best Regards,

Sean McHugh