Resurrection: case dismissed?
A guest post by Ray Ternes. Ray has been a lawyer in Victoria for over five years and in October 2014 will commence as a barrister.
It is an oft-repeated claim is that there is no admissible evidence in support of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.1 I’d like to put this claim to the test, and then follow where the evidence leads.
In order to test the claim, it is convenient to set up a mock trial. The setting: the Supreme Court of Victoria. The case: the plaintiff seeks declaratory relief that Jesus rose from the dead. In other words, the plaintiff seeks the court’s endorsement that the resurrection of Jesus was historical reality, not fiction.
It is necessary to deal with two preliminary issues. Firstly, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. This means that the onus lies with the plaintiff to convince the jury. Secondly, the standard of proof is the degree to which the plaintiff’s case must be proven in order for the plaintiff to succeed. This is a civil case; therefore, the applicable standard is on the balance of probabilities.2 The plaintiff will succeed in this case if they satisfy the jury that the resurrection of Jesus was more likely than not.3
So, to begin:
The plaintiff opens the case with reports from three pre-eminent historians and scholars. These are Geza Vermes, Jewish, Gerd Ludemann, atheist, and Gary Habermas, a Christian.4 This is opinion evidence, and is admissible under section 79 of the Evidence Act 2008 (the Act). That provision allows evidence of opinions to be given if the opinion is based wholly or substantially on the person’s specialised knowledge, and that specialised knowledge is based on the person’s training, study or experience.
Vermes, Ludemann and Habermas are undisputed experts; no objection is made by the defence to the qualifications of these scholars. They were all professors of theology and/or history at distinguished universities5 and between them authored or co-authored about 50 books.
The plaintiff’s aim in adducing6 these reports is the introduction of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is not weaker or lesser evidence; it’s simply indirect. An example is proving motive in a murder case — the probative value of the evidence depends on the cogency of alternative explanations. ‘Alternative explanations’ in this context mean an explanation of the evidence other than that Jesus rose from the dead.
Vermes, Ludemann and Habermas agree on three points:7
- That Jesus of Nazareth was crucified by the ruling Romans in or about AD30;
- That Jesus’ followers sincerely believed that Jesus rose from the dead; and
- That Jesus’ tomb was empty — that is, that his body was not found in the tomb where he was laid.
One of the prime reasons for consensus on the third point is that the movement now known as Christianity could have been aborted in its infancy if the body of Jesus was produced. However, it was not, and the Sadducees, the Jewish ruling party at the time, instead claimed that the disciples stole the body. This is a claim that Vermes describes as not standing up to stringent scrutiny.8
The plaintiff submits that the best explanation, the most rational sense that can be made out of these three pieces of circumstantial evidence, is that Jesus rose from the dead.
The defence is quick to point out that these facts don’t establish the resurrection. There are alternative explanations. If there were not, presumably Vermes and Ludemann would have returned to the Christian faith they once professed but later turned away from. One such alternative explanation, dismissed by Vermes, is that the wrong tomb was visited. The impetus to, but ultimate failure of, the Sadduces to produce Jesus’ body to quell Christianity’s burgeoning growth renders this explanation unlikely. More plausible explanations are by reference to apparition type experiences (Vermes) or self-deception by way of unconscious hallucinatory experiences in the context of grief (Ludemann).
The plaintiff next adduces three eyewitness accounts as evidence that Jesus was seen, in physical form, after his resurrection. Specifically, these are recorded by Matthew and John in the Gospels, and more briefly by Peter in his letters.9 10 It is worth extracting John’s eyewitness account:11
On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
The plaintiff points out that these three men knew Jesus very well before he died, and wrote down that they saw a resurrected Jesus.12
The defence will take immediate objection to this evidence, on the basis that it is inadmissible by reason of being hearsay evidence, citing section 59 of the Act. Hearsay evidence is:
Evidence of a previous representation made by a person is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact that it can reasonably be supposed that the person intended to assert by the representation.
An illustration is apposite at this point to explain hearsay evidence. A person, X, is seen running away from what turns out to be a murder scene yelling ‘I did it, I did it’. X was overheard, but not seen by Y, nor did Y witness the death. Unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies, Y can’t give evidence of what they heard in order to prove that X committed the murder.
The representations made by Matthew, John and Peter were that Jesus rose from the dead. They are hearsay evidence if they are tendered to prove that Jesus actually did rise from the dead. However, the common law (and now statute) recognised that much good evidence would be excluded from evidence if the hearsay rule was applied strictly. In response, the law developed a number of exceptions to the rule.
The plaintiff will rely on section 63 of the Act, which creates an exception to the hearsay rule in civil proceedings. The exception applies if the maker of the previous representation is not available, and they saw, heard or otherwise perceived the representation. Quite obviously, Matthew, John and Peter are not available to give evidence, having long since passed away. All three witnesses claimed to have directly seen and heard Jesus; this is first-hand hearsay.13
The defence will raise an obvious objection, which is that the papyrus scrolls upon which Matthew, John and Peter wrote have not survived. Given the absence of original documentary evidence, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving accurate transmission. New Testament scholar F F Bruce wrote that ‘there is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament’. Professor Bruce considered that if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would be regarded as beyond doubt.14
In view of the expert evidence in support of accurate transmission of the testimonies of Matthew, John and Peter, it is submitted that their evidence is likely to be admitted into evidence.
There remains a final piece of evidence, which is widely regarded by scholars as the earliest, and accordingly, of significant evidential value. There is broad agreement among scholars, Vermes included, that the creed recorded by Paul was in circulation within five years of Jesus’ death.15 In his first letter to the church at Corinth, Paul recorded what scholars regard as an early creed, as follows:16
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
The defence will make objection to this evidence, as it is hearsay evidence. It also cannot fall under the exception of section 63 of the Act, as Paul does not claim to have witnessed the appearance of Jesus first-hand.17 Arguably, the plaintiff can rely on section 60 of the Act, which allows hearsay evidence if the evidence is relevant and admissible for another purpose. In this instance, the evidence may be admissible to rebut the allegation of late invention or myth. In other words, if the defence claim that the resurrection of Jesus developed as a legend, a story embellished over many years, the plaintiff can use this excerpt from Paul’s writings in rebuttal.
There closes our experiment in the courtroom. The exercise will have demonstrated that I am convinced there is admissible evidence in support of the resurrection of Jesus. Thus is answered the first of our two questions. The second was examining where the evidence leads.
Before presenting a view on the second question, I wish to address a difficulty with this exercise, and indeed, topic. I am not yet persuaded that the courtroom is the proper place for this discussion. The usual business of courts is the adjudication of disputes between parties that have arisen within the last 2-5 years. In rarer cases, the subject matter may be 20-30 years old, or in extreme cases, 70-80 years old. The point is that courts and the rules of evidence are not equipped to deal with questions of extraordinary events that allegedly occurred 2000 years ago. This is the business of historians.
That is why I find particularly persuasive the opinions of historians on these topics, although I concede that lawyers are well placed to test the credibility of historians’ opinions.
Historian and Christian minister Dr John Dickson has described there being a ‘resurrection-shaped dent’ in the historical record.18
My own judgement, for what it is worth, is that there are excellent reasons for accepting that Jesus rose from the dead. I would find for the plaintiff and grant the declaratory relief sought: it is more likely than not that Jesus rose from the dead.
[1] See for example: http://thebibleisnotholy.wordpress.com/resurrection/the-man-with-no-heart-miracles-and-evidence/, accessed 26 August 2014; http://infidels.org/kiosk/article/does-the-claim-of-jesus-resurrection-prevail-under-the-federal-rules-of-evidence-212.html, accessed 26 August 2014
[2] Section 140 of the Evidence Act 2008.
[3] Astute readers will have noticed that I have opted to use the civil standard of proof rather than the criminal standard of proof (the criminal standard, generally speaking, being higher and therefore more difficult to admit evidence). In my view this is largely irrelevant, which I hope will become obvious as the article progresses.
[4] In case there is any suspicion that I have chosen three experts somehow sympathetic to Christianity, let it be known that Ludemann’s stated aim in his professional work is to prove the non-historicity of the resurrection of Jesus and thereby persuade Christians to change their faith.
[5] Geza Vermes passed away in May 2013.
[6] To ‘adduce’ evidence is a legal term simply meaning to ‘introduce’ evidence; to seek to have the court formally admit the material into evidence
[7] Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. IVP Academic. 2010.
[8] Ibid
[9] See Matthew 28, and 1 Peter 1:3, 3:21, 2 Peter 1:16
[10] I have excluded the Gospel of Mark, because it is simply not necessary to delve into the controversies surrounding the ‘longer ending’ of Mark 16:9-20. My reasons for excluding the Gospel of Luke will become obvious.
[11] John 20:19-20, New International Version
[12] I acknowledge that Peter did not spell this out explicitly, but it is clear by implication. See also Acts 2:32.
[13] This should explain why I have omitted the Gospel of Luke; it is not first-hand hearsay. I note in passing that it is arguably expert opinion evidence under section 79 of the Act given Luke’s study referred to in Luke 1:3.
[14] F F Bruce, The Books and the Parchments: Some Chapters on the Transmission of the Bible, (2nd Ed.; London: Pickering & Inglis, 1953), p170.
[15] Charles Foster, The Jesus Inquest (Oxford, Monarch Books, 2006) pp156-159, 172-176.
[16] 1 Corinthians 15:3-6, New International Version
[17] At least not in the flesh (I have left aside Paul’s road to Damascus claimed experience).
[18] http://anglicanchurchnoosa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Article-re-the-resurrection-by-John-Dickson.pdf. Accessed 26 August 2014.
Photo by Sora Shimazaki from Pexels
