Lawyers' Christian Fellowship

WITNESSES TO THE RESURRECTION - CREDIBLE OR NOT?

by Clarrie Briese

Well thank you very much for inviting me to have breakfast with you this morning and asking me to address you on this topic.

By way of introduction, I draw attention to the fact that one of the functions of the recently established judicial commission will be the education and training of members of the judiciary and magistracy. So far as magistrates are concerned I believe that one aspect of their judicial education which will be given considerable attention in the years ahead is assisting them to improve their in the actual business of judging; that is, weighing evidence, assessing the credibility of witnesses and so on. The credibility of witnesses is a really important issue when evaluating evidence. There is in every case usually a conflict over one or two crucial issues. Attention therefore has to be given to the credibility of witnesses giving the testimony. That must be done to assist in determining which evidence is to be accepted or believed with regard to a particular issue. Is there a way of proceeding which can assist magistrates in making judgments about the credibility of witnesses? Judicial literature, text books and precedents do give guidance but magistrates in this country have never been given any systematic course or any systematic training in the art of judging. Hopefully the judicial commission will remedy this deficiency.

Some 80 years ago a former justice of the New York State Supreme Court wrote a two volume series on the legal aspects of the trial, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. His name is Walter Chandler. Particularly interesting is his treatment on evaluating the testimony of witnesses. It would indeed prove profitable reading for those of us who are called to be magistrates in this State.

This morning I am going to use some of Chandlers material as the basis for my address. We will be doing two things. We will look at appropriate tests to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, and secondly and more importantly, we will use those tests on the witnesses of the new testament to the resurrection of that unique person in history, Jesus Christ, with a view to determining whether their evidence about the resurrection is credible.

The witnesses concerning the question of the resurrection are five in number or six if we include the apostle Peter with his two letters. These people have left us historical documents giving their testimony concerning, amongst other things, the resurrection.

I emphasise the phrase "historical documents" because we must keep in mind, that apart from whatever theological significance these documents might have for individuals and for churches as part of the Bible of the Christian faith, these documents are also historical documents. The question is - are they reliable? Can we trust them? The people who wrote them put themselves forward as witnesses, indeed as eye witnesses to many of the events and incidents they record. One way of proceeding to determine whether the documents are reliable is, in the first place, to put the people who wrote them through the test a good magistrate or judge would put them through. For the purpose of this exercise we will ignore theological issues like whether these witnesses wrote under inspiration, and if so, what effect that had on their writings. In testing their credibility we will simply apply the usual standards employed in analysing the motives and conduct of ordinary men in the usual experiences and everyday affairs of life.

Chandler sets out the tests as follows: The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon firstly their honesty, secondly, their ability, thirdly, their number and the consistency of their evidence. Fourthly, the conformity of their testimony with our own personal experience and fifthly, the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances and facts.

Before embarking on these tests I will make, one or two preliminary remarks about Christianity and the major premise on which it is based, namely the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Many people have a good natured attitude towards Christianity but they are far from satisfied as to its truth. There is a sneaking suspicion that it is not intellectually respectable, that it rests on fables and legends. There is a feeling by some that the story of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is at best a happy fairytale ending to the life of a good man and at worst a ridiculous falsehood. There is no doubt that the death and resurrection of Jesus are at the very centre of the testimony of the new testament witnesses and if their evidence is true, that Jesus was in fact raised from the dead, that they had not only seen him, but talked and eaten with him, and had touched him, so that he was certainly alive again and must be alive today. If all this evidence is objectively true, that event is mind boggling, not only as to its physical happening, but world shattering in its significance and ramifications. It would then have to be the most important event this world has known. Now I am aware that all of us, Christians and non-Christians alike, we pride ourselves on our common sense and intelligence. We do not like to think that we are being conned. Well, have Christians been conned? Have we foolishly accepted the testimony of false or mistaken witnesses? Let us use the Chandler tests on these witnesses and see what that reveals.

1. HONESTY

The first test concerns the honesty of persons giving evidence. Were the authors of the four accounts of the resurrection, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, together with Paul in his letters - honest? An enormous amount of study and research has now been made of the documents of the Bible including the particular documents we are concerned with here this morning.

The present situation appears to be that there is general consensus that Mark and Luke were almost certainly the writers of the gospels that bear their name. There is continuing debate about whether the apostle Matthew wrote the gospel of Matthew and whether the apostle John was the author of the gospel of John. But one thing is certain, there is no doubt that all were dedicated followers of the man Jesus Christ. And as for Paul, we know that he began his career as Saul, the learned pharisee who was steeped in the knowledge of the Old Testament, who had studied at the feet of the famous Gamliel. He was a bitter opponent of the early Christian church and did his best to stamp out the Christian movement by persecution and death for its adherents. Then he had an experience which revolutionised his thinking, changed his life, converted him to the cause of Christ and made him the most powerful advocate for it in the then known world.

Well, did these five men believe what they put down in writing was true? If they did believe it was true, then they were honest men. It does not mean of course that what they recorded was objectively true for they could have been mistaken, misled by their senses for example. But if they believed in the truth of their accounts of the resurrection, then they pass the first test for witnesses that for witnesses to have credibility, they must be honest in the sense of being sincere.

Chandler says that to make a judgment about a witnesss sincerity, one looks firstly to his or her character and then to his or her motive for giving testimony.

Taking character first. What observations are available? First, a general reading of the writings of the five witnesses gives the distinct impression that these men are men of integrity and truthfulness. They portray Jesus as one who taught with great authority and conviction, as one who had a passion for truth, who abominated hypocrisy and abhorred lying and deception. They themselves were committed disciples of the man they were writing about. They put themselves forward as witnesses to the events of Christ, in particular his resurrection. As men of Jewish stock, steeped in the old testament, they knew the requirements of their law that witnesses be true. The only logical and sensible inference from all this is that they themselves were honest men who were concerned for the truth, that they were not deceitful.

Put in another way, the writings of these five men contain some of the highest moral and ethical teaching the world has known. If these men were not honest then they represent a baffling contradiction of what they themselves were proclaiming. As dishonest, conspiratorial men, the character they have created in the man Jesus Christ is such that it would have been an impossible task for them to have done it. How could five men, (at least five men, because there were other minor witnesses as well) conspire together to create a sublime character in a superb piece of fiction which surpasses anything to be found in the literature of the world. That does not ring true. Indeed it is so preposterous that there is scarcely a single intelligent critic who argues today that the testimony of these five witnesses is deliberately false.

When one turns to the motives of these men, the issue as to their sincerity is settled beyond doubt. If the story they were telling about Jesus was not believed by them to be true, what possible motive could have prompted them to proclaim it as they did and to die for it as they did. They certainly knew when they went out to challenge the world with the proclamation that Christ had been raised from the dead that the only reaction they could expect from the authorities, both Jewish and Roman, would be opposition, persecution and death. Indeed of the twelve disciples, all were put to death on account of their witness, save the apostle John. He was the only one to die naturally of old age. Now many people in history it is true have died because they believed in and fought for a lie, but in every case these people did not believe it to be a lie. They thought it to be the truth, worth dying for.

So what was in it for the evangelists and for Paul to tell a lie? Nothing but persecution and death. Without any shadow of a doubt, they must have believed that what they had written was the truth and that as witnesses they had a solemn duty to inform the world. Chandler puts it this way. Nothing could be more absurd than the proposition that a number of men banded themselves together, repudiated the ancient faith of their fathers, changed completely their mode of life, became austere in profession and practicing principles of virtue, spent their entire lives proclaiming certain truths to mankind and then suffered the death of martyrs. All for the sake of a religion which they knew to be false. The conclusion: the witnesses pass the first test.

2. ABILITY

The second test for witnesses is their ability. The witness, to be believed, must at least be a person of sound mind and intelligence. He must have powers of observation which enable him to observe clearly and a good memory which enables him to recall what he has seen or heard. The law presumes that a witness is of sound mind with average intelligence and this presumption continues until evidence is brought which establishes otherwise. This legal presumption would apply also to the five witnesses we are considering but, apart from that presumption, there are indications which lead us to the conclusion that these men are well qualified as witnesses of ability.

First, we note that they wrote in Greek, although they were themselves Hebrews, so they were obviously men of some literacy. Secondly, the writings themselves show the authors to be men of intelligence and ability. For example, Luke who wrote both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts has been shown by careful research to be an historian of the first rank, so accurate and professional was his approach to his work. Chandlers judgment is that the writings themselves indicate extraordinary mental vigour as well as cultivated intelligence, that in particular the Gospels of John and Luke reveal that elegance of style and lofty imagery which are the invariable characteristics of intellectual depth and culture. Now I agree with him that the ignorant fisherman idea is certainly not applicable to the gospel writers. If they were ever very ignorant, at the time of the composition of the evangelical writings they had outgrown the affliction!!

One criticism levelled against these witnesses is that they testified from a position of bias, that being ardent disciples of Jesus their testimony must be greatly affected by that bias and colour everything they wrote about him. There is the suggestion that this could have resulted in exaggeration and distortion of the facts. On the face of it I suppose that sounds plausible. However, when you read their writings you do not encounter the language of fanaticism, the language of prejudice, the language of bias. As Chandler puts it, no ranting or outbursts of rage on the one hand, no eulogy or adulation on the other. The most remarkable characteristic of the New Testament histories is the spirit of quiet dignity and simple candour which everywhere pervades them.

None of the gospel writers displayed the slightest bitterness or resentment when describing the trial of Jesus and his crucifixion. They are at pains to be impartial, to simply relate the facts. Take the case of Pontius Pilate. Secular writers of the day describe Pilate as stubborn, cruel and vindictive and no doubt he was. The way he handled the trial of Jesus was a disgrace, enough to cause the most even-tempered onlooker, who was interested in fairness, to cry out in outrage. Yet the gospel accounts are quite impartial in their approach to Pilate in their language. Far from portraying him as the disgraceful person he was in terms of administering justice, the gospel accounts put Pilate in something of a very reasonable light by indicating his repeated attempts to release Jesus. Authors who were affected by bias, deep emotion or prejudice, would have gone to town on Pilate and torn him apart in their writings.

Another example. The gospel writers include in their accounts some of their own stupid actions and mistakes. Calculating, biased and prejudiced men do not operate in this fashion. Experience teaches us that where a witness divulges material or facts which belittles the witness and puts him or her under criticism or in a bad light, and that material could have remained hidden but for the witness volunteering it, you can be pretty sure that such a person is telling the truth. Men and women do not invent stories to their own discredit. So why would the gospel writers (bearing in mind that they were now leaders in the young church) include incidents which showed up their past weaknesses, mistakes and stupidities? For example, the apostles are sometimes shown as foolishly not being able to understand what Jesus was saying. There is the extremely selfish request by James and John to be given the two top seats in the kingdom and there is Peters shameful threefold denial of Jesus. There are many others like that. Had these men been scheming collaborators wanting to deceive the world with a fantastic story, incidents like these would have been omitted.

They also included difficult sayings of Jesus which could be misinterpreted and place Jesus in a bad light. For example, we think of his prayer in the Garden of Getbsemane where he shrinks from the thought of death and again his cry of God forsakeness on the cross. Men who wrote with bias, for example to present Jesus in the most heroic light, would be sorely tempted to omit that view of him. That the authors of the gospel did not is a tribute to their honesty, to their obvious desire to be accurate in the facts about Jesus.

Finally under the second test as to the ability of witnesses we have to ask ourselves whether these five witnesses had the opportunity to witness the facts and circumstances about which they were testifying. Their testimony comes from two sources. First, they were themselves eyewitnesses of many of the events about which they testified, in particular, the post resurrection appearances of Jesus. Secondly, they also obtained material from other eyewitnesses and other reliable sources. These five men were therefore in an excellent position to record the events of the gospel histories because a great deal of their testimony rests on the best testimony of all - eyewitness testimony.

There is one final objection to the accounts of these witnesses on the ground that these accounts were written so long after the events that they had forgotten them or had confused them with various traditions and legends which had grown up about Jesus. This was pretty effective criticism up until the last century when it was thought that the gospels had not been committed to writing until the second century AD. It has now been established that the gospels were written between 30 and 60 years after the death of Jesus. That period is not long enough to affect matters of substance in their accounts. For example, last Sunday I listened to a television programme where Sir Laurence Olivier was talking about events of his past life, sixty years prior. He had no difficulty in recalling those events, they were vivid in his memory. I would add too in the case of Paul, his letter to the Corinthians, the fifteenth chapter which summarises his account of the resurrection appearances, that was written in AD 54, only 24 years later.

So the conclusion under the second test would be that these witnesses would certainly pass.

3. NUMBER OF WiTNESSES AND CONSISTENCY OF THEIR EVIDENCE

We move to the third test which looks at the number of witnesses and the consistency of their evidence. As lawyers we all know the value of witnesses who corroborate each other. The credibility of a witness is greatly improved if what he says is corroborated by other witnesses who say substantially the same thing. The more supporting witnesses there are, the greater is the credibility of the witness who is corroborated. Corroboration requires that there is reasonable consistency between the testimony of the witness testifying and the corroborating witnesses. Where you have discrepancies occurring in matters of substance, the credibility of one or more of the witnesses tends to be destroyed. On the other hand where witnesses support each other verbatim, word for word, in every minor detail, one inference that can be drawn is that the witnesses have put their heads together and concocted the evidence.

Now apply this test to the witnesses concerning the resurrection. They certainly corroborate each other on the major issues, in particular that Jesus had been crucified, was dead, buried in a tomb and had risen from the dead and was alive. But there is a seeming discrepancy in some of their details. Are these discrepancies such as to weaken or destroy their evidence as to the resurrection itself? I think not. Indeed I believe it is just those kinds of discrepancies so familiar to us in the courts which give integrity and authenticity to their story. In the first place they clearly indicate they did not put their heads together. They are independent accounts of what had happened. Furthermore it is becoming clearer with research that the four gospel writers had different audiences and different purposes in mind. This factor has a great bearing on some of the discrepancies and of course some of the discrepancies are mere omissions of detail. Secular historians dealing with identical events also could be accused about discrepancies of that kind. Yet they are not discredited on that account and quite properly so. it is to be expected that that would be the case.

Whilst it is true that there are some discrepancies in the accounts of the four gospels, nevertheless it is possible to reconcile them and to reconcile them in a satisfactory way and a number of authors have done so. We do not have the time to go through them .or the reasoning behind them. They are of course fascinating reading. Many of us are familiar with the book, Who Moved the Stone by Frank Morrison, the person who, from a position of initial scepticism, was finally persuaded by the evidence when he examined it that staggeringly there had been a physical resurrection of the man Jesus Christ. The most recent book that has come my way is John Wenhams, Easter Enigma, where he considers whether the resurrection stories are actually in conflict. it is a magnificent book well worth reading.

Attention to the discrepancies in the gospels can divert us from the fact that there is a huge amount of corroboration between the four accounts. In some cases the kind of corroboration is so significant as to give special support for the proposition that these men were recording the facts of history concerning Jesus with minute accuracy.

Chandler classifies the corroborative features of the evangelists under three headings.

First, there are instances in which certain historical events related by one of the gospel writers are told by one or all of the others. This is, of course, ordinary corroboration -we are familiar with that. For example, each of the four tells the account of how Jesus miraculously had fed 5,000 people. Each of the accounts records the fact that the fragments taken up were twelve baskets full. So in matters of small detail like this, you will find that the evangelists sometimes corroborate each other. The mere fact that there might be lack of corroboration as to the details of other incidents is to be expected where you have otherwise truthful people describing the same incident.

Secondly, Chandlers second classification is of instances in which the recital of a certain fact by one of the evangelists would be obscure or meaningless unless explained or supplemented by another. These may be regarded as examples of internal confirmation. As an example we will take the incident when Jesus was being interrogated by the High Priest. It is recorded in the twenty-sixth chapter of Matthew. The High Priest announced that Jesus was guilty of the offence of blasphemy. He asked the members of the council present what they thought. They replied "He deserves death". The passage continues "then they spat in his face and struck him, saying, prophesy to us you Christ, who was it that struck you?". Now why would the members of that council under those circumstances ask Jesus to prophesy? Luke deals with the same incident. He records that the men blind-folded Jesus and it was then that they asked him to prophesy "Who is it that struck you?" (Luke Ch.22 v.64). The fact that Jesus was blind-folded and then struck makes sense of the question they put to Jesus. So what you have here in the first place is a case of ordinary corroboration where both authors report the same incident, then you have an instance of internal confirmation where the corroborating witness, here Luke, more fully explains the incident and makes sense of Matthews account. That kind of corroboration is very compelling.

Chandlers third classification of the corroborative features of the evangelists are instances in which the fact related by one evangelist must be true from the nature of case regardless of what the others have said. This is the simple confirmation of logic or reason. Here we take, for example, in the Gospel of John, Chapter 20, where Mary Magdalene having discovered the tomb of Jesus to be empty, runs to Peter and John to tell them. it is then recorded "Peter then came out with the other disciple, that is John, and they went towards the tomb. They both ran but the other disciple, that is John, outran Peter and reached the tomb first, and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came following him and went into the tomb" etc. Now we know that Peter was much older than John. We can draw that inference from the 21st Chapter of John together with other material. Two things have the confirmation of natural logic about that passage. In the first place it would be natural that the younger man might outrun the older man, Peter, and arrive at the tomb first. Secondly, it would also be natural for John at the tomb having stooped and seen the linen cloths lying there to wait for the elder man. The elder man, remember, was Peter, in many ways the leader of the Apostles. John would wait for him before proceeding any further. Johns character as portrayed in the Gospels supports that as being very natural for him. It is a logical way for him to act - to pause for the older man and allow him to enter first.

There are a huge number of these three types of corroboration in the Gospel histories and as Chandler points out, the instances of internal confirmation in the New Testament histories are especially convincing. He says this and I agree with him: "Though small, detached and fragmentary, like particles of dynamite, they operate with resistless force when collected and combined". When you consider the truly huge amount of corroboration in the four accounts and you are able to exclude collaboration (as we are from the evidence able to exclude it) then that adds up to one of the strongest proofs of the credibility of the writers and the truthfulness of their narratives.

4. HUMAN EXPERIENCE

We pass now to the fourth test and that is whether the testimony of the Evangelists fits in with human experience. When people testify in Court or they relate an incident out of Court to somebody else that testimony or account of an incident will usually be subjected to a mental process - a process of analysis by the person listening to it. The question will be asked - "Is what this person saying in harmony with my own experience of the world? Is it possible that what the person is saying could have happened?"

Let us take a hypothetical example. If the incident being related is that a herd of elephants was running around in the back yard of private premises at Vaucluse that would probably not be believed. it is against our experience of life. Elephants do not romp round in private back yards in Vaucluse. Put another way, that incident would not be believed without corroboration and pretty good corroboration at that.

This brings us to what is probably regarded to be the most serious criticism of the Gospel narratives. They solemnly report that Jesus performed miracles, that he had complete power to alter or suspend the laws of nature. Indeed, that he had the power to restore life to a person who was dead, for example, Lazarus. Miracles are not part of the experience of most people. We know too, that both within and outside Church traditions there have been from time to time claims made of miracles taking place and we know or we think we know that these claims are false or highly suspect. Add that to our own natural scepticism bolstered by a lack of experience of miracles in our own life and there is a conclusion by many people, perhaps a great many people, that the miracles of the New Testament are also false or highly suspect. it is inferred then that they are fables and legends. Take the miracles out of the Gospels, including the major one of the resurrection of Christ, and it wifi be admitted by all that the other events of the New Testament narratives might well have happened at that time as a matter of history because they are in harmony with human experience.

So bow do we account for miracles over nature, miracles over death, miracles which are outside our own personal experience and the experience of people generally when evaluating the credibility of the Gospel writers. Does the report of miracles performed by Christ destroy the credibility of our witnesses and hence the truthfulness of their accounts? Now, I don't pretend to be an authority on miracles, nor do I know how they might occur or what physical or other processes are involved when they do occur. In my view of the world, however, not only is it possible for miracles to occur, it would, given my view of the world, be quite strange, indeed odd, if at certain points in the history of the world they did not occur.

Reduced to essentials there are two ways in which this world is sought to be explained. The first is the materialist explanation which says that the world has been in existence for countless millions of years and in the course of time matter in the world has evolved into the forms of life and nature which exist today. This development and the processes which underlie it are not controlled by any independent intelligence. Essentially, the world as we know it today has happened by chance, by accident.

The second explanation is that the world as we know it was brought into being by the power of an almighty God, a personal God who is infinitely superior to and separate from nature - the world did not happen by chance.

I am not an academic, I regard myself to be a person of average intelligence. Over the years I have looked at the work of a number of eminent people who expound the first explanation as well as those who support the second. I can only say that I believe the second explanation to be the true explanation and the first one false. I am not, because of time, able to set out the reasons why I believe in a personal God who has created this world. If I did have the time one of the reasons which would be included would of course be the teleological argument, first systematically elaborated by Thomas Aquinas. It focuses on the design of the world. There are many, many other reasons which lead me to the conclusion that this world did not happen by chance - it was created by a personal God superior to and separate from nature.

Well, if that explanation of the world is true, then ipso facto the God who created this world and the laws which govern it has also the power to suspend or vary those laws. That he has from time to time through history exercised that power to serve his purposes is the claim of the people of God of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. In particular during the three years of the ministry of Jesus, many of the events of that three years being recorded by the Evangelists, the claim is made by Jesus and attested to by four witnesses that it is by his miracles as well as by his teaching, it is by his miracles, the signs, that he demonstrates himself to be uniquely related to the God of the Old Testament, that he was indeed the Divine Son of God.

So my view is this - not only does the appearance of miracles in the account of the Gospel writers not destroy their credibility, it would be their absence which would destroy it. For if Jesus did not have the power to perform miracles he could not have been the Messiah prophesised and spoken about in the Old Testament and we know that the New Testament writers deliberately portrayed Jesus to be the Messiah.

Without the power over nature he could not have been the special Son of God which he himself claimed to be. It is those very miracles, in particular his resurrection, which give authenticity to his claims to be God and give authenticity to his teaching about the Kingdom of God. And if he was not what he claimed to be as recorded by the Evangelists, that is, one with God the Father, the Divine Son of God, the Son of Man, the other titles given to him - there are many of them - well if he wasn't as he claimed to be then he is shown to be nothing more than a grand megalomaniac. A great deal of his teaching would be just simply gobble-de-gook.

The fact is that the miracles of Jesus which appear in the narratives of the four Evangelists are not in harmony with my personal experience. That is true. But they are in harmony with the experience of the people of God in the Old Testament and it is because of that to me they are supportive of the credibility of the Evangelists rather than destructive of it. Now I could devote much time to elaborating this conclusion by a consideration of the compelling witness of the Old Testament documents and their witnesses to the claims of Christ but there is no time for that here.

Finally, I just want to point out that the miracles performed by Jesus were not just miracles for the sake of miracles. The inference is there that they were carefully selected by him to fulfil the prophecies of the Old Testament, to demonstrate to the world that he was in fact one with the God of the Old Testament. Now Ill just give two examples of that. The first is the feeding of the five thousand people with virtually no food on hand. I have already referred to that miracle. Now those people in that audience and those of us here today who have eyes to see, can recognise and discern, that as the God of the Old Testament fed his people in the wilderness for forty years after their deliverance from Egypt, so Jesus in that miracle is identifying himself as being that God. Again providing for the physical needs of his people.

The second miracle I will refer to is his very first miracle changing water into wine. In this demonstration of His power he turns over a hundred gallons of water stored in Jewish purification jars into wine because the Master of the Feast had run out of wine - it almost sounds like a Morgan Ryan dinner party!!

Well, let us go to the Old Testament prophecies indicating how the Messianic Age might be recognised. The Old Testament suggests that when the Messiah finally came there would be an abundance of wine. I will just quickly read the passage from Joel, chapter 3, verse 9. "Now in that day the mountain shall drip sweet wine" or Amos, chapter 9, verse 13. "Behold the days are coming said the Lord when the ploughman shall overtake the reaper and the treader of grapes him who sows the seeds; the mountain shall drip sweet wine and all the hills shall flow". Now, that kind of imagery is tremendous when you put it against this first miracle of Jesus. Jesus brings into existence an abundance of wine. Very significant.

5. CO-INCIDENCE OF TESTIMONY WITH COLLATERAL EVENTS

Finally there is the fifth test - that there be co-incidence between the testimony of witnesses and the collateral and contemporaneous facts and circumstances. Chandler points out that when a written narrative is all that we have, its reliability can only be ascertained by a close inspection of its parts, comparing them with each other, and then with collateral and contemporaneous facts and circumstances. We are unable to cross examine the witnesses who saw Jesus after He had risen from the dead, we cannot test their written testimony by cross-examination with a view to establishing genuine corroboration or impeaching their testimony by bias or prejudice.

The reliability of our witnesses can only be tested by an inspection of the various parts of their written accounts, comparing them with each other and then with collateral and contemporaneous facts and circumstances. This test throws further light on the credibility or otherwise of the witnesses. Why? Because every event if it has occurred occurs in the context of surrounding facts and circumstances.

This involves, or should involve, potential knowledge of a considerable amount of surrounding detail on the part of witnesses who testify to a particular fact or event. Anybody who goes in for perjury is well aware of this. Multiplicity of detail is studiously avoided by a false witness. He confines his or her evidence to one or two crucial facts whose attendant facts and circumstances are few and simple. If he is compelled by the Court to give attention to surrounding details the evidence, according to Chandler, from such a witness will often be hesitating, restrained, unequal and unnatural. He will be served at every turn by a most convenient memory which will enable him to forget many important and remember many unimportant facts and circumstances. He will portray a painful hesitancy in the matter of committing himself upon any particular point upon which he has not been previously drilled.

The truthful witness on the other hand, is usually candid, ingenuous and copious in his statements. He shows a willingness to answer all questions, even those involving the minutest details and seems totally indifferent to the question of verification or contradiction. The texture of his testimony is therefore equal, natural and unrestrained. Applying this test to the four Gospel authors and witnesses Chandler makes the following observations, observations I believe, with which we would respectfully agree.

"Now, these latter characteristics, that is, those of the truthful witness mark every page of the New Testament histories. The Gospel writers wrote with the utmost freedom and recorded in detail with the utmost particularity, the manners, customs, habits and historic facts contemporaneous with their lives. The naturalness and ingenuousness of their writings are simply marvellous. There is nowhere any evidence of an attempt to conceal patch-up or reconcile. No introductory exclamations or subsequent explanations which usually characterise false testimony appear anywhere in their writings. They were seemingly absolutely indifferent to whether they were believed or not. Their narratives seem to say - these are records of truth and if the world rejects them it rejects the facts of history. Such candour and assurance are always overwhelming impressive and in every form of debate are regarded as unmistakable signs of truth."

There are many instances where the gospel writers give detail which we find coincides with details described by secular writers of the time. The most obvious one concerning the resurrection is of course Pontius Pilate. Evangelists state that he sat in judgment on Jesus Christ. Both Josephus and Tacitus tell us that Pilate was Governor of Judea at that time. Again in John 18 Verse 31 we read the following passage:

"Then said Pilate unto them "Take ye him and judge him according to your law." The Jews therefore said unto him "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death"?

Now from secular historians both ancient and modern we are told that the power of life and death had been taken from the Jews and vested in the Roman Government. So they are in agreement with John.

There are numerous examples of this kind throughout the accounts of the four gospel writers.

Well, to summarise, at the end of our examination putting the witnesses through these five tests, one is left to say that the only rational conclusion is that the witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ are witnesses of the highest credibility. If we are unable to accept their histories why would we accept the histories of any other incident in the human race? Christians of all denominations are soon to celebrate this year, once again, the events of Easter. Millions of them around the world will be doing this. They will be remembering once again the facts surrounding the crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection of our Lord. When on Easter Sunday we hear the declaration ringing in our ears once again, "The Lord is risen", it is comforting to know that on the basis of highly credible evidence, we can confidently respond "He is risen indeed".