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

LAWYER TESTS THE EVIDENCE FOR EASTER

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.

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.’

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. 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.’

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.’

—————————

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

Related Articles:

• Syria February 2012: Two Perspectives
• EGYPT: THE GROSS INSECURITY OF THE DHIMMI
• Female Circumcision in the Maldives, the Islamic Movement and Islamophobia
• Australia Day message
• Republicans/Democrats: Is there a Christian Alternative?

This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.