https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1163
How I Would Prove to a Jury that the Bible is True
[EDITOR’S NOTE:
A.P. auxiliary writer Robert Veil, Jr. formerly served as a district
attorney for the Washington County State’s Attorney’s Office, and
previously maintained an active private law practice. He currently
preaches in Martinsburg, West Virginia.]
The truthfulness of the Bible can be proven in much the same way that
we prove cases to a jury every day. As a prosecutor, I had the
responsibility of presenting numerous cases at trial, including a large
number of jury trials. Working within the rules of evidence and
procedure, I soon learned that juries are, for the most part, receptive
to logical and reasonable arguments. They have an almost uncanny ability
to hear cases presented and come to a fair verdict. They may not always get it right, but they usually do.
I also learned that the same type of logical arguments which are
compelling to a jury can be formulated from the inspired biblical
record. Proving the truthfulness of the Bible is no mysterious,
incomprehensible exercise. It is done by the presentation of logical
proof. And, at its most fundamental level, the Bible is an extremely
logical and compelling book. It does not leave the reader depending upon
mere hopes, wishes, and hunches. It is an evidentiary record (Hebrews
11:1).
The Bible claims to be the inspired Word of God. But in a secular
culture of increasing ignorance and doubt, these claims are often
rejected without investigation. Fewer and fewer, it would seem, are
willing to accept the Bible’s claim that it is the infallible and
absolute truth of God (2 Timothy 3:16; 1 Corinthians 2:11-13). In
teaching others how to be saved, we sometimes need to take a step back
to a more basic question.
So, how would I prove to a jury that the Bible is true?
I would do it the same way that I would prove any factual pattern or
scenario. I would utilize the rules of evidence in presenting the case,
and then emphasize the standards which the jury should apply in making a
fair and correct decision based upon that evidence.
For example, it is commonly recognized in the various criminal justice
systems of our land, that the jury can properly evaluate the credibility
of witnesses. It can do this by considering such things as: (1) The
witness’s opportunity to observe the things about which testimony was
given; (2) The accuracy of the witness’s memory; (3) Whether the witness
has a motive not to tell the truth; (4) Whether the witness has an
interest in the outcome of the case; (5) Whether the witness’s testimony
was consistent; (6) Whether the witness’s testimony was supported or
contradicted by other evidence; and (7) Whether and to what extent the
witness’s testimony in court differed from the statements made by the
witness on any previous occasion (“3:10–Credibility…,” 1986).
Let us notice how these accepted standards can be applied in a specific Bible event: the empty tomb. Actually,
they can be applied in a similar fashion to most any major event
recorded in the Bible. But we will use the incident involving the empty
tomb because of its centrality to the gospel message, and because if it
can be established, most of the other Bible events will readily fall
into place.
First, we raise the question, who observed the empty tomb? Who are the
witnesses? We recall that the Bible teaches, and good jurisprudence
demands, that important matters must be established “at the mouth of two
or three witnesses” (Deuteronomy 19:15; Matthew 18:16). Interestingly,
the witnesses to the empty tomb more than satisfy this corroboration
requirement. They are listed in the complimentary accounts of John,
Matthew, Mark, and Luke as follows: Mary Magdalene, the “other” Mary,
Mary the mother of James (that is, James the less, or Jacob), Salome,
Joanna, and “other” women. Also of significance is the fact that there
are actually two different “layers” of witnesses, since both John and
Peter arrived at the scene as well.
These individuals are among the last people to see the Lord before He
died. They had an excellent opportunity to observe the events
immediately preceding His death, as well as His body after crucifixion.
Most of them were in close proximity to Jesus throughout His intensive
ministry, and they had an excellent opportunity to observe the facts in
question.
Their memory has never been seriously questioned. There is not the
slightest indication that any of them suffered from mental illness,
delusional episodes, senility, or mental impairment of any kind. Both
John and Peter went on to write detailed narratives and well-reasoned
statements of doctrine and instruction. None of them would appear to
have had any trouble recalling the events, and there is no indication
that any of them ever deviated from their recollection of the empty
tomb. If they had given conflicting reports due to failing memory, such
would no doubt have been published broadly, but history records no such
discrepancies.
Second, we cannot help but notice the details in the record. Details
are signs of credibility. They tend to establish a witness’s opportunity
to observe the events in question, and they show a carefulness typical
of truthful testimony.
John details these events as occurring “on the first day of the week,”
“early,” and “while it was yet dark” (John 20:1). Matthew’s account is
consistent, but utilizes language which might be expected with a Jewish
audience: “after the Sabbath.” He then provides an additional detail:
“as the first day of the week began to dawn” (Matthew 28:1). Another
mark of truthfulness is the fact that these accounts use language which
at first glance appears to be contradictory. The contradiction
disappears upon a realization that Matthew is framing the time with a
Jewish mindset, as opposed to John’s description. But that realization
may not be at first apparent, and if these accounts were falsified
(developed in collusion), it is hard to understand why they would not
have simply used the same language, rather than what at first seems
inconsistent. Mark, reverting to a Gentile mindset, sets the time as
“when the Sabbath was past” (Mark 16:1) and adds yet another detail:
“very early on the first day of the week, when the sun was risen” (Mark
16:2). Again, one wonders why language was used, which at first seems
contradictory, if this is a concocted account. Typically, when witnesses
are falsifying a story, they try to present their accounts using
identical language. This, then, becomes another mark of truthfulness,
particularly when all three accounts are read together, which suggests
that these events occurred after the Sun was risen, but just barely
risen, in the early morning, while it was still largely dark. Such an
understanding comports well with Luke’s detailed observations that the
events occurred “on the first day of the week at early dawn” (Luke
24:1).
Thus, when all of these details are considered together, we get a consistent and complete picture of the time
of these occurrences. Yet it reads like truthful testimony, each using
slightly different wording, providing additional detail, seeming at
first to be contradictory, but upon closer examination stating an
accurate account.
If four witnesses had taken the stand in court and described an
early-dawn occurrence as depicted here, it is difficult to imagine a
more believable sequence of testimony. Had it been manufactured pursuant
to some preconceived plot, it would have been much more uniform, but
far less believable. The differences provide helpful details, and do not
amount to contradictions or discrepancies in fact. On the contrary,
they provide helpful and credible pieces of the overall picture. After
reading and considering each of them, we get the confident conviction
that we understand exactly what occurred.
There are a great many other details, which, if they are not truthful,
are unexplainable. John tells us that, as between him and Peter, he
arrived at the empty tomb first (John 20:4). Mark informs us that the
women brought spices that they might “anoint him” (Mark 16:1), and Luke
adds that the women brought spices which they themselves had prepared
(Luke 24:1). Such details have the ring of truthfulness. Further, John
advises us that he stooped and looked into the tomb (John 20:5). Mark
actually provides details of the conversation the women had on their way
to the tomb regarding who would roll away the stone (Mark 16:3). Luke
offers the interesting detail that Peter ran to the tomb (Luke 24:12).
Upon arrival, John tells us that he saw the linen cloths lying there
(John 20:5), but Luke adds that Peter saw the linens by themselves (Luke
24:12). John agrees that Peter saw the linen cloths, but adds the
telling fact that he saw a napkin separate from the cloths, “in a place
by itself” (John 20:6-7). Why would such details be included if they
were not true? Details provided in a witness’s testimony are marks of
truthfulness, especially when they appear to serve no other purpose,
because they end up establishing overall credibility of the narrative.
Third, we notice some things which might have been omitted in these
accounts, had they been manufactured for some deceptive purpose. These
are relatively small insertions which would not be necessary to advance a
false narrative. For example, it is a consistent trait of human nature
that people do not usually include “unflattering” details about
themselves, especially if they are not necessary to the narrative. Mark
provides the unflattering detail that the women did not speak to others
after this occurrence out of simple fear (Mark 16:8). Indeed, the women
are seen, not in some artificial and well-reasoned conspiracy, but in a
completely believable state of confusion, failing to even consider who
would roll away the mighty stone until they were well on their way to
the tomb. Such details, however unflattering, are completely consistent
with actual human events. They are typical of what people really do, not
of what people say they do.
Mary’s pitiful, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we
know not where they have laid him” (John 20:2), so typical of an
exasperated and unplanned predicament, shows that she did not at all
comprehend what had really occurred in the resurrection of Christ. Such
is an unflattering admission, written long after the events, which would
have been corrected had it not been true.
Nor do the apostles escape this less-than-complimentary treatment. Luke
concedes that the report of the women “seemed as idle talk” to the
apostles, and admits very plainly that they did not believe them (Luke
24:11). If they can be avoided, people do not usually include details
which make themselves look bad. John, for example, admits that after he
had out run Peter to the tomb, he hesitated and did not enter. But Peter
boldly did, a fact included by John himself which appears to be
unaccounted for unless it is true. It is also stated that the apostles,
who later had such a commendable understanding of God’s plan, at the
time simply left the tomb and went to their own homes. Such behavior,
being fully characteristic of confused and exhausted men, would be
inexplicable were it not true. People making up a story do not usually
include distasteful or disagreeable details about themselves.
Finally we notice the consistency in these accounts. Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John each describe the same event. Yet their language is quite
dissimilar, far from a mere copy of each other. Such consistency is a
mark of truthfulness. It has the indicia of reliability, and does not
read like accounts which were deliberately manufactured to advance a
false story. Each writer approaches the story from a different cultural
background and expresses it in words and concepts consistent with his
audience. The accounts are not contradictory but supplementary. By
reading all of the narratives in full, one gets a complete understanding
of what occurred. Likewise, reading only one or two narratives leaves
questions and an incomplete perception. This suggests an over-arching
Guide in these writings, a higher control, which guaranteed that all of
the necessary information was included. It verifies the Bible claim that
these writings are inspired by God.
Our faith is founded upon evidence (Hebrews 11:1). The evidence adduced
from these credible witnesses is believable and compelling. It
certainly proves the narrative beyond any reasonable doubt. If there is
any remaining doubt, one might well ask how could a band of
working-class fishermen and women “cook up” such a well-documented
event? If they had lied, the accounts would not bear such marks of
truthfulness and credibility. Further, if they had lied, they would have
had to have maintained those lies consistently to their deaths.
Believing such a thing would stretch credibility beyond its limits.
If I were trying this case before a jury, I would summarize the
evidence we have and point out these standards which the jury should
apply. When that is done, the conclusion becomes obvious: There is no
reasonable and proper explanation, except that the events described in
the Bible concerning the empty tomb are true.
REFERENCES
“3:10–Credibility of Witnesses” (1986), Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions (MCPJI) (Baltimore, MD: MICPEL, Maryland State Bar Association, Inc.).
[Editor’s
Note: The following article was written by A.P. scientist Dr. May, who
holds a B.S. degree in Physics from Angelo State University, as well as
M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Astrophysics from the University of Alabama.]
