The Federal Rules of Evidence permit the jury to consider as evidence opinion testimony as to the character or a trait of character of the authors of the Gospels.
10
The people who lived in the community in which Jesus and our principal witnesses lived, and those who received the teachings of the Gospels from Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, are also witnesses in our case. They are no longer able to speak directly to us, but through their conduct they have offered their opinions that these were honest and honorable people.
For example, Ignatius was believed to have known the apostle John. Ignatius was torn apart by wild animals for his belief in the truth of the Gospel testimony. In
ad
115, in the face of certain death, when he could have saved himself by repudiation, he wrote the following about Jesus:
He was crucified and died under Pontius Pilate. He really, and not merely in appearance, was crucified, and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. . . . He also rose again in three days. . . . On the day of the preparation, then, at the third hour, He received the sentence from Pilate, the Father permitting that to happen; at the sixth hour He was crucified; at the ninth hour He gave up the ghost; and before sunset He was buried. During the Sabbath He continued under the earth in the tomb in which Joseph of Arimathea had laid Him. . . . At the dawning of the Lord’s day he arose from the dead, according to what was spoken by Himself.
11
This statement directly reflects the teaching of the Gospels and the belief that was instilled in the followers of that teaching. A statement such as this, referred to as a “dying declaration,” is given great weight under the law since the declarant was conscious that death was near and certain at the time the statement was made. Ignatius was fully aware of his pending death at this time. In the same letter he acknowledged that if the resurrection were not a fact, then his appointed death in the arena would be “in vain” and he would be guilty of falsehood.
12
This statement therefore evinces the absolute conviction of Ignatius regarding his belief in the truth of the testimony of the Gospels and the resurrection of Jesus. The principle upon which the credibility granted to a dying declaration is based was stated as early as 1789:
When the party is at the point of death, when every hope of this world is gone, when every motive to falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth; a situation so solemn, and so awful, is considered by the law as creating an obligation equal to that which is imposed by a positive oath administered in a Court of Justice.
13
Is it reasonable to suppose that a belief so strong, so deep, so intense, could have its basis in a lie deliberately delivered to the entire community by four different witnesses—witnesses with significant corroborating evidence to support their testimony? It is clear that the communities in which these witnesses lived and taught believed the four authors of the Gospels were truthful, and their conduct ratified that belief. The logical inference is that it is impossible to read about the conduct and the lives of the authors of the Gospels, as well as the lives of the remaining apostles and the people who received their messages, and conclude that their lives were without honor or that their actions were based on untruthfulness.
In summary, respecting this first test of credibility, the reports in the Gospels indicate a lack of artifice. They are written in a most believable way, simply and without embellishment. In addition, the conduct of the four principal witnesses, and of the communities in which they lived and taught, reflects the simple honesty of the testimony. Greenleaf summarized the factors that would induce a jurist to accept the testimony of these four witnesses as being the simplicity of the narratives, the absence of a sense of self-importance or any anxiety to be believed or impress others, and the lack of drama in the description of the events. In fact, the narratives are written as if they are recording events well known to the public in their own country and time. The authors give us no sense of concern that they will not be believed or that they have to be convincing. They evidence a complete disassociation with any particular agenda. And the conduct of the community in response to that testimony reflects a consensus that the witnesses were honest and truthful.
The second element of the credibility test is the ability of the witness to tell the truth. Greenleaf pointed out that this depends on the opportunities that the witness has had to observe the facts, the accuracy of discernment, and memory.
14
We have already examined the opportunity each author of the Gospels had to observe the circumstances firsthand. Additionally, particularly taking into account the recent redating of the Gospels, under the law we are not required to accept speculation by critics that recollections of the authors were distorted by the passage of time.
The Federal Rules of Evidence provide that:
Every person is competent to be a witness unless these rules provide otherwise.
15
Although we know nothing about their actual memory capability, Greenleaf concluded that the four Gospel writers are entitled to a presumption under the law that they were capable and of sound mind, with an average or ordinary degree of intelligence.
16
In particular, Greenleaf noted that the detail given in their testimony as well as their own histories also supports this presumption of sound mind and intelligence. But let us examine each one individually as to ability or capability.
First, Matthew. As a tax collector for the Roman administration in Palestine, Matthew would have been familiar with the customs and procedures of that system and of the community in which he worked, though he would not necessarily have been recognized as a scholar. During this period Rome was establishing its domination over Judea. Herod Antipas, the appointed Roman ruler of Galilee between
ad
4 and
ad
39, imposed heavy taxes on the people in the area in which Matthew lived.
17
Numerous taxes are known to have been imposed at varying rates—customs duty on merchandise, tariffs, a capitation tax, and a land tax, among others. It would be unusual to find that they were paid voluntarily with no discontent, evasion, or fraud, and it is reasonable to assume that a person with the responsibility for collecting these taxes would have had to understand and deal with those circumstances.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that Matthew, as a tax collector, was vigilant, suspicious, and careful by nature. Matthew would not have been easy to deceive. He would not have been naive as a witness, and his testimony should be viewed in this context.
Second, Mark. Other books of the New Testament and writings of the early church fathers indicate that Mark traveled throughout the Roman Empire to teach the gospel with Paul and Barnabas, and tradition holds that he later visited Paul in Rome. Subsequently he traveled with Peter in Asia before returning to Rome. Mark was therefore an experienced traveler with a broader exposure to different cultures than the average person residing in Judea at that time. The Latin phrases contained in this Gospel indicate a higher level of education. Evidence offered for consideration by the jury in the next chapter will show that the facts and references recited by Mark are historically accurate, underscoring the precision and correct manner of his reporting.
Third, Luke. As mentioned above, Luke is believed to have been a physician, indicating a high level of education. He was an accurate observer, and his Gospel indicates that he paid particular attention to Jesus’ power to heal. For example, in the Gospel of Luke a woman is described as being “in the grip of a major fever.” The language specifically reflects Greek first-century medical terminology for someone afflicted with a major illness. During that period medical writers described fevers as divided into major and minor classes.
18
Greenleaf has observed that while Matthew and Mark described a man healed by Jesus as a leper, Luke describes him as being “full of leprosy.” While the other writers describe a withered hand, Luke more precisely describes the man as having a withered right hand.
Luke introduced a psychological aspect into the testimony of his Gospel by suggesting that the sleep of the apostles in the garden of Gethsemane the night before Jesus was taken away by soldiers was induced by a state of extreme sorrow. Luke also mentioned that, on the same night in the garden, the agony of Jesus, who knew what was to come, caused his sweat to become “like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground” (Luke 22:44). Medical experts today know that this apparent sweating of blood resembles a medical condition triggered by extreme stress called hematidrosis, which causes subcutaneous blood vessels to rupture into the exocrine sweat glands.
19
Luke also pictured the character of Jesus in a detailed way. This Gospel indicates Jesus’ familiarity with country life consistent with what we know today about the rural town of Nazareth where he grew up. Luke described Jesus as having knowledge about such things as how to revive a barren fig tree, farm animals’ need for watering, the amount of yeast necessary to leaven dough, and the mother hen’s gathering and protection of her chicks.
20
Recent archaeological findings in the ancient village of Nazareth, discussed below, corroborate Luke’s testimony by establishing the rural and agricultural nature of the town, despite its close proximity to more sophisticated cities.
Luke carefully placed the events he reported within a historical context, and these historical references have been verified. For example, when writing about Jesus’ birth, Luke established the date by reference to Herod’s reign while Quirinius was governor of Syria, at a time when a decree requiring a census had been issued by Caesar Augustus (Luke 2:1–2). The writings of Josephus reported the Roman census as having occurred in
ad
6; because of this Luke was first believed to be incorrect. Luke’s historical references have recently been proven accurate by archaeologists and historians however. It has now been determined that a census procedure was begun prior to the birth of Jesus during the reign of the emperor Augustus. Various papyrus census forms have been found indicating that the census was taken every fourteen years. Additionally, an inscription has been found in Antioch that described Quirinius as holding a position of authority in Syria at that time.
21
Various papyrus census forms have been found, and a papyrus found in Egypt verifies the existence of a law that required everyone to return to their initial homes for the census, just as described in Luke’s narrative of the return of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem.
22
Fourth, John. Critics of the Gospel of John have generally described the apostle John as a humble fisherman and have wondered how he could have written so eloquently. Several discoveries now offer a greater understanding of the social and political changes occurring in the region at that time. Inhabitants of Galilee were not mere provincials. No town or village in any part of Galilee was more than fifteen miles from a major city. Excavations from the period show a clear transition in the culture; for example, cash crops began to replace subsistence farming. The entire area was greatly influenced by the Roman culture.
23
In 1986, during a period of drought, the waters of the Sea of Galilee receded, revealing a fishing boat in the mud, five miles east of the location of the town of Capernaum where John lived.
24
It is the first ancient boat to have been discovered in this area, and it has now been excavated and preserved. Radiocarbon dating of the wood assigns a date for this boat between
ad
20 and 40, exactly the time of the Gospel events.
The excavated boat is similar to the type of vessel described in the Gospels as having been used by John and his father for fishing. It is twenty-six and one-half feet long, seven and one-half feet wide, and four and one-half feet high, with a large platform-shaped stern. It could be sailed as well as rowed and would have needed a crew of at least five.
25
If John’s father owned a boat like this, he would have had to hire employees. In fact, the Gospel of Mark recites that John and his father had “hired servants” (Mark 1:20). Additionally, the boat would have been fit to carry substantial cargo. The family of John was clearly of at least moderate substance. There is no reason to believe John was so humble as to be incapable of writing this Gospel.
John was also perceptive in his reporting. He depicted the harmony between the nature of Jesus and country life that was described by Luke as well. In various passages of this Gospel, Jesus is reported as having referred to himself as a “shepherd” whose followers knew his voice, as sheep know the voice of their shepherd. In Palestine sheep lived with one shepherd for many years because they were traditionally raised for wool, not food. The sheep learned to trust and love their shepherds. The writer William Barclay has described many examples of this bond, which Jesus recognized. For example, a flock of sheep housed with other flocks in a common shelter can be separated from the others merely by a call from the shepherd. The flock will run to their own shepherd because they recognize the voice.
26
The Gospel of John also gains credence by the many detailed and accurate references in the manner of a familiar observer to geographical features of Jerusalem and the surrounding area as these existed only prior to its destruction in
ad
70. Some examples of the firsthand nature of John’s observations have already been introduced to the jury. In addition to the evidentiary value this gives to the early dating of John’s Gospel, the accuracy of his reporting (and in such detail) has been verified by many other archaeological discoveries we will examine soon, as well as by the writings of other historians.