I. Importance of the resurrection

A.) To Christian faith: Rom 6:3-12; 1 Cor 15:13-33; Phil 3:10-11; Col 2:12; 3:1-4; 1 Thes 1:10; 4:14; 1 Peter 1:3; Rev 1:18. Forgiveness of sins, salvation from our state, the hope of eternal life, the reason for believing in Yeshua as supreme Lord- the basis for virtually every major Christian doctrine would collapse without the reality of the risen Savior. The resurrection is, therefore, of the most critical importance to the Christian faith.

B.) In the witness: Acts 1:22; 2:23-32; 3:13-15; 4:10,33; 5:30-32; 10:39-41; 13:29,37; 17:3,18,31,32; 25:19; 26:22,23. As a basis for the uniqueness of Christ and of His authority, as evidence of His divine nature, and as a demonstration that He knows, and has mastery over, life and death, Yeshua's physical death and resurrection was a major theme in the first church.

II. Evidence for the resurrection

A.) Death and burial (reasons for accepting these events as historical):

1.) It is included in the message received by Paul, thus predating his conversion (1 Cor 15:3,4).

2.) It is recorded in the gospel of Mark, (15:1-47) which is a very early witness.

3.) Also, it is recorded in John's gospel, (19:1-42) who was an eyewitness.

4.) In both of these gospels, the account is written in simple terms, lacking any trace of legendary development. John's detail of blood and water being released from Jesus' body (19:34) is a reaction known to modern physicians, but probably unknown to most fishermen, particularly of ancient times. It indicates that the soldiers spear punctured the heart and pericardium, which also serves as clear evidence that Jesus' body had been dead for some time already.

5.) The accounts of the burial are compatible with archeological data relevant to the types and locations of tombs available during that period.

6.) Further support comes from Luke's gospel (23:1-56). This author gives, in both his gospel and in Acts, numerous details of history which can be checked with archeology. The fact that his details are correct indicates that both books had to be written within a relatively short time after their occurrence, by someone who was extensively familiar with the facts.

7.) There is also the record of Matthew's gospel, (27:1-66) another very early account.

8.) The location of the tomb was known to both the Roman and Jewish authorities (see Matt 27:62-66). It was known to the disciples who watched, and participated in, His burial; and it was quite well known to Joseph of Arimathea, since it was his own sepulchre.

9.) The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (born c. 55 AD, died c. 177), who was not a believer, referred to Yshua's execution. In his work "Annals" (written early 100's), section 15.44, he wrote that the Christians were made scapegoats for the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD. Tacitus explains, "The name Christian comes to them from Christ, who was executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate."

Thus, Yeshua was unquestionably dead. His disciples wrapped the body, and prepared spices and ointments for His body (Matt 27:59; Luke 23:53-56). Historically, others were known to do this with the bodies of other prophets during that period. Being Jewish men & women, they expected Yeshua to rise at the end of the world with all the righteous of Israel (John 11:24; Acts 24:15). If this were the end of the narrative, there would be little reason to doubt it.

B.) The empty tomb:

1.) The discovery of the empty tomb is how the resurrection came to be dated on "the third day" (1 Cor 15:4). None of the accounts record that any of the disciples actually watched Yeshua rise. It is unlikely that a forgery would omit such an important detail.

2.) The narratives are simple, lacking legendary motifs (e.g., Mark 16:1-8; John 20:1-10).

3.) If the tomb had not been empty, the Jewish authorities would have exposed the matter. The quickest and surest way to settle the question of whether Yeshua was risen would have been to simply point to the tomb of Yeshua with the body still in it.

4.) Without an empty tomb, the disciples could not have believed in a resurrection. Belief in a "spiritual resurrection" is a peculiarity of modern theology, not something simple fishermen and religious Jews of that period would have held.

5.) Even if the disciples could have held such an aberrant doctrine, it is doubtful that they could have generated a following. In the eyes of the first century Jews, a Christian movement founded upon the resurrection of a man known to be lying in a tomb would have been an impossible folly. (Bear in mind that they were not believers of disciples of Yeshua while He was alive - how much less would they have been convinced to believe in Him when He was known to be dead & buried?)

6.) The earliest recorded Jewish response presupposes the empty tomb (Matt 28:11-15). The argument in the early days, therefore, was not over whether the tomb was empty, but rather over how it came to be empty. There is no defense in the New Testament of the position that the tomb really was empty, since this was a non-issue. If the empty tomb had been in dispute, such a defense would have certainly been included.

7.) The tomb was apparently first discovered empty by women. A later legend, or deliberate forgery intending to be convincing, would have stated that men first discovered the tomb. The testimony of women was considered of such little worth that it was generally not accepted as legal witness in Jewish court of law (Mishnah Rash Ha Shanah, 1.8).

C.) The appearances:

1.) To Mary Magdalene - Mark 16:9; John 20:11-17. For the reasons just given above, it is highly unlikely that a forgery meant to convince unbelievers (and in the first years, primarily Jewish audiences) would have a woman to be the first to see Yeshua alive from the dead.

2.) To Simon Peter - 1 Cor 15:5; Luke 24:34. Firstly, this is included in the belief received by Paul. Since Paul's conversion can be placed at about 34 AD, and the fact that Paul "received" it indicates that it was believed prior to his conversion, we can conclude that these statements in 1 Cor 15:3-7 originated immediately after Yeshua's execution (i.e., they were not "later developments"). Secondly, Paul knew Peter personally (Gal 1:18), and was therefore able to question him about it.

3.) To the twelve - 1 Cor 15:5; Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-20. Yeshua demonstrated that it is the same Adon (by showing wounds), and that it is physically the Adon (by eating before them). This appearance is attested by Paul (who knew the disciples personally); it is contained in the beliefs he received, and is recorded in three gospels (described in detail by Luke & John).

4.) To more than 500 brethren - 1 Cor 15:6. Paul must have known these people, since he states that most of them are sill alive. He could not have said this if he had no idea who they were. Remember that 1 Cor is a letter to real person, and chapter 15 is a defense of the resurrection. This statement can therefore be understood as a challenge to the doubters in Corinth, in effect saying that the witnesses are mostly still living and are thus available to be questioned. Clearly, Paul could not have issued this challenge if the witnesses had not existed.

5.) To James the brother of Yeshua - 1 Cor 15:7/ During Yeshua's ministry, none of Yeshua's brothers believed in Him (Matt 12:46-50; John 7:3-5). Yet, by Acts 1:14, they were part of the church, as was Yeshua's mother. James the Adon's brother was reckoned among the apostles (Gal 1:19); and other brothers of His were active in travelling and ministering (1 Cor 9:5). According to Josephus ("The Antiquities of the Jews" 20.0:1), James was stoned to death by the Jewish Council (the Sanhedrin) sometime after 60 AD for his faith in Yeshua (other Christians were as well put to death at the same time). Consider: what would it take for an ordinary family of brothers to be convinced that their brother is the Adon, the Mashiyach- so much so that they would be willing to give up everything for that belief, and even be willing to die for it, as James did? Having the brother appear alive from the dead, with power and in triumph, would probably do it. Such an appearance is included in the message Paul received; and Paul knew James also (Gal 1:19).

6.) To all the apostles - Probably more than just the original twelve (minus Judas); perhaps including Matthias (Acts 1:26) and others. 1 Cor 15:7 shows this appearance was included in the belief Paul received; and, again Paul knew these brothers personally, and so was able to ask them about this.

7.) To Paul (formerly Saul) - 1 Cor 15:8; indirectly in Gal 1:15-16. It is recorded in Acts 9:3-9; and he refers to it twice himself in Acts (22:1-11; 26:11-15). Once a hater of Christianity, he did all he could to stamp it out, even to the point of being involved with the deaths of Jewish Chrsitians. Suddenly he changed, sacrificing his life for Yeshua. He left his position as a leader among religious Jewry, and became a Christian missionary (Gal 1:13-16, 23;1 Cor 15:9; Acts 9:12, etc.). He endured suffering, rejection, whippings, beatings; at least one stoning, and suffered four shipwrecks (2 Cor 11:25, plus Acts 27). Therefore, there is no basis for doubting that Paul was convinced of Yeshua's resurrection.

D.) The origin of the Christian faith:

Without belief in the resurrection, Christianity could never have come into existence. The death of Yeshua would have been merely the final tragedy in the life of a despised, poor Jewish teacher. How did this belief originate? Those who dismiss the resurrection as a myth have three possible means by which myths are generated:

1.) Unique phenomena whose explanation is not understood, such as a volcanic eruption or solar eclipse. However, there is nothing particularly unusual about someone dying and being buried; nor is there anything very difficult to explain about beholding an empty grave, or seeing unexpectedly someone you know. Thus, no natural phenomenon can account for the origin of the belief in Yeshua's resurrection.

2.) Deliberate fraud; i.e. inventing a myth for personal gain. This will be discussed in detail below; here it is simply pointed out that people do not give their lives, willingly, for a cause they know to be a lie. Since hundreds of early disciples gave up everything for this belief, it cannot plausibly be stated that they were intentionally lying. They had, in fact, nothing to gain by holding this belief; and many of them were killed for refusing to give it up.

3.) Long periods of time, on the order of many decades or centuries, for mythological embellishment to cover over the facts. Many misinformed statesments have been made that the books of the N.T. were written centuries later, but these claims have no basis in fact. Textual evidence (including manuscripts of, and about the N.T. books) and history (details of names, places, customs, and events) combine to place the writing of the gospels and other N.T. books to well within the lifetimes of the original apostles.

For example, Luke's book of Acts can be dated to around the mid 60's AD; and since his gospel was written prior to this (see Acts 1:1-2), it can be safely assumed that Luke's gospel was finished by the early 60's. Moreover, Luke refers in the introduction of his gospel the fact that others had written accounts of Yeshua's life before him (Luke 1:1-4), and it is most probable that Matthew and Mark would be included in this reference. Thus, it is likely these latter two gospels were written by the 40's or 50's.

Further, it is quite possible that one or both of these two gospels were written ever before 40 AD on the following grounds. Firstly, that Christianity has been in evangelizing religion since its inception - indeed, its founder was a travelling preacher. Secondly, the Jewish people were generally literate, and were accustomed to having beliefs passed on by means of written documents. (In 2 Tim 4:13, we see that it was not unusual for brothers to carry with them written works, in this case probably either O.T. books, gospels, and/or some writings pertaining to the Scriptures.) Thirdly, a literate group of individuals, who are intent on spreading a message important to them, would naturally be aware that the most efficient means of passing on a fairly long, detailed message to many people, with the least chance of it eventually being forgotten or distorted, would be to write it down. Fourthly, both scriptural and historical evidence place Christian communities in areas far removed from Palestine (such as Greece and Rome) by the late 40's.

Thus, we have a literate group of preachers so intent on spreading a message that, within 20 years, they had traveled many hundreds of miles, mostly on foot, to pass it on. It would therefore be an understatement to say the gospel was important to them. Their whole life centered around it; they often died because of it. By the late 30's, the church had grown large enough that a written record of the gospel would probably have become necessary. It is therefore plausible that a record of Yeshua's life, ministry, death, and resurrection was, in some form, written by the late 30's; and wither Matthew, or Mark, or both could quite possibly have been included in this.

New Testament critics often claim that the gospels were written decades after the fact, by people who were not eyewitnesses or even had access to eyewitnesses. What they are asking us to believe is that a people zealous enough to walk to distant lands, spreading along the way a message so important to them it was worth giving their lives and facing all manner of afflictions for, would never bother to write down an account of Yeshua's life and teachings (the heart of their cherished message). This is highly improbable, to say the least.

A final consideration, independent of when the gospels were actually written, is that Paul's conversion can be dated to about 34 AD (based on evidence both from Scripture and history - for example, Aretus' death ~39 AD; see 2 Cor 11:32-33; Gal 1:17-18; Acts 9:22-26). As noted earlier, the belief in Yeshua's death, burial, and resurrection pre-dates Paul's conversion, and so must have originated among the first disciples immediately after Yeshua's death. In conclusion, the idea that the gospel narratives, and the belief in Yeshua's resurrection in particular, are an invention of a later time is, in the light of these combined evidences, is defensible.

II. Responses

Several explanations have been offered as an alternative to the acceptance of the resurrection, but none have yet been able to plausibly account for all of the evidence (i.e., the empty tomb, the appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith):

A.) That the disciples stole the corpse, and lied about the resurrection appearances.

This is the earliest Jewish response against the Christian faith that we know of (Matt 28:11-15). It was revived in the form of the "conspiracy theory" of 18th century deism. The theory has been universally rejected by critical scholars and survives only in the popular press. Several considerations make this highly implausible:

1.) It is morally impossible to charge Yeshua's disciples with such a crime. Whatever their imperfections, they were certainly earnest and sincere Jewish men and women, not liars. If they were treacherous, it is difficult to imagine how they could have written so profoundly about the importance of goodness, mercy, virtue, and holiness. If, on the one hand, they believed in an afterlife, and a recompense for our earthly actions, by deliberately promoting something they knew to be a lie they would have only ensured in their own minds that they themselves would receive no reward in that next life. If, on the other hand, they did not believe in an afterlife, they would have had no motive for being disciples of Yeshua, or for inventing a story about His resurrection. None of the disciples who could be accused of this "conspiracy" ever used their belief as a means of obtaining secular authority, political power, respect, wealth, or pleasure. In fact, many of them went from possessing these kinds of things, or at least having potential to possess them, to losing them and/or renouncing any possibility of obtaining them in the future; and this transition occurred as a direct result of embracing and preaching faith in Yeshua's resurrection.

2.) Details of the gospel narratives, both of inclusion and omission, militate against a theory of forgery. As noted earlier, it is highly unlikely that a forgery meant to be convincing would have women be the first both to discover the empty tomb and to see Yeshua alive. It is also difficult to explain why an account intended to compel people to accept the reality of the resurrection would omit the most important detail: an eyewitness who actually saw Yeshua rise. However, these sorts of details are satisfactorily explained by assuming that the writers merely wrote the facts as they remembered them: like it or not, sisters were the first witnesses; and none of the disciples actually watched Yeshua rise (hiding for fear of Jews - another embarrassment).

3.) Though the testimony of the various gospels is substantially in agreement, there are differences in details, which is characteristic of testimony given independently by individuals who are telling the truth. It is not characteristic of an agreed upon false story; while deliberately planning out how to give conflicting details. It would make no sense to do this if they want their story to be convincing; rather, it would greaten the danger of their lie being detected. Thus, it is much more likely that the gospels are independent accounts; and to believe that the authors all arrived, independently, at the same false story is patently absurd.

4.) At the time of the crucifixion, the disciples were confused, disorganized, doubting, mourning for Yeshua, and hiding for fear of the Jewish authorities (see Matt 26:56; Mark 16:10; Luke 24:17-20; John 20:14). They were in no shape to pull off a stunt such as stealing Yeshua's body (against armed Roman soldiers), even if they had been insincere.

5.) It would have required a good deal of effort to have stolen the body, particularly if guarded. Furthermore, it would have involved a considerable amount of collective discussion and organization to fabricate a story avouched by several hundred persons. To believe that they were all knowingly and deliberately lying is impossible to reconcile with the historical fact that they were persecuted, thrown out of their own Jewish community, reviled, often chased, imprisoned, beaten, and, in many cases, killed. They had nothing to gain by holding this teaching; indeed, virtually every class of terror known to human minds was being employed to compel them to forsake this faith. Despite all this, they held onto belief in the resurrection unfalteringly, willingly, and even joyfully (Acts 5:41; 13:50-52).

6.) Not only disciples came up with this belief in Yeshua's resurrection, but also skeptics, unbelievers. James the Adon's brother, and Saul of Tarsus, make up only two of the most famous examples; others were no doubt known. It is difficult enough to conceive of the disciples making up such a story, and holding it in the face of so much persecution; it is preposterous to suppose that unbelievers would join in concerting a story they knew to be untrue, which was certain to bring rejection, beatings, and sometimes death. Remember, they knew and understood the consequences of following Yeshua - He Himself had just before been executed.

B.) That Yeshua did not actually die, but lived through the ordeal, revived, and escaped the tomb, to convince the disciples He had risen.

This "apparent death" theory was invented in the late 18th century and early 19th by German rationalists. This has also been given up, on the following grounds:

1.) It is medically implausible for someone to live through such an experience, especially in the light of John 19:31-34 (the puncturing of the heart and pericardium). Then to survive the dying of exposure in the tomb, to unwrap Himself, to life the large stone covering (without alerting the guards), and finally escape, stretches credulity to the breaking point.

2.) A half-dead Yeshua, desperately in need of medical attention, would not have convinced the disciples that He was the risen Adon, and Conqueror of death. Even less would it have convinced non-disciples, such as Yeshua's brothers.

3.) This theory reduces Yeshua to a deceiver who tricked the disciples into believing that He was risen. It is also morally impossible to charge Yeshua with such a crime, particularly without any motive - Yeshua did not appear to large crowds afterwards, or seek political power, or wealth, etc.

4.) The explanation still leaves unanswered what ultimately happened to Yeshua's body. The early church believed that Yeshua did not remain here on earth after He rose, but that He ascended into heaven (Mark 16:19; 1 Pet 1:21-22; Eph 4:8-10); and the apostles were eyewitnesses themselves (Luke 24:50-51; Acts 1:9-11). Since their integrity has already been established, how did this belief originate?

C.) That the appearances were hallucinations, from which the disciples inferred Yeshua's resurrection.

The "hallucination theory" became popular during the 19th century, and lasted into the 20th. However, there are good grounds for rejecting this as well:

1.) The frequency and variety of circumstances make this explanation untenable: Yeshua was seen not once, but numerous times; not by one person, but by mane different people; not only by individuals, but also by groups; not at one locality and circumstance, but a variety; not by merely believers, but also by doubters and unbelievers such as James, Saul of Tarsus, 'Doubting Thomas,' and others (see Matt 28:17).

2.) Even if we accept, for the sake of through discussion, the possibility of hallucinations to account for the appearances, the empty tomb is left totally unexplained. A hallucination that causes one to believe Yeshua rose from the dead would be checked by pointing to His undisturbed, occupied tomb. As pointed out earlier, no following would have been generated while Yeshua lay in the grave. Christianity would never have been started.

III. The weight of evidence examined legally -

Simon Greenleaf has been considered the "foremost expert on common law of his time." (Who Was Who in America," Historical Vd., covering 1607-1896). His work, "A Treatise on the Law of Evidence," in 3 volumes, explains in detail how to evaluate the worth of evidence. In its final form, "it came to be regarded as the foremost American authority" (Dictionary of Amer. Biography); ie., the standard for evaluating legal evidence.

While Professor of Law at Harvard in the 1840's, Greenleaf came to evaluate the testimony given in the four gospel. This resulted in his work, "The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules Administered in Courts of Justice." In it he concluded that the records furnished by the gospels are of the highest legal quality, and are convincing beyond reasonable doubt. Some of the reasons he gives in support of this conclusion are discussed below.

As regards the validity of the gospels themselves, the law has this principle:

"Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it otherwise."

In the case of the gospels, there are extant mss. Dating as far back as the second century (and some fragments of the gospels are known which date to the first century) numbering approximately 5000. They are in the custody of those whom we would naturally expect to possess them, that is, professing Christiandom (which grew out of the original church), where it has been copied by many different persons, independently of each other, over many hundreds of years. Thus, the burden of proof is on the critics. Many claims have been made against the authenticity of the gospels; but these attacks are based on prejudicial biases, not facts. The gospels present themselves as historical narratives, not as fiction, allegory, or mythology; and no one has proven them to be forgeries.

The law presumes that every man is innocent until proven guilty, and that all has been done fairly and legally, until it is proved to have been otherwise. An exception has been leveled at the Scriptures, and at the New Testament in particular, in that it has automatically been assumed guilty until proven innocent. In the light of archaeological and historical data which have been supporting more and more of the biblical record in the last 100 years, this biased attitude, which was never really justified, is now quite untenable.

The N.T. books have been in familiar use from the time committed to writing. They have been watched over with vigilance by opposing sects - groups who differed in doctrine, yet who looked to the same Scriptures for correctness of faith. These books have always been the ones respected as the ultimate source of ecclesiastical authority, and have been submitted to for obligations of duty. The N.T. books were already being commonly quoted as authoritative in the first century, as evidenced by writers such as Papius and Clement of Rome. Thus, any claim that the books of the N.T. have been changed over time, or were accidentally accepted as authoritative accounts long after the fact, is found as well to rest on unsupported biases.

As for the gospel authors, some points to mention:

Matthew - Being a collector of taxes (a publican), an official for the roman government, he would have been literate, of at least average intelligence, and probably fairly observant. No one likes to pay taxes; much less did the Jewish people desire to pay taxes to a pagan, oppressive empire. Because of this, Matthew would have been familiar with all sorts of fraud, imposture, and cunning. It is reasonable to believe that he was naturally skeptical, and also perceptive in the detection of falsehood (he obviously saw that Yeshua was legitimate.).

Mark - Tradition has it that Mark wrote this gospel using information received from Peter. While this is impossible to prove, it is at least plausible, seeing that they were together (1 Pet 5:13), and Peter had evidently known Mark very early (Acts 12:10-12).

Luke - Apparently an acute observer, giving particular attention to details. In the account of the man whose hand was withered, only Luke specifies it was his right hand (Luke 6:6). He is also the only one to mention the secretion of blood with Yeshua's sweat, and relates it with the intensity of agony (Luke 22:44). In both his gospel, and in Acts, it is evident we are reading the work of someone both learned, and highly competent to record facts accurately. Luke may have been among the other disciples who followed Yeshua (e.g., Luke 10:1), therefore being an eyewitness (either as a proselyte, or a Jew with a Greek name). But even if not an eyewitness, his testimony would still be accepted as legally valid if it were the result of an inquiry gravely undertaken and pursued, by a person of competent intelligence and integrity, even if done voluntarily. He certainly possessed these characteristics. Moreover, he would have been inquiring about subjects which he was competent to record, and some of which he was particularly skilled, as the recognition of maladies (Col 4:4). Further, these were subjects of which he was an eyewitness (with Paul); and he belonged to the community in which the events transpired (i.e., the early disciples).

John - Known as "the disciple Yeshua loved," he saw Yeshua's trial firsthand, was privy to events to which others were not admitted, was the only apostle who followed Yeshua all the way to the cross, and was he to whom Yeshua gave care of His own mother. John is therefore a particularly credible witness. His gospel is probably the last one written of the four, and apparently intended for Gentile audiences unacquainted with Jewish names, customs, and places. The fact that John does not repeat many of the narratives included in the others indicates that they were probably known to him; and since he doesn't correct them, he must have regarded them as true and accurate.

Principles relevant to establishing the credibility of a witness:

"In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true."

"A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth has been established by competent and satisfactory evidence." This type of evidence is defined as an amount of proof which would ordinarily satisfy an unprejudiced mind, beyond reasonable doubt.

"In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector." (The legal basis for this principle is that people do generally speak the truth, unless motivated by some thing or reason to do otherwise.)

"The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon, firstly, their honesty; second, their ability; thirdly, their number and the consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the conformity of their testimony with experience; and fifthly, the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances." We can review these individually:

A.) Honesty: After their Master had perished by execution, and even though faced with diverse sorts of terrors, these people continued to give the same story. Yeshua's message was not one that was accepting of contrary messages; rather, it sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws and customs of every country were against their teaching. Thus, speaking their faith, they could expect contempt, opposition, persecution, imprisonment, and/or death. They had, therefore, every reason to carefully review the grounds of their faith. If it'd been possible for them to have been deceived in this, they had every motive to find the error, pressing upon them with frequency (1 Cor 15:30-32). To pursue something they knew to be a lie would yield nothing good in this life, nor in the next.

Moreover, reading the gospels, we see these people were like us: Experiencing the same temptations, affected by the same sorts of emotions, etc. We can also see they were people of strong convictions, and merciful as well. If they had been evil, it is difficult to understand why they would have chosen this form of imposture: a life of self-denial, self-abasement, repentance, and forsaking sin (not to mention aspirations of wealth and pleasure, and even their own families). In this vein, remember that Yeshua warned them of the evil and affliction that would come upon them *e.g. Matt 10:16-25; Mark 13:9-13; Luke 17:1; John 15:18-21;16:1-4). This is not the manner of an imposter seeking to draw disciples after himself, to advertise how bad it's going to be if they follow him. IN sum, we can conclude that these were honest men, testifying what they knew to be true.

B.) Ability: This depends on the opportunities they had of observing the facts, the accuracy of their powers to discern, and the faithfulness of their memory in retaining the facts seen and known. As noted earlier, Matthew and Luke were evidently quite mentally keen, and also good observers. Concerning Mark and John, there is no indication that they were of below average intelligence - their records are certainly quite intelligibly communicated.

C.) Number and consistency: Having been one very familiar with hearing various witnesses giving testimony, Greenleaf says of the gospels, "The character of their narratives is like that of all other true witnesses, containing…substantial truth, under circumstantial variety." There is enough variation to show they were not in concert; while there is sufficient agreement to show that they were independent narrators of the events that occurred. If they concerted a false story, they sought to accomplish it by a mode quite different from that which all others have been found to pursue.

A typical example of such variation in testimony is observed in the accounts given by the ten different members of the French royal family, who related independent versions of their flight from Paris in the late 18th century. They contradict each other in some trivial and some essential points, but the main body of their testimony agrees. Upon the principle of the skeptic, we would be disposed to disbelieve them all. Courts commonly observe the same occurrence: they are accustomed to comparing and reconciling different accounts. In fact, Greenleaf noted, far greater discrepancies can be found in different versions of various court reporters, giving that accounts of what transpired in the same case, than the differences found in the gospels.

D.) Conformity of their testimony with experience: If all of the events recorded in the gospels were as simple and as common as the historical narratives, minus the miracles and the resurrection, there would be no reason to doubt it. Indeed, historians agree on the historical reality of Yeshua's life, execution, and burial. The whole case for doubting the gospels is based on the rejection of the miraculous. There are two principles to this attitude:

1.) The argument is circular: "Miracles can't happen." Upon what does this conclusion rest? "I have never seen one." But you believe in many things you have never seen, such as Siberia, DNA, Caesar, Ghengis Kahn, and a host of other things. "But others saw those things." Well, people (not just one, but many) reported they saw Yeshua do miracles. "They were lying!" How do you know? "Because miracles don't happen!"

2.) This attitude presupposes that Elohiym does not exist, and then uses this pre-supposition as evidence. If El exists, then miracles and the resurrection can (in principle) occur; if not, they cannot. If we start without presupposing either conclusion, and consider the testimony of these men as that of others in ordinary affairs of life, we can arrive at conclusions based on the actual evidence. It is not too much to ask that their testimony be evaluated without condemning it before it is even heard.

Another point is that it was important that the resurrection itself would be unique. If people commonly rose from the dead by their own power, Yeshua's authority and unique divinity would be undermined. To demand that the resurrection be repeatable, or commonly observable, is to miss the entire point of this event - that Yeshua alone is Conqueror of death.

e.) The coincidence of their testimony with collateral and contemporaneous facts and circumstances: After a witness is dead, and his moral character is forgotten, it can be ascertained only by a close inspection of his narrative, comparing its details with each other, and with other contemporary accounts and collateral facts. Every event which actually transpires has a relationship to many other circumstances - it was brought about by events that preceded it; and it is connected to and related with other events and circumstances occurring at the same place and time, and often with those of other places. The event goes on to cause some other events to take place, while affecting in some way yet others. Thus, when a claimed fact has actually happened, it will be in accord with other contemporaneous incidents, related to it even in the remotest degree. An invented story that has sufficient details, closely compared with actual occurrences in the same place and time, will invariably be shown to be false. It is for this reason that a false witness will not willingly detail any circumstances, in which his testimony will be open to contradiction, nor multiply them where there is danger of detection be a comparison with other accounts equally circumstantial. Instead, his manner is to deal in general statements and broad assertions. If he must use names and circumstances in his story, he will endeavor to invent the kind that shall be out of reach of all opposing proof; and he will be most minute in details in those places where he knows any danger of contradiction is least to be spotted. Therefore, variety and minuteness of details are usually regarded as certain tests of sincerity, if the story is (in the circumstances related) of a nature capable of easy refutation if it were false.

Thus, a false witness, even if crafty, may insert copious details in regards to the principle matter, but in other places he will be reserved and cautious, from fear of detection. The results of all this will be a testimony that is unequal, unnatural; not consistent or uniform in texture. On the other hand, true witnesses give a testimony that is strikingly natural, having an unaffected readiness to in part detail of circumstances, as well in one part of the narrative as another, and evidently without the least regard either to the ease or difficulty of being detected.

Increased numbers of details in testimony, and increased numbers of witnesses giving such details, all tend to increase the probability of detection if the witnesses are false, because the statements can be compared with each other, as well as with known facts; and proportionately is increased the danger of detection of variance and inconsistency.

The force of circumstantial evidence depends on several factors, including:

1.) The number of particulars involved in the narrative (i.e., how many details are given);

2.) The difficulty of fabricating them all (could these facts have been easily known, or are they likely to be known only by eyewitnesses); and the facility of detection (how easily could someone have checked his story); and

3.) The nature of the circumstances to be compared, and from which the dates and other facts are to be collected (i.e., whether the details are of a sort that can be used to determine when and where the event would have occurred if true, and whether it would have produced or caused other events that we know happened at that time.)

The more a narrative partakes of these types of characters, the further it is removed from all suspicion of being fabricated.

The essential marks of difference between true narratives and the creations of fictions, if applied to the gospels, demonstrate the inclusion of the former throughout, with the absence of the latter. Details include manners and customs, political circumstances of their times and country, names of officials, dates and events, etc. These references are not made with preface or explanation, nor are they all piled together; but are instead found throughout, so connecting themselves with every incident related, as to render the detection of falsehood inevitable if it had been invented. Moreover, this is not peculiar to one of the gospels alone, but is common to all four, written at different times, to different audiences, independently. Considering the great instability of the region at that time (under Herod, then his son Archaleus; then under a Roman governor; with common friction in the are until its destruction by the Romans in the late 60's AD), if they had been false historians, they would not have committed themselves on so many particulars, thus furnishing their opponents with so many instruments for bringing them into discredit with the people, and so many materials for cross-examination.

Consider the fact that 5 different authors give a picture of Simon Peter, even though he was not the principle character of any of the narratives (Matt, Mark, Luke, John & Paul in Gal). His character is only incidentally delineated; yet in all the accounts we are clearly seeing the same person described: zealous, sometimes overly confident, sudden and impulsive; loving his Master, yet at times deficient in fortitude (see Matt 14:28-31; 16:16,22; 17:24-25; 18:21; 19:27; Mark 8:29, 32; 14:29, 31; Luke 9:20, 33; John 6:68-69; 13:8-9, 36; 18:15; 20:3-6; 21:3, 7, 21; Acts 1:15-16; 2:14; Gal 2:11). No works of fiction written by different authors has ever produced such consistency of character of a portrayed individual - and this is particularly striking since Peter is not central to the story.

Finally, we note that there is an absence of declarations by the writers about their own goodness and integrity. Indeed, they readily admit their own weaknesses: their lack of faith, their dullness to understand Yeshua's teachings, their strifes for pre-eminence, their vengeful attitude in one account (Luke 9:53-54), and the fact that they deserted Him in His extremity. Further, we see no anxiety to be believed in the gospels; rather they were apparently writing with the assumption that they are recording events known to all, in that country and time, meant to be believed in other areas and times. Neither are there any harsh epithets against those who participated in the death of the Adon. Instead, the writers are merely stating what happened, leaving the reader to judge.

Greenleaf concludes that the evidence of Scriptural history is "sufficient to satisfy any rational mind, by carrying it to the highest degree of moral certainty." If this caliber of evidence were given in court (i.e., four independent witnesses giving separate accounts of events, as the evangelists do), it would be considered of the highest legal quality, convincing beyond reasonable doubt.