Witnesses

                For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. (II Timothy 2:5-6)

                For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (I Corinthians 15:3-8)

                In the Old Testament, two or more witnesses were required for legal proceedings. A person couldn’t be convicted of a crime on the basis of only one testimony. Major transactions took place at the city gate, where witnesses would be available. In the first passage above, Paul wrote about Jesus’ having given himself as a ransom for all people as having been witnessed. Scholars say that in the second passage above, Paul cited a creed that had developed as early as the mid-30s AD. Part of their reasoning for this is its following of the same general ideas as the sermons in Acts.

                But, returning to the subject of witnesses. We’re told that the women went to the tomb first, but women didn’t legally count as witnesses at the time. Men of the time would not have included it if they had wanted easy acceptance of the account, but all four gospels include women as the first witnesses. Peter and John ran to the tomb, but didn’t find Jesus there. The guys on the road to Emaus reported talking with Jesus. He appeared in the upper room, and several more times. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all reports from witnesses. I know some dismiss at least Matthew because it seems to be based on Mark (which is supposedly Peter’s telling of the events). That’s not really a problem because Mark and Luke were written for the benefit of Gentiles, and Matthew and John were written for Jews. Two witnesses, one for each group of people, with explanations needed for each.

                Then, there are the witnesses of those who were among the disciples: Matthew, Mark, and John, and the witnesses of  those who weren’t: James, Jude, Paul, and Luke. Matthew, Mark, John, James, and Jude might be said to have been written by people from the working class, but Luke was a physician, and Paul was a Pharisee, a student of the Old Testament. In fact, he persecuted the earliest Christians before converting dramatically. Matthew, Mark, and John were written by disciples, but James and Jude were written by Jesus’ half-brothers who grew up with him. Josephus, Tacitus, and the Babylonian Talmud all mention the resurrection of Jesus, but were written by non-Christians. They weren’t witnesses to the resurrection, but when they wrote, it makes clear that the news spread early and caught the attention of “unbiased” sources sufficiently to be mentioned.

                Of the seven witnesses who testified (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, and Jude), and those whose testimonies are included  (the women), we span a variety of perspectives and connections. And other witnesses are mentioned. There were other disciples. When persecution came, at least eleven men could have said, “No, I lied. It didn’t happen.”  They would have been allowed to live, but they, and many like them were willing to die while proclaiming Jesus as the Messiah.

                Some claim that none of this happened. It was all made up by the disciples, or by Emperor Constantine and his servants. They have no testimonial evidence of this. Some claim that “of course” such evidence was destroyed. It could have been, but evidence that cannot be produced for examination is not evidence. And again, there’s the problem of the perfect conspiracy. How many people would have been involved in concocting the story? How much time did they spend researching the location, the customs, and even the names of people of two hundred or more years earlier in order to come up with a story that sounded authentic? Why would they bother? How could they have predicted that two thousand years later, people could research those subjects and discover that the New Testament got them right? Because Richard Bauckham’s book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses addresses those issues. And consider again that no record is found of anyone involved in this plot. All it would have taken to destroy those in power who were responsible for the conspiracy would have been for a participant or two to denounce it – yet we haven’t found that evidence, even now when it wouldn’t bring a death sentence.

                Until or unless someone brings forward a credible bit of evidence, there’s no reason to claim it didn’t happen, other than ego. The historical evidence is strong that it did.