Trustworthy eyewitness testimony is crucial to any strong case, whether it is used to convict the guilty or to exonerate the innocent. The question, as we began to investigate last time, is whether eyewitness testimony can really be trusted? The 18th-century philosopher David Hume said no, arguing that in the case of miraculous events, it is always more likely that men should be lying than that a miracle actually occurred. However, that is not how people live their lives in societies governed by the rule of law, for within those systems of law the testimony of eyewitnesses is invaluable. In fact, it is rare for a case to call forward no eyewitnesses at all. That does not, however, mean that witnesses do not lie. They do so with some frequency. Therein lies the conundrum or the tension, one might say. How to judge good, honest testimony from dishonest, false testimony? It is of critical importance because if eyewitness testimony cannot be trusted, how can we trust anything?
To help adjudicate testimony in California, as well as in other states, judges issue an instruction guideline (CALCRIM 315) to jurors, designed to use a series of questions to evaluate the trustworthiness of eyewitness testimony. We began last time by asking a series of probing questions: “Did the witness know or have contact with the defendant beforetheevent?Howwellcouldthe witness see the person? What were the conditions, such as lighting and distance?Howclosewasthewitness paying attention during the event? Was the witness under stress when observing?” Finally, “Did the witness describe the person, and how well does that description match the defendant?” All of these questions and more are designed to help guide jurors in deciding whether to trust or disbelieve the eyewitness testimony being presented. Then, turning to the gospel accounts and using the eyewitness testimony of John concerning the event of Jesus entering the locked upper room, it was found that there is little reason nottohavesolidconfidenceinJohn’s eyewitness testimony.
However, last time we only presented half of the guideline questions. We continue here with the remainder of the juror guideline questions, including, “How much time passed between the event and when the identification was made? Was the identification made in person? Did the witness ever fail to identify the defendant? What are any factors that could affect the witness’s ability to make an accurate identification?” And finally, “What is the level of certainty of the witness that he saw what he reported to have seen?”
Once again, using John’s testimony of Jesus entering the locked upper room filled with His apostles, after His resurrection (cf. John 20:24-29) provides substantial answers to the remaining guideline questions. Applying the criteria to the questions, we can say that when Jesus appeared before a stunned Thomas in the upper room, it was not years or months later, but only 8 days after He had risen. John personally witnessed Jesus in the flesh. Not in a dream or vision and never confused Jesus with anyone else. Further, John was utterly convinced that Jesus was standing before them, and that He could not have been mistaken. John was, in fact, certain. Why wouldn’t he be? This is the same John who would later write with bold clarity: ”That whichwasfromthebeginningwhich we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands concerning the word of life—the life was made manifest and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you” (1 John 1:12). There can be little doubt about John’s certainty.
Furthermore, John has reason to be certain that he witnessed the risen Jesus, because he was in Jesus’ post-resurrection company on several other occasions over the next forty days (cf. John 21:20-24; Acts 1:6-11; 1 Cor 15:5-8). Much the same can be said of the other gospel accounts where Luke, for instance, sets out to “Compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:1-4).
Now, considering how well the Gospel accounts hold up to the juror guidelines for trustworthy eyewitnesstestimony,andgiventhe self-authenticating nature found in both John and Luke’s Gospels, it seems to indicate that the Gospels contain trustworthy eyewitness accounts of what happened to Jesus after He died. And if that is true, then maybe Thomas is right, and God is not dead!
Gloria in excelsis Deo! Ty B. Kerley, DMin., is an ordained minister who teaches Christian apologetics, and relief preaches in Southern Oklahoma. Dr. Kerley and his wife Vicki are members of the Waurika church of Christ, and live in Ardmore. You can contact him at: dr.kerley@isGoddead.com.