Orthodox Church in America - The Hub for Youth and Young Adult Ministries

Session 3: The Evangelists on the Witness Stand

Review: Who are the four evangelists? What is their basis of authority for being eyewitnesses?

Opening Question: Have you ever felt the need to test someone’s word to see if what they were saying could be trusted or not? How did you? What did you conclude?

We now call the 1st Vatra Court of Grass Lake back into session.

Prosecution: Your honors, even if these evangelists were at the right time and the right place to testify about Jesus of Nazareth, we cannot accept their testimony as valid because they were religious believers with a personal agenda of their own. Nothing they say should be taken as evidence. We move to strike their testimony from the record!

Defense: Objection! Your honors, let us put these evangelists on the witness stand and see if their ability to testify accurately is really in question. In any court of law we are allowed to examine and cross-examine witnesses to test their reliability. Should we not do the same?

Activity: Testing the Evidence worksheet

There are 8 basic tests used in courts of law that help determine whether an eyewitness can be relied on or not. (see worksheet). They are as follows:

Intention test: does the eyewitness intend to accurately report what they saw and preserve history? (Read Luke 1:1-4, John 20:31)

Ability test: Would they have been capable of preserving that information intact? Wouldn’t the information get garbled like when playing the game telephone? We have to remember that they lived in a culture where oral tradition was the main way of communicating. People had actually better memories than they do today because of this. The variability between the gospels is about the same one would find in an oral tradition.

Character Test: Were these evangelists trustworthy as people in general, or were they known con men and crooks? None of them were necessarily pillars of their community, but the religion that they accepted and then preached required them to have great integrity, even to the point of dying for their faith.

Consistency Test: Don’t the gospels contradict each other by giving so many different details? Details may differ because each eyewitness in real life will differ on the things they notice and they way they express them. If they are too closely alike that is when we should distrust them because they begin to sound rehearsed. On the main points, the gospels are significantly consistent with each other. Most, perhaps all, of the apparent contradictions if taken in context and with the full information are easily harmonized.

Bias test: But surely, the evangelists were biased towards Christ, and this colored their perceptions? Certainly, this is possible. At the same time, they may have felt charged with being as accurate as possible in their reporting because they knew they would be held accountable for every word. (See Revelation 22:18-19)

The Cover-up test: Didn’t the disciples love for Jesus lead them to white-wash details that might have been scandalous or difficult for people to accept? Ironically, the type of white-washing we find in biased observers is not found in the gospels. The evangelists are actually not afraid of reporting Christ’s harder sayings and unusual behavior, even those things that seem to contradict their teaching about His divinity. In fact, they seem biased towards being as accurate as possible because clearly, they feel charged with preserving Jesus’ message without change. They are also willing to represent their own failings and cowardice at the time of Jesus’ trial and death, and their unbelief at His Resurrection. Where is the cover-up?

Corroboration test: Can the people and places mentioned in the gospels be verified independently? History and archaeology have actually confirmed many of the geographic and historical details described in the gospel in recent years, often over-turning previous ideas that the gospels were full of unhistorical fictions.

The Adverse witness test: Are there any other witnesses contradicting the writers of the gospels at that time? Any one saying that they misreported or misrepresented the facts? No one has come forward to tell the history better. In fact, the opponents of Christianity have often confirmed many of the details of the gospels. For instance, the Jews admitted that Jesus worked miracles, but they considered him a sorcerer or misled Rabbi. They also admitted that there was no body, but explained it as grave robbery. If these things did not take place (the miracles, the empty tomb), then these would have be great opportunities to set the story straight. But they didn’t.

Using the worksheet, each group should be given 1 or 2 tests to apply to the sample passages. These are not always straightforward, and groups may need a little help. Basically, they should chew on this food for thought, and hopefully see that one should not rush to judgment about the gospels or trust the first person they hear on a subject.

As we can see, there are many tests which can be applied to determine whether the four evangelists are trustworthy witnesses to the events of the life of Jesus. Some tests are passed more easily than others, some tests are more significant than others. In any case, the reliability of a witness can often make or break a case. If a witness can be shown conclusively to have willingly lied—that is, perjured him or herself—that can often turn the jury’s opinion. But if the witness stands up to scrutiny, that can also be very powerful. Each of us should be able to know why we believe the Gospels. It is not enough to merely say, “It’s the Bible. It’s God’s word.” If it is those things, it will stand up to honest and unbiased scrutiny.

At this time, we will recess. Tomorrow we will consider whether or not the documents of the gospels as we have them today have been reliably preserved for the nearly 2000 years of their history. Even if the evangelists were trustworthy, we cannot be sure yet whether or not those who copied their testimonies were equally so.

Deliberations: (from worksheet)

Which of these eight tests do you consider most conclusive or significant?

How have these tests affected your confidence in the reliability of the gospels?

When more than one person gives you an eyewitness testimony, do you doubt their credibility or do you reconcile the differences between them? How?