Mainly for Men: Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Beyond Reasonable Doubt
 

 
In 1966, as a volunteer technician, I was working in what was then the Bechuanaland Protectorate in southern Africa. Part of my job was helping with the broadcasting of the independence ceremony of the new Republic of Botswana. Positioned close to the dignitaries in the National Stadium I shook hands with the new President, Sir Seretse Khama and met HRH Princess Marina who ceremonially represented the Queen.
Even though it was some sixty years ago I clearly remember just before midnight the Union Jack being lowered and all lights extinguished. Then at the stroke of midnight, the lights came back on to show the new Botswana flag at the top of the mast but still wrapped up. A Kalahari dust storm had just started, and the violent wind prevented the flag from unfurling. I remember a lone policeman, not wanting to bring the flag down and start again, frantically tugging at the cord to release it.
I remember the deafening roar of the crowds when it finally happened and the flag unfurled.
For me it was a major event, one that has stayed with me throughout my life. It has led me to follow the country’s story, and I’ve been collecting books and documents relating to its history ever since.
Sixty years later I may have forgotten some of the details of that night. But I remember very clearly the central act: the Union Jack came down, the Botswana flag was eventually unfurled, the band played the new National Anthem, and the Republic of Botswana was born.
For my children and grandchildren, I have written down what I remember of my time there, including small unimportant details that have stuck with me.
Someone else’s memory of that night will be very different to mine. Does that mean that one of us is lying or the event didn’t happen? No, of course not, everybody recounts past events both from their own physical position and what mattered to them.
If for some reason I had to prove that I was there that night, what could I do?
I would have to present evidence much as in a criminal court.
To reach a verdict, judges and juries weigh testimonies, assess the credibility and reliability of witnesses, compare different accounts, consider their motives and examine surrounding evidence.
In civil cases, the standard is the balance of probabilities.
But in criminal cases, where liberty is at stake, guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt. But mistakes can still occur.
Although many people who were there that night and could verify my story have sadly died, some are still alive. The event was widely reported in the newspapers. The National Archives of Botswana holds records of it. Although there was no TV in the country or in neighbouring South Africa, recordings were made by photographs, cine film and audio tape (one of my jobs). Other people have also written down their memories. These all could be compared to what I claim to have remembered.
However, my memory has been jogged by other people’s accounts I have read since.
If one of my great-grandchildren or great-great-grandchildren read my account, could they say that my memory was influenced by what I had read in Wikipedia or Chat-Gpt has told me? Absolutely!
But I do have a letter from the Chief Engineer thanking me for my part in the broadcast.
So, for me to convince a court that I was there sixty years ago shouldn’t be a problem. I hope!
However, to piece together something that took place thousands of years ago and separate fact from fiction is very different.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is just such a case.
I have often been asked why people believe that a man who was publicly executed could be alive again three days later. “Prove it!” has been the challenge.
Scientific proof usually requires a repeatable experiment to test a hypothesis. To do that for any historical event is impossible. I can’t un-birth Botswana’s independence and then do it again.
A court faces a similar challenge. To decide exactly what happened in the past, it looks at the evidence that has been submitted. A crime cannot be repeated.
The claim that three days after His public execution, Jesus Christ rose from the dead must therefore be examined as an historical claim rather than a scientific one.
A major problem is that compared to now, few written records were made, and even fewer have survived. Events were recorded by people repeating the story to each other, a system that wasn’t infallible. However, if someone changed the details, other people would notice.
Of utmost importance is that Jesus is not a mythical figure. He is mentioned by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and by the Roman historian Tacitus in two surviving documents from the secular world. Neither writer was a Christian. They weren’t attempting to promote Christianity; they were historians recording what was known.
Both record that Jesus lived and was executed by Pontius Pilate, which is accepted by the majority of historians.
The main source that gives information about Jesus Christ is the New Testament section of the Bible. It is of course written by Christians and isn’t neutral in the way that Josephus and Tacitus’ writings are.
But the Bible is not a magic book. The New Testament is a collection of four biographies of Christ (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John known as the Gospels), a history of the Church (Acts), some letters from the early leaders of the Church and a vision (Revelation). These documents mean that Jesus Christ is one of the best attested figures from the ancient world.
Critics often point out that the Gospels accounts differ in some details. Who arrived first? How many were they? What exactly was said? Sceptics attempt to dismiss the Gospels for that reason.
However, the differences between my memory of that night in Botswana and other people’s, are similar to the differences between the Gospel writers. The same event is seen from different viewpoints and whilst agreeing on the main points, some details will naturally differ.
Many historians note several features in the account:

• Scholars debate who wrote the four Gospels. They ask how much influence the writers had on each other. It’s a reasonable question, as my memory has been influenced by what I have read. But this possible influence together with the fact that the writers appear to contradict one another, makes many historians regard them as early, authentic sources. A fake news author would probably have made the four accounts identical, and made sure there was no conflict. Many scholars conclude they were written within the lifetime of those who were at the crucifixion, either by eyewitnesses, or by someone who had met the eyewitnesses. But sceptics claim that could mean sixty years or more and that people would have forgotten the details. However, my experience shows that with an unusual or dramatic experience the details remain in our memories for many many decades.
• Jesus’ disciples are not presented as flawless heroes. They, probably including the authors of the Gospels themselves, are shown to be frightened, confused and sometimes cowardly. On the night Christ was crucified, Peter, who eventually became the leader of the Church is recorded as denying he knew Jesus. Why include that embarrassing point if that wasn’t what happened?
• Jesus’ body was placed in a tomb, sealed by a huge stone and guarded by soldiers. Soldiers whose job was to prevent the body being stolen. But it disappeared! Those soldiers would have known that if the body went missing, their liberty and perhaps their lives would have been at risk. What made them run? Had they seen something really weird? A ghost perhaps? What happened? Who rolled away the stone? Jesus’ body, what happened to it? Production of the decomposing corpse would have ended the resurrection claim. If the authorities had been able to produce it, then they would have done so. There has never been an alternative explanation for the empty tomb that has gained widespread support.
• In a culture where a woman’s testimony counted for little, why would the writers show that it was women who discovered the empty tomb, unless that is what happened?

Some sceptics have suggested that Jesus had not actually died but had lost consciousness and later revived in the tomb. However, the writer of the Gospel of John records that, to ensure Jesus was dead, a soldier pierced His side with a spear, producing a sudden flow of blood and water. The “water” may have been clear fluid that had built up around the lungs from the crucifixion. Roman soldiers were experts in killing, and it is reasonable to assume that the soldier would have carried out his duty thoroughly. This makes it very unlikely that Jesus survived the crucifixion.

• Copies of Paul’s letters, who was one of the leaders of the early Christians, that were written twenty to thirty years after the crucifixion were circulated widely. In his first letter to the church at Corinth, that’s included in the New Testament, Paul states that he is passing on what he had received. He then summarises the core statements of Christian belief, including the resurrection claim, sometimes called a creed (1Cor 15:3-7). Most historians regard that creed as originating very close to the time of the crucifixion, indicating that the resurrection belief amongst Christians originated then and was not a later invention or legend. In that same letter he states that following the resurrection, Jesus appeared to over five hundred people, many of whom were still alive at the time of writing. He implies that ‘if you don’t believe me, ask them’. If that were not true, Paul, who was a leader in the Church would have lost credibility.
• At that time Jews believed in a general resurrection from the dead at the end of history. Their belief system did not include one man rising in the middle of history, they were not predisposed to it, it was a novel idea.
• Some other sceptics claim that those five hundred had been hallucinating or suffering from mass hysteria. But hallucinations are normally private, not synchronising across multiple people or producing identical experiences. If it was mass hysteria, why didn’t it fade? Within a generation the movement had spread right across the Roman Empire. Why would a frightened, disheartened group, whose leader had been executed, risk their liberty, health and life just to spread a fairy story? Many were imprisoned, tortured or lost their lives. People generally don’t risk their lives for a lie. Something must have happened to convince them that Jesus was alive.

On their own, these points don’t prove that Christ did rise from the dead. But together they add up to significant evidence that something extraordinary happened. Significant evidence that convinces me that it’s beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus rose from the dead.
What do you think?