Faith on Trial

Rating:
Summary: Porphyry
Review: "Porphyry", in a previous review of Faith On Trial on this site, has made many misstatements of the facts set out in that book. Porphyry seems to have a particular agenda to push, as shown by the statement that the "majority of modern Bible scholars" would dispute Ewen's conclusions. Of course they would! Ewen has acknowledged in her book that many so-called bible scholars, such as members of the Jesus Seminar and others, would not only dispute what she says, but would dispute it emphatically because they have built lucrative careers on the ideas that the Gospels are only "myths and legends".
In the review Porphyry stated that the three Magdalene Fragments dated by Carsten Thiede (discussed in Faith On Trial) were previously carbon dated for the second or third century, and furthermore states that carbon dating is the only accepted method of objective dating by Bible scholarship. That appears to be wrong. Everything I've read, including by academics like Raymond Brown and others, makes it clear that the method of studying the handwriting and comparisons used by Carsten Thiede are the customary and primary ways of dating such fragments. In fact that makes sense because as Ewen recites in her book, the fragments are "too small and too light" for carbon dating and since the words extend to the sides of the fragments, they are too valuable to destroy for the test. Also, Porphyry's statement that the Magdalene fragments were actually carbon-dated is strange, since no such information is provided in any of the usual sources on this subject, including in any published discussions of Carsten Thiede's conclusions that I have been able to find, pro and con.
Carsten Thiede's work is documented in great detail in his book, Eyewitness to Jesus, which is highly recommended to anyone wishing to understand the full extent of Porphyry's mistakes. Biblical scholars who dislike Thiede's work seem to consider a book called the Gospel Truth, by Jack Stanton, as the best argument against Thiede, but Thiede methodically destroys every one of Stanton's objections in Eyewitness to Jesus, which was written later and appears (to some extent) to have been written as a response to Gospel Truth. Thiede's meticulous description of his procedures and the analysis are very impressive, and must be devastating to those who take the position that the Gospels were written by people that weren't there.
Porphyry also derides the credentials of Ewen's witnesses as holding minority positions that would be negated by the preponderance of expert witnesses on the other side. That statement doesn't take into consideration that most of her "expert witnesses" are not limited to biblical scholars, but are primarily well-known authorities in their fields, such as the mathematician Roger Penrose, scientist Robert Shapiro, medical references like the JAMA and Dr. Michael Sabom, and archeologists like Jack Finegan, or even original writings of early church fathers (as opposed to someone's interpretation of them). Faith On Trial not only has many hundreds of footnotes but also gives reviews of recommended reading from many highly regarded scholars in all fields. A review of the book Faith On Trial by the National Law Journal said that the discussion of `admissibility of evidence and credibility of witnesses is firmly grounded'.
Porphyry's comment that biblical scholars would disagree with Ewen is especially interesting considering that she has also relied on J.A.T. Robinson (Redating the New Testament) for some of the early dating of the gospel manuscripts using a method of dating completely different from the study of the fragments. As many people may already know, J.A.T. Robinson was the author of a popular book in the 60's called Honest To God that basically argued the four Gospels were only mythology. This work has been (and still is) quoted and relied upon by many biblical scholars who argue that the gospels were written long after Jesus died in 33AD. But what they never mention is that Robinson did an about-face in 1976 before he died and concluded in Redating the New Testament that the later dates were wrong: all four gospels were written before 70AD when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, meaning that they could have been alive at the time that Jesus died. Re P's statement that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark's Gospel, Ewen has provided an entire chapter of evidence to refute that argument.
Ewen wrote that she admires the lawyer Simon Greenleaf and has used his method of proof. But she has not once addressed the idea that the Christian religion "is the only true religion" (paraphrasing Porphyry), and she has not started with any presumption that the Gospels are true, and that's the whole point of the book. P also mentions 550 pages written by Simon Greenleaf comparing the Evangelists testimony and analyzing contradictions, however I have been unable to locate any such writing. The book titled Testimony of the Evangelists, which Ewen references, is short and well known and does not have any such analysis in it.

Rating:
Summary: The Trial Of Simon Greenleaf Resurrected
Review: "Faith On Trial" is largely a rehash of Simon Greenleaf's "The Testimony Of The Evangelists" written by Greenleaf about 130 years ago. In the book Greenleaf wrote: "The present design, however, is not to enter upon any general examination of the evidences of Christianity, but to confine the inquiry to the testimony of the Four Evangelists...The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries. This has already been shown, in the most satisfactory manner, by others, who have written expressly upon this subject. Referring therefore to their writings for the arguments and proofs, the fact will here be assumed as true." Greenleaf then provides about 50 pages arguing why the Gospels should be accepted as credible evidence in a US Court of Law and about 550 pages comparing the Evangelists testimony and analyzing contradictions. The substance of Greenleaf's book then is that it accepts a starting assumption that the Christian religion is the only true religion and therefore Christian testimony is presumed to be true unless it is contradicted by Christian testimony. Of course a US Court would never allow a material issue like this to be assumed as true without being subject to the usual rules of evidence. Yet Greenleaf's book is the role model for Ewen's "Faith On Trail" which she speaks reverently of many times.

Ewen could have saved herself a lot of time simply by looking up "faith" in the dictionary. The basic question she asks is, "Could the Gospels be accepted as credible testimony in a US Court of Law?". I suppose if you looked long enough you might find a Court that accepted as evidence something even harder to believe than God sacrificed himself to himself and under the right circumstances such as James Baker III arguing for the Gospels in front of the US Supreme Court while George Bush Jr. was still President, who knows? But from a theoretical standpoint US Courts have a presumption that the supernatural is not possible as our court system is primarily based on observation and experience and that is why the supernatural testimony of any religion has never been allowed as evidence in a US Court of Law. This by itself is fatal to Ewen's argument with the related problem that Ewen would be unable to cite any legal precedent of a Court accepting supernatural testimony.

Ewen's argument then becomes a hypothetical intellectual exercise and not a case which would be seriously considered by a US Court. Ewen cites the usual standards required to make witness testimony credible but never addresses how WHAT the witness said affects the standards of credibility. Obviously, if a witness claimed the supernatural the very highest standards would be required.

All of Ewen's expert witnesses hold minority positions in their fields and their testimony would be negated by the preponderance of expert witnesses on the other side. Ewen cites several Bible scholars who claim that the authors of the Gospels are known with certainty but the majority opinion of modern Bible scholarship, such as Raymond Brown whom Ewen quotes several times (on other issues), is that all the Gospels were written anonymously, which is again fatal to Ewen's case. Ewen bases her position that the Gospels were written shortly after the events described on "New forensic evidence" by Carsten Thiede "director of the Institute for Basic Epistemological Research". This new forensic evidence consists of three fragments which have been known about for the last 100 years. They have all been carbon dated (which is the accepted method of objective dating by Bible scholarship) to late second or early third century. Thiede has proposed a theory not accepted by any accredited papyrologist that because the fragments have similarities to first century writings they must be first century writings while ignoring that the fragments also have similarities to second and third century writings. Thiede has one scholarly publication to his credit and holds no official postion with any accredited organization (The Institute for Basic Epistemological Research is his own creation). Thiede's credentials as an expert witness could easily be impeached.

Virtually every significant assertion of Ewen would be disputed by a majority of modern Bible scholars. Probably her biggest mistake in the book is writing, "The oldest manuscript in existence of all four Gospels and the Book of Acts dates from the first quarter of the third century...We will refer to this from now on as the Chester Beatty manuscript". The Chester Beatty manuscript primarily consists of Epistles and not the Gospels. This is a big mistake for someone writing this kind of book to make and tells me that Ewen neglected to have any Bible scholar review her work. You can see in the acknowledgements though that she did have her cousin Elizabeth read the manuscript and make suggestions.

As far as specific testimony of the Gospels Ewen focuses on the resurrection and claims that if the resurrection testimony meets the required standards of credibility it doesn't matter whether testimony regarding other events meets the same standards. Since when does the credibility of one statement by a witness have no effect on the credibility of any other statement by the witness? In the body of the book Ewen claims that the resurrection sighting accounts materially agree. In a footnote she mentions that some manuscripts of "Mark" lack a resurrection sighting. In fact, modern Bible scholarship consensus is that the original Gospel lacked a resurrection sighting as no early Church Father referred to it when quoting from "Mark". It's also generally thought now that Mark was the first Gospel written and that "Matthew" and "Luke" both copied from Mark which explains why the resurrection sighting accounts between the three vary significantly as Matthew and Luke did not have a Markan account to copy from.

Rating:
Summary: Lawyer defends gospel historicity
Review: Faith on Trial focusses on questions associated with the authenticity and integrity of the New Testament gospels, especially those concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The author, Pamela Ewen, is a practising lawyer in the field of commercial law and is a committed Christian. Her approach to these questions involves juridical methods of assessing documentary evidence, the testimony of witnesses, and collateral legal proofs as accepted in the American common law system.

The text fits into a genre of Christian apologetics known as juridical apologetics. Other apologists in this genre include Simon Greenleaf, Francis Lamb, Joseph Sagebeer Evans, Irwin Linton, Clarence Bartlett, John Warwick Montgomery and Ross Clifford.

The book is crisply written. There is a tight argument based on legal criteria of proof, which is employed to argue in favour of the gospel records. The author's presentation is pitched at a level that non-lawyers will find easy to follow.

The author relies not just on juridical canons, but also buttresses her case with reference to other apologetic writers. Although I concur with the author's position on the gospels, I am not convinced she has set forth "the best possible case". Ewen relies on some writings whose arguments are not mainstream in either New Testament scholarship or apologetics. I refer to her use of Ian Wilson's books supporting the Turin Shroud, and Carsten Thiede's Eyewitness to Jesus. The Shroud is an area where apologists are on shaky ground. Thiede argues very strongly, but not conclusively, that some gospel papyri fragments were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. This argument has not received much acceptance in New Testament scholarship ever since O'Callahan made the claims in the early 1970s. Also absent from her bibliographical citations are the works of some of the legal apologists listed above. She would have benefitted from reading more widely in this genre.

I wonder whether Ewen would have done better to cast her work in the form of a "legal brief" that advises a barrister or requires a judge's ruling in chamber, or opted for the genre of a moot trial (as did Thomas Sherlock in the 18th century). One difficulty for juridical apologists like Ewen is the tendency to overstate the conclusions reached when employing the canons of proof from the criminal code and the civil code. This problem does have a bearing for example on the conclusions drawn about the "ancient documents rule". Many apologists since Greenleaf first argued the point, have overstated their case with this rule. Ewen would have profitted from reading the appendix in Ross Clifford's Leading Lawyers Case for the Resurrection (1996) on this very matter.

Perhaps Ewen should have interacted with the critiques of atheists and sceptics, particularly since her apologia is directed to a "tough-minded" audience.

The book is worthwhile reading and reflecting on. Christian apologists however would be advised to read more widely in the genre of juridical apologetics. The untrained layperson may be too impressed with the cogency of Ewen's arguments simply because of her credentials as a lawyer. We have yet to see a careful and comprehensive evaluation of legal apologetic literature (a long neglected area of study where more than 70 apologists have contributed since Hugo Grotius' day). A layperson, unaware of the limitations of legal argument could end up in deep waters when dialoguing with a specialist. Those who are sceptical of Ewen's position should be willing to read more widely in apologetic literature. Partisanship on both sides can lead to the phenomenon of two ships passing each other without either side understanding the other's position.

Rating:
Summary: A Pleasant Surprise
Review: I have been somewhat disappointed with the apologetic books I have read so far. When I saw this one, I bought it mainly because of former Secretary of State Baker's very positive review. I enjoyed the book very much, as it was not based on supposedly convincing 'proofs'; her main point is that the Gospels would be valid evidence in a courtroom and since there is no reason to think that the authors were not credible witnesses, they ought to be believed by a jury. Citing Simon Greenleaf, John A.T. Robinson, and others, she points out that there is good reason for believing the Gospels were written before 70AD, and that the Gospel writers are credible because they are detailed without appearing concerned whether they will be believed, they are accurate in minor details, etc. And while I do not think the Shroud is helpful in convincing skeptics as it takes away from our very solid arguments, it was interesting reading as I had never studied about the Shroud before. Her best proof-which is irrefutable-is that people will not die for something they know to be a falsehood. While we see people almost daily willing to die (and kill) for a falsehood, they don't know it to be false. The apostles and others who started the Church and claimed Messiahship for Jesus would not have died for a myth that they made up and therefore knew was false. And the Gospels are as similar as one would expect from 4 people truthfully reporting the same events; if all four Gospels were virtually identical, people would think collusion or copying of one by the others.

Some people, though, will never drop their disbelief in the Gospels. Reminds me of those who claim a much later authorship for the book of Daniel solely on the basis that its prophecies were detailed and clearly came true and therefore had to be written after the fact (since how would Daniel know this in advance?). As if someone would be able to write a prophetic book today predicting George Washington and the Civil War and fool an intelligent people into accepting it as Scripture.

Kudos again to Pamela Binnings Ewen for a job well done.

Rating:
Summary: Lawyers shouldn't be so gullible
Review: In Part 1, attorney Ewan makes a case for the New Testament being admissable in a Federal court under an exception to the hearsay rule for ancient documents. Okay, maybe it would be admissable as evidence just because it is old, and we don't have any good way to cross-examine the authors, but the defense would still be able to debate the credibility of the contents. In Part 2, Ewan looks at the credibility issue and her analysis falls apart. She says, "There is no reason to assume that any of the witnesses would create false traditions," and therefore we must rule the document credible. Let's look at some of the facts she ignores. In Acts 5, Peter kills two people who refused to give all of their money to his church and buries their bodies in his back yard, then announces that God killed them for lying to the Holy Spirit. Wouldn't that little incident suggest that Peter might have a "reason to create a false tradition," i.e., because he not only lives on the donations from his followers, but he kills anyone who doesn't give enough? And look at the setting. In 70 AD, after a two-year seige, the Romans captured Jerusalem, burned it to the ground and buried the ashes. Wouldn't that be a good reason to create a Jewish martyr who will appear in the clouds to announce the End of the World, according to Jewish prophecy? Every story Peter told about Jesus had already been told about a Roman Emperor - the virgin birth, being taken up to heaven to sit at the right hand of God, doing miracles. Even the opening of Mark "the good news of Jesus Christ" was copied from a Roman poet named Virgil who praised Augustus as "the Savior of a new Age," starting his text with the same phrase, "the good news." No, the analysis of the credibility issue here is shallow and one-sided. The hero of the legend, Jesus, raised Lazarus from the dead. Can't we argue that anyone who claims to raise his friends from the dead is "likely to create a false tradition" and is, basically, a con man not to be trusted. The eerie similarities between the account of Peter's actions in Acts 5 and the recent tragedy in Uganda, where 969 members of a Christian church were killed and buried when they asked for their money back, after the world didn't end on December 31, 1999, should not be ignored. The authors of the New Testament - a man named Mark who never met Jesus, but only repeated what Peter told him - are not credible biographers. A good case can be made for the author of Matthew merely making footnotes on an existing copy of Mark, trying to show how Jesus fulfilled OT verses so the reader didn't have to go back to a separate scroll to check the wording. Look at what material was added to Mark by Matthew, and the case for the author being anyone who actually heard Jesus speak disappears entirely. No, this book is a Church lady doing PR for her own beliefs, not an insightful, unbiased account by a hard-nosed attorney.

Rating:
Summary: I Heard A Review on National Public Radio
Review: My first hearing of the author was on National Public Radio where this book was reviewed. The author answered the questions and did an excellent review that piqued my interest and I bought the book. I consider it one of my better books with great attestations and notes, scholarly while well-written, with ample end notes for further research into collateral sources that are up to the minutes, so to speak.

Rating:
Summary: Careful, unbiased reasoning with clear explanations
Review: The author has carefully laid out the case for the truth of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The argument is clear, unemotional, and backed by a great deal of evidence presented simply. As the author points out, not everyone has the gift of faith; some people need more help to believe, and she has shared the results of her own search in order to help them in their own investigation.

Rating:
Summary: Very good defense of Christian faith
Review: This book effectively uses legal reasoning to establish the evidence for the pivotal event of Christianity -- the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The author marshalls the facts in a compelling and convincing way. Anyone looking for a thorough presentation of the historical evidence for Jesus should also read "The Case for Christ," available , which builds a powerful and airtight case for Jesus Christ being God's unique Son. Both of these books should be read by any Christian who wants to strengthen his or her faith and by any skeptic who wants a responsible defense of the reality of Christianity.

Rating:
Summary: Faith - Not Fact
Review: This book was given to me by my mother. I was skeptical when she gave me the book, mainly because she believes in crystal power, grounding herself to the Earth, and countless other foolish beliefs. I promised her that I would read the book, which I did.

As a science person, I can say that this book bears almost no scientific proof. In fact, the science that is presented is not what I would consider science that is based on reproducible evidence, but what I would call science of feeling and fallacies.
Although you may be able to convince a scientifically illiterate jury that circumstantial evidence is fact, we must remember if something is considered scientific fact, then it must be reproducible and have the general condenses of the scientific community. Michael Behe, a scientist, is part of the suggested reading. Michael Behe is not in the majority. In fact, he is in the .2% minority of biochemist. 99.8% of biochemist disagree with Michael Behe. You would never know this from reading this book. It would be interesting if the "scientific proof" was run past the American Chemical Society or the American Physical Society or any other science based organization. Many non-scientists think that scientist are skeptical just for the sake of being skeptical. This is not true. Even basic high school laboratory excercises can show that, although something is logical, that does not make it correct. On simple example: Aristotle said that heavier objects fall faster than light objects because they want to get to their natural resting place more than light objects. This statement sounds logical, but is false. A cannonball and an orange fall at the same rate. Logical arguments are persuasive, but are alone, not fact.

One last comment, O.J. Simpson's DNA was found at the crime scene, presented to a jury, and the jury refused the evidence due to ignorance about DNA. Ignorance is not evidence, nor is lack of evidence evidence.

Rating:
Summary: Good book, but...
Review: This is a good book that examines all the aspects that support the theory, but as far as I'm concerned, the author misses the whole point by miles.

Let me give an example. I am fluent in Arabic, and I have read several books that extensively and convincingly give all the proofs that Islam could ever get. I'm talking historical, scientific, and philosophical. Millions of people believe that. I'm sure Judaism and other religions have fine authors and researchers that do the same for their religions.

One should stop and ask oneself: Why would a perfect God do that to us? Why would he put person A in China, and have him/her raised in that culture and read all the extensive evidence that supports that religion, and person B in Arabia, and so on? Is God such a silly being that religions make Him to be, all obscure and indirect and exclusive? Did the Perfect Creator of the universe send his message to a man called Mohammad, or Jesus, or whatever, thousands of years ago in ancient cultures EXCLUSIVELY, and then let millions of people in other cultures and times stumble in the darkness solving riddles trying to find the truth by reading books such as this, or books like the Koran and the Bible? I believe in a God that can do better than that!

I've searched a lot, and put different faiths and religions on trial and tortured my mind to find the truth. I reject all of the alleged revelations, because one of the characteristics of God's perfection is inclusiveness. He doesn't send truth or salvation to a group of people and leave the rest of humanity out in the dark, some of which get the message second-hand (along with many other alleged messages), and others with nothing at all. This book ultimately proves nothing then. It's a matter of logic.