Customer Reviews

Faith on Trial: An Attorney Analyzes the Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

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.

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.

This is a thorough and convincing presentation of evidence, written by an attorney for presentation to a jury, in court. The questions before the court are: Did a man named Jesus Christ live and die 2000 years ago, and did he, in fact, rise again from the dead? If so, this one fact alone (the resurrection) substantiates Christianity. Eyewitness accounts are presented from the four gospels, but are they legally credible? The lawyer, Pam Ewen, presents substantial corroborating evidence and also opposing testimoniy. You, the reader and jury, make your decision based on the evidence. A great read and, I would think, a fascinating presentation for anyone interested in legal proceedings and judgements.

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.

Pamela Ewen is a lawyer who specializes in Corporate Finance. From reading her book, it's obvious that she doesn't specialize in history or biblical studies. Compare this book to the exceptionally good book by Haim Cohn "The Trial and Death of Jesus" and you'll see how a legal scholar with a biblical studies background handles the same material.

In any event, Ewen's book is so bad it's good. Funny, almost. By her own admission, she finds that the earliest copies of the Gospels date from 325 to 350 AD. She then proceeds to admit these gospels as proof of "eye witness" testimony to Jesus' life. However, as many scholars are aware, almost no one today considers the gospels to be eye-witness accounts, and many people believe that they were written 100 or more years after the fact. She goes on to say that "history teaches that the authors wrote their Gospels at a time when they had absolutely no incentive to be dishonest in relating the events they narrated." (p. 22). What history? Her Sunday school history? Just pick up some recent best sellers (Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" or Jeffrety Butz' "The Brother of Jesus") and you'll see what history has to say about the "honesty" and the "incentives" of the early Gospel writers.

In her list of recommended readings she lists Jack Finegan's book "The archeology of the new testament" which is an excellent book. However, she is probably unaware that this book specifically finds that the Nazareth described in the Gospels didn't exist until 40 years after Jesus died. Hardly support for her arguments. She also quotes from Ian Wilson's "Jesus the Evidence". Has she read that book? Wilson says: "It is clear that the canoncial gospels are not...quite the contemporary eyewitness descriptions that, given the nature of Christianity's claims, we might not unreasonably expect (p. 49)." Even more telling, he writes: "...hard facts concerning Jesus and his life are remarkably hard to come by (p. 54)."

I could go on, but you get the point. This is a completely worthless book.

"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.

As a retired after-43-active-years lawyer, I found "Faith on Trial" very interesting, very well written and very worthwhile.

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.

This book is not what it claims to be. In the Introduction the author suggests that the intention of the book is to offer proof of the testimony in the four Gospels "pertaining to the actual existence of Jesus, his death and resurrection" using Western legal standards and the methods of a court of law. The book turns out to be, however, a somewhat unusual example of Christian apologetics. To be blunt, legal systems are not designed, nor are they intended to be capable of, determining truth. They are designed and used to render opinions and reach verdicts.

Later in the book the author suggests that the appropriate question to be answered is whether it is "more likely than not" that these assertions about Jesus are true. Even with this greatly loosened purpose, this book fails in my opinion. First of all, there is no judge available to determine facts of law. A judge is needed to rule on questions such as whether or not the four Gospels may be presented as evidence. But the author obviously intends the reader to be not only the jury but also the judge. Even so, this approach does not meet a most basic component of our advisarial legal system - opposing counsel. To be even remotely fair an equally well prepared opposing lawyer must be provided. The author states that opposing arguments will be provided when necessary, but let's be fair. A well prepared opposing lawyer would be much more successful at punching holes in the author's arguments than the author does on her own. For example, an outline of the instances in which the four Gospels are inconsistent with each other would raise serious doubts about the reliability of these 'ancient documents'as reliable sources of evidence in a court of law.

The author is absolutely correct in one overarching statement, however, that "there is more to the universe than we understand." But this book does nothing to lessen the amount that we do not understand.

Pamela Binnings Ewen has hit the nail on the head with this excellently written book. Faith On Trial amply proves the authenticity of the 4 Gospels of Jesus Christ. I would highly recommend this book to Christians and non-Christians alike.