The Cumulative Weight of Circumstantial Evidence

[Randy_Carson]

Direct evidence (ie, eyewitness testimony) of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection is no longer available since all of those who saw Jesus personally died long ago. Therefore, we are left with indirect or circumstantial evidence.

Is the cumulative weight of circumstantial evidence sufficient to bring about conviction with regard to the claims of Christianity?

 

[powerofk]

Here’s the thing - for those who already believe, even the smallest amount of evidence is enough. For those who refuse to believe, no amount of evidence would be sufficient - they would refuse to believe even if they personally saw the risen Jesus with their own eyes.

But, see, here’s the thing: we know that Jesus’s tomb was found empty, with the stone rolled back, on the third day (Sunday), and that His corpse was never found. As such, there are only two possibilities. Either a Divine Miracle occured, in which Jesus rose from the dead, or the body was stolen and moved to somewhere where it would never be found. Really, those are the only two possiblities. There is no third possibility.

Now, here’s the thing: Jesus’s disciples would have had motive to remove the body. But it’s highly unlikely (if not nearly impossible) that they would have had the opportunity. There was a Roman guard in front of the tomb, and the stone required several men to move. Even if Jesus’s disciples assembled a large enough group to move the stone, it would have been noticed - and they would have been killed on sight.

The other people who could have stolen the body are Caiaphas and Pilate. But, had they stolen the body, it would have been to demonstrate to all that Jesus was still dead, and they would have displayed the body for all to see. This did not happen.

The only alternative is that a Divine Miracle occured, and Jesus really did rise from the dead. Those who do not believe would consider this impossible. Yet, for us that do believe, it is the only scenario that makes sense.

 

[AyJSimon]

Direct evidence (ie, eyewitness testimony) of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection is no longer available since all of those who saw Jesus personally died long ago. Therefore, we are left with indirect or circumstantial evidence.

Is the cumulative weight of circumstantial evidence sufficient to bring about conviction with regard to the claims of Christianity?

No.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Direct evidence (ie, eyewitness testimony) of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection is no longer available since all of those who saw Jesus personally died long ago. Therefore, we are left with indirect or circumstantial evidence.

Is the cumulative weight of circumstantial evidence sufficient to bring about conviction with regard to the claims of Christianity?

The accounts of the life of Jesus were written close enough to it and were pretty much in agreement. You could say the same about any historian like Josephus or Herodotus. But history is not the crucial issue. It is true when you have eyes of faith, everything in the Bible seems different than when not having them.

 

[oldcelt]

Direct evidence (ie, eyewitness testimony) of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection is no longer available since all of those who saw Jesus personally died long ago. Therefore, we are left with indirect or circumstantial evidence.

Is the cumulative weight of circumstantial evidence sufficient to bring about conviction with regard to the claims of Christianity?

I’m would have to say no. The sources are contradictory…written well after the death of Jesus…and the reference in Josephus’ history so often cited as a non-Christian proof, is quite possibly even likely, a forgery.

 

[TarkanAttila]

However, oldcelt, Suetonius and Tacitus make references to the existence of Christians, around the same time as the later parts of the New Testament (actually, Suetonius was earlier). And although many of the oft-used citations from Josephus are considered spurious, there is one reference to James, the brother of Jesus - “who was called Christ” - by him that is absolutely undisputed.

More importantly, the letters of Paul already assume the Resurrection, and even build on it. They also, along with all four gospels, speak of twelve confidants of Jesus - the Apostles. (And of course Paul claims there were over 500 living witnesses to the Resurrected Christ.) Anyone could have asked the eleven original Apostles what happened - unless you’d like to assert they also were fictional. Anyone could have coerced them to shut up if they had been lying. And threats were made on their lives. All of them died martyrs, at least according to tradition. Is that also part of a fictional narrative?

 

[AKDee]

I would say yes. If you haven’t read it, consider reading “The Case for Christ” which was written by a former atheist investigative journalist who used his investigative skills to learn about Christ. It led him to become a believer, although I think he’s protestant but it doesn’t negate the value of what he learned. He presents it in a very straightforward, matter of fact sort of way.

 

[Joy2day]

Well logically for someone who wasnt there or had personally seen Jesus rise, they might say: ‘that the circumstantial evidence is that a group of His followers overpowered the guards, rolled back the stone & took the body, using it to claim that He rose from the dead.
They then proceeded to bribe a lot of others to go along with this story, to ensure they didnt ‘lose face’ to the pharisees & jews because of their following & belief in Him. That surely is the only logical explanation, & it is supported by all the circumstantial evidence.’

 

[Latias]

This is also a good legal question. Aaron Hernandez was mostly convicted on circumstantial evidence. In my opinion, the best evidence that he was at the murder scene was based on cell phone records and his surveillance video showing that he arrived at his house minutes after the homicide of Odin Lloyd. There does not seem to be adequate evidence of first degree murder. I do not think the other evidence was that powerful, but Hernandez did lie to Robert Kraft. I just think that the evidence did not warrant a conviction for first degree murder.

---

But in the case of the gospels, one just has testimony and tradition, as opposed to cell phone records and other electronic media.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Direct evidence (ie, eyewitness testimony) of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection is no longer available since all of those who saw Jesus personally died long ago. Therefore, we are left with indirect or circumstantial evidence.

Is the cumulative weight of circumstantial evidence sufficient to bring about conviction with regard to the claims of Christianity?

I think the easiest way to check is to imagine a modern-day Resurrection claim coming out of someplace like rural India. What sort of evidence would you personally require before you believed some poor farmer in a 3rd world country had died and come back to life? Then compare the Jesus-evidence to that standard.

Imagine a tabloid sent a reporter to the scene and came out with a report. It contained numerous quotes from people in the village attesting to or having claimed to witness the Ressurection event. Would that alone be enough evidence for you to be certain?

Alternatively, imagine that the people of the village decided to go out into the world and tell people about what they saw. You went to a speech given by one of the people in the village and heard his testimony about the event. Would that be enough for you to be certain?

Imagine instead that a state-owned newspaper had published a story about the remarkable and selfless charitable works that a small village was performing in the name of someone they claimed had been resurrected, but didn’t contain enough information to conclusively identify the village or individual. Would that be enough evidence for you to be certain?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think the easiest way to check is to imagine a modern-day Resurrection claim coming out of someplace like rural India. What sort of evidence would you personally require before you believed some poor farmer in a 3rd world country had died and come back to life? Then compare the Jesus-evidence to that standard.

Imagine a tabloid sent a reporter to the scene and came out with a report. It contained numerous quotes from people in the village attesting to or having claimed to witness the Ressurection event. Would that alone be enough evidence for you to be certain?

Alternatively, imagine that the people of the village decided to go out into the world and tell people about what they saw. You went to a speech given by one of the people in the village and heard his testimony about the event. Would that be enough for you to be certain?

Imagine instead that a state-owned newspaper had published a story about the remarkable and selfless charitable works that a small village was performing in the name of someone they claimed had been resurrected, but didn’t contain enough information to conclusively identify the village or individual. Would that be enough evidence for you to be certain?

If 2 billion people believe in his resurrection 2,000 years from now, that in and of itself might be a compelling reason to give the claim more consideration.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

If 2 billion people believe in his resurrection 2,000 years from now, that in and of itself might be a compelling reason to give the claim more consideration.

It certainly would, if you lived in the 2000 year future. At that point it is a “cultural literacy” issue. It’s like if all your friends are talking about the latest sports scores, you should probably have at least a passing knowledge of their game so you aren’t left out of the conversation. If all your friends believe in some ancient ressurection, you should probably have some familiarity with it as well.

But far-future popularity is rather weak evidence for certainty regarding current events. Just because lots of people currently believe Aurthurian legend is loosely based on some real historical king doesn’t mean that there actually was such a king, for example. I think that there would be some merit in looking at the evidence 10, 50, or 100 years into the future, because that is plenty of time for any clear counter-evidence to show up. But I would argue that far-future (>200 years) beliefs are as likely to be misleading as they are to be useful.

 

[Latias]

If 2 billion people believe in his resurrection 2,000 years from now, that in and of itself might be a compelling reason to give the claim more consideration.

Why would that be? What do the number of people have to be with a veracity of a proposition, especially when most of those people are neither personally proximate the event that concerns the veracity of the proposition, have the aptitude or expertise to evaluate the evidence that one could infer the veracity of the proposition, nor the evidence supporting that proposition is incontrovertible.

There more than a billion people who believe Muhammad, alayhi as-salām, is the final prophet and received inspiration from the angel Gabriel.

 

[oldcelt]

However, oldcelt, Suetonius and Tacitus make references to the existence of Christians, around the same time as the later parts of the New Testament (actually, Suetonius was earlier). And although many of the oft-used citations from Josephus are considered spurious, there is one reference to James, the brother of Jesus - “who was called Christ” - by him that is absolutely undisputed.

More importantly, the letters of Paul already assume the Resurrection, and even build on it. They also, along with all four gospels, speak of twelve confidants of Jesus - the Apostles. (And of course Paul claims there were over 500 living witnesses to the Resurrected Christ.) Anyone could have asked the eleven original Apostles what happened - unless you’d like to assert they also were fictional. Anyone could have coerced them to shut up if they had been lying. And threats were made on their lives. All of them died martyrs, at least according to tradition. Is that also part of a fictional narrative?

Disputable tradition. I would be like someone in this day and age saying the they had an epiphany on Interstate 75 on the way to Atlanta and saying that Rhett Butler is the savior. Where are the witnesses…what other writings back any of it? None
BTW, the Blessed Mother has a grave near Ephesus…does that deny the Assumption that is celebrated on August 15?

 

[oldcelt]

Why would that be? What do the number of people have to be with a veracity of a proposition, especially when most of those people are neither personally proximate the event that concerns the veracity of the proposition, have the aptitude or expertise to evaluate the evidence that one could infer the veracity of the proposition, nor the evidence supporting that proposition is incontrovertible.

There more than a billion people who believe Muhammad, alayhi as-salām, is the final prophet and received inspiration from the angel Gabriel.

It is not a question of numbers…humans can be remarkable fools. The question lies in sources…other than the bible…who backs the stories? BTW, I apply the same test to all religions.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

If 2 billion people believe in his resurrection 2,000 years from now, that in and of itself might be a compelling reason to give the claim more consideration.

I will point out that you are dodging the question here. Suppose you did know that 2 billion people 2000 years in the future believed some guy in rural India was ressurected on 4/1/2015. Would you consequently be certain that some poor Indian guy was actually ressurected on 4/1/2015?

 

[zamyrabyrd]

I will point out that you are dodging the question here. Suppose you did know that 2 billion people 2000 years in the future believed some guy in rural India was resurrected on 4/1/2015. Would you consequently be certain that some poor Indian guy was actually resurrected on 4/1/2015?

Hinduism admits there is an afterlife. Materialism and mere reason recognize this life alone. From what I heard the Japanese traditionally believe in a spirit world. The collective experience of so many people cannot be dismissed so easily.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Hinduism admits there is an afterlife. Materialism and mere reason recognize this life alone. From what I heard the Japanese traditionally believe in a spirit world. The collective experience of so many people cannot be dismissed so easily.

I was referencing a very specific scenario, not the concept of an afterlife in general:

I think the easiest way to check is to imagine a modern-day Resurrection claim coming out of someplace like rural India. What sort of evidence would you personally require before you believed some poor farmer in a 3rd world country had died and come back to life? Then compare the Jesus-evidence to that standard.

 

[MPat]

I’m would have to say no. The sources are contradictory…written well after the death of Jesus…and the reference in Josephus’ history so often cited as a non-Christian proof, is quite possibly even likely, a forgery.

But the question is not “Can you find some excuse to rule the evidence inadmissible.”. It is “Is the evidence sufficient?”. And even bad evidence needs an explanation. For example, a forgery still needs a motive. And it looks like only the resurrection can explain all existing evidence. Everything else leads to great difficulties.

 

[MPat]

I think the easiest way to check is to imagine a modern-day Resurrection claim coming out of someplace like rural India. What sort of evidence would you personally require before you believed some poor farmer in a 3rd world country had died and come back to life? Then compare the Jesus-evidence to that standard.

Imagine a tabloid sent a reporter to the scene and came out with a report. It contained numerous quotes from people in the village attesting to or having claimed to witness the Ressurection event. Would that alone be enough evidence for you to be certain?

Alternatively, imagine that the people of the village decided to go out into the world and tell people about what they saw. You went to a speech given by one of the people in the village and heard his testimony about the event. Would that be enough for you to be certain?

Imagine instead that a state-owned newspaper had published a story about the remarkable and selfless charitable works that a small village was performing in the name of someone they claimed had been resurrected, but didn’t contain enough information to conclusively identify the village or individual. Would that be enough evidence for you to be certain?

But all those scenarios take only a tiny amount of evidence (for example, you mention no martyrdoms). And it is the nature of circumstantial evidence that many minor pieces add up. Each of them proves little by itself, but all of them together prove much more.

Also, they can work “backwards”. If they demonstrate that people (for example, we) would not believe something like resurrection without adequate evidence, how do you explain the fact that a significant number of people did believe the resurrection proclaimed by apostles? If your demonstration was good enough, that would lead to conclusion that evidence was much closer to being adequate, wouldn’t it?