By Fr Trevor D’Souza, OFM
When we read the gospel accounts of the resurrection event we are left with more questions than answers. A basic question: is the resurrection of Jesus real or fake? We have two groups of people reporting, one the apostles and disciples of Jesus and two, the guards who were placed to secure the tomb of Jesus (Mt 27:62-66).
In his homily, Fr Michael Anand, OFM, helped us to examine this reality from the legal perspective. According to law, any fact (word or action) must be authenticated by verifiable proof and evidence, which can be either oral or written. The value of oral evidence will be weighed as follows: is it an eye-witness account? (that is, a witness who says who says he saw it); second, by hearing (a witness who says he heard it); third, by sense and perception (a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner); and fourth, by opinion or grounds on which an opinion is held (a witness who holds such opinion).
What is the value of the evidence of Mary Magdalene and some women who were the first to see the empty tomb, the stone rolled away? (Mt 28, Jn 20), and then Peter and John who also saw the empty tomb, the cloths? (Jn 20). What is the evidence of the other apostles and disciples of Jesus who testified to the resurrection of Jesus?
One thing is clear, there were no eye-witness to the event of the resurrection. We have no human person who came forward and said, “I have seen Jesus rise from the dead, I was present when the event happened”.
So the evidence of the disciples and apostles is secondary and based on other facts and events which they saw (eye-witnesses); of what they heard and sensed and perceived. Based on their experiences, personal and reported, they arrived at plausible conclusions that Jesus had in fact risen, just like he said.
Though they did not see the resurrection happen, they were eye-witnesses that the stone was not in its place, that the cloths wrapped around Jesus were lying there, and they saw the tomb empty. Further they were eye-witnesses to the resurrected person of Jesus: who appeared to them (Mary Magdalene saw him and thought he was the gardener), who spoke to them (I give you peace), showed them his hands and side (Thomas and the apostles), walked alongside with them (on the road to Emmaus), ate with them (Jn 21) and ascended before their eyes to heaven (Mk 16).
Why should we consider the reports of the apostles and disciples as credible?
Let us put the question in the reverse, why should we NOT consider their reports and evidence as credible? Was there some benefit (monetary, status, position, or anything else) that would accrue to them by making up these stories? On the other hand, only persecution and death was awaiting them!!!
Then we have the other reports of the “guards” who were placed at the tomb of Jesus at the explicit request of the Pharisees and the consent of Pilate (Mt 27:62ff). So they “made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard” (Mt 27:66). The guards reported thus: ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ (Mt 28:13).
Why should we not consider the reports of the guards as credible?
The report of the guards is anything but credible for these reasons, one, guards are meant to be alert and be awake. These guards confess to be asleep on duty! Secondly, if they were asleep, how did they know that the disciples came and stole his body? An inner contradiction in their report. Thirdly, the stone was large and heavy and could not be rolled away without making any noise. Fourthly, it is said that they were bribed by the Pharisees to give this report. This can be believed, because the Pharisees also gave money to Judas to betray Jesus.
This insight from the civil law on how to evaluate evidence helps us to evaluate the happenings and reports of the disciples, vis-à-vis the guards. While one is real news, the other turns out to be fake news. The disciples and apostles become “witnesses” while the guards fade away as false reporters.