Are the Gospels Hearsay?
From time to time, an enterprising skeptic comes up with a brilliant idea. The argument goes like this: most of the sources we have for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus are, to some
degree, hearsay. That is, we do not have any witnesses for the resurrection alive today. And liberal scholarship has spent three centuries now claiming that none of the gospels were written by
eye witnesses. Anyone who has watched TV knows that hearsay is not admissible. Since the gospels are hearsay, and hearsay is not admissible, the skeptic will argue that we cannot trust the
gospels.
As I have come to expect from skeptics, there is a major flaw in this argument. While, generally speaking hearsay is not admissibile, there are numerous exceptions to this rule. It can
be shown that the gospels fall under several of these exceptions. Even stipulating that all the evidence available is hearsay, there is still plenty of useful – and admissible –
evidence about the life of Jesus.
For this argument, I will refer to the Federal Rules of Evidence. These rules govern
what evidence can be used in United States Federal courts. While each state has its own rules, I am using the Federal rules since they are readily available and widely applicable to anyone
living in the United States. In Article VIII, Rule 802 the following rule governs
hearsay:
Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court[...] [Emphasis mine]
In other words, as our skeptical friend claims, hearsay is generally not admissible. Of course, he has forgotten the second half of the Hearsay rule, which is italicized. Several of these
exceptions seem to apply to the New Testament documents.
The first, and most obvious exception, is the following (found in Article VIII, Rule
803):
Statements in ancient documents. Statements in a document in existence twenty years or more the authenticity of which is established.
Since the gospels are at least 1800 years old, it would seem they qualify. The gospels, if authentic, are admissible under the hearsay rule! Unfortunately, the skeptic will respond with the claim
that they are not "authentic" (it is not immediately clear what "authentic" would mean in this context.) So, all we have done is shift the disagreement.
More promising is Article VIII, Rule 804, which admits:
(3) Statement against interest. A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant
to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless
believing it to be true.
In order to understand how this applies, we must place ourselves in the world of the first century. In the first century, Christianity was a persecuted religious minority. You can hardly read the
New Testament without noticing the persecution. The earliest Christians were persecuted by the Jews (Acts 4:1-22, 5:17-42, 6:8-8:3, Galatians 8:13-14, Phillipians 3:6, and many others.) Jewish
persecution of the early church is also described in Josephus' Antiquities 20.9.1. Similarly, the church was persecuted extensively
under the Romans and other pagan authorities – Tacitus (a hostile witness) tells us that the Christians were accused of setting fire to Rome in 65CE. According to legend, eleven of
the twelve disciples were executed for spreading the gospels. All Jews were expelled from Rome in 49 (early on, Christians were considered to be Jews outside of the province of Judea.) The Romans
saw Jesus as a pretender to the Jewish throne which they had given to the Herods and a potential leader of yet another Jewish rebellion. To be identified as his follower was dangerous.
Persecution is one of the most firmly established facts about the early church.
Thus, writing about Jesus was a statement against interest, and the gospels are admissible even if they are hearsay. And, once again, our skeptical friend is denied an easy escape from
the evidence. I find it intensely fascinating that so many skeptics choose to ignore the only evidence available about the life of Jesus rather than examine it. The legal
system has long recognized that a simple "no way to hearsay" is not the best
way to discover truth - I would suggest that everyone do the same.