An evidentiary analysis of doctor Richard Carrier's objections to the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Abstract

This study examines the writings of a prominent atheist scholar, Doctor Richard Carrier, Ph.D., regarding his view of the resurrection narratives of Jesus Christ as described in the New Testament. In his writings, Carrier questions the veridicality of these resurrection accounts. The main goal of this research project is to distill accepted principles of evidence from established legal precepts in order to determine if Carrier’s views utilize these accepted principles of evidence. Three of Carrier’s contentions against the resurrection of Jesus Christ are analyzed by comparing them with the aforementioned evidentiary principless coming from the Anglo-American/common law tradition. This tradition includes rules/regulations governing the treatment of evidence in legal proceedings that have been in use since the eighteenth century and have long since been accepted in the modern era by countries that employ the Anglo-American common law jurisprudence system. These principles are codified and in use today in the Federal Rules of Evidence and also contained within federal pattern jury instructions both which are used in courts throughout the United States of America. The Federal Rules of Evidence govern the use of evidence in criminal trials and pattern jury instructions are given to jurors in order to educate them on how to interpret evidence they receive for and against criminal defendants. In addition to this analysis, relevant scholarly material to include Christian apologetic literature, and relevant passages of the New Testament are examined to determine if Carrier’s claims regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ are in accord with the aforementioned accepted principles of evidence