Reasonable Doubt

Reasonable Doubt: The Bible and the Truth of Easter

When a jury is summoned to hear a criminal case, they are given specific instructions about how to assess the evidence presented to them.

The defendant is innocent until proven guilty—bias must be set aside.
The prosecution carries the burden of proof—they must present evidence to support their charges in a way that removes reasonable doubt.
The defense must create reasonable doubt—it does not have to prove innocence, only that the prosecution’s case is not ironclad.
If there is reasonable doubt, the jury must return an innocent verdict.

Now, imagine you are the jury in the greatest trial of all time—the truth of the Bible and, by extension, the resurrection of Jesus. The secular and academic world has spent centuries trying to disprove the validity of Scripture, particularly the accounts of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Their argument? The Bible cannot be trusted because its accounts were written years after the events occurred—long enough, they say, for details to be manipulated.

But let’s apply the courtroom standard: does the evidence they present remove reasonable doubt? Or does the case for Scripture’s reliability stand firm?

The Burden of Proof: How History is Written

It is true that the Bible was written at a time when same-day reporting did not exist. However, history is often recorded long after events occur, and yet, those records are still trusted. Consider these examples:

Roman Emperor Tiberius (died in 37 AD) – The primary biography of his life was not written until 112 AD, 75 years later.
Alexander the Great (died in 323 BC) – The earliest recorded biography dates to 400 years after his death.
Plato and Aristotle (lived in the 4th century BC) – Their teachings were compiled hundreds of years later.

Despite these gaps, historians trust these sources without question. Yet, when it comes to the Bible—written significantly closer to the events it describes—skepticism arises. Is that fair?

The Timeline of the New Testament

To see how close biblical accounts are to the life of Jesus, let’s examine Acts, Luke, and Mark:

Acts (Written ~62 AD)

Acts was written by Luke, a traveling companion of the apostles who recorded eyewitness accounts. We can date Acts to about 62 AD based on what it does not include:

The Siege of Jerusalem (66-70 AD) – A catastrophic event for Jews and Christians alike, yet Acts never mentions it.
The Nero Persecution (64 AD) – This brutal crackdown on Christians is absent, despite being highly relevant.
The Death of Paul (~64-67 AD) – Since Acts follows Paul’s ministry closely, his execution would likely have been recorded if it had already occurred.

The absence of these events suggests Acts was completed before they happened—around 62 AD, only 30 years after Christ’s resurrection.

Luke (Written ~56 AD)

Luke’s Gospel was written before Acts (Acts 1:1-2 references it). Given that Acts was completed in 62 AD, Luke must have been written earlier, around 56 AD, roughly 25 years after Christ’s resurrection.

Mark (Written ~43 AD, possibly earlier)

The Gospel of Mark, traditionally attributed to John Mark, was based on Peter’s eyewitness testimony. However, in Luke’s Gospel he explains that he used other people’s accounts to help write his own gospel. 88 percent of the events and even wording of the gospel of Mark is found in the gospel of Luke. This means Marks account must have been completed and distributed before the gospel of Luke. With this in mind, scholars date Mark’s Gospel to as early as the mid-40s AD, possibly as early as 38-40 AD:

John Wenham estimates it was written in the mid-40s.
James G. Crossley (a skeptical scholar) suggests it could have been as early as the late 30s.

This means we have written records of Jesus’ life within 10-15 years of His resurrection—an unprecedented timeframe in historical documentation.

What This Means for Easter

Easter is the foundation of Christian faith. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:14, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." If the resurrection did not happen, Christianity crumbles.

But if the Bible is historically reliable—if the resurrection accounts were written by eyewitnesses who staked their lives on their testimony—then Easter is not just a tradition. It is the most significant event in history.

Peter, writing near the end of his life (around 70 AD), reminded the early Christians who faced persecution:

"For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty." (2 Peter 1:16)

Peter was not reciting myths. He was declaring what he had seen. He, along with other apostles, was willing to suffer and die rather than deny the resurrection.

This is why the Bible stands firm despite every attempt to discredit it. The resurrection was not a legend that developed over centuries—it was a real event, recorded by real witnesses, within their own lifetimes.

So this Easter, remember: our faith is not blind. It is built on the testimony of those who saw, heard, and touched the risen Christ (1 John 1:1). The tomb is empty—not because of legend or exaggeration, but because Jesus truly rose from the dead.

And that changes everything.