The Gospel is a narration, a news, that is conveyed by a very exact and specific form of evidence: eye-witness testimony. Under the Mosaic Law, as well as any modern law, any report of a sequence of events can be established as a fact upon the testimony of two or three witnesses. One does not need to have the signature of 500 or 1000 or famous historians or authors on a contract or a marriage document, for instance. Two to three witnesses would suffice.

It is, however, necessary that the witnesses are true and reliable; also, they must agree with each other on the fact to be established. Therefore, cross-examination of witnesses is done.

The apostles were certainly cross-examined, tried, but refused to deny Christ even under torture, as Luke recounts in Acts. Even if Acts were ignored, simple logic suggests that the Jews who crucified Jesus would not have remained silent if they saw the exponential growth of Christianity based on the testimony of simple fishermen, former taxcollectors, and like persons; on the contrary, they would have done everything to put a brake on Christianity through political and polemical opposition. Their failure points to the fact that the apostolic evidence for the Gospel was stronger than all opposition to it put together.

Obviously, the witnesses stood all tests and passed them. They neither desired money nor power; they did what they believed was right and for the sake of truth. If they were called upon to stand in a court of trial today and give their testimony upon oath, it would be absurd if someone would cancel off their statements saying their statement was incredible.

Of course, one might argue that any testimony that is scientifically impossible should not be accepted as reliable; however, that already assumes what scientific possibility is, e.g. with regard to the question of the resurrection of Christ. The fact is that if empirical evidence or a phenomenon challenges the so-called established notions of science, such notions must be questioned. Also, why must it be supposed that everything has to fall under the scope of science or “human comprehensibility”? Can everything be comprehensible? I suppose philosophically not.