THE FOLLOWING MORNING, WILL PULLED INTO the courthouse, tired but confident. He had worked on the case until three A.M., poring over his cross-examination notes, and reviewing the points made by Sherman in his opening statement. Much like a military conflict, a trial takes on a fluid, ever-changing topography. Despite exacting preparation, and voluminous discovery, and disclosure of facts by both sides, the real face of the battle never becomes evident until the trial itself. Will Chambers knew that the visage of a case—its character and essence—only becomes clear when the background and personality of the jury is known, and the opening strategy of the opponent is disclosed. With that information now in hand, Will had begun his usual exhausting routine of resurveying the prospective battleground of the case, all over again, in preparation for each day.
At the start of the second day, Sherman’s first witness was Dr. Kurt Jorgenson, an associate in Reichstad’s research center. Jorgenson was an expert in ancient papyrus fragments, especially those of Middle Eastern origin.
Under Sherman’s friendly, casual questioning, the scientist gave a lively but highly detailed description of what papyrus was, producing several large diagrams and photographs as he talked.
Jorgenson described papyrus as a plant found in Egypt, parts of Ethiopia, and—notably—in the Jordan River valley in Israel. In ancient times the plant was used to create a form of writing paper; this was done by slicing it into thin layers, and then placing other layers of material crosswise over it. These strips were then moistened, pressed, and stretched out to dry, Finally, the sheets were scraped to a smooth finish with a sharp object, and fashioned into rolls. He then gave a long history of the different uses of papyrus by ancient peoples, including the Egyptians, the Romans, the Greeks, and the first-century Jews in “ancient Palestine,” his nomenclature for the regions of the Middle East, and particularly that region centering at Jerusalem.
Most juries find such technical testimony—particularly at the very opening of the case—to be dry, dull, and occasionally confusing. In this case, however, Will noticed that every member of the jury was attentive, and some members were even transfixed during Jorgenson’s testimony.
Then Jorgenson moved into his involvement in the 7QA analysis. He described how, at Dr. Reichstad’s request, he had become part of the team of experts to evaluate the tiny papyrus fragment.
Sherman had anticipated Will Chamber’s main theory of defense, and had decided to meet it head on.
“Now, you were aware that the 7QA fragment had an irregular shape?”
“Yes, that was very obvious during my examination.”
“Is that unusual when it comes to fragments of documents two thousand years old?”
“Oh, not at all,” Jorgenson noted confidently. “In fact, almost all such fragments tend to be partially destroyed, frayed, disintegrated, torn, water-stained, you name it and they come that way. Our job is to reconstruct, in a scientifically valid way, what the fragment looked like, and what it said, in its original form. In this case, it was obvious that 7QA was torn along the edges. That was not unique. That happens very often.”
“So the fact that 7QA was ripped or torn—how would that have affected Dr. Reichstad’s ability to reach conclusive findings about it?”
“It would have no effect. Let me make a comparison,” Jorgenson offered, with a smile. “When the boy comes in to school and says ‘Teacher, I finished my paper, and it was wonderful and I deserve an A-plus, but I can’t show it to you because my dog ate it,’ we all view that very suspiciously. But in the study of ancient papyrus writings—sometimes parts of a fragment really have been eaten by dogs. Why, I can even tell you stories about ancient fragments that were chewed up by wild hyenas!”
The jury smiled at this, and a few members laughed along with Dr. Jorgenson.
Sherman then had his expert witness recount the process of matching 7QA with 7QB, and Jorgenson described his confidence that they were, originally, part of the same piece of papyrus. Finally the scholar addressed the big issue in the case.
“I believe, unequivocally, that the quality of the 7QA and 7QB fragments are outstanding. Further, that they spell out, in the Koine Greek language, the facts surrounding the burial of a male individual known as Jesus of Nazareth, together with the fact that this particular corpse was not removed from the tomb—and therefore certainly did not stand up and walk out three days later. Lastly, I firmly believe that this fragment was written around the time of the death of Jesus, and that it was written in the area of Jerusalem by someone who purports to be an eyewitness. It is near-perfect evidence, historically and archaeologically, of the nonresurrection of Jesus.”
“And your conclusions confirm Dr. Reichstad’s published conclusions about 7QA?”
“Absolutely.”
“Did you expect some religious/cultural backlash to your 7QA discovery?”
“Of course. But nothing like what Angus MacCameron published. That was just plain shocking.”
“Was Dr. Reichstad guilty of either deception, or scientific malpractice—as MacCameron wrote—regarding his findings on the 7QA fragment?”
“Absolutely not. MacCameron’s allegations about Dr. Reichstad were—and are—totally unfounded. And Dr. Reichstad’s conclusions about 7QA are absolutely correct.”
Sherman rested his direct examination. He sat down at his counsel table full of smiling legal associates and a radiant client.
Will walked to the podium, introduced himself to the witness with a smile, and then began his cross-examination with a seemingly minor point.
“You said that it is not unusual at all for a fragment to be torn along the edges like the 7QA fragment was. Do you remember that?”
“I’m not sure that is what I actually said.”
“Well,” Will said, “I have it right here in my notes. You said, and I quote, that it ‘happens very often’ in the case of ancient fragments. Now, do you want me to have the court reporter read back your testimony?”
“Not necessary,” Jorgenson noted confidently, “I will accept your statement as accurate.”
“So, tell me, how many other ancient papyrus fragments have you examined in your professional experience?”
“Oh my, hundreds—thousands—I suppose.”
“And how many had irregular edges, and showed evidence of having been torn by something?”
“Many. Many. Too many to count.”
“Now you agree with me, that 7QA, when examined microscopically, is shown to have been scored with a hard, metallic, sharp instrument—probably a razor blade or a artist’s-type blade—and then torn along the scores?”
“Yes, that would appear to be the case.”
“Scored with the kind of blade that is tempered steel?”
“Probably.”
“The kind of blade that is found only in the twentieth or twenty-first century?”
“Oh, I might argue a little with your dating—but—yes, it was scored with a blade of recent origin.”
“So tell me, Doctor, exactly how many ancient fragments have you rendered conclusive opinions upon, when their edges show signs of having been removed from another fragment with the use of a modern knife?”
Sherman was on his feet objecting, but Judge Kaye overruled him.
Jorgenson was deep in thought, and said he had forgotten the question and wanted it re-read.
After the court reporter had finished reading the question, Jorgenson tried to avoid the answer.
“I really don’t understand the question,” Jorgenson replied. “It doesn’t make any sense.”
“Then let’s see what you don’t understand,” Will responded firmly. “Do you know what ‘ancient fragments’ are?”
“Of course.”
“Do you know what I mean by ‘conclusive opinions’?”
“I suppose.”
“How about my reference to the ‘edges’ of a fragment having shown signs of having been ‘removed from another fragment’—any problem understanding that?”
“Well, now you’re being a little ridiculous,” Jorgenson responded, feeling the noose starting to tighten.
“Perhaps you were thrown by my use of the unusual phrase ‘modern knife’—do you have a problem understanding what a ‘modern knife’ is?”
Jorgenson paused. His smile was gone. There was a mild look of contempt on his face.
“I don’t know.”
“Is it a fact that the only ancient fragment about which you were willing to render a conclusive opinion regarding its origin and its meaning, when the edges of such a fragment show that it was in fact tampered with and torn apart by someone very recently—the only case of such a thing, is the 7QA fragment? Is that correct?”
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘tampered with.’”
“Well,” Will continued, “what if an antiquities dealer by the name of Azid in Bethlehem, Israel, takes an ancient fragment, for whatever reason, and uses a modern knife to score it and then tears it into three smaller pieces, and sells you only one of the pieces. Would you consider that ‘tampered with’?”
“I suppose I would.”
“Would that be a reliable way to conduct your scientific evaluation—to base it on a piece of papyrus that had been tampered with?”
“7QA was not tampered with.”
“But it had been removed from the rest of the fragment?”
“Yes.”
“With the use of a modern knife—by someone who had the fragment before Dr. Reichstad did?”
“Yes.”
“You don’t call that ‘tampered with’?”
There was a pause.
“I don’t know.”
“Let’s change gears, Doctor. How important is ‘context’ in the matter of evaluating the meaning of an ancient fragment?”
“Define ‘context,’” Jorgenson shot back.
“Well, let’s define it the same way you used it last month in the Journal of Ancient West Asian Archaeology, where you wrote, and I quote, ‘The physical context of an ancient papyrus fragment is always essential in order to fully understand it.’”
“Yes. I wrote that. And I agree with what I wrote.”
“Is the best ‘context’ for understanding an ancient fragment always a complete fragment; one that is of superior quality in its written characters, and bears no evidence of missing pieces?”
“Yes, that is optimal.”
“Have you ever, in your career, been forced to withhold final conclusions about an ancient fragment because the context was incomplete? Such as poor quality of the written characters, or too much destruction by the natural elements, or the absence of too much of the adjacent writing?”
“Yes, quite often.”
“But you did not withhold your final conclusions here. You did not withhold your absolute confidence in the validity of Dr. Reichstad’s opinions—even though at the time you didn’t have 7QB, and certainly did not have the still-missing ‘X fragment’—and even though you and Dr. Reichstad knew that the other missing pieces that had been torn away might still be out there somewhere?”
“Yes, Dr. Reichstad and I felt we could still make absolute and final conclusions about 7QA.”
“Then let’s evaluate why that is, Doctor.”
Now Will moved away from the podium slightly so he could stand directly in front of the witness.
“Is it a fact that you, and Dr. Reichstad, are both members of an organization called ‘Jesus Quest for the 21st Century’?”
“Yes, that’s right. A very esteemed and forward-thinking group of New Testament and antiquities scholars.”
“About thirty-nine different scholars?”
“Yes, that sounds about right.”
“You are familiar with their writings?”
“Yes. I consider them my colleagues.”
“How many have ever written or published any professional article that expresses even the most theoretical belief in the possibility that Jesus of Nazareth may have been physically resurrected?”
“I have not memorized their writings.”
“I have them all right here, in several notebooks,” Will said. “Do you wish to have me go through them, one by one?”
Judge Kaye interrupted, “Oh pray no, Mr. Chambers, let’s not do that.”
Then the judge turned toward Dr. Jorgenson and addressed the witness directly, leaning back in his large chair and scratching the top of his head as he spoke.
“Doctor, I notice in your credentials that you still do some university teaching. I trust that when your students ask you a question you give them a more direct answer than you are doing right now. Just answer the question. Do you know whether any of the members of this organization of which you are a member believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth?”
“Your Honor, we all, as members of this group of scholars, have pledged ourselves to absolute scientific integrity. How could we do that and still cling to the very medieval notion that a man three days dead in the grave suddenly gets up and walks out of his tomb?”
“I think you have answered the question,” Judge Kaye concluded, and he nodded to Will Chambers to continue.
“Are you employed by Dr. Reichstad’s research center?”
“Yes.”
“Do you know what the going salary rate is, in America, for experts in papyrology, with your experience and background?”
“I have a pretty good idea.”
“Are you being paid more than the average?”
“If I can speak frankly, my credentials are better than most scholars in my field. Therefore, I ought to be paid more.”
“Do you consider yourself three times as good as other scholars?”
“Oh, hardly.”
“Yet you get a salary from Dr. Reichstad that is three times the average for a scholar with your background and experience?”
Now Sherman was up with an impassioned objection. “This expert’s salary has nothing to do with this case.”
“I agree, Mr. Chambers,” the judge said, “unless you lay some other foundation.”
Will turned to the witness.
“Were you expected to be here testifying for Dr. Reichstad as part of your employment?”
“You might say that.”
“Are you being paid a separate fee?”
“No.”
“It’s just considered part of your salary?”
“Yes.”
“Is your yearly salary about $500,000?”
Sherman shrieked out his objection again.
“Overruled,” the judge barked out. “Now this is a different ballgame.”
“$500,000?”
“That’s correct.”
“And you have stock options in the research center, which recently became a publicly traded corporation?”
“Yes. Yes. That’s right. This is still America. Land of opportunity.”
“And your stock options are worth perhaps another $500,000?”
“Yes. I guess that is right.”
Will now walked back to the podium to collect his notes. Jorgenson relaxed a bit, thinking the questioning was over.
“Oh, one other matter. Just a technical point, I suppose.”
“Yes,” Jorgenson replied with a manufactured smile.
“Exactly how much would your stock be worth if Dr. Reichstad were to lose this case, and the jury were to find that he committed scientific malpractice—or even worse—scientific fraud? How much would your stock options be worth then?”
Sherman popped up again with an objection that the question asked for “pure speculation.”
The judge permitted the answer, “if the expert could venture an opinion.”
“I suppose the stock might go down.”
“Go down?” Will said with his voice rising. “Wouldn’t it sink like the Titanic? Wouldn’t it disintegrate like the exploding Hindenburg? Wouldn’t your stock option be something akin to a very poorly forged copy of the Mona Lisa?”
“Is that a question, or merely an attempt at creativity, Mr. Chambers?” the judge asked. “I think it is the latter. So, rephrase it.”
“If Dr. Reichstad’s opinions about 7QA are shown to be fraudulent, or recklessly unfounded, as Reverend MacCameron has written, then your stock options become worthless, is that correct?”
There was silence as Dr. Jorgenson glared back.
“That is probably so,” he replied, “but I am not too worried about that happening.”
“Because you did your job well today? You came here and supported your boss, Dr. Reichstad, who pays your salary?”
“Yes, I support Dr. Reichstad.”
“Because you came here and protected your stock options?”
“That’s not why I came here.”
“Because you came here to support the Jesus Quest for the 21st Century in their agenda to disprove the physical resurrection of Jesus?”
“I support that position. I am not ashamed to declare that.”
“Does every person educated in biblical archaeology have the right to take a position, one way or the other, on the issue of whether the evidence supports the resurrection of Jesus?”
“Of course.”
“But you deny to my client, Reverend Angus MacCameron, that exact same right?”
There was a pause, and Jorgenson shifted a little in his chair. At first he parted his lips to answer, but nothing came out.
After a full thirty seconds of silence, Will turned and began walking back to his counsel table.
“That’s all right, Dr. Jorgenson,” Will said in conclusion, “we’ll let the jury answer that one.”