I often receive emails (or posts) from skeptics who contest my trust in the gospel eyewitness accounts given recent studies and articles that challenge the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony, they argue, is “the least reliable form of evidence in a criminal trial”. If this is the case, why should we trust the gospel authors? It’s true that there are several examples of court cases in which jurors trusted a witness for his or her testimony, convicted a defendant, and then later discovered that the witness was mistaken about the testimony. It’s also true that witnesses occasionally lie about their observations! But this has little impact on my decision to trust the gospel writers, because I understand the need that juries have to test eyewitnesses.