Sometimes there is language in a statement which shows us it is most likely a truthful statement. However, most of the time, we deem a statement to be true because it lacks deception. This is why I generally do not post truthful statements. To simply say a statement is true because it doesn't show signs of being deceptive would not be interesting reading. With that said, recently I was asked if I would analyze the resurrection of Jesus Christ. While all four Gospels mention the resurrection, I was asked to examine the account in the Gospel of John chapter 20.

John 20 begins with Mary Magdalene visiting Jesus's tomb and finding the stone had been removed from the entrance to the tomb. She then ran back to tell Peter and another disciple, presumably John, what she had found. They went to tomb and found it was empty. The disciples then returned to where they were staying but Mary stayed at the tomb. Jesus appeared to Mary but she did not recognize him thinking he was the gardener. When Jesus said her name, her eyes were opened and she knew it was Jesus. After a short conversation with Jesus, Mary went and told the disciples she saw the risen Lord. Later, Jesus would appear to the disciples. However, Thomas was not present. Verse 26 tells us that one week later, Jesus again appeared to his disciples this time including Thomas.

As I analyzed John 20, I found language that, as an investigator, would lead me to ask some additional questions to make sure I have the complete picture of what happened. I concluded the author of John 20 was giving a truthful account.

I have a program called Deceptio which analyzes statements for deception. In addition to identifying deceptive language, it also gives a truthfulness rating. You can find it at www.Deceptio.ai. Depending on the type of statement to be analyzed, you can choose from 24 industries with subcategories under each industry. This helps to fine tune the analysis. I ran John 20 through Deceptio using the General Statement Analysis category. Deceptio gave it a truthful rating of 93%.

If you ran a statement through Deceptio that you know is a truthful statement, Deceptio will give it a truthful rating but most likely it will not give it a 100% rating. This is because the program will probably identify language that indicates slight deception or language that should be explored. In the analysis of John 20, Deceptio identified the writer used the word "so" to explain what was happening; "So she came running to Simon Peter." "So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. Both were running." When a person gives an open statement in which they can say anything they want, they usually should only be reporting what happened. Giving a reason for why something happened is considered out-of-bounds. We consider this to be sensitive information. In John 20, we can attribute the sensitivity to the idea Jesus's body was missing. Mary and the two disciples were running to see what had happened.

Deceptio also identified the writer used the word "started" in verse 3; "So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb." The word "started" indicates there was a break in the action. In the statement, "Yesterday, I started to cut the grass" the word "started" lets us know the person didn't finish mowing his yard. In the statement, "I left the bar at 1:00 am and started home" the word "started" indicates the person probably did something after he left the bar and before he arrived at his residence. A better statement would have been to say, "I left the bar at 1:00 am and went home." In John 20, it is possible the two disciples did something else while they were on their way to the tomb. This seems unlikely since verse 4 says, "both were running." The break in the action occurred when they arrived at the tomb.

Here is a screenshot of Deceptio's analysis of John 20. As you will see, there were other keywords Deceptio flagged. Most of these are areas one would want to explore and not areas of deception.

Return to the Famous Cases page