Who moved the stone? (Frank Morison)

Read as part of a church book club.

Have to admit that I don’t really enjoy the book, in its english or chinese (translated) version. Whatever Lee Strobel said about the book being used by God to bring him into His kingdom (and I give thanks for that), it didn’t work for me. The first half about events leading to the cruxificion (what was Jesus doing at the Garden of Gethsemane? Why did he wait that long? He led himself into the trial, without his cooperation the prosecution could not have succeeded…) seemed to be so… du-uh. Obvious, wouldn’t it have struck anyone as obvious that the whole narrative shows Jesus playing into the scheme? Perhaps the best parts I gleaned from the first few chapters were that Jesus had initially been staying at Bethany at Mary and Martha’s and was probably due that evening back again, so that his delay at Gethsemane would have been a great cause of concern and bewilderment for his sleepy disciples. Secondly, that according to strict Jewish laws a large case involving a human life ought not to be tried in the middle of the night, so the Jewish authorities (Caiaphas and gang) were toe-lining the entire process. No wonder they had to approach Pontius Pilate for his cooperation, since by Roman authority they could eventually seal the deal and get Jesus crucified. Pilate apparently is a man of fiery temper and great stubborness, and his reluctance to deal with Jesus was an exception, not the norm, and worth questioning – so why did he not swiftly put Jesus up on the cross? After all, what is one more human life on the cross to the many innocents that could have been crucified and subject to all manner of torture under the cruel Roman regime? Morison’s answer, if I remember correctly, seemed to be that his wife Claudia had sent him a note saying he was to have nothing to do with this man. So Pilate was hen-pecked? I don’t know. Or was he mystical? I’ve seen enough intellectuals reverently lifting joss sticks and offerings to statues that I can understand that being an official does not exclude flights of mysticism that are seemingly incompatible with a rational mind. My own problems are not really with why he delayed – after all, it is a human life, people do have consciences – my problem is with why he eventually went along with the crowd and crucified Christ. Because he was anxious to appease the Jews and because he was afraid of being denounced as not being a friend of Caesar’s? Come on. What is one ‘insignificant’ maverick crying that he is the king of the Jews going to be a threat to Ceasar’s place on the throne, and if Pilate could ruthlessly execute/crucify so many Jews in the past for whatever (there was an average of one cruxificion per day, it seemed), why should he care so much about appeasing Jews? Despite washing his hands symbolically off the matter, he went along anyway. Befuddling.

The part about the resurrection was a more engaging read. Morison refutes several alternative hypotheses to the gospel narrative that Jesus rose from the dead. Perhaps the part that I agree with mostly is that these hypotheses are not in accord with the striking omission of any historical evidence to show that the tomb of Jesus was not in fact empty after three days. No one seems to have raised any objections, no one has found his remains elsewhere, no one has asserted that his remains are still in the tomb or that the tomb is in any way intact. Very interesting in light of the fact that Caiaphas must have been hopping mad at the assertion by the bandy group of followers Christ had, whom he had effectively put to death a while earlier.

Morison goes on to say that by the personal testimony of the disciples themselves at the Feast of Weeks, some seven weeks after Jesus’ resurrection, points to the historical authenticity of the narrative. For no one would have believed the motley gang of, seriously, questionable faith and even intelligence, would have been so emboldened by anything short of solid truth in order to testify in front of 3000 people at the Pentacost. My personal opinion is that it is not hard for one to say that Peter would have firmly believed, after being taught a valuable lesson about staying faithful to the Master after the cock had crowed three times, whether it was truth or no, simply because he believed his rabbi’s words that the Lord would resurrect himself. Although I do not find the disciples’ faith part entirely persuasive (forgive me for my harsh standards), I am inclined to feel that the ‘bumbling recruits’, the disciples, would never have been a gang brave enough to stand in front of a crowd on a jovial, festive and large-scale occasion giving a public announcement about a controversy, and a pretty ridiculous one at that (that so-and-so had RISEN FROM THE DEAD), had it not been true. Just imagining Peter standing on the steps of a podium, eyes bright with anticipation and passion, loudly proclaiming the fanatical truth got me laughing.

Other parts about the testimony of the great stone, the testimony of Paul, at first a gentle-bred, sceptic Jew who turned to Christianity at a time when the grave was still open to scrutiny, was persuasive. I particularly like Morison’s way of reasoning that the reason why it was Jerusalem and not Galilee that experienced the great conversion of 3000 during the Pentecost has probably much to do with the fact that the empty grave was in such close proximity to Jerusalem that the truth could be so definitely verified. I also like the idea that there has not been any strong argument levelled against the early Christians suggesting that the tomb was NOT empty shows that the allegation that the tomb was indeed empty was an established fact that no one dared refute. That is telling enough. As icing on the cake Morison’s way of suggesting that the reason why the women’s testimony was not invoked by Peter as he preached openly on Pentacost of the resurrection and salvation had to do with the fact that 1) it was shadowy to allege that the women trespassed private property to get to the body of Christ, and may work against their favour by allowing the dissenters to insinuate that the disciples stole the body at the time it was supposed to have risen, and 2) because the open grave was an established fact that no one needed to buttress by any more rhetoric, goes down well with me. I think it cements the strong evidence for the resurrection of Christ through the testimony of the open grave.

The last few chapters were revolutionary and whilst I cannot exactly find fault with them I would be more cautious in accepting them. To suggest that Mary Magdalene and the rest of the women who went to the tomb that fateful morning saw, not an angel, but another living human being who got to the tomb of the risen Jesus before them, is probably seldom heard of. The reasons Morison uses to support this hypothesis of his are based on inductive reasoning and a slightly tenable piece of evidence from the Gospel of the Hebrews (I should think) which has a later part about the tomb episode that is corroborated by one of the Gospels (can’t remember which). The Gospel of the Hebrews states that the man the women saw was ‘the servant of the priest’. However telling, I consider it wise to suspend judgment since the authenticity of this account is not verified by other sources, and the fact that the part of the Gospel of the Hebrews that immediately follows is verified by an authoritative gospel, does not entail the truth of this preceding statement.