Introduction: Solving the Ultimate Cold Case
Welcome to one of the most fascinating parts of your New Testament studies! In this chapter, we are looking at two modern thinkers who tried to solve the mystery of Jesus' resurrection: Frank Morison and Ian Wilson.
Think of this like a 2,000-year-old cold case. For centuries, people have debated whether the resurrection was a physical miracle, a myth, or just a psychological experience for the disciples. This chapter looks at how these two scholars use historical and scientific logic to investigate the evidence. It links directly to your study of the crucifixion and resurrection narratives in Luke’s Gospel.
1. Frank Morison: The Skeptic Who Changed His Mind
Frank Morison was a journalist who originally set out to write a book proving that the resurrection was a myth. He believed that if he applied modern, rational thinking, the story would fall apart. However, as he looked at the evidence, he found it so compelling that he changed his mind! He ended up writing Who Moved the Stone? to support the resurrection instead.
Extract: Chapter 8 "Between Sunset and Dawn"
In this specific extract, Morison focuses on the crucial time between Friday evening (the burial) and Sunday morning (the discovery of the empty tomb). He asks: What happened in those dark hours?
Morison’s Key Arguments:
1. The Logic of the Authorities: Morison argues that both the Roman and Jewish authorities had every reason to keep Jesus in the tomb. If his body disappeared, it would cause a massive religious uprising. Therefore, they would have made the tomb as secure as possible.
2. The "Psychological" Evidence: He looks at the behavior of the people involved. Why were the disciples so terrified on Friday but so brave a few weeks later? Morison argues that only a real, physical event could cause such a total change in personality.
3. The Empty Tomb: Morison focuses on the physical problem of the stone. He argues that the stone was too heavy for one or two people to move quietly. If the disciples had stolen the body, the guards would have noticed. If the authorities had moved the body, they would have produced it later to prove the resurrection was a lie.
Key Takeaway: Morison uses a rational approach. He tries to show that the most "logical" explanation for the empty tomb is that Jesus actually rose from the dead.
2. Ian Wilson: History, Science, and the Enigma
Ian Wilson is a historian who takes a slightly different approach in his book Jesus: The Evidence. While Morison focuses on the logic of the tomb, Wilson looks at the scientific and historical-critical challenges to the resurrection.
Extract: Chapter 10 "Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead?"
Wilson is interested in whether we can find physical or scientific clues for the resurrection. He is famous for his research into the Shroud of Turin (a cloth some believe was Jesus’ burial shroud), though you should focus on his general arguments about the resurrection as an "event."
Wilson’s Key Arguments:
1. Resurrection as an "Event": Wilson argues that the resurrection cannot be dismissed simply as a "myth" created by the early Church. He points out that the earliest accounts (like those in Paul's letters and the Gospels) appeared much too soon for a myth to have developed.
2. The Impact on the Disciples: Like Morison, Wilson is struck by the sudden birth of the Church. He argues that the "experience" the disciples had must have been incredibly powerful and "real" to them, leading them to face persecution and death.
3. Challenging the "Myth" Theory: Wilson looks at Enlightenment challenges (the idea that miracles are impossible). He suggests that modern science might not yet understand everything about the transition between life and death. He views the resurrection as a unique "enigma" that science cannot easily explain away.
Key Takeaway: Wilson bridges the gap between history and science. He argues that the resurrection was a real historical event that triggered the start of Christianity, even if it challenges our scientific understanding.
3. Comparing Morison and Wilson
To do well in your exam, you need to be able to compare how these two scholars handle the challenges to the resurrection.
Points of Agreement:
- Both agree that the resurrection cannot be explained as a simple "lie" or "theft" by the disciples.
- Both focus on the transformative effect the event had on the early followers of Jesus.
- Both reject the idea that the resurrection is just a "myth" without any historical basis.
Points of Difference:
- Morison focuses more on the logic and legal evidence surrounding the tomb (the "Who Moved the Stone?" question).
- Wilson focuses more on historical-critical evidence and the scientific mystery of the event itself.
4. Common Mistakes to Avoid
Mistake 1: Confusing the two scholars. Remember: Morison = The journalist/skeptic who focused on the stone. Wilson = The historian who focused on "The Evidence" and scientific challenges.
Mistake 2: Forgetting the context. These scholars are responding to Enlightenment challenges. You must mention that they are fighting against the idea that miracles are impossible.
Mistake 3: Only describing their views. This is a New Testament paper, so you must link their ideas back to the Gospel narratives (like Luke 24). Does the Biblical text support Morison’s logic? Does it support Wilson’s historical claims?
5. Quick Review: Key Terms
Scientific Challenges: The argument that the resurrection is impossible because it violates the laws of nature.
Enlightenment: A historical period that emphasized reason and science over traditional religious authority.
Historical-Critical Approach: Looking at the Bible as a historical document to see if the events described are likely to have happened.
Demythologising: A term (linked to Bultmann, whom you study elsewhere) that suggests we should strip away the "mythical" elements of the Bible to find the underlying message. Morison and Wilson generally oppose the idea that the resurrection should be demythologised.
Don't worry if this seems complex! Just remember that both Morison and Wilson are like detectives. They look at the "clues" left behind in history and conclude that the most reasonable explanation is that something extraordinary happened to Jesus after he died.