Basic HTML Version
Part2
WAS THE RESURRECTION AHOAX?
S
uppose,
in
the year 1977, sorne
writer wrotc that a well-known
prophet had traveled through–
out the United States workiog many
incredible miracles and healing
scores of sick persons. Suppose fur–
ther that less than forty years had
passed since his public execution at
the hands of an enraged mob in
Times Square on December 31 ,
1938.
If such ao occurreoce bad hap–
pened back in 1938, millions would
still be alive today who would have
either heard or read of the eveot in
the mass media. Hundreds of actual
eyewitnesses would still be alive to
either corroborate the event or tes–
tify to its falsity.
If the event had never in fact hap–
pened, no writer could get away
with such an outrageously fallacious
story. He would be the laughing
stock of his profession.
The Historical Parallel
Backtrack 2,000 years in the pages
of history. The time: the early
thirties A.D. ; the place: Jerusalem,
Palestine; the event: tbe public exe–
cution of Jesus Christ; the question:
did it really happen?
Can the crucifixion/resurrection
account in the New Testament
documents stand up to the same
standard tests that one would use in
deterrnining the accuracy of any his–
torical event?
One standard we might consider
is that the reporter must have been
contemporaneous with tbe event in
question. He must have coexisted
with the main principals. He would
have to have been a part of the
overall sceoe at the precise time the
event occurred.
Reliability is said to diminish pro–
portionately the further away the re–
porting of the event is from the
actual occurrence. But if a person
reports on bis own contemporaries,
The
PLAIN TRUTH June 1977
by
Garner Ted Armstrong
The resurrection of Jesus
Christ of Nazareth is either the
supreme fact of history or a
flagrant, deliberate fabrication
foisted off on the followers of
Christianity. Did the central
figure of the Christian faith
real/y rise from the dead?
then you would at least give more
credence to bis account than you
would to the pronouncements of a
barbershop philosopher holding
forth on ancient history.
The Gospel according to Mark is
the shortest of the four biblical ac–
counts of Jesus' life and death.
Many scholars also consider it to be
the oldest. Most place its writing
somewhere between A.D. 60 and
70-less than 40 years after the cru–
cifixion.
While Mark may not have been
present at the actual crucifixion,
there can be little doubt that he was
on the general sceoe (see Mark
14:51-52). Donald Guthrie, in bis
New Testament /ntroduction,
com–
ments as follows: "So strong is the
early Christian testimony that Mark
was the author of the gospel that we
need do little more than mention
this attestation. Papias, Irenaeus,
probably the Muratonian Canon,
Clement of Alexandria, Origen and
Jerome all refer to Mark's author–
ship of the gospel.
Moreover al/ of
them connect Mark with Peter in the
production ofthe gospel"
(p. 69).
Peter was a principal eyewitness
to the general crucifixion scene and
to the postresurrection appearances
of Jesus Christ-parts of which
Mark recorded in his Gospel.
The point is that Mark would
have left himself open to the severe
criticism of his contemporaries if he
had misrepresented the events sur–
rounding the crucifixion and the res–
urrection. Many who had heard
what actually happened were still
alive at the time of Mark's writing.
Eyewitness Testimony
More than one witness produced a
written account of the general
events surrounding the crucifix–
ion/postresurrection appearances of
Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Addition–
ally, there were many more who ac–
tually saw Jesus crucified on the
cross and bundreds who personally
witnessed His postresurrection ap–
pearances. The more witnesses you
can produce to tell or write about
the same event, the more indepen–
dent evidence you have as to what
really took place:
There is considerable virtue in the
fact that the four Gospels, together
with Peter's and Paul's epistles, pro–
duce somewhat diverse, though
complementary accounts of the
same overall events. For one thing,
there is no apparent collusion. This
is exactly what you would expect to
discover if you puta number of wit–
nesses on the stand who testified
truthfully
about a particular event
they all saw. The major facts would
be the same. Yet each witness would
remember different details.
It
is unlikely that someone trying
to contrive the resurrection story
would have chosen Mary Magda–
lene as the first witness. She was the
woman out of whom Jesus had cast
seven demons and does not appear
to have had the most stable person–
ality. The manner
in
which the Gos–
pels display these events has all the
earmarks of
uncontrived
authenti–
city.
The totality and diversity of the
eyewitness testimony is remarkable
to say the least. Notice Mark's ac–
count of those who were there on
the scene when Jesus drew His last
breath as a human being: "And
Jesus uttered a loud cry, and
breathed bis last. ... And when the
11