Issue #178-Who Moved the Stone by Morison (27 Poi

Biblical Errancy Issue #178-Who Moved the Stone by Morison (27 Points On Embellishments, Eisogesis, Suppositions, "Probablys," & Speculations), Was Ahaziah 22 or 42, Was Crucifixion on Friday, Reality Vs. Perception

Nov 10, '08 3:07 PM
by Loren for everyone





Issue #178 October 1997, Editor: Dennis McKinsey


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A national periodical focusing on Biblical errors, contradictions, and fallacies, while providing a hearing for apologists



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



REVIEW

One of the most famous apologetic defenses of the Resurrection ever written is a work entitled Who Moved the Stone by Frank Morison. Ever since it first appeared in 1930 biblicists have placed this tendentious masterpiece on virtually every resurrection book list imaginable. Touted as one of the most powerful answers to those doubting Jesus rose from the dead, it is widely distributed, often gratis. But unfortunately for those holding this work in such high esteem, Morison's summa resurrectica is anything but a knockout punch. Indeed, the work is so flawed that it would hardly be worthy of serious consideration were it not for the large number of people who rely upon its contents religiously. The most obvious inadequacy contained therein lies in the extremely large number of suppositions, hypotheses, assumptions, and qualifiers that are submitted as adequate replies, especially at critical junctures. Were all of this speculation to be granted, then Morison could very well have a writing worthy of top billing. But only someone who had taken leave of his senses would be so irresponsible and naive as to be that magnanimous toward Morison's inferences. Some of his conjectures, in no particular order of importance, are as follows:

First, while trying to portray Jesus as an intensely moral man, Morison states on page 22, "No one with an eye for historic truth, flashing out of the ancient pages of His (Jesus--Ed.) record, can fail to see what happened when they brought to Him the woman taken in adultery. He blushed." He did? Where does it say that? This is the typical kind of biblical embellishment that I have criticized so often in the past.

Second, more hype is found on page 28 where, while discussing witnesses at the trial, Morison says, "The problem, therefore, was to bring a conclusive case which was not only proof against possible criticism by the Seventy-one, but which also gave indisputable grounds for action under the Roman law. In the search for this formula many witnesses were apparently examined and their testimony rejected as insufficient." Where does Scripture state "many witness were examined?" The very fact that Morison resorts to one his favorite words, "apparently," proves that he is guessing.

Third, in an attempt to buttress belief in Jesus as the messiah and in order to explain the alleged maneuverings with respect to the arrest and trial of Jesus by his opponents under allegedly mysterious and furtive circumstances, Morison says on page 32, "What does all this signify? Personally, I am convinced that beneath the ostensible and acknowledged fear of the people, there was a deeper and more potent fear--a fear which explains all their singular hesitancies and vacillations, until a welcome message reached their astonished ears--the fear of Christ himself." Morison adds to this gross conjecture by saying on the next page, "Personally, I cannot avoid feeling that, in all their dealings with Jesus, these men were apprehensive of something happening which they did not care to define. They seem to have been in some doubt whether even a considerable force would be adequate to take Him, and that in the last resort He might even prove to be unarrestable". To this one can only reply, "Good grief!" What in scripture would corroborate such broad speculation? He says he "cannot avoid feeling," when I'm having great difficulty feeling it at all.

Fourth, on page 36 he says, "Indeed, the probabilities were strongly in favor of that course" and on the next page he says "There seems to be no escaping this inference...." Two pages later he states, "The practical question which arose immediately, therefore, was probably this...." "Seems," "inference," "probably" and "probability" are hardly the words of sound, proven scholarship.

Fifth, while discussing the trial and its alleged behind-the-scenes maneuverings, Morison says on page 39, "Whatever else, therefore, had to be done, some considerable part of those three hours must have been occupied in hurried consultations, in swift passings to and fro between the executive sitting at the High Priests house, and those indispensable leaders of Jewish thought upon whom they must rely for ratification in the Sanhedrin. All this is written plainly between the lines of the narrative." Maybe the prescription for my glasses needs to be changed, but I don't see it plainly written anywhere, between the lines or otherwise.

Apparently aware that his fleeting flights of fancy were something less than ironclad demonstrable proofs and cognizant of the fact that he was vulnerable to criticism, Morison states on the next page, "If anyone feels that the received narrative does not quite carry this conviction...." Now why on earth would anyone think that?

Sixth, on pages 41 and 42 Morison attempts to explain the involvement of Pilate in the trial at so inopportune an hour as late at night by saying, "There was probably only one man in Jerusalem who could seek an audience with Pilate at an hour ordinarily devoted to his private pleasure. That man was Caiaphas, the High Priest, and it was Caiaphas, in all human probability, who went. He alone could present with the full authority of his supreme office the high reasons of state behind the prosecution." The words "probably" and "probability" permeate the allegedly potent scholarship of Morison.

In the very next paragraph he says, "It explains something which on any other supposition is wholly inexplicable," and in so doing is admitting that his thesis rests on supposition.

Seventh, on page 48 he states, "For consider the most likely trend of events upon that memorable night. Pilate was in town, not for a brief flying visit, but for the full ten days ordinarily covered by the Feast. The probability, therefore, that his wife, Claudia, came with him is very strong, even if we had not Matthew's definite statement that such was the case.... We shall not be very wrong if on this particular night we imagine them sitting before the fire in one of the spacious apartments of their private suite in the Palace, for we know from Peters warming of his hands that the evening was chilly." Constant repetition of words such as "likely," "probability," and "imagine," lead one to the conclusion that Morison might just as well have tossed the Bible aside and written his own script.

Eighth, on page 49 he says, "As I have suggested in a previous chapter, there was probably only one person in Jerusalem who could safely intrude himself upon the privacy of Pilate's household at such a late hour, and... that man was the High Priest himself." This is followed in the next paragraph with, "It would seem, therefore, that we shall be well within the margin of historical probability if we assume that some time between the hours of nine o'clock and eleven, and probably much nearer the latter than the former, a distinguished caller presented himself at the Herodian Palace. Possibly the visitor was shown directly into the private apartment but more probably Pilate went out to an antechamber to meet him." How often do we read so much guesswork in such a small amount of material in what is supposedly a well-researched, powerful, convincing scholarly writing? Not often!

Ninth, while discussing the trial on page 55 Morison states, "With this description now before us we can attempt a reconstruction of an incident which, both historically and psychologically, is probably without precedent in the annals of the world. The first definite act of the drama of which we have historical record is the bringing of Jesus from the place of His confinement (probably the High Priests house) to the place of trial. This occupied, perhaps, 20 minutes, but as it was still quite early probably few people witnessed the little procession as it made its way.... On arrival at the gate of the Palace we must probably allow for a halt of a few moments...."

On page 61 he provides more examples of speculation run rampant by saying, "But it was probably only when Judas arrived with the armed contingent that the dastardly and terrible character of the betrayal came home to them. After a brief and futile attempt at resistance on the part of Peter, the majority of them appear to have fled."

And on the next page he states, "Once inside the city gates they would probably follow the main body to the High Priests house.... With regard to the other nine disciples, I think it is very doubtful whether any of them slept in the city that night." "The women of the party were, therefore, in all human probability, cut off from direct knowledge...." and "The return of the arrest party was probably made by the least frequented route...." "But it seems to be implied in the narratives..." "We shall, therefore, be very near to the real truth in this matter if we assume that the women...or (as is more likely) by a hurried visit from Peter and John." If this be a reasonably accurate estimate of the position,...." The probability, too, that none of these 9 men had yet returned is...." Imagine! All of this guesswork can be found within just a few pages! If Morison had not been allowed to use the word "probably," a sizable portion of his entire book could never have been printed.

Tenth, one of the most disingenuous devices employed by Morison is his repeated attempt to make speculations sound as if they are certainties. For example, on page 39 he states, "Whatever interpretation we put upon the circumstances leading up to the arrest of Christ it seems to me certain that...." How can something be certain that just seems to be certain?

On page 63 Morison states, "That Jesus Christ died upon the Cross, in the full physical sense of the term, even before the spear wound was inflicted by the Roman soldiery, seems to me to be one of the certainties of history." If it only "seems" to be that way, how could it be a certainty?

On page 76 Morison says in regard to the arrival of the women at the tomb, "The one thing that seems to be certain is that on arrival at the tomb, they received a shock for which they were totally unprepared." Again, if it only seems to be such and such, how could it be a certainty?

Eleventh, on page 65 the text states, "That the mother of Jesus herself collapsed when the end came may be regarded as certain. The Gospel record plainly implies it." Really? Where?

Moreover, how can her collapse be "certain" if its merely regarded as having occurred? How can something be a certainty that's merely regarded as having occurred?

Twelfth, on page 70 he states, "This pointed omission of Salome during the actual interment can hardly have been accidental. It must mean that the writer of Marks Gospel wished to convey that Salome had gone away, presumably upon some pressing business." Again, more extrapolating.

Thirteenth, on page 71 Morison states, "We do not know, we cannot know, what earnest but fruitless attempts were made that day to keep Mary away from the Cross. She was no longer young, and the bloody scene of a triple crucifixion was no sight for an over strained and utterly heartbroken woman." Morison continues by saying, "The woman that John led away from that frightful scene was surely already half-fainting, dazed, and in less than half an hour, as fuller realization came, would surely collapse."

One of the most obvious and egregious failings of this entire book is the almost total lack of specific citations. Morison seems to have gone out of his way to avoid precise references to verses to corroborate his comments. Why he so behaved is not hard to fathom. If Scripture does not support you, then there is obviously much to be gained by avoiding citations. His repeated theoretical concoctions are vivid testimony to the expediency and prudence of such an oversight.

On the same page Morison completely exits reality while describing these same events by saying, "That, I take it, is the true reading of these events. It would have had to be inferred even if the Gospels contained no hint of it." Can you envision that! Apparently we are supposed to accept on his word alone a conclusion he has drawn, even if the Gospels contain no hint of it. Is there no end! And to think apologists accuse biblical critics of taking verses out-of-context and reading between the lines.

Fourteenth, on page 72 Morison says, "Peter overwhelmed with remorse and shame remaining in strict retirement." Scriptural support for this assertion would also be greatly appreciated. I know of nothing that says Peter was in retirement or went into retirement.

Fifteenth, on page 72 Morison addresses the contradiction we mentioned years ago created by the clash between Matthew's statement that the women arrived at the tomb "as it began to dawn" and Johns assertion that they arrived "early, while it was yet dark." He states,"I cannot personally find any grounds, in the slight variation in these statements as to whether the sun had actually risen or not, for doubting the central fact in these quotations. One must not overlook the fact that the sun rises very quickly in the Southern latitudes...." Aside from the fact that there is more than a "slight variation" in the texts, it was all I could do to restrain my laughter when I first read this explanation. So the sun comes up faster in the south than in the north! One can just visualize the sun zipping up over the southern horizon as it creeps up over the northern one. What will apologists conjure up next?

Sixteenth, with respect to this early morning arrival Morison says on page 75, "That moment was undoubtedly at sunrise on Sunday morning. They would clearly choose an early hour to avoid publicity. They could hardly go before sunrise because it would be dark, and possibly also because the city gates would not be open. We are therefore very amply within the field of historic probability when we picture this little party...." Again more supposition and conjecture surreptitiously pawned off as fact.

Seventeenth, with regard to what occurred when the women arrived at the tomb Morison made a surprising admission on page 76 by saying, "It is not as though the different accounts agree. If they did we should have to approach the problem from a different angle. But they make no attempt or pretense of agreeing...." Well, at least we don't have this hurdle to surmount. He concedes the obvious--the accounts disagree.

Eighteenth, on page 80 Morison made another interesting comment when he said, "We must never forget that throughout the troubled five days which preceded the arrest, Jesus and His companions had made their home at Bethany. I have sometimes speculated as to whether the domestic arrangements in the house of the two sisters permitted of accommodating the 13 persons who constituted the party. Probably they did not...." He admits he is speculating, and there's that word "probably" again.

Nineteenth, more guesswork is evident on page 81 in which Morison says, "It seems probable, however....," "it may have been only prudent", and "If this is what happened."

Twentieth, after asking several questions in regard to how the disciples behaved at the time of Jesus arrest, Morison says on page 82, "No one can possibly answer these questions with full knowledge and certainty, but we can hazard a guess and correct it by our observations later." He might as well adopt this approach, since its the pattern he has followed throughout most of the book.

Twenty-first, before concluding the last 4 pages of chapter 7 Morison makes the following comments: "Assuming they got so far," "it is conceivable," "the disciples would in all human probability," "That this is what happened seems to be indicated," "this little group of people was probably laboring under the gravest apprehensions," "it is probable," and "Such, as I conceive it, was the most probable situation during those confused and dramatic hours when Jesus paid the great penalty." It goes without saying that all of this is rank speculation of the first magnitude and hardly indicative of proven research.

The only redeeming comment made by Morison in this regard is found at the end of chapter 7 where he admits that he is submitting his ruminations "tentatively and with respect as a possible solution." At least he's willing to make this concession, but unfortunately his supporters depict his work as conclusive, demonstrable and definitive. I don't think so!

Twenty-second, on page 100 Morison says, "Salome was the mother to two of the disciples; Mary of Cleophas, her sister, of two others." Where is textual confirmation of this?

Twenty-third, on page 117 Morison repeats that old refrain that 3 important NT figures died for the cause. He states, "They all suffered the extreme penalty of their convictions after the manner of that barbaric age--James in Jerusalem itself; Peter and Saul in Rome." And we are again compelled to ask where that is to be found in scripture.

Twenty-fourth, it is difficult not to be amazed at the amount of data apologists can glean from scripture that seems to elude biblical exposers. Good examples can be found on page 118 where Morison says with respect to Peter, "We find him on the whole a very lovable person, possessing possibly a rough exterior but an intensely warm and loyal heart; rather impulsive; quickly roused to sudden anger, but as quick to perceive and acknowledge the error of his ways it is the glory of this type of man that he is peculiarly susceptible to reason when the hot rush of some sudden emotion is past." Morison found all that in Scripture? My stars. I must have been reading while asleep.

Twenty-fifth, with respect to James and his witness to the resurrection, Morison says that because the priests could not command his allegiance "they slew him in the end" Where is that in Scripture?

Morison concludes his discussion of James by saying, "It is said that the Christians inscribed upon his monument the words: 'He hath been a true witness both to Jews and Greeks that Jesus is Christ'." So now we are supposed to accept hearsay as proof that Christians inscribed some specific words on a tombstone.

Twenty-sixth, in reference to the title of his book Morison states, "Whoever moved the stone, therefore, had presumably left the vicinity of the grave earlier in the morning, and while it was still dark." Even the title of the book is entangled in guesswork. "Presumably" is hardly a word emanating from strong data.

Twenty-seventh and lastly, another candid admission by Morison is found on page 169 in which he states with reference to this mystic church of believers, i.e., Christianity, "Why did everybody who caught the infection of this spring madness gravitate to Jerusalem as steel to a magnet? Why should so irrational a doctrine flourish most readily....?" Well, at least he admits the doctrine is irrational. Exposers of the Bible can now add another supportive testimonial to their portfolio.

So, in essence, instead of being a work of substance, Morison's book is actually nothing more than a series of hypotheses of what might have occurred given certain assumptions, presuppositions, and conjectures. That is hardly convincing scholarship, except for those already predisposed toward its predilections. In no way does the book merit the plethora of accolades with which it has been showered through the years, and one would be guilty of a decided disservice to others were he to recommend it to those concerned with serious scholarship and accurate assessments.


DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #748 from NB of Tucson, Arizona (Part a)

Dear Dennis.... I'll content myself with a few points. First, on the specific Biblical incident you cite (pp. 168:4-5): You note that 2 Kings 8:26 says that Ahaziah was 22 years old when he "began to reign", while 2 Chron. 22:2 says that he was 42 years old. Very well. A contradiction. They cant both be right, though they could both be wrong. You list these as (a) and (b) possibilities with a third possibility (c): both say 42 in the original or both say 22 in the "alleged" original. But there is a fourth possibility: they could both be right. First Kings 8:24 says that Ahaziah was 22 when he "began to reign". It was the custom for sons, at a certain age, to reign as joint rulers with their fathers, taking over as the sole ruler at the latter's death. Second Chronicles 22:2 can readily be interpreted as meaning that he was 42 when his father died and he "began to reign" in his own right.

Note also verse 4 where it is said (KJV) that "he did evil in the sight of the LORD like the house of Ahab; for they were his counselors after the death of his father to his destruction." Note that something happened "after the death of his father". It is not claimed that he did not "reign" before the death of his father.

Editors Response to Letter #748 (Part a)

Dear NB. You have provided yet another example of why I hold Christian apologetics in general and biblical apologetics in particular in such low esteem, if not contempt.

First, you say that "Second Chronicles 22:2 can readily be interpreted as meaning that he was 42 when his father died and he 'began to reign' in his own right." What does the text say? It says he began to reign. Do you see any words that even remotely imply it was done "in his own right"?

Second, you say "It is not claimed that he did not "reign" before the death of his father." How's that again? What does the word "began" mean? When 2 Chron. 22:2 says he began to reign at age 42, that is excellent proof he was not reigning prior to age 42. So how could he have "begun" to reign when his father died. Either he was reigning or he wasn't. And if he was, then he could not have begun to reign.

And third, you say, "Note also verse 4 where it is said (KJV) that 'he did evil in the sight of the LORD like the house of Ahab; for they were his counselors after the death of his father to his destruction'. Note that something happened after the death of his father." How does this bear on the issue? What difference does it make what he did after assuming power at age 42?

Letter #748 Continues (Part b)

...Also, I asked you where in the Bible it says that Jesus was crucified on a Friday. You quoted three verses that said that he was crucified on the eve of the "Sabath" (sic). But didn't ask about the Sabbath; said FRIDAY.

Editors Response to Letter #748 (Part b)

You don't need to shout. You mean you don't have enough savvy to realize that when I say I mailed a letter on the day before Saturday I was referring to Friday? Unless Scripture actually spoon-feeds you the word "Friday", my comment is to be immediately discarded. You're really desperate for an escape my friend, because that is one of the flimsiest ploys have ever encountered.

Letter #748 Continues (Part c)

I already knew about the "Sabbath" verses, and would have no need to ask you about those.

Editors Response to Letter #748 (Part c)

If you already knew about them, then why did you ask how they pertained to a Friday Crucifixion? Cant you do a simple calculation that would be expected of any third grader?

Letter #748 Continues (Part d)

(After two rambling, disjointed, irrelevant paragraphs that made little sense and weren't worth trying to decipher--Ed.) NB says, Thus, the answer (of course) to my question is that nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus was crucified on Friday...

Editors Response to Letter #748 (Part d)

I have already answered this and there is no reason to repeat myself. If you don't know the day before Saturday (the Sabbath) is Friday, then there really isn't much I can do for you. If you wish to write another letter that is abbreviated and considerably more coherent, feel free to do so. But I am not going to waste a lot of time trying to interpret your non sequiturs and irrelevancies. Do you have any idea how disconcerting it is to reply to critical letters that are so poorly written, disconnected, and incoherent that deciphering them is an ordeal beyond the reward. And believe me, I have received some real humdingers over the years. Too often writing a reply has been much easier than clarifying the original message.

Letter #748 Continues (Part e)

Now, to a few topic (sic) we've touched on in previous letters. You belittled my notion of "two-sided triangles." OK, how about "triangles whose sides are infinitely long, never meet, yet enclose only a finite area? Are they in fact triangles? Do they even exist?

Editors Response to Letter #748 (Part e)

What kind of a question is this? It resembles your material I saw no reason to decipher. Now let me get this straight. You're trying to refute my contention that you can't have a two-sided triangle by referring to a figure you are not only unsure is a triangle but are not even sure exists. This is typical of that to which I am referring NB and unshrouds your tangential proclivities. You manufacture a concept ex nihilo and attempt to use that very idea to refute a concept that is more solid than granite.

Letter #748 Concludes (Part f)

You also talk about an "all-white black horse" (or an all black white horse). You might as well have spoken of an all-red green horse, but this would have no meaning to a color blind person, who could see only shades of gray. So your comparison depends on a preconditioned notion of color.

Editors Concluding Response to Letter #748 (Part f)

Earlier I said, "What kind of question is this?" Now feel compelled to say, "What kind of an answer is this?" What does colorblindness have to do with the color of something? You mean color does not exist until people can see it. How silly! How myopic! How solipsistic! That reminds me of a ridiculous discussion we had in a college philosophy class. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one present to hear the sound, was there, in fact, a sound that occurred? Of course there was. Nature couldn't care less who is present and who isn't. If you hear it, you hear it; if you don't, you don't. But either way it occurred, regardless. Your kind of egocentric thinking is typical of those who believe the world revolves around them and could only have existed if mankind had been in charge from the beginning.

The analogy is no less true of colors. If you see it, you see it; if you don't, you don't. But its there, regardless. You're forcing reality to conform to peoples preconceptions and preconditioning, when reality works in reverse. Ideas don't determine material conditions; material conditions determine ideas. You're viewing life backwards, my friend.


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #749 Via Email from EB of Brockton, Mass.

Hi Dennis. I am a subscriber to Biblical Errancy. I have noticed a few times something you do in your writings and I'd like to know why you do this. It is: When you speak of Jesus of Nazareth you sometimes refer to him as Jesus Christ. As we all know this means Jesus the Messiah! I try never to use that term (Christ--Ed.) when write about this man Jesus. I have a tremendous amount of respect for you and the work you do. Please don't take this as some kind of a challenge. I hope I haven't gone over the line in asking this question. I will quote the section am using for this example. It comes out of the Aug. 1997 issue #176. In the Editor's Response to Letter #735 (Near the end of that response) you say, "He attended a few that is true, but one after another? Hardly! I have never been a fan, proponent, supporter, or propagandist for Jesus Christ, as you well know, but I would not go so far as to make the kinds of disparaging claims you are uttering."

In place of "Jesus Christ" I would have loved to see instead, "Jesus of Nazareth". And once again Dennis... I would feel very badly if I have done something that might make you feel that I am criticizing you. I have far too much respect for you and your work. I'm almost afraid to send this note. I only know of two people that stand as tall as you do for Atheism. That is, of course, you and Farrell Till. Where would Atheism be if it weren't for you two gentlemen. It even scares me to think about it.

Editors Response to Letter #749

Dear EB. Don't worry about hurting my feelings. Others have said far worse. Your question, incidentally, is quite good. I was wondering when someone would ask me this. I do it strictly for the sake of convenience because it is the term most familiar to biblicists. If I was only concerned with precision, you are correct. I would never use the phrase Jesus Christ, because scripture, itself, clearly shows that Jesus is not the biblical "Messiah" and the word "Christ" means messiah.

The phrase "Jesus of Nazareth" has it own problems, however. Jesus must have been a real, live, human being in order to have come from Nazareth. And that has been far from conclusively demonstrated, in light of the fact that there is scant extra biblical evidence for his existence.


EDITORS NOTE:

(a) We are again compelled to beseech your assistance. I need aid from biblically informed supporters of our cause who are on the Internet. Because nearly all of our back issues are on a web site (http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld), we occasionally receive attacks, criticisms, questions, and requests for advice which I simply don't have time to address. I need some volunteers who would be willing to step into my shoes and carry on from there. Since there is only one of me, many internetees, and precious little time in which to operate, I simply cant do it alone. If you feel up to the task, sufficiently informed, and committed to the cause, please let me know via email. I will store your address and occasionally forward mail to you as it comes in. It goes without saying that this is a VERY important undertaking because you could very well be the only real critic of the Bible many people will ever encounter.

(b) Few articles have struck more of a chord than that written by KL in last months issue in regard to creating tracts like those of Jack Chick. KL contacted us via email and I did not retain his name or address. If you are listening, KL, would you be so kind as to contact us again, since several people with something to contribute to your enterprise would like to contact you.